You are on page 1of 72

FEbruary 1917 and August 1947- Reply to Indian Maoist

April 25, 2011 at 11:13am

Dear Abhinav...much before Lenin it is Plekhanov, who imported the two stage theory
of revolution from German Marxism, copiously. In fact, Plekhanov, Lenin and Trotsky
all agreed that the forthcoming revolution in Russia was bourgeois-democratic in

The dispute was this: Plekhanov and behind him Mensheviks thought that working
class is numerically weak in Russia, therefore the first turn was for bourgeois to take
power and carry out a democratic revolution. Lenin thought that bourgeois cannot take
power in the forthcoming revolution as it is too weak to carry out a democratic
revolution, and therefore the bourgeois-democratic revolution would bring a combined
dictatorship of workers and peasants to power. So even though Lenin adhered to two-
stage theory of revolution, but it was different from the Menshevik formula.

Trotsky disputed these propositions, proposing that the Russian revolution would bring
the dictatorship of the proletariat to power, even before it could take power in Europe.

As bourgeois came to power in February revolution through Kerensky regime, instead

of workers and peasants, the old Leninist formula was discredited.

Bourgeois established its power in February revolution, by default as both Mensheviks

and Bolsheviks supported the provisional government for their own reasons.
Mensheviks supported it for obvious reason as they thought that bourgeois is
legitimate claimant to power, as it was its turn to take power at first stage of the two
stage revolution. All Bolshevik leaders except Lenin, supported the Kerensky regime,
without qualification, as they look at the February regime as the combined dictatorship
of the proletariat and peasantry. Thats why Pravda under Stalin continued to issue
appeals to workers and peasants to elect their representatives to the provisional

Lenin was alone in Bolshevik party to oppose the Kerensky regime as the regime of
bourgeois. As Lenin pointed out bourgeois without any real power, succeeded to
establish the power because working class failed to take it in February. Bolsheviks and
Mensheviks and behind them the Working class was misled by the two stage theory, to
believe that it cannot establish its dictatorship. So the February regime was not
historically legitimate.

This is somewhat, that happened in 1947, with bourgeois coming to power without any
resistance from working class, rather the CPI collaborating with Nehru regime. Brief
resistance in Telangana and its line was severely criticized by Stalin. Bourgeois neither
could have taken power nor it could take the revolution further.
When you say that 1947 represented first stage of revolution, to fit in your stagist
theory as democratic revolution, you may intend or not, but you attribute a
revolutionary role to Indian bourgeois, and impliedly to British colonialists also, being
the chief architects of 1947 regime. It was not a democratic revolution, but
strangulation of it at the hands of colonialists with national bourgeois betraying the
freedom movement.

Neither 1947 represents a democratic revolution, nor there was or is any place of such
democratic revolution in any form whatsoever. Only conceivable revolution could have
been and can be carried out under the leadership of the working class and can
succeed only with working class establishing its dictatorship supported by peasantry.

Your idea that the bourgeois measures like land reforms through laws carried out upto
1970 and all that represent half way solution to the democratic tasks, is absolutely
absurd and makes you the cheerleaders for bourgeois, may be half-hearted, after the
CPI . On the contrary, bourgeois measures have deepened the contradictions and
aggravated the crisis in agriculture to its zenith, instead of presenting a solution to it.

Your proposition that 1947 represents the first stage, though in a distorted way, i.e.
democratic revolution- is not only politically flawed but is through and through
reactionary and grossly opportunist. All democratic tasks- question of nationalities,
caste, poverty, medievalism, land reforms, etc. remain unresolved and fall essentially
to the share of proletariat. Impending revolution in India is bourgeois-democratic in
essence so far as it faces these huge tasks, but it is socialist as it would be headed by
proletariat and proletariat would establish its dictatorship. However, there is no steel
was to separate the democratic tasks from the socialist ones, so unlike Stalinists and
Maoists we propose that the victorious proletariat would enter upon socialist tasks in a
permanent revolution while finishing the democratic tasks. The two merge in one upon
the proletariat taking to power.

4 people like this.

Gerald Joseph Downing The following extract from Workers Powers 2007 series is
very good, in my view, as it shows that when Lenin arrived back In Petersburg in April
1917 although the entire Central Committee of the Bolsheviks were supporting the two
stage revolution and the Provisional Government in the second level of leadership and
in the ranks of the party, particularly in the industrial centre of the city, Vyborg, they
were already demanding the prosecution of the revolution to its conclusion, which
Lenin articulated in the April Theses. : by mid-March rank and file worker Bolshevik
cells in the Vyborg district were voting for calls to expel the Pravda leadership from the
And it should be pointed that if two stage revolutions was so wrong in 1917 and 1947
that it is still wrong in Egypt, Libya, Syria etc today. Workers Power advocates a
democratic revolution in this entire region now.

The Russian Bureau of the exiled Central Committee comprising Alexander

Shlyapnikov, Vyacheslav Molotov and P A Zalutsky veered between several different
positions. At first they called for Provisional Revolutionary Government to be formed,
from above, by the parties represented on the Soviet executive. Its agenda was to be
confined to the three whales of Russian Social Democracys minimum programme:
the eight-hour day, the democratic republic and the confiscation of landed estates and
their transfer to the peasantry, as well as preparing a constituent assembly.

Once again the perspective was of a purely democratic stage, beyond which the
revolution could not go. Indeed initially this led them to ban leaflets issued by the more
left Vyborg district calling for the formation of a soviet-based government from below.
However this perspective of a pact with the other Soviet parties ran into a major
obstacle. The Mensheviks and SRs, far from wanting to participate in a workers
government with the Bolsheviks, wanted to enter one with the bourgeois parties, the
Constitutional Democrats (Cadets) and the even more conservative Octobrists. Both of
these parties wanted to carry on the war effort at all costs.

The rapid realisation of this fact pushed the Russian Bureau to the left and by 22
March it was characterising the Soviets as the embryos of a new state power.

It was the editorial board of the Bolshevik daily paper Pravda that occupied the most
right-wing stance within Bolshevism. Edited by Joseph Stalin, M N Muranov and Lev
Kamenev, the paper declared on 7 March: As far as we are concerned, what matters
now is not the overthrow of capitalism but the overthrow of autocracy and feudalism.

Stalin reasoned: The Provisional Government has, in fact, assumed the role of
defender of the conquests of the revolutionary people . . . At present, it is not in our
interest to force events by hastening the eviction of bourgeois strata who, inevitably,
will one day detach themselves from us.

On 15 March, Kamenev used Pravdas pages to advocate conditional support for

Russias war effort now that the autocracy had been overthrown. Small wonder then
that by mid-March rank and file worker Bolshevik cells in the Vyborg district were voting
for calls to expel the Pravda leadership from the party.

This confusion was partly a product of the contradictions of Bolshevisms previous

position that the bourgeois revolution, though it should be led by the workers and
peasants (unlike the Mensheviks who insisted the bourgeoisie must lead it) must end
in a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. This government was to
constitute a self-limited stage, distinct from the socialist revolution. Yet February 1917
saw the logic of the mobilised masses demands pushing beyond the minimum
programme of the democratic republic. The soviets, militia and factory committees
were the embryo of a new type of state, whose content was working class democracy,
transcending the limits and forms of bourgeois democracy.

In their own particular ways the contending Bolshevik factions were either attempting to
limit the struggle to the terrain of democratic demands (the Petrograd Committee and
Pravda) or were striving to go beyond this (Vyborg and the Russian Bureau), but were
as yet incapable of consistently posing this as a programmatic goal.

Shock at Finland station

Lenin announced his change of position publicly immediately on his return from exile to
everyone at the reception at the Finland Station. The Menshevik Chkheidze, at the
head of the Petrograd Soviets official welcoming party, pleaded with Lenin to play his
part in the closing of the democratic ranks.

Lenin, to his consternation, ignored his words and declared to the crowd: The world-
wide socialist revolution has already dawned. . . Any day now the whole of European
capitalism may crash. The Russian Revolution accomplished by you has paved the
way and opened a new epoch. Long live the world-wide socialist revolution.

It was Lenin who was able to transcend the limitations of the old Bolshevik programme
and perspective. And it is testimony to the vitality and strength of the Bolshevik cadres,
as historically constituted since 1903, as well as to the open and democratic debate in
the party that led to its programmatic re-armament at the crucial hour.

This refutes the Stalinist myth that Bolshevism was always monolithic, that temporary
factions and factional struggle were alien to it. Likewise it refutes the Menshevik and
anarchist dogma that Bolshevism was rigid and inflexible, incapable of learning from
the revolutionary masses. It is, in short, the practical proof of the correctness of
democratic centralism ensuring full democratic debate and then a focused and
disciplined carrying out of a decision once taken.

Why had Lenin changed his perspective on the historic tasks which the Russian
Revolution could accomplish? His writings during the war, especially Imperialism: the
Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916) led him to see that Russia was one, albeit
exceptionally weak, link in the chain of world imperialism. It was not just a backward
country it was one entire historic stage behind Western Europe, thus awaiting its
bourgeois revolution in order to progress to capitalism. Of necessity, therefore, the
programme of an ongoing Russian Revolution could no longer be conceived of in the
terms of an isolated national and democratic revolution, but instead as a component of
the international revolution against capitalism itself.
April 25, 2011 at 12:21pm

Dave Bedggood Rajesh I gree with you that India's 'independence' was nothing of the
sort it was a reactionary decolonisation. Partition destroyed national unification and
entrenched and caste divisions. On the general point of 2 stage revolution. I think you
need to emphasise why the national bourgeoisie is too weak to make a bourgeois
revolution in the epoch of imperialism. The imperialists had already partitioned and
repartitioned the world by 1917. Russia was a special sort of imperialism under the
Tsar (according to Lenin a special form of state monopoly finance capital), and the
February revolution did fall to the bourgeoisie by default and could only stay in power
in a bloc with imperialism. Lenin understood this because he had theorised
imperialism. This bears on those who argue today that national bourgeois in colonies
and semi-colonies have any interest in fighting imperialism. They don't. So any military
bloc with them against imperialism is premised on a political bloc, a popular front, such
as Downing and the 'third worldists' make with Gaddifi.
April 25, 2011 at 3:44pm 2

Rajesh Tyagi I am so thankful to you comrades gerald joseph and dave bedggood
April 25, 2011 at 3:48pm

Abhinav Sinha Every revolution is a part and component of the proletarian revolution
against the global capitalist system. That doesn't make Lenin a party to the Trotskyite
theory of world revolution. Secondly, what Com. Gerald Joseph has written in his reply,
overlooks and quotes Lenin selectively. Lenin himself believed that what the Bolshevik
Party accomplished in Russia was a two stage revolution. Here is what Lenin stated in
the "Report on Work in the Countryside" adopted by the Bolshevik Party's eighth
"In October 1917 we seized power together with the peasants as a whole. This was a
bourgeois revolution, in as much as the class struggle in the rural districts had not yet
developed. As I have said, the real proletarian revolution in the rural districts began
only in the summer of 1918. Had we not succeeded in stirring up this revolution our
work would have been incomplete. The first stage was the seizure of power in the
cities and the establishment of the Soviet form of government. The second stage was
one which is fundamental for all socialists and without which socialists are not
socialists, namely, to single out the proletarian and semi-proletarian elements in the
rural districts and to ally them to the proletariat in order to wage the struggle against
the bourgeoisie in the countryside. This stage is also in the main completed." Clearly
enough, the tasks of democratic and socialist revolution were not mixed from the very
beginning and Lenin sees clear-cut two stages of revolution.
April 25, 2011 at 11:15pm

Abhinav Sinha Here is another quote from Lenin which clearly demonstrate Lenin's
belief in the two-stage theory: "The complete victory of the present revolution will mark
the end of the democratic revolution and the beginning of a determined struggle for a
socialist revolution. Satisfaction of the present-day demands of the peasantry, the utter
rout of reaction and the achievement of a democratic republic will mark the utter limit of
the revolutionism of the [peasant] bourgeoisie, and even that of the petty bourgeoisie,
and the beginning of the proletariat's real struggle for socialism. The more complete
the democratic revolution, the sooner, the more widespread, the cleaner, and the more
determined will the development of this new struggle be. The slogan of a "democratic"
dictatorship [of the workers and peasants DL] expresses the historically limited nature
of the present [democratic] revolution and the necessity of a new struggle on the basis
of the new order for the complete emancipation of the working class from all
oppression and all exploitation. In other words, when the democratic bourgeoisie or
petty bourgeoisie ascends another step, when not only the revolution but the complete
victory of the revolution becomes an accomplished fact, we shall "change" (perhaps
amid the horrified cries of new and future Martynovs) the slogan of the democratic
dictatorship to the slogan of a socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the full
socialist revolution."
April 25, 2011 at 11:15pm

Abhinav Sinha The main problem with the Trotskyite theory is that it takes the seizure
of state power by the working class as the definition of socialist revolution. Thats
wrong! The seizure of state power by working class doesn't necessarily establish a
Socialist System. Thats what we call deductive method. We cannot deduce the
character of the Social Formation by the character of the state.
April 25, 2011 at 11:23pm

Abhinav Sinha Look what Lenin writes about the two-stage revolution in 1918
(Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky) : "The Bolsheviks remained loyal
to Marxism and never tried (in spite of Kautsky, who without a scrap of evidence,
accuses us of doing so) to "skip" the bourgeois-democratic revolution. The Bolsheviks,
first of all, helped the most radical, most revolutionary of the bourgeois-democratic
ideologists of the peasants, those who stood closest to the proletariat, namely the Left
Socialist-Revolutionaries, to carry out what was in effect nationalisation of the land. On
October 26, 1917, i.e., on the very first day of the proletarian, socialist revolution,
private ownership of land was abolished in Russia.
This laid the foundation, the most perfect from the point of view of the development of
capitalism (Kautsky cannot deny this without breaking with Marx), and at the same time
created an agrarian system which is the most flexible from the point of view of the
transition to socialism. From the bourgeois-democratic point of view, the revolutionary
peasants in Russia could go no further: there can be nothing "more ideal" from this
point of view, nothing "more radical" (from this same point of view) than nationalisation
of the land and equal land tenure. It was the Bolsheviks, and only the Bolsheviks, who,
thanks only to the victory of the proletarian revolution, helped the peasants to carry the
bourgeois-democratic revolution really to its conclusion. And only in this way did they
do the utmost to facilitate and accelerate the transition to the socialist revolution."
April 25, 2011 at 11:24pm

Abhinav Sinha I guess that to show a marriage between Trotsky's "Permanent

Revolution" and Lenin, the Trotskyites today burn a lot of calories to show that Lenin
disowned the two stage theory, which in fact was a contribution of Lenin to the general
strategy and tactics of proletarian revolution.
April 25, 2011 at 11:25pm 1

Abhinav Sinha Writing in November 1918, a year after the coming to power of a
workers and peasants' government in Russia, Lenin explained that the proletarian
revolution created the foundation for the "most perfect" development of capitalism
precisely because it helped the peasants "to carry the bourgeois-democratic revolution
really to its conclusion" by nationalising the land and thus turning it into a commodity,
i.e., making it available to be rented from the state.
April 25, 2011 at 11:26pm

Abhinav Sinha For understanding the difference between Trotsky's theory of

"Permanent Revolution" and Lenin's two stage theory, read an article on the following
April 25, 2011 at 11:30pm

Abhinav Sinha Lenin's two stage theory does not simply mean that first we will have a
democratic revolution and then a socialist one. It specifically says that in the stage of
Imperialism, the national bourgeoisie in the backward capitalist countries, colonial and
semi-colonial countries is either not in a position, or not willing to fulfill the democratic
task and therefore the initiative has to be taken by the proletariat. Thus, the theory of
PDR, under the leadership of proletariat and by an alliance between the peasantry and
proletariat. This revolution will establish what Lenin called a 'democratic dictatorship'.
Only after the accomplishment of this stage can we move towards the second stage. In
the theory of PDR, there is no wall of China between the two stages. But there ARE
two stages. Thats the basic tenet of the two stage theory of Lenin.
April 25, 2011 at 11:35pm

Abhinav Sinha Lenin estimated that workers uprisings in the West, especially in
Germany would be helpful to the Russian revolution. But when these failed, he became
even more determined to encourage the bourgeois-democratic revolutions in the East
and place them within the framework of the world proletarian revolution. Thus, soon
after the victory of the October revolution, he proceeded to form the Third International
in 1919 in order to promote the building of proletarian revolutionary parties in both the
imperialist countries and the dominated countries.

On the occasion of the first anniversary of the Third International at a meeting of the
Moscow soviet in 1920, Lenin said,

"In the early period of the revolution many entertained the hope that the socialist
revolution would begin in Western Europe immediately when the imperialist war ended;
at the same time when the masses were armed there could have been a successful
revolution in some of the Western countries as well. It could have taken place had it
not been for the split within the proletariat of Western Europe being deeper and the
treachery of the former socialist leaders greater than had been imagined."

Lenin wrote the preliminary draft theses on the national and colonial questions and on
the agrarian question for the Second Congress of the Communist International in 1920.
At the Congress, he delivered the report on the national and colonial questions, where
he made the following important points:

1. It is beyond doubt that any national movement can only be a bourgeois-democratic

movement, since the overwhelming mass of the population in the backward countries
consists of peasants who represent bourgeois-capitalist relations. It would be utopian
to believe that proletarian parties in these backward countries, if indeed they can
emerge from them, can pursue communist tactics and a communist policy, without
establishing definite relations with the peasant movement and without giving it effective

2. It will readily be understood that peasants living in conditions of semifeudal

dependence can easily assimilate and give effect to the idea of Soviet organization. It
is also clear that the oppressed masses, those who are exploited, not only by merchant
capital but also by the feudalists, and by a state based on feudalism, can apply this
weapon, this type of organization, in their conditions too. The idea of Soviet
organization is a simple one and is applicable, not only to proletarian, but also to
peasant feudal and semifeudal relations.

3. The question was posed as follows: are we to consider as correct the assertion that
the capitalist stage of economic development is inevitable for backward nations now on
the road to emancipation and among whom a certain advance towards progress is to
be seen since the war. We replied in the negative. If the victorious revolutionary
proletariat conducts systematic propaganda among them, and the Soviet governments
come to their aid with all the means at their disposal--in that event it will be erroneous
to assume that the backward peoples must inevitably go through the capitalist stage of

Trotsky betrayed the Bolshevik revolution by stubbornly seeking to make it dependent

on the workers uprisings in Germany and in other imperialist countries, and by being
contemptible of the oppressed nations and peoples, especially the peasantry in Russia
and other backward countries and by failing to understand and attacking the theory
and practice of the two-stage revolution.

Faithful to the legacy of Lenin, Stalin stood forthrightly for socialism in one country,
availing of every possible support not only from the proletariat in imperialist countries
but also from the oppressed peoples and nations outside the imperialist countries. And
he paid close attention to the work of the Third International.

The propagation of the two-stage revolution by Lenin and Stalin would bear abundant
fruit in the form of peoples democracies in Asia and Eastern Europe after World War
II. The colonies and semicolonies proved to be the more fertile ground for the victory of
the armed revolution led by the proletariat than in the imperialist countries.

The peoples democracy in China was the most important of the revolutionary crop
because of the huge population and size of the country and more importantly because
here was to be seen the transition from the bourgeois-democratic revolution to
socialism and the heroic effort to consolidate socialism against revisionism and the
danger of capitalist restoration. The Chinese revolution under Mao Zedongs
leadership grew in importance as modern revisionism took hold of the Soviet Union
starting in 1956.
April 25, 2011 at 11:43pm

Abhinav Sinha Today, in most of the countries, that are weak links, hot spots and
flash lights of revolution, the first stage of democratic task has been fulfilled. These
countries like Turkey, Mexico, Egypt and also India, the democratic tasks have been
fulfilled. In a number of these countries these tasks have not been fulfilled in a
revolutionary way, but a gradual process after the transfer of power from the
colonialists into the hands of the bourgeoisie.
April 25, 2011 at 11:45pm

Abhinav Sinha "It was the Bolsheviks who strictly differentiated between the
bourgeois-democratic revolution and the socialist revolution: by carrying the former
through, they opened the door for the transition to the latter. This was the only policy
that was revolutionary and Marxist." (V.I. Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the
Renegade Kautsky, November 1918)
April 25, 2011 at 11:48pm

Abhinav Sinha Lenin first formulated the political line contained in the April Theses
while he was in exile in Switzerland in a series of letters written between March 7
(March 20) and March 26 (April , 1917, which were only published for the first time in
1924. And yet before Stalin and Kamenev arrived back in Petrograd on March 13
(March 26), 1917, the Bolshevik leadership inside Russia, basing itself on the
perspectives that they had always fought for (the "democratic dictatorship"), had set
out a political line which was fundamentally identical to the one which Lenin presented
in his April Theses. The proof of this is the following comment by Lenin, written on
March 15-16 (March 28-29) for a lecture which he gave to Swiss workers in Zurich:

"The papers have published an extract from the Manifesto of our Central Committee,
issued in St. Petersburg on March 18 [March 5 Old Style -- DL]. It demands a
democratic republic, the eight-hour day, confiscation of the landed estates and their
transfer to the peasants, confiscation of grain stocks, immediate peace negotiations,
conducted not by the government of Guchkov and Milyukov, but by the Soviet of
Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. This Soviet, in the view of the Manifesto, is the real
revolutionary government (Lenin added that The Times correspondent, too, speaks of
two governments in Russia). Peace negotiations are to be conducted not with the
bourgeois governments, but with the proletariat of all the warring countries. The
Manifesto calls upon all workers, peasants, and soldiers to elect delegates to the
Soviet of Workers' Deputies."

These are the only really socialist, really revolutionary tactics.

April 26, 2011 at 12:00am

Abhinav Sinha A lot of Trotskyites argue that in 'April Theses' Lenin disowned the
theory of two stage revolution. But the truth is that from 1903 to 1919 the Bolshevik
Party was following the program of Democratic Revolution. Lenin's call for a 'commune
state' in the April These doesn't amount to Lenin's abandonment of two-stage theory. It
becomes clearly evident from the Lenin's proposal of change in the Bolshevik program
in 1919. At the April 24-29 (May 7-12), 1917 conference of the Bolshevik Party, where
the perspectives outlined in the April Theses were endorsed by the big majority of the
133 voting delegates and 18 outgoing members of the Central Committee, Lenin put
forward the following proposed change to the party program in his "Resolution on the
Question of Revising the Party Programme":

"Amending the theses and clauses dealing with the state; such amendment is to be in
the nature of a demand for a democratic proletarian-peasant republic (i.e., a type of
state functioning without police, without a standing army, and without a privileged
bureaucracy), and not for a bourgeois parliamentary republic."
Lenin's resolution simply proposed changing the program to specify exactly what sort
of "democratic republic", what "type of state", the Bolsheviks should fight for, i.e., a
state of the Paris Commune type. At the conference Lenin pointed out that such a state
"is a dictatorship, i.e., it rests not on law, not on the formal will of the majority, but on
direct, open force",(36) the force of the armed proletariat and the peasantry. In
speaking to the above-cited resolution, Lenin explained that "the point is not what an
institution is called, but what its political character and structure is. By saying
`proletarian-peasant republic', we indicate its social content and political character",
i.e., it would be a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.
April 26, 2011 at 12:06am

Abhinav Sinha In the above quote, you can clearly see, that even in 1919, Lenin was
firm on his theory of two stage revolution.
April 26, 2011 at 12:06am

Abhinav Sinha Trotskyites claim that "in the April 1917 polemical exchanges with
Kamenev, Lenin, while calling for the dumping of the `democratic dictatorship'
attempted to outflank his opponent by denying that the call for a Commune State was a
call for socialist revolution". Trotskyite try to "guard their back", because they knows
that at the April conference Lenin put forward a "Resolution on the Current Situation"
which stated:

"Operating as it does in one of the most backward countries of Europe amidst a vast
population of small peasants, the proletariat of Russia cannot aim at immediately
putting into effect socialist changes."

Instead of such changes, Lenin advocated that upon coming to power the soviets
should carry to completion the bourgeois revolution (e.g., nationalisation of the land)
and introduce a series of measures transitional to the socialisation of the ownership of
large-scale production (e.g., nationalisation of the banks and capitalist marketing
April 26, 2011 at 12:10am

Abhinav Sinha Let's then look at how Lenin presented his perspectives in a pamphlet
written well after the debate with Kamenev had been resolved, i.e., in his September
1917 pamphlet The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It. In this pamphlet
Lenin observed that:

"All the belligerent countries, suffering as they are from the extreme burdens and
hardships of the war, suffering -- in one degree or another -- from economic chaos and
famine, have long ago outlined, determined, applied and tested a whole series of
control measures, which consist almost invariably in uniting the population and in
setting up or encouraging unions of various kinds, in which state representatives
participate, which are under the supervision of the state, etc...

These principal measures are:

(1) Amalgamation of all banks into a single bank, and state control over its operations,
or nationalisation of the banks.

(2) Nationalisation of the syndicates, i.e., the largest, monopolistic capitalist

associations (sugar, oil, coal, iron and steel, and other syndicates).

(3) Abolition of commercial secrecy.

(4) Compulsory syndication (i.e., compulsory amalgamation into associations) of

industrialists, merchants and employers generally.

(5) Compulsory organisation of the population into consumers' societies, or

encouragement of such organisation, and the exercise of control over it."
April 26, 2011 at 12:10am

Abhinav Sinha After noting how these measures were being carried out during the
war in other imperialist countries (Germany, France, Britain) in a reactionary-
bureaucratic manner, Lenin argued that the rampant war-profiteering of the rich could
only be combatted through the imposition of such control measures by "the
organisation of the oppressed classes, the workers and peasants, the masses, into
unions", adding: "This requires a revolutionary dictatorship of the democracy, headed
by the revolutionary proletariat". He observed that:

"What has been said so far may easily arouse the following objection on the part of a
reader who has been brought up on the current opportunist ideas of the Socialist-
Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. Most measures described here, he may say, are
already in effect socialist and not democratic measures!"

Answering such an objection, Lenin wrote:

"Everybody talks about imperialism. But imperialism is merely monopoly capitalism.

"That capitalism in Russia has also become monopoly capitalism is sufficiently attested
by the examples of the Produgol, Prodamet, the Sugar Syndicate, etc. This Sugar
Syndicate is an object-lesson in the way monopoly capitalism develops into state-
monopoly capitalism.
"And what is the state? It is an organisation of the ruling class -- in Germany, for
instance, of the Junkers and capitalists. And therefore what the German Plekhanovs
(Scheidemann, Lensch, and others) call "war-time socialism" is in fact war-time state-
monopoly capitalism, or, to put it more simply and clearly, war-time penal servitude for
the workers and war-time protection for capitalist profits.

"Now try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a
revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all
privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way.
You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly
capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards

"For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the
whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed
organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is
revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose interest?

"Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a
revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.

"Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy -- and then it is a step towards

April 26, 2011 at 12:27am

Abhinav Sinha The long quotation of Lenin clearly shows what he believed. He never
abandoned the two-stage theory. Poor Trotskyites in their attempt to show that Trotsky
was the true heir of the legacy of Lenin or he was the true comrade of Lenin,
desperately try to show that Lenin abandoned the two-stage theory and became a
believer in the Trotskyite theory of revolution. But thats too difficult a task for them
because history stands against them.
April 26, 2011 at 12:40am

Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav, now you have exposed the inability of Maoists to think, in
absolute terms...all that you have quoted from lenin in your nine notes above endorses
Trotsky's your desperation, you have forgotten what you are are
arguing that Ocotber revolution was split in two stages??? its limit of inability to
think...even mensheviks saw february and october as two stages...u took a step
forward in splitting the october into listen! this is exactly what we are
saying...februray and october were not two stages...rather the unfinished tasks of
bourgeois revolution were completed under proletarian dictatorship....and october was
not a 'democratic dictatorship of two classes' but exclusively proletarian dictatorship
resting upon alliance of workers and poor was this dictatorship which
entered upon socilaist tasks, finishing the democratic ones...this is what lenin is
saying...this is what trotsky has argued...this is what we are trying to nail in your
brains...this is what you are refusing to understand...lenin's reply to kautsky is
refutation of the same allegation which Maoists are making agaunst trotsky that he
skips the bourgeois revolution...lenin refutes it....can't u understand when lenin says
that ocotber revolution is bourgeois democratic in content...this is what we are arguing
abt indian revolution...your assumption that countries like Egypt have completed
bourgeois democratic tasks is absolute opportunism to glorify bourgeois that under its
rule bourgeois democratic tasks are what u have typed here...lenin
is arguing against your positions...lenin is not arguing in favour of two stage theory but
eactly against it...I am very sure that you never read Trotsky beacuse of your aversion
to him, but now i m so sure that you did not learn anything from Lenin n even...any
serious reader of the above citations from leni n would immediately come to
understand that lenin is talking about october revolution and the unfinished tasks of
bourgeois revolution compelted by proletarian my laugh, you say
october was 'democratic dictatorship' and not 'proletarian dictatorship'?? i still suggets
you go and read lenin at least and try to understand from him...these inductive and
deductive slogans are not going to advance ur undestanding even an inch forward...on
the one hand you say bolsheviks strictly differentiated between the two stages, on the
other hand u say ther eis no chinese wall between the two....just think beofre you have become totally self-contradictory....and who said there would be
no democratic revolution in russia...trotsky like lenin and even mensheviks, all agreed
that revolution in russia was bourgeois-democratic...none said it is far as
tasks before it were was socilaist in its form as it brought proletariat to
dictatorship in october...democraitc dictatorship was neither established in februray nor
in october...political alliance of proletariat and peasantry is another thing, dictaorship
just other...there cant be joint dictatorship of two socila alliance one would
dictate the other...october was dictatorship of proaltariat in thsi sense..of course resting
upon the alaiance of proletariat and the peasantry. you say trotskyists think that
proletarian dictatorship is socilaism...from where you deducted that??? its absolutely
incorrect...on the contrary it was trotsky who proposed that proletarian dictatorship
would complete the bourgeois democratic revolution...that means the task of this
revolution..and this not as a separate stage, but as prelude to socilaist tasks...
April 26, 2011 at 12:59am 1

Rajesh Tyagi sorry for typos

April 26, 2011 at 1:00am

Abhinav Sinha Read whole of my posts and then write. Otherwise it becomes non-
sensical. Reply concretely. Instead of being sorry for typos, read and write carefully.
April 26, 2011 at 1:02am

Rajesh Tyagi you are putting your assumptions in the mouth of Trotsky and wihotu
even taking pain to go through his theory of permanent revolution, have set out to
criticise it...give me a single quote from trotsky where he says that proletarain
dictatorship means socilaism...rather he is the only leader in 1904 who proposed that
the bourgeois democratic revolution in India would bring proletairat to power,
establishing its dictatorship...don't get perplexed, maintain your cool and then think
what we are is Stalinists and Maoists who are intermingling the two-
dictatorship of proletairat and socialism with each other, deducting conclusion that
because in backward countries productive forces are not developed for building
socilaism therefore proletairat cannot come to power...this is their flawed
argument....and you are relying exactly upon our argument...this is our argument
against Stalinists and just tell me if lenin has said anywhere after october
1917 that the power established by october was 'democraitc dictatorship' of two
classes...i repeat 'dictatorhsip' to repel any doubts...abhinav you ppl are proceeding on
assumptions and heresy abt trotsky and his thoery of permanent it at
least can disagree with him, but you cannot impose something upon him
against which he had fought all his life...entire theory of permmanent revolution, as
against Mensheviks and their later progenies Stalinists and Maoists, rests upon this
pivot, that in backward countries bourgeois democratic revolution would be
accomplished under the dictatorship of is you people who argue that in
India, Egypt etc. these democratic tasks have been completed by bourgeois
rule...opportunism of 3rd degree....this is the stance of CPI, this is hat school of
Stalinism has taught you...i still recommend to re-read the texts of lenin quoted by you
above, they are invaluable, try to understand them, they speak against Menshevism
and Stalinism....and word for word endorse the theory of permanent revolution....when
lenin says that by carryin gout the democraitc revolution bolsheviks opened the door to
socialist revolution, he is exaclty endorsing the theory of permanent revolution...this is
what trotsky waqs arguing...while mensheviks thought that bourgeois revolution would
be acrire dunder the dictatorhsip of capitalists, bolsheviks thought it would be under
democratic dictatorship of tow classes, but in fact it was carried out under dictatorship
of one class- the proletariat taking power in october...this is the theory of permanent
revolution...thats why trotsky says that the tempo of revolution will be different in
different countries according to strength of its proletariat to accomplish it, but it would
be proletarian-socialist in its character so afr as all over the owlrd this revolution has to
be carried out under the leadership of the dont read trotsky from
Stalinist schools..just read him in his texts..your knowledge of trotsky is based upon
Maoist rumours and not the texts of debates...lenin is absolutely right in all that you
quoted, but you are absolutely wrong in deducting these conclusions..
April 26, 2011 at 1:22am

Rajesh Tyagi you quote lenin in 1918 to say that the october revolution has perfected
capitalism in agriculture and not destroyed are misreading lenin...lenin is saying
that proletariat laid most perfect foundation for capitalism after coming to
power....which means that pre-capitalist production relations were destroyed while
there was still no question of building socialism in one country....but you want to read it
as if october revolution was building capitalism in russia...this is your inabilty to
understand, not lenin's....
April 26, 2011 at 1:32am

Rajesh Tyagi now look your plagiarism, you added your words with lenin's. In his
proposal lenin never said that the republic of workers and peasants is the democraitc
dictaotrship of workers and peasants... you added ur words alongside inverted
commas so cleverly that the reader would read them as words of lenin. Fact is that the
workers-peasant government or the workers-peasants republic was the political
foindation of the dictatorship of the proletariatm which it exercised through its party and
workers' soviets...Don't you really understand the difference between the workers-
peasants government or republic and the dictorship of workers....that was the real to who in this worker-peasant alliance would have its
dictaorship??...peasantry if historically doomed...cannot establish its
dictatorship would be of basic classes of capitalist society worker or bourgeois...this is
the cire lesson of russian revolutions...of february and october..lenin never spoke abt
two class dictatorship after february 1917....this phrase now rests only upon
misreading of texts by Stalinists and Maoists...
April 26, 2011 at 1:43am

Rajesh Tyagi abhinav don;t get mad at bankruptcy of ideas, its not your fault, its the
school from which you are learning all crap...
April 26, 2011 at 1:44am 1

Rajesh Tyagi i have read your posts very carefully and have properly dealt with each
and every point..
April 26, 2011 at 1:47am

Rajesh Tyagi "democratic dictatorship headed by the proletiariat" - ok tell me what it

means?? it means in simple world dictatorship of the proletariat followed by the
peasantry...matter ends...
April 26, 2011 at 1:51am

Rajesh Tyagi otherwise tell me what was the need for qualification 'headed by the
proletariat'...but you are reading it as a joint dictatorship of two classes...which is
essentially incorrect...
April 26, 2011 at 1:54am

Rajesh Tyagi this is the rule of interpretation that a qualification must be read to alter
the meaning what comes without it...
April 26, 2011 at 1:57am

Rajesh Tyagi wihtout dictaotrship how proletariat can ensure its 'heading' over the
revolution? so whatever name u give to the alliance of proletariat and peasatry, the
core issue is that proletariat must establish its dictatorship in that alliance...wihtout
which the revolution is doomd to fail....
April 26, 2011 at 2:02am

Rajesh Tyagi read this quote which you had pasted above without yourself going thru
it, it makes everything clear: "In October 1917 we seized power together with the
peasants as a whole. This was a bourgeois revolution, in as much as the class struggle
in the rural districts had not yet developed. As I have said, the real proletarian
revolution in the rural districts began only in the summer of 1918. Had we not
succeeded in stirring up this revolution our work would have been incomplete. The first
stage was the seizure of power in the cities and the establishment of the Soviet form of
government. The second stage was one which is fundamental for all socialists and
without which socialists are not socialists, namely, to single out the proletarian and
semi-proletarian elements in the rural districts and to ally them to the proletariat in
order to wage the struggle against the bourgeoisie in the countryside. This stage is
also in the main completed." .................It says in the first instance that the october
revoltuion is made in cities and not the villages, it was carried out to villages thereafter,
yet it is bourgeois democratic.......lenin is not talking of two stages-democratic and
socialist here, he is talking of city insurrection and its carrying to villages
thereafter.....this has nothing to do with 'stagism' which we are debating....except that it
shows that proletariat took power first, established its dictatorship in the cities and
bourgeios democratic tasks were accomplished in villages much later.......this is the
course of revolution we are stressing stark opposition to
Maoists....who want to encircle the cities from villages.....but you read somehting else
in it :- i quote you "Clearly enough, the tasks of democratic and socialist revolution
were not mixed from the very beginning and Lenin sees clear-cut two stages of
revolution." does it contain any sense at all???
April 26, 2011 at 2:16am

Rajesh Tyagi abhinav!! it is never too late to correct yourself....

April 26, 2011 at 2:17am

Abhinav Sinha Well! If its never late, you would have corrected yourself. My reply
never said that October Revolution was building capitalism. It was Lenin's
characterization and periodization of the October Revolution, which Trots find hard to
swallow. It was a quote, not my word. Don't be baffled! Correct yourself. And once
April 26, 2011 at 3:21am

Dave Bedggood First point, the bourgeois revolution cannot be led by the bourgeoisie
in the epoch of imperialism as the national bourgeoisie are servants of the imperialists.
Imperialist super exploitation contradicts bourgeois democracy. Second point, this
means that only the proletariat can complete the bourgeois revolution, not as a 'new'
bourgeoisie completing capitalism which will mean nothing but the self-exploitation and
self-oppression of the working class, but as a workers revolution transitional to
capitalism. Third point, Trotsky arrived at this view in 1904. Before 1917 Lenin still
thought that a transitional stage of a bourgeois revolution where workers led all the
peasants including the bourgeois peasants was necessary because capitalism has not
differentiated the peasantry sufficiently into classes. Fourth Point, this view is widely
misunderstood as a 'bourgeois stage' in the revolution. All the Bolshevik leadership in
April 1917 understood this as a bourgeois stage that had to be completed to prepare
the conditions for the socialist revolution. They were thus Mensheviks. Many of them,
Stalin principally, remained Mensheviks at heart. The US SWP under Barnes reverted
to this position. The Australian Green Left follows this stageist view. Fifth point, by April
1917 Lenin was convinced that the poor peasants could be won from the rich peasants
behind a workers revolution and came out with his new April Theses 'Workers to
Power'. This was because he now saw that the poor peasants could be won to the
working class with the promise of land to the tillers. Conclusion: The April Theses state
clearly the Bolshevik position against the Menshevik position. In the epoch of
imperialism only the working class leading the poor peasants (and other oppressed
classes) can complete the bourgeois democratic tasks as part of the socialist
April 26, 2011 at 6:07am 1

Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav, your plank is not leninism, but anti-trotskyism...for that you are
twisting lenin repeatedly...without even bothering to understand first what are the core
disputes between different tendencies in russian revolution...the collaborationist idea of
Mao reflected in his thesis 'on new democracy' based on 'bloc of four classes' national
bourgeois included is outright betrayal of Maoists of the working class...instead of
fighting against the bourgeois they propose collaboration with it, not only in China and
India, but everywhere in the backward world...NDR and PDR are recognition of failure
of Stalinism in its application to backward countries and an attempt to adapt to
Trotskyism, while backstabbing it simultneously...real dispute which had come up in
the russian revolution was as to the nature and role of national bourgeois in the
countries of belated historic developement...backward colonial countries- which have
entered upon capitalist stage of development late in time..with it was inseparably
bound the question of nature of reovlution...Mensheviks thought that revolution would
reproduce itself copiously in backward countries on the pattern of european revolutions
of the 19th century..where bourgeois would lead them as in their view proletariat in
russia was weak to carry out a revolution on its own...lenin disagreed with proposition
and disputed bourgeois leadership of it...l lenin also thought that proletairat was weak
and cannot come to power he proposed the 'two class dictatorship' lenin
took a step ahead of mensheviks, but did not break decisively till February 1917 from
the idea of weaknes sof the proletairat... February revolution was decisive refutation of
idea of lenin...there can't be two class dictatorship...'disctatorship' implies that it can be
exercised by one class the battle for power was essentially to be between the
bourgeois and the proletariat..this was the idea of where were the peasants
in this?? peasantry having immense social weight in russian society was to play a
decisive role in reovolution...but this role was neither independent nor leading one..if
poor peasantry remained leaned to peasant bourgeois, the bourgeois would be in
power and resultantly a brake upon the revolution, if poor peasantry sided with
proletariat it wa sthen turn for the proletariat to rule and accomplish the revolution...the
two stage theory of the revolution was based upon the exclusion of the possibility of
coming of the proletariat to power...but as the february in a negative way and october
in positive clearly demoinstrated wihtout any pale of doubt that the revolutions can take
place only under the leadership of the proletairat growing into its dictatorship after
seizue of power, whatever the nature of old regime may be and irrespective of the
stage of development of productive forces in individual countries....revolution was to
advance "uninetrruptedly" under the dictatorship of the proletairat...this was new thing
in world does not mean that the 'bourgeois democratic' tasks would ignored
ot bourgeois democratic revolution would be skipped. It meant that the make up of
revolution in all coountries of the world, developed or undeveloped would be same, i.e.
under the dictatorship of the proltariat, but the tempo of progrees of the revolution
would be different in different countries of the world, depending upon the tasks before
the revolution and the balance of real frocs to carry them out...this is the theoiry of
permanent revolution...its essence is that because now proletariat was to be the leader
of the revolution under whose class dictatorship the revolution was to be
accomplished, therefore revolutio would not be split in two separate compartments like
in old bourgeois revolutions where the revolutions were compartmentalised due to the
lead of bourgeois in first stage, now the revolution was to advance uninterurptely under
the very sam epower, the dictaotrship of the was this dictatorship which
excluded the split of revolution in two stages and merged them into one...not in the
sense to skip the first stage but to complete it "uninterruptedly" under the dictaorship of
the bourgeois...thus the chinese wall between the two stages was the
same proletariat who was to carry out the two tasks...not as two different stages of
revolution separated by their leadership , but as two tasks taken one after the
this sense democratic tasks instead of constituting a diffenrent stage of revolution,
would constitue a prelude to the next tasks-the socilaist ones and would facilitate the proletariat did not have to revolt once again for a socialist revolution and
the task of seizure of power before enteringonto the socilaist tasks was
eliminated...this uninterrupted revolution is the core of theory of permanent
April 26, 2011 at 9:38am

Rajesh Tyagi after understanding the essence of dispute, now you can proceed to
take your stand and dispute the propositions of trotsky and lenin whatever....
April 26, 2011 at 9:42am

Dave Bedggood Line 9 in my comment 'capitalism' should be 'socialism'.

April 26, 2011 at 9:56am

Rajesh Tyagi October revolution shows that numeric strength of proletariat is of no

consequence, rather its social and economic weight in capitalist world as a whole,
makes it capable to take power in all countries, and makes all countries susceptible
and ripe for proletairan revolutions...proletarian dictatorship however does not mean
building of socialism, proletariat cannot skip the bourgeois democratic tasks...they
have to be completed to lay the basis for addressing the socilaist ones..and this cannot
be accomplished in one country alone...especially in backward countries...neither it
was possible for Russian or Chinese nor for the indian proletariat...howeevr Stalinists
and Maoists both think that proletariat is weak in backward countries and thus they turn
to bourgeois for help...idea of Mao for a national bloc of four classes, which incuded
bourgeois is based on this flawed proposition...they seek a national boiurgeois against
imperialism, ignoring that all sections of national bourgeois are tagged with world they continue to find that national progressive bourgeois in Kerensky,
Chinag Kai Shek, Nehru, Sonia, Mamata, Lalu etc etc. This degeneration and naked
political opportunism is the direct fallout of this misreading of revolutionary
course...there is in fact no section of bourgeois national or foreign which can play any
progressive role in any part of the world...but both Stalinist and Maoists dispute this
and propose a progressive role for the bourgeois....realising this bankruptcy of
Stalinism and Maoism, but shy of admitting that the line you toes for decades is
politically bogus, worst position is taken by your group abhinav....u seek to argue that
the bougeois democratic tasks have been accomplished by the bourgeois in its own the bourgeois which did not eevn come to power on the back of a revolution
like Feb 1917 in russia, but thru betrayal of this mass struggle..In fact, this bourgeois
has not accomplished any of the tasks partially or completely, rather has aggravated all
old contradictions...your anti-trotskyist prejudice and the total blindness emanating out
of this prejudice prevents you even from understanding a,b,c of revolutionary
marxism...your NDR, PDR are the apologies to remian adherent with sections of
bourgeois and to justify your degraded Stalinist/ Maoist past...where you remained
contributor in strangling and marginalising the working class of the world in your own
way...your rabid support to Stalinism and Maoism and your opposition to Permanent
revoltion and the fourth international, reserves for you a place in revolutionary future,
alongside those, whom coming generations would look at with hate..
April 26, 2011 at 10:07am

Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav, by adhering to sections of national bourgeois, crediting them

with accomplishment of the democratic tasks in countries like in India and Egypt, you in
fact adhere to imperialists themselves...with whom this national bourgeois is in
collaboration...your position thus becomes position of prachanda, who immediately
after forming govt in Nepal, advocated a separation of two stages of the revolution by
at least two decades...and invited the Nepali Congress to join the government under
him...history kicked this Maoist disciple out for his criminal adherence to enemies of the
working class...Nepali Maoists have made mockery of the Indian
Maoists who exchanged letetrs with Chidambaram for buying peace with bourgeois
and got their leader 'azad' riddled with bullets...your idea is more laughable than all,
you say that bourgeois democratic tasks have been completed under bourgeois rule,
instead of saying that they are more complicated today than ever, because of
adaptation of medieval structures of indian economy and society by world
capitalism...these democratic tasks not only survive but the contradictions at their basis
have become so sharp that they provide an instant basis and necessary support and
logistics for the proletariat to take power agaimnst the bourgeois..e.g, kashmir and
lalgarh...the enmeshing of world capitalsm with medieval structures has created an
explosive situation, a ready base for proletarian overturn...but you turn your back upon say no democratic task survives as bourgeois has completed them in its own
way...this is cheerleading for the bourgeois rule...its real time glorification...and still you
say you are are outright Mensheviks...
April 26, 2011 at 10:27am 1

Abhinav Sinha Rajesh Ji, My plea once again will be, instead of answering without
reading, you should first read what Lenin said. I've given a lot of quotations from Lenin,
and that too from the period following the October Revolution. But you are more
concerned about defending Trot position, instead of understanding what Lenin said.
There can be no marriage between Lenin and the anti-Marxist "left" theory of
Permanent Revolution, despite all kinds of intellectual somersault that you have been
performing since the beginning of this week! Read properly, then write! Do not be
obsessed with the idea of defending yourself. Its never late to correct yourself! As
Brecht said, 'Everything changes! You can make a new beginning with your every
breath!' So even a chronic patient of Trotskyism can change! You just need to study
April 26, 2011 at 1:36pm

Abhinav Sinha One more thing! Shed the habit of erecting an imaginary effigy to give
vent to your intellectual frustration. I never said that national bourgeois can be an ally
today. So stop puking non-sense. I clearly said that we are in the epoch of Socialist
Revolution. That means I believe that no part of bourgeoisie will become an ally of the
Revolution. There will be a 3-class alliance for the Revolution. So stop misquoting.
Reply to the quotes of Lenin that I've given. Thats very cowardly of you, to by-pass the
quotations of Lenin to prove your point by hook or by cook. Thats intellectual
dishonesty. Either you don't understand Lenin at all, or, you have forgotten the basic
tenets of intellectual ethics.
April 26, 2011 at 1:39pm

Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav you don't understand even what you are cut-pasting
compensate that bankruptcy you are bordering on abuses...without nay application of
your own mind you are mechanically reproducing quote after quote....and getting more
and more frustrated...lenin is not sum total of handful of quotes, but represents the soul
of russian revolution which developed in diallectical conflict of ideas and
hypothesis...which were dealt with by the history in its own way....endorsing and
rejecting them....but you want to look at the history as if its blueprint was prepared by
lenin, revolution marched on it and we get the october....dear brother its not like
that...idea of lenin liike that of all others were mere hypothesis before 1917...and were
tested on the touchstone of february and october....but you want to sing a song bereft
of all historic experience....u chrn out and out the old hypothesis which revolution had
rejected....i gaain repeat that in saying that bourgeois has completed the democratic
tasks partially after 1947, you are betraying marxism...u clearly cited egypt and
countries of middle east to say that 'bourgoeis tasks are complete there' you
can't take about you attribute progressive role to bourgoeis in middle east and
asia....this is what Stalin and Mao have totally exposed before your own
associates whom you called are getting frustrate and are bordering on
abuses....god may help you brother....
April 27, 2011 at 2:15am

Abhinav Sinha Read the quotes again! If you don't understand, get yourself any good
textbook companion to Lenin's works.
April 27, 2011 at 5:20am

Abhinav Sinha Learn to take criticism. And to know what is abusing, read your posts
April 27, 2011 at 5:21am

Rajesh Tyagi lol abhinav i will sure seek one...thanx for advisory anyway!!
April 27, 2011 at 8:52am

Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav.... your problem is that you want to understand the history
through lenin, instead of understanding lenin through are concerned
solely what lenin has said about history and not how the history dealt with
you end up inside a blind tunnel with both ends you go on reading lenin's
texts like 'gita path' chanting his propositions like religious rhymes, without caring what
remains valid or invalid, after they are put to test of history in 1905, and Feb-Oct
1917...this self-imposed ignorance of historical experience leaves you blind to the
reality and your whole politics thus does a dis-service to the proletariat by misdirecting
it on the lessons of the past and tasks of present and path of the future....
April 28, 2011 at 9:23am

Rajesh Tyagi upto 1917 lenin did not have the real experience of proletarian
revolutions, but we do we don't need any hypothesis...we can conveniently
rely upo the concrete which you turn your your chant the
rhymes of old texts, lile vedic mantras...and thereby reach at conclusions which were
discrdited by the real revolutions and abandoned by lenin...instead of understanding
the apparent conflict between the positions of lenin before he saw a real revolution and
after he experenced it, you falsely and artificuialy reconcile the two...having ultimately
what can be termed only a caricature of revolutionary marxism in your hand...
April 28, 2011 at 9:29am

Abhinav Sinha Not to have regard for history is a classical trait of all the Trots. History
clearly shows the success of most of Lenin's ideas. His epochal contributions on the
theory of Party (on which Trotsky was rebuked by Lenin), understanding of Imperialism
(which holds true to present day), critique of anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism (on
which account, Lenin again rebuked Trotsky, in context of the debate with Workers'
Opposition), exposure of revisionism and successful leadership of the October
Revolution have been recognized universally, and proven correct by the history. What
happened to Lenin? Nothing wrong particularly! His teachings are relevant even today.
When you are encircled by the quotations of Lenin, which refute Trotsky and show the
real place of Trots in history, then you want to talk about history. You said in the
beginning of the debate, that October Revolution is an established fact! I agree (though
it doesn't make it less an experiment!). And it became an established and
accomplished fact due to the leadership of Lenin. History has dealt quite fairly with
Lenin. That is why this abbreviation ML is the dividing line between revolutionary
Marxism and the revisionism and "left" deviation of Trots. What do you think how
history dealt with Trotsky, by the way? Trots are the laughing lot of the entire working
class movement. Because, they are not one with the working class movement. They
are 'other' for the workers; nothing more than big-mouthed good-for-nothings. There is
not a single working class movement in this world since the October Revolution, that
has been led by Trotskyiites. It makes a mockery of you yourself, Tyagi Ji! There is one
humble suggestion again! And not only for you, but all the Trots! IT WOULD BE BEST
Because revolutions are made and led by those who believe in praxis, not by those
good-for-nothing, big-mouthed passive radicals who are "left" in thought and idle or
right (which is in fact the same thing objectively: idleness and silence is the tacit
support of the status quo); and who are bent over making virtual "World Revolution" on
the virtual "World Wide Web". In reality, Trotskyism cannot be caricatured, because it is
itself a caricature. And another thing! You again have not read the quotations of Lenin
carefully! That is the problem with all the Trots. Read the date of the quotations. These
quotations are of the post-revolutionary period, when Lenin had experienced the
revolution. Please! Please!! Develop a habit to read carefully! You believe in
expounding away crap without reading something that matters. Read Lenin carefully,
even his writings of the post-revolutionary period. Again I'll say, that to understand
them, buy a good textbook companion of Lenin's writing. Read the dates of the
quotation again. And also, read history properly! You'll see the real place of Trotsky
and Trotskyiites in history. Do not try to be foolishly judgemental about history without
reading it! You are welcome to the History Department of Delhi University! I'll help you
become a guest member of the P.S. Gupta library, which is meant only for
researchers! I'm a Phd student there. We've a great collection on Russian Revolution!
Read history and then think about the place of Trotsky and Trots in history, not only of
the Soviet Union, but of the world!
April 28, 2011 at 2:22pm 1

Sunny Singh "We know only one science: The Science of History" (German Ideology)
April 28, 2011 at 6:19pm

Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav, I quote you.."Not to have regard for history is a classical trait of
all the Trots"...tell me honestly, does it have any real political sense?....You say,
"History clearly shows the success of most of Lenin's ideas" impliedly few
of lenin's ideas failed in history....however you are shy of telling which history proved
right and which wrong...Irony is that Stalinists and Maoists, both epigones of leninism,
follow what did not succeed and was proved wrong...they turn their back upon
everything that was proved right in lenin by lenin's turn away from
'stagism' in April follow what was thrown to dustbin...i.e. the two stage have time and again cited our activity on 'world wide web', obviously
spitting out your frustration over the offensive Trotskyist movement has taken on the
most advanced platform of speech in our times i.e. world wide web. Your accusation
that we dominate the www is though frustrated, biut a sure recognition of the fact that it
is we who lead at the most advanced platform in the world i.e....this is in confirmity with
historic domination of revolutionary marxism at the most advanced platforms of
expression provided by contemporary science and technology...there is no doubt that
the most class conscious and advanced layers of proletairta in the world are our
audience...just compare yourself with it for a moment...there are no takers for stalinist
and maoist propaganda today...same people who write also read you have
repeated it several times so i have to say that hopefully you do not understand the
difference between 'workers opposition' and 'left opposition' in russia...i fail to
understand what Trotskyism has to do with 'workers opposition'...both may be
intermingled in your mind, but in fact they are astronomically different...for your kind
information understanding of lenin and trotsky on imperialism is say you
encircled me with lenin's quotations which refute trotsky....but despite your kiddish
rhetoric you could not give a single quotation which refutes trotsky...rather on all
important turns of rusisan history including februray and october, lenin and trotsky were
together against menshevik and bolshevik leaders including Stalin....
April 28, 2011 at 6:21pm

Sunny Singh I thought Trotskyites know how to deduce... but Mr. Rajesh Tyagi is
failing even to do that.... Why not read again Mr. Typos ... Its good to look in mirror but
you should not forget that the image u perceive is inverted reflection. Do not rotate in
your vicious circles.
April 28, 2011 at 6:32pm

Rajesh Tyagi abhinav, in support of two stage theory you had started from citing
february as the first stage in your two stage formula...but when i confronted you on
charcterisation of february government and the criminal support to it by all bolshevik
leaders, including Stalin, which lenin opposed tooth and nail, first you fell silent and
then ended with quoting lenin that it was october which was split in two...when i drew
your attention to simply skipped the issue and again started abusing... I quote
you, "Do not try to be foolishly judgemental about history without reading it! You are
welcome to the History Department of Delhi University! I'll help you become a guest
member of the P.S. Gupta library, which is meant only for researchers! I'm a Phd
student there". This shows your abusive mindset saturated with petty bourgeois
arrogance...had Ph.Ds in history been able to produce intelligents, we would have
been having a whole army of reovlutionists....unfortunately these university
departments produce on mass scale, confused and obedient servants for
capitalism...had you introduced yourself identifying with some of your revolutionary
work, that would have gone to your credit...but this demonstration of false pride after a
crushing defeat in debate, is of no use at point out the manner in which
history dealt with trotsky!! what that manner is? till his end, trotsky like lenin fought for
defence of foundations of revolutionary marxism...lenin was shot by SR and trotsky by
Stalinist a true petty bourgeois you are leaned towards Stalin and Mao, as
they become head of their bureaucratic all petty bourgeois men and women
on the earth, trillions in numbers, you relish this bureaucratic authority of Stalin and
Mao....if you cannot win it in India, at least you can identify yourself with this authority
of the past...that imparts consolation to fact Stalinists today are interested in
movement today only to this extent...this is what you say success story of Stalinism
and say trotskyists did not head any remarkable workers movement...the
fact is that Stalinists destroyed the russian revolution, which you admit was an
accomplished fact...and they rpevented the working class from coming to power in
China, Germany, Spain, India, Iran, Iraq and so on and so forth...tell me, after driving
out trotsky and annihilating all top bolshevik leaders in fake moscow trials, who was
sititng in Kremlin??? who was commanding the Comintern??? whose policies inflicted
defeat after defeat upon the world proletariat??? was it Stalin or Trosky???
April 28, 2011 at 6:46pm

Rajesh Tyagi you say trotsky made himself a laughing stock....yes the kremlin
bureacracy and behind it the bureucracies in the national CPs led by imerialist agents
like SA Dange, laughed at trotsky...only to be laughed at by history upon when we look back we find these rascals completely exposed..yes
trotsky was defeated by Stalin...but so was defeated the world working class...trotsky
could be defeated by Stalin as bureaucracy gained upper hand in russia due to
temporary defeats of working class in was in this backdrop of defeat of world
working class that trostky was defeated and driven out of russia...but then wasn't lenin
driven out by kerensky in the same manner? does it porve kerensky was right and
lenin was wrong?? you are overwhelmed with the bureaucratic power Stalin succeded
to seize for himslef in do not understand that with this seizure of pwer by
stalin, the fate of world working class was also seized...
April 28, 2011 at 6:55pm

Rajesh Tyagi tell me now which working class movement Stalinists or Maoists had led
to success the world over, after the russian revolution??? bureucratic overturn in China
led to 'deng', cuban experiment established a nationalist petty bpourgeois power in
Cuba in whose mirro image had emerged the chavez regime...all preventing the world
working class from presenting its solution to the crisis in these knows
that Stalinists and later Maoists, annihilated the left oppositionists not only in russia,
but the world over, in collusion with bourgeois governments...In contrast to shameful
collaboration of Stalinist CPI with british colonialists, read the program and politics of
the glorious BLPI...and come to understand with it, what revolutionary marxism is...with
Dange's letter its is very clear that the Stalinist CPI upon direct instructions from Stalin
was spying upon the freddom fighters, including trotskyist the time when BLPI
was leading demonstration of workers in support of naval mutineers...Stalinist CPI was
opposing it, assisting the congress delegation of Patel and Zinnah...this is the hisotry of
Stalinists, from whom Maoists claim their own legacy....
April 28, 2011 at 7:07pm 1

Rajesh Tyagi ignore typos....plz

April 28, 2011 at 7:07pm

Rajesh Tyagi so dont quote lenin, with your flawed interpretations, come to history, i
say again and defend Stalinism and Maoism if you can...its not trotsky but you
Stalinists and Maoists, who would be made a real laughing stock...Both Stalinists and
Maoists are kicked out from the world politics today...thier bureaucratic power
machines have evaporated...their collaborator bourgeois is in acute crisis..but still
retains power...irony is that even disciples of Stalinism, feel shy of claiming themselves
stalinists openly...their ranks are sqeezing...more class conscious workers and youth
are turning their back upon Stalinists and Maoists, which they claim general crsis of
revolutionary movement in their publications....the fact is that the crisis is of Stalinism
and Maoism..and with them in crisis, the blockade they created for more than a 3/4th
centruy is opening...trotskyists are in the forefront of revolutionary you admit
it, we are dominating the world wide web, what more can be recognition of our
victorious tirade...
April 28, 2011 at 7:18pm

Rajesh Tyagi sunny forget me, try to understand and say something if you want me to
understand you...dont indulge in exclusively teasing game...hun...and if you find the
whole image so inverted...plz dont waste your time here, rather in spirit of a true
maoist...leave the world wide web for us tritskyists and you 'go to the masses'....why
are you getting trapped in our activity, i.e.
April 28, 2011 at 7:25pm

Rajesh Tyagi abhinav, you have rightly quoted lenin saying that october revolution
would complete the bourgeois democratic tasks and go over to socialism...there can be
no better refutation of the two stage menshevik theory (as mensheviks stuck to it from
beginning to end)... in fact the advocates of two stage theory all over the world attribute
the two stages to february and say that october would proceed from
bourgoeis democratic to proletarian socialist is absolutely correct position...this is what
lenin and trotsky boith meant..this is what we are arguing...that february was a failed
revolution because its bourgeois leadership and despite the fact that the real power,
the arms, were in the hands of workers..though Tsar was ousted and liberties could be
won directly by the masses, but this revolution failed because of bourgeois leadership
and failure of menshevik and bolshevik leaders to understand the true dynamics of
february revolution...lenin's quote shows that he does not give any credit to february
regime in carrying out any democratic tasks, which he says october would do...this is
exactly theory of permanent revoilution...August 1947 was not even february where
masses won anything with armed authority in was absolutely reactionary
compromise and outright betrayal by the bourgeois, during a wave of suppression of
the freedom movement...still you said in clear terms that bourgeois rule in india after
1947 has carried out democratic tasks in deformed manner...this is again outright
betrayal...this is against leninist spirit and spirit of the quote you gave here a bourgeois coming to power as agency of imperialism, can resolve
the democratic tasks, even partially??...instead the truth is that it has aggravated the
crisis everywhere...this is your ploitics, which starts from achievements of bourgeois
and ends at it...and despite your factional disputes for leadership (lol!) all of you
Stalinists and Maoists agree in crediting the bourgeois with its progressive role, albiet fail to understand the real mechanics of you don't understand
either february or october...rather have only impressionistc and blurred ideas...
April 28, 2011 at 8:11pm 1

Sunny Singh You keep circling around....... comrade....... and please dont get teased
just wanted to ask you to take a tangential jump in to spiral acceleration......
April 28, 2011 at 8:14pm

Rajesh Tyagi and from where to get electrotonic spread of excitatory currents...with
that traqpping of Maoism??? lol
April 28, 2011 at 8:19pm

Rajesh Tyagi sunny biophysics won't take to far in the natural sciences play a
limited role in understanding of historical phenomenon...
April 28, 2011 at 8:21pm

Rajesh Tyagi Read this article:

April 28, 2011 at 10:21pm

Abhinav Sinha Rajesh Ji, do you ever get tired of molesting history and facts? Read
Lenin's quotations again. He clearly argues that there are two stages in the revolution.
Now if you are stubborn enough not to understand Lenin, even he can't help you
personally! You've given a classical statement about your presence on the internet and
your divine satisfaction with it! Well, I can't expect anything else from a Trot! You keep
the lead in the "most advanced medium", we'll be satisfied with the working class, 90
percent of which has no access to internet. So be merry in your virtual space. As I said
earlier, those who cannot lead and accomplish revolution in one country, start talking
about "world revolution", even worse, on the World Wide Web. Well, we are not
frustrated at all Mr. Tyagi. Instead, we're happy that Trot pollution in only for the
perverts on the WWW, and has not contaminated the working class movement. Well,
even if it tries, it cannot affect the working class movement. As one of readers has
commented, you keep going around in circles. He is right: try to take a tangential jump
into spiral acceleration! And about Lenin's rights and wrongs.
April 29, 2011 at 2:33am 1

Abhinav Sinha Well, that was a way of speech. Lenin was right on all issues, because
the issues on which he was not right, he corrected himself very soon. Because he was
a master dialectician. He never missed the other factor. That why he was so clear
about the "left" wing deviation of Trotsky all the time! Now you can say whatever you
like about Maoists; it doesn't really matter. Because, they are mostly involved in real
revolutionary praxis. They don't have the time and opportunity to organized "world
workers' state" on the WWW! Thirdly, the bourgeois revolution started with the
February Revolution. It could not be fulfilled by the bourgeoisie completely. It was a
bourgeois revolution in the sense that it overthrew the monarchy. Lenin was very clear
about it. When Lenin characterizes the October Revolution, he makes it clear that the
October Revolution was obliged to fulfill the unperformed tasks of the bourgeois
revolution. And every Socialist Revolution will be like that for that matter. As Marx said,
bourgeoisie never fulfills all of its political promises. The real slogans of the French
Revolution can become a reality only after the Socialist Revolution. But that doesn't
mean that there is no such thing as a democratic revolution. Lenin's periodization
pertains only to the October Revolution. It never denies the February Revolution, the
status of a democratic revolution, though an incomplete one.
April 29, 2011 at 2:42am

Abhinav Sinha What else can I say? You have a bad habit of not reading carefully.
Read the quotations once again. And don't be frustrated with my invitation to read
history in the History Department. It was genuine. Secondly, do not have such a dislike
for historians. If all history is written incorrectly, then you write a new Trot history of the
world! But even for that you'll need to read carefully. Cultivate the habit of reading
April 29, 2011 at 2:44am 1

Abhinav Sinha Read the debate about Workers' Opposition Mr. Tyagi. When Kollontai
and Shlyapnikov of 'Workers' Opposition' argued that the State should be trade
unionized; that means, unions should be made completely autonomous and should be
given the tasks of the State, Trotsky argued that Unions should be instruments of the
Proletarian State; Trotsky argued that the Trade Unions should be Statised. That
means the State and Party should have total control over Unions and their autonomy
should be finished. Lenin argued against both these extremist positions. Lenin rebuked
Trotsky on two accounts. First, he said that the Soviet State depends a lot on the
worker-peasant alliance and therefore the Trade unions cannot be Statized because
Trade Unions are exclusive organizations of working class and they would consider
and defend only the rights of the workers. Russian Revolution cannot go ahead without
the worker-peasant alliance and the Trade Unionization of the State will kill this
alliance. Secondly, Trade Unions should not be given the functions of the State
because these are the only institutions that can fight against the bureaucratic
tendencies prevalent withing the workers' state; these are 'schools of communism'.
Lenin argued that Trotsky is a Statist and "left" adventurist. He said that Trotsky is
plagued with severe bureaucratic distortion. Lenin also argued against the position of
'Workers' Opposition' and said that it amounts to liquidationism and anarcho-
syndicalism. Please carefully read the debate around the 'Workers' Opposition'. Your
question that what Trotsky has to do with 'Workers' Opposition' shows that you have
not even read the works of Trotsky properly, leave alone Lenin! First read the original
source, and then venture into debate! Otherwise, you'll be obliged to face the kind of
criticism that will sound to your Trot ear as abuse!
April 29, 2011 at 2:55am 1

Abhinav Sinha Your claims that Maoism has been thrown out of politics is laughable
and ridiculous. Just say this to anybody, and you'll be funnier than Steve Martin!
Almost everywhere in this world, in all country, the real class struggle is led by the
Maoists. In most of the countries their programmatic understanding is wrong. But
unlike, Trots they do have a program and in comparison to Trots, that makes them
members of much superior league. They have a program (though a wrong one, the
program of NDR, whereas, everywhere in this world we are in the stage of SR)
because they at least intend to achieve revolution in the real world. They are sacrificing
their lives and fighting. They are at least not like the big-mouthed good for nothing idler
Trots, who are stuck with "the most advanced medium"! Ha! Enjoy your political
perversions on the net. We're not at all concerned about that. Your claims about
Maoism means nothing even to a loitering stray animal! Leninists and Maoists are
there in the real class struggle! They don't give a damn, what Trots say about them.
They have never and they will never! In fact, you are frustrated with this fact that they
don't give a dime to what the Trots say! I guess thats the pain of the Trots: being
ignored by the real Communists! Don't be frustrated! Join us! We give heed to those
who are concerned and involved with praxis, apart from the WWW!
April 29, 2011 at 3:02am 1

Abhinav Sinha I guess the Trots should worry more about their position in the real
world politics today, instead of beating bush about the status of Maoism. They might
correct themselves then, I mean shed the bacteria of Trotskyism!
April 29, 2011 at 3:03am

Abhinav Sinha What happened in 1947? Read my post again carefully. And read a
Trot historian A.R. Desai about it. I think you'll read him carefully at least. Once again,
I'll say: first, read carefully and then write. Don't believe in writing without reading.
April 29, 2011 at 3:04am

Abhinav Sinha You are again misbehaving with history, Mr. Tyagi! Lenin was not
driven out by Kerensky. And Lenin returned because his politics emerged triumphant.
But Trotsky's politics was buried and went to a place, to which it belonged. He was
never to return. He collaborated with imperialists against the Soviet Union. Its a proven
fact. In the rest of the time, he flirted with Frida! Thats what he did! Secondly, Lenin
never fought against Stalin, while having Trotsky as his comrade in arms! Don't twist
history, otherwise history will twist you!! You can't produce a single evidence of this
idiotic claim! Don't go lunatic in your feverish attempt to prove yourself right. Read
Lenin properly! I would again suggest you to take help of some good companion book
on Lenin's writings, because on you own, you either don't read or don't understand
April 29, 2011 at 3:11am

Abhinav Sinha The glorious history of BLPI????!!!!! What glorious history??? HA!
April 29, 2011 at 3:13am

Abhinav Sinha Please! Please! Please! Read all the posts and quotations properly,
Mr. Tyagi! And read some Marxism! Also Trotsky! You seem not to know even
Trotsky's writings properly! Read his debate with Kollontai and Shlyapnikov, and you'll
know what he has to do with 'Workers' Opposition'!
April 29, 2011 at 3:15am

Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav, I quote you here: "It was a bourgeois revolution in the sense
that it overthrew the monarchy. Lenin was very clear about it. When Lenin
characterizes the October Revolution, he makes it clear that the October Revolution
was obliged to fulfill the unperformed tasks of the bourgeois revolution. And every
Socialist Revolution will be like that for that matter. As Marx said, bourgeoisie never
fulfills all of its political promises. The real slogans of the French Revolution can
become a reality only after the Socialist Revolution. But that doesn't mean that there is
no such thing as a democratic revolution." this exposes you to the according to
you, in essence, bourgeois played the role in russia what it played in european
revolutions??? thats your politics??? bourgois played an importnat and essentially
revolutionary role in its early days in europe...though in russia its role was reactionary
through and through....but you put both at par...saying that "And every Socialist
Revolution will be like that for that matter" the revolution in russia and india is at
par with bourgoeis plays the role in russia and india as it played in
europe??? now u r completely exposed...for your kind information russian bourgeois
has not started or carried forward the revolution even an inch further, it was the
workers in Petrograd and moscow who started it...bourgeois only put the brakes on the
revolution...damn you...this is what you learn from rotten school of Maoism, that it was
bourgeois who carried out february...on the contrary what was live in the february was
carried out by working class supported by peasantry in uniform..bourgeois only did
everything in its control to halt the ppl are rotten to the core if you
assume a revolutionary role for bourgeois in february revolution......
April 29, 2011 at 7:56am

Rajesh Tyagi and more....your perspective is completely economist....all politics

according to you is elite...ten percent, as you say, of the workers, the advanced guard
of the class which has access to the net, according to you, is nothing...the rest 90
percent backward mass is that you learnt from lenin??? lenin relied
upon this ten percent advance guard, which would lead behind it the rest 90 percent,
but you, failing to appeal to the advance guard, orient yourself to the 90 percent...which
pratically has nothing to do with political issues...because it is convenient for you to
form a bureaucratic crust over and above this backward mass of proletairat...collect
'levies' from it to feed those who do-nothing except being part of the bureaucratic
April 29, 2011 at 8:06am

Rajesh Tyagi now you say trotsky took position against workers opposition...look at
your earlier messages...where you identify trotsky with workers have
not grasped the debate of puuting the trade unions under the direct control of workers'
state...not trade unions but the workers state, (the soviets) is also an exclusive and
politically highest organisation of working class after the party...we are of firm opinion
that trade unions must be put under control of workers soviets...this is what trotsky said
about...and we stand by it...
April 29, 2011 at 8:10am

Rajesh Tyagi I quote you to show your state of frustration, "You can't produce a single
evidence of this idiotic claim! Don't go lunatic in your feverish attempt to prove yourself
right" far as my claim is concerned that lenin fought against Stalin as the
representative of russian bureaucracy...the last testament of Lenin is live proof of that,
in which lenin recommended that Stalin is not worth to hold the position and that he be
dislodged immediately by comrades...
April 29, 2011 at 8:14am

Rajesh Tyagi when you say that Maoists are fighting in real world and we on the world
wide web, it clearly shows your economist views, this is the accusation which
economists and even mensheviks hurled at leninists, that they only do journalism and
do not have link with working class lenin's "what is to be
done"...where he compares robert nite with leibknecht to show the difference between
the ppl are essentially robert nites of say net is for perverted
few...seems you use the net only for perverted purposes...for us the www and all
achievements of science and technology are great instruments to fight against our
enemies...Maoists habitual of being in the backyard of bourgeois, catch up the
backyard of proletairat too...and base them not upon the backward sections of
proletariat, but employ the most backward techniques too and rightly have aversion to
everything that is new and revolutionary, including the world wide web...damn you....
April 29, 2011 at 8:21am 1

Rajesh Tyagi now i don't think you need even any text of lenin or mao, rather a mirro
for yourself in which if not you, your affiliates could see ur face blushing....
April 29, 2011 at 8:24am

Rajesh Tyagi So Abhinav, those who say our revolution is New Democratic are
Maoists and those who say its socialist are also a great program
maoism is...cover all hypothesis from Democratic to fact it is so opportunist
to have only one program, tailism of bourgeois....
April 29, 2011 at 8:41am

Rajesh Tyagi and dont just go repeating that i need reading marxism, in fact we all
need say if you have something to say...but practically you have
repeating the same song in all posts like school kids, won't help you...
April 29, 2011 at 8:44am

Rajesh Tyagi earlier you said lenin was right on most issues...and u were
right...except that you caught hold of th wrong side of you take an about
turn saying that lenin was right on all issues and where he was not he corrected
himself...therefore nothing remains for generations to come to correct lenin ...this goes
against the science of marxism...and the worst is that you do not want to say where
lenin went wrong and why and where and how he corrected himself. Let me tell
was the formulation of two stage theory and the democratic dictorship of two classes,
on which he went wrong and corrected himself in letters from afar and april thesis...
April 29, 2011 at 8:48am

Rajesh Tyagi but you want to chant sermons of Bhagwad Gita in the name of lenin
and marx, in true style of Mao, the Chairman, alas without a
April 29, 2011 at 8:50am

Mike Pearn I feel that the 'Trotskyists' on this thread disgrace the memory of Leon
Trotsky. Because they have failed to read what Abhuinav has written and instead seek
to use the authority of Trotsky against the authority of Lenin. It is rather like reading two
disputants in a medieval church arguing about incubi and succubi!
April 29, 2011 at 9:20am

Mike Pearn Now the following remarks will be rather brief and possibly rude. 1/ India
today is a bourgeois state in which the central task of the bourgeois revolution has long
since been completed. In other words the Indian state is an autonomous centre of
capital accumulation and is not a semi-colony.
April 29, 2011 at 9:23am

Mike Pearn 2/ There is no reason to speak of Bourgeois DEMOCRATIC revolutions

and the tasks we associate with such events. Most bourgeois states, whether or not
formally democratic, did not appear as the result of such revolutions. In fact such
revolutions are rare and in the imperialist era as rare as hens teeth.
April 29, 2011 at 9:25am

Mike Pearn 3/ There was no Indian bourgeoisie in 1947 - although there were the
Tatas - so the struggle for an independent state devolved upon the petty bourgeoisie.
Thus the hegemony of the Congress Party with its populist basis with the PCI playing
the role of second fiddle. Independence then came about in the form of a democratic
counter revolution.
April 29, 2011 at 9:30am

Mike Pearn 4/ There are differences between Lenins theory of uninterrupted revolution
and the theory of permanent revolution. They are of no importance and I note that
Trotsky too did not reject the idea of distinct 'stages' in the revolutionary process. What
he did argue, from the late 1920s onwards, was that the tasks of the bourgeois
revolution could not be carried out in full by the bourgeoisie but fell to the proletariat.
April 29, 2011 at 9:33am

Mike Pearn 5/ Only a fool would argue, as Abhinav does, that for Trotskyists the
seizure of state power changes the class nature of the political economy of a social
formation. But it is the seizure of state power by the proletariat that gave October its
proletarian and socialist character.
April 29, 2011 at 9:37am

Mike Pearn 6/ Abhinav wrote that "Not to have regard for history is a classical trait of
all the Trots." Given that Trotsky wrote a History of the Russian Revolution this seems
a it of a silly thing to claim. Given the contributions of many Trotskyists to the art of
history it seems absurd. I write of course as an associate of the journal Revolutionary
History, loosely speaking a Trotskyist journal, so obviously I have no regard for history!
April 29, 2011 at 9:45am

Sunny Singh @Rajesh Great atleast you know some terms... But again you just put
them to make sentences without making sense... you dont have a good hold over your
language rather read Trotsky for developing your Language. Anyways you missed a
quote " "We know only one science: The Science of History" Your assertion clearly
shows that you are not having good hold over science not necessarily natural science.
April 29, 2011 at 11:33am

Sunny Singh "Not to have rgard for history is a classical trait of all Trots". The point is
well proven by the statement of Mr. Mike Pearn- "There was no Indian bourgeoisie in
1947 - although there were the Tatas - so the struggle for an independent state
devolved upon the petty bourgeoisie."
April 29, 2011 at 11:40am

Abhinav Sinha Mr. Tyagi! You are really a master at misquoting others for your own
purpose! I never said that Trotsky took the position of 'Workers' Opposition'. Read my
post again. I referred to the difference between Lenin and Trotsky on the question of
Trade Unions raised by the 'Workers' Opposition!' Socndly,
April 29, 2011 at 12:32pm

Abhinav Sinha Secondly, Lenin believed that the Russian bourgeoisie cannot fulfill the
all the tasks of Democratic Revolution, though it played a role in the overthrow of
monarchy. But the Democratic Revolution cannot be taken to its culmination by the
bourgeoisie. Thats what Lenin thought. Not what you said: that it could not take
democratic revolution an inch ahead. Please don't force-fit your opinions into Lenin's
mouth. Thirdly, my post in no way can mean that the Russian bourgeoisie was
revolutionary or like the Western European bourgeoisie again. This time you've vainly
tried to put your words into my mouth. Read my post again. Don't make ignorant idiotic
claims. Fourthly, politicization on the world wide web is definitely necessary, but what
about those idlers who do only that! That means the big-mouthed good-for-nothing
Trots! Who are only on the WWW, not anywhere in the real class struggle, in the real
working class struggle. All they do is run some intellectually and politically bankrupt.
Now, if being only on internet and no where in the real struggles is in anyway being a
vanguard then everything is possible!! Don't bother about my economism! Politicization
on Web can be a help for real struggles, it cannot be real struggle itself. And your
defense on being only on the web, and rather trying to prove that it is something of a
vanguard, clearly, exposes you Trots! Talk big, do nothing! Thats what your Trot
politics is all about. Fifthly, Lenin's last testament is not a political statement of a two-
line struggle. Stalin was a rude person. He did behave in an unbecoming way to
Krupskaya. However, that wasn't his politics. His politics was a Leninist one, though he
could not properly understand the problem of economism in the approach of the
Bolshevik Party, to which Lenin had alluded. Stalin apologized for his behavior. But all
the Trots have no political document to support their stupefying claim that Lenin fought
against Stalin, all they have is the Last Testament of Lenin. That document nowhere
shows any political or philosophical two-line struggle between Lenin and Stalin. And
one can find plethora of political writings of Lenin where he rebukes Trotsky. Fifthly,
even if Lenin was right on all issues there is no dampener for further progress of
Marxism! That shows the narrow-mindedness of a Trot! The world is developing
constantly; there have been significant changes in the modus operendi of capitalism.
So there must be advances in the science of Marxism. Even if Lenin was right on all
issues in his time, there will be the need to develop Marxism constantly because world
is a moving entity and world has moved a lot since the time of Lenin. So the engine of
development of a science has nothing to with the fact whether Lenin was right or wrong
on such and such issues. That shows your incredible faculties, Mr. Tyagi! I'm
April 29, 2011 at 1:02pm

Abhinav Sinha Sixth. Now regarding your wonderful thoughts about Maoism, Mr.
Tyagi! Now, when one says that he/she is a Maoist or Leninist, what does they mean?
It means that ideologically they believe in the epochal contributions of Lenin and Mao.
Programmatic understanding is the application of your ideological and political
understanding on the particular socio-economic conditions of your country. So, its quite
possible that a Maoist believes in NDR or SR in his/her country. The problem with a
Trot like you is that they do not understand the difference between the ideological
position and programmatic understanding. Read Lenin about the question of ideology
and the questions of strategy and general tactics of revolution.
April 29, 2011 at 1:07pm

Abhinav Sinha Seventh. Be a good Trotskyite like Mike Pearn. Learn something from
him. He has rightly pointed out to the differences between Lenin's theory of revolution
and the one which plagued Trotsky!
April 29, 2011 at 1:08pm

Abhinav Sinha Mike also clearly agrees to me that you haven't properly read my
posts. Please, I would plead with the innocence of a school boy, please read them
again properly. And also the works of Trotsky and Lenin, which I had also asked you
apart from Mike. Mike clearly seems to be a more informed Trotskyite. Well, Trotskyite
still and therefore struggles with some problems. Now let me get over stubborn Mr.
Tyagi and move on to Mike.
April 29, 2011 at 1:10pm

Abhinav Sinha Dear Mike, you're bang on target when you say that India is a
bourgeois state. We are Maoists (but we're against the dogmatic disciples of Mao, like
the CPI(Maoist) and there program of NDR) and we believe so. Definitely, today we
are in the stage of Socialist Revolution. But we reached on that conclusion on the basis
of analysis of the production relations and the character of the State. The method of all
Trotskyite in India, like the RSPI, is to deduce the stage of revolution by the character
of the State only. Thats problematic. The character of State had become bourgeois
with the transfer of power from the British colonialists into the hands of the Indian
National Congress, which was the classical representative of Indian bourgeoisie. The
social base of Congress mainly consisted of petty-bourgeoisie. However, to borrow
from Lenin, petty-bourgeoisie has no political position as such, it is the lackey of
bourgeoisie. Secondly, there were not only Tatas, there were Birlas, Goyanka, etc.,
also. The Indian bourgeoisie was not national bourgeoisie. But it was not comprador as
well. It was a peculiar kind of post-colonial bourgeoisie which has contradictions with
Imperialism as well as the masses. Therefore, it was unable to fulfill even the most
elementary tasks of democratic revolution, because as you said rightly, most of the
bourgeois states in the world did not come into existence in a revolutionary way. In
fact, thats what Marx is talking about when he talks about the two ways of development
of capitalism. One, 'capitalism from above' and the other 'capitalism from below' (refer
to the transition debate between Maurice Dobb and Paul M. Sweezy) and that is what
Lenin is talking about when he talks about the Prussian Path of land reforms in Russia.
In India too, we had Prussian path of land reforms whose beneficiary was not the petty
and middle tenants, but the large feudal landowners. Thus the Zamindari Abolition Act
allowed the feudal landowners to grab all the land, evict tenants and turn themselves
into Capitalist farmers. So, it was a junker type transformation which was complete in
the main by the end of the 1960s. We entered in the stage of Socialist revolution at the
same period. It was transitional period. However, the Indian Trotskyites believe that
India was in the stage on Socialist Revolution right since the transfer of power in 1947.
That wasn't possible as the land question wasn't resolved and there could have been
no 3-class alliance for Socialist Revolution.
April 29, 2011 at 1:27pm

Abhinav Sinha Secondly, Mike, you are wrong when you say that there was no Indian
bourgeoisie in 1947. Please refer to Trotskyite historian of Modern India, Prof. A.R.
Desai and also a classical Marxist historian D.D. Kosambi's article on the development
of Indian bourgeoisie since 1885. You can also refer to famous Indian Marxist
historians (who are anti-Stalin) Prof. Sumit Sarkar and also Prof. Bipan Chandra. Apart
from that, you can read 'From Plassey to Partition' by Prof. Sekhar Bandyopadhyay.
There was a small but a very organized and politically conscious Indian bourgeoisie.
There were associations of Industrial capitalists in Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and
some other cities from whom the Indian National Congress emerged. An industrial
bourgeoisie can neither be petty nor be compradore. Thirdly, there is no such thing as
petty bourgeois political position, as such. There are petty bourgeois deviations in left
politics, but philosophically if you narrow them down , you'll find that these are
bourgeois positions. There is no such thing as a petty bourgeois political and economic
system. The utopia and aspirations of petty bourgeois are those of the bourgeoisie.And
Congress represented this small but politically conscious and highly organized India
bourgeoisie, which settled its contradictions with the British power before 1947 and
then became a junior partner of imperialism in general and settled its score with the
masses of the people. Even today it is neither national nor compradore. Mao never
said that bourgeoisie can exist in these two modes only. Mao's analysis about program
was his analysis about China and its quite old. World has moved ahead and the theory
of NDR is not applicable anywhere. When we say that we are Maoists we intend to say
that we are not Maoists like the CPI (Maoist) and we believe in the epochal
contributions of the GPCR. Thirdly, a number of people have written history. That
doesn't make them as someone having a good sense of history. Writing history doesn't
make you a historian. If its so, then you should concede that Stalin also was a
historian, as you people claim that he was the one who wrote 'History of the CPSU (B)'.
As you see, your logic is not logic at all. Its legal logic that can be used by every party
to prove his point. What is the yardstick of historical analysis? The principles of
Historical Materialism found, enriched and established by Marx, Engels and Lenin.
These principles show that there are structural factors for every social as well as
natural phenomenon and internal contradiction is the determining factor in all
processes. That is where the Trotskyist approach and method fail. Marxist method is
inductive method. Trotskyist method is deductive method. Trotsky has no analysis of
problems of Socialism in the USSR. Thats what his problem is. Read Kostas Mavrakis'
book 'On Trotskyism: Problems of Theory and Practice' and mind you, he is against
April 29, 2011 at 1:41pm

Abhinav Sinha Seventh point. Mike, you are right that seizure of power by the
proletariat gave October Revolution its Socialist character. You're right! But even after
that seizure Lenin argued that from October 1917 to July 1918, they were in the stage
of democratic revolution. So the state was definitely Socialist workers' state but the
social formation took time to turn into a socialist one. In fact until and unless socialist
property relations are not established in the countryside as well, you cannot claim to
have built a Socialist System. Lenin said in 1922 that what we have in Soviet Union is
not Socialism yet, its State monopoly capitalism. However, since the State is in the
hands of the working class we'll move in the direction of Socialism. Problem with
Trotsky was that his analysis stops at the class character of State and deduces
everything else from it. Thats what we call deductive method.
April 29, 2011 at 1:46pm

Abhinav Sinha So you failed to understand what I said and foolishly argued against
my comment on the method of Trotsky. And don't be hurt about the critique of lack of
historical sense in Trotskyism. You might be an associate of a loosely Trotskyite
journal on History, and yet might lack the sense of history or a Marxist understanding
of history. In India, there is a journal on history and social sciences published by a soft-
right group; its called 'dialogue'. Well, that doesn't make them good historians.
April 29, 2011 at 1:50pm

Abhinav Sinha Lastly, however, your comment was a great corrective for ignorant
Trotskyites like Mr. Tyagi, who don't even read Trotsky. Its such a pity! Thanks for your
intervention. I guess your request to Mr. Tyagi to read my comments properly will find
some resonance in his mind, because I tried my best and failed! I guess now Mr. Tyagi
might give some heed to pleas coming from all corners: PLEASE READ CAREFULLY,
MR. TYAGI and READ SOME MARXISM! We'll also do that, but you also do
something about it, so that a more fruitful debate can be organized!
April 29, 2011 at 1:54pm

Rajesh Tyagi I quote you Abhinav: "However, the Indian Trotskyites believe that India
was in the stage on Socialist Revolution right since the transfer of power in 1947"....this
is simply misleading....rather trotskyists believe that the world as a whole is ripe for
socialist revolutions...socilaist in its everywhere the revolutions will bring
proletariat to the dictatorship...irrespective of whether it is Sri Lanka or India...but still
bourgeois democratic in essence in the countries which had entered belatedly into
world capitalism, as the most pressing agenda for revolution in these countries are the
borugeois democratic tasks, which counter-revolutionary bourgeois could not even
address both Sri Lanka or India or Nepal or the entire middle east...and look
whether its democratic or socialist in essence, trotskyists exclude the possibily of any
alliance with any sections of bourgeois....its only Stalinists and Maoists who think that
colonial bourgeois is partner of alliance with the workers in bourgeois democratic
April 29, 2011 at 3:16pm

Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav I quote you, "Therefore, it (indian bourgeois) was unable to
fulfill even the most elementary tasks of democratic revolution"....before this your claim
was that the bourgeois has fulfilled the democratic tasks in a deformed manner....clear
April 29, 2011 at 3:21pm

Rajesh Tyagi I quote you Abhinav...."The method of all Trotskyite in India, like the
RSPI, is to deduce the stage of revolution by the character of the State only".
this is absolutely false....trotskyists do not apply nay nationalist yardsticks to fix the
charcter of i said above, irrespective of whether there is a bourgoeis
rule or a monarchy, the revolution would put the power only in the hands of proletariat,
everywhere or it would be a counter revolution...Nepal is the example....
April 29, 2011 at 3:25pm

Rajesh Tyagi for trotskyists character of national economy or the ruling class, is of
secondary importance..which they count upon in the this factor only
determines the tempo of the revolutions in different countries and not their
character....primary thing is that all national economies are subjugated by world
capitalism, and everywhere power has to be taken by the proletariat against the forces
of world capitalism in the first everywhere its proletariat which would come
to power, establish its dictatorship and carry forward the revolution...revolutions can
advance only this way in imperialist era...however revolutions present before the
victorious proletariat, different tasks in different countries...for example in Nepal
proletariat has to fight more resolutely against medievalism as compared to india....the
alliances of proletairat with peasantry will depend upon the nature of these tasks....but
this does not make any difference to the fact that it will be proletarian dictatorship
everywhere...and where it is will be a counter revolution....
April 29, 2011 at 3:34pm

Rajesh Tyagi the question of political revolution i.e. taking power by the proletariat in
individual countries, does not depend either upon nature or stage of its economy or the
charcter of tis national revolutions in the age of imperilaism essentially spring
out of the operations of world capitalism and not national factors....this is what lenin
meant when he said about russian revolution that, "the imperialist chain broke at its
weakest link"...this is why proletariat took power in backward russia and not advanced
england....but Stalinists and Maoists...the rabid nationalists and avowed enemies of
proletarian internationalism....calculate the revolution upon national factors- the
charcter and stage of national economy and that of tis ruling class....
April 29, 2011 at 3:44pm

Rajesh Tyagi abhinav about trotsky, the organiser of red army in october revolution
and the war commissar after, you say what he did except flirting with "frida"...losing
nerves in a political debate how Maoists scoop down to charcter assasination, no
betetr example of it can be say i should i should read your posts more find such crap in the posts???? can one say you are engaged in a
political debate with this???
April 29, 2011 at 3:48pm

Abhinav Sinha Mr. Tyagi, you still haven't learnt anything from Mike! As far as, Indian
Trots are concerned, my comment is accurate. Read the party documents of RSPI.
And you again don't bother that I've also said that today no section of bourgeoisie can
be a friend of revolution. Read my last comment on my characterization of Indian and
other countries' bourgeoisie.
April 29, 2011 at 3:50pm

Abhinav Sinha Secondly, Mr Tyagi, read my comment again. Then you'll find there is
no conflict. Conflict is in your psyche.When I say the most elementary task, I clearly
follow Lenin, that is the question of land. The Russian bourgeoisie failed in this task.
April 29, 2011 at 3:51pm

Abhinav Sinha Thirdly, before a polemic with me, run a polemic with other Trotskyites!
Respond to Mike, comrade!
April 29, 2011 at 3:52pm

Rajesh Tyagi "today in india" you say and what about yesterday in India and today in
April 29, 2011 at 3:53pm

Abhinav Sinha Fourhtluy, as Mike said, Trots also believe in different stages in the so-
called "World Revolution". So they have to analyse the stage of revolution in different
countries as well.
April 29, 2011 at 3:55pm

Abhinav Sinha Fifthly, you exposed your flawed Trot method yourself, Mr. Tyagi.
According to you, for Trots, the character of bourgeoisie and national economy is not
important. What is important is the fact that the entire world is subjugated to capitalist
system. Well, your foolish theses are bordering with the Kautsky's theory. Be careful,
what you argue, Mr. Tyagi! You're going to the roots of Menshevism!
April 29, 2011 at 3:57pm

Abhinav Sinha Sixth point. You don't consider the national situation! Very well! With
what classes you'll make the class alliance for revolution? The friend classes of
revolution are organized on the concrete slogans and a common minimum program.
You'll make that common minimum program according to the World situation! Thats not
possible! And thats the reason why all Trots are idlers!
April 29, 2011 at 3:59pm

Abhinav Sinha Seventh, a person can only become a victim of character

assassination if he has some character. Trotsky doesn't fit the bill!
April 29, 2011 at 4:01pm

Abhinav Sinha Eighth point. Definitely, each revolution will definitely be a part of
proletarian revolution against imperialism. But even for revolution in one country the
Party will have to make strategy and general tactics and class alliance according to the
national situation.
April 29, 2011 at 4:02pm

Abhinav Sinha Once again, Tyagi Ji, cultivate the habit not to misquote and that too,
out of context. And also, have a good companion not only to Lenin, but Marxism as a
April 29, 2011 at 4:03pm

Abhinav Sinha And one more thing, in fact a request: Respond to Mike! First of all
Trotskyism is a "left" deviation present in Marxism. However, secondly, you are not
even a well-informed Trot! Read the comment of Mike properly and respond to it!
Reading that would be quite interesting!
April 29, 2011 at 4:06pm

Rajesh Tyagi de hors to all of your baseless assertions, here is made the real political
riddle out of that: you say national bourgeois is not your friend..but you praise
CPI(Maoist) as against us..which of course for you is a CPI(Maoist) says
national bourgeois is a friend in bloc of four classes...HOW COME??? on the other
hand trotskyists who say national bourgeois is an enemy, for you both-you and
CPI(maoist)- trotskyists are
April 29, 2011 at 4:15pm

Rajesh Tyagi in fact, your common love for national bourgeois, and consequently your
common hate for trotskyists combines you both and puts you against trotskyists...there
can't be any other explanation to this riddle..
April 29, 2011 at 4:16pm

Abhinav Sinha Come on Mr. Tyagi! In none of my comment I've praised CPI (Maoist).
I've praised Maoist! Do not be a shameless liar! CPI (Maoists) are at most
revolutionary terrorists. We even published a critique of CPI (Maoist): 'Terrorism:
Illusion and Reality'. I'll send you a soft copy. Secondly, I did not say that national
bourgeoisie is not our friend. You are again writing without reading. Damn you! I said
the Indian bourgeoisie in neither national nor compradore. Its the junior partner of
Imperialism. Don't be such a pathetic misquoter and liar. That doesn't suit even a Trot!!
April 29, 2011 at 4:20pm

Rajesh Tyagi you say indian bourgeois is neithe rnationalist nor be a maoist
April 29, 2011 at 4:21pm

Abhinav Sinha And once again: Reply to Mike, buddy! First unite well among Trots!!
April 29, 2011 at 4:21pm

Rajesh Tyagi Indian bourgeois is a national bourgeois, but as all national bourgeois is
subjugated by the world capitalism, so it gives the national bourgeois an
international character and thats why the character of revolution cannot be built upon
national factors and considerations, whether political or economic...
April 29, 2011 at 4:23pm

Rajesh Tyagi abhinav at least we trotskyists are clear on character of our enemy the
indian bourgeois, in fact maoists need to settle the issue among themselves, as to the
character of their of you say its bed partner, other says NOT NOW....
April 29, 2011 at 4:25pm 1

Abhinav Sinha That was a laughable reply; the kind which all hypocrites give when
they have nothing to say. There is no Marxist work that says that all bourgeoisie is
doomed to either be comprador or nationalist. In the time of Marx, there was no such
term as national bourgeois. There is not a single place where Marx has used this term.
Read Marxism properly. The dichotomy between national and comprador bourgeoisie
emerged with the advent of a peculiar form of social formation in the 20th century: the
semi-colony with feudal mode of production in the country side, i.e. a semi-feudal semi
colonial formation. With the decline of this peculiar kind of social formation, the
dichotomy is out and over. Now, in all backward capitalist countries we have a
bourgeoisie that is junior partner of imperialism. But it has its contradictions with
imperialism as well as the masses. Thats why this is the era of a new kind of Socialist
Revolution: anti-capitalist anti-imperialist proletarian revolution. We published our
theses on this in 1997. I will send you a soft copy.
April 29, 2011 at 4:27pm

Rajesh Tyagi oh yes sorry, i forgot, you both are one as against us : the trotskyists,
who say national boiurgeois is enemy no.1
April 29, 2011 at 4:27pm

Abhinav Sinha We say that bourgeoisie is enemy number 1 because when you add
the prefix national, it means that it has something common in agenda with the masses.
Read Lenin about the character of bourgeoisie in the PDR.
April 29, 2011 at 4:28pm

Rajesh Tyagi you CLI ppl say indian bpourgeois is no more a friend after 1960's but
Neplai bourgeois is still a friend, as it is NDR
April 29, 2011 at 4:28pm

Abhinav Sinha You exposed your political culture, Mr. Tyagi. You don't know about
us. So stop naming parties. Thats unfathomable for you!
April 29, 2011 at 4:29pm

Rajesh Tyagi you say because national bourgeois has contradictions with imperilaists
so its new kind of socialist revolution....did russian bourgeois not have contradictions
with imperilaism????
April 29, 2011 at 4:30pm

Abhinav Sinha You're still avoiding to respond to Mike, Why comrade? Afraid to face
even a Trotskyite, who shows you your ignorant, whatever it is, Trotskyism? Yeah,
without even properly reading Trotsky!!
April 29, 2011 at 4:30pm

Rajesh Tyagi still ur origins are in CLI buddy...
April 29, 2011 at 4:31pm

Abhinav Sinha That is not the reason why we call it New Socialist Revolution. Read
my post again.
April 29, 2011 at 4:31pm

Abhinav Sinha Don't bother about our organizational origins. Talk about politics.
Geneaologies should be left to slanderers! Are you one?
April 29, 2011 at 4:32pm

Rajesh Tyagi to me mike's errors are not fatal, but yours are for you reply to
mike...let me tackle you only...
April 29, 2011 at 4:32pm

Rajesh Tyagi ok right if you deny that you are progenys of CLI...
April 29, 2011 at 4:33pm

Abhinav Sinha Alright, errors are errors! Rectify Mike's errors! That will make a
broader Trot unity! That too across national boundaries! I know why you can't reply to
April 29, 2011 at 4:33pm

Abhinav Sinha I'm not denying or supporting anything, Mr Tyagi! Get your specs on
and read my answer again. Thats not an issue for me as yet! You are not eligible for
that answer, anyhow!
April 29, 2011 at 4:34pm

Rajesh Tyagi abhinav why you want to escape from giving answer to the riddle i
presented to u
April 29, 2011 at 4:34pm

Rajesh Tyagi lol....abhinav

April 29, 2011 at 4:34pm

Abhinav Sinha I didn't find any riddle, except you yourself! A riddle that doesn't need a
mathematical or philosophical genius, but a psychiatric one!!
April 29, 2011 at 4:34pm

Abhinav Sinha Good bye! Signing out!

April 29, 2011 at 4:35pm

Rajesh Tyagi in fact after debased CLI fell apart under pressures of disintgration of
Stalinist kremlin in 1991, you ppl have become more disoriented than ever...
April 29, 2011 at 4:35pm

Rajesh Tyagi CPI(Moaist) is at least towing a line which has roots in history, may be
counter-revolutionary, but you are taking swings in fact between trotsky and
worshipped stalinism and later Maoism, now you know the game is gone with fall of
kremlin and peking what should you say want to take a clever
turn...reconciling the positions of Stalin and Mao with that of trotsky...while discrediting
him simulatneously...your problem is that you people continued to speak against
trotsky without even caring to go into the disputes or reading him kept the
debate blocked as far as you younder generations turning to those debates
and coming to their conclusions, it is disturbing you...what is left for you to say???
April 29, 2011 at 4:42pm

Rajesh Tyagi And here comes the bombshell, I quote you: "Now, in all backward
capitalist countries we have a bourgeoisie that is junior partner of imperialism".....this is
what trotsky was saying and Stalin and Mao refuting....that national bourgeois is
subjugated by world capitalism..and its all reactionary....but both Stalin and Mao said
"NO"!!!! for Stalinists and classical Maoists, e.g. CPI (Maoist) national bourgeois is still
a have taken a welcome U-turn on that...though an opportunist
without criticizing yourself and without proclaiming departure with Stalinism and say that national bourgeois was friendly in the times of Mao....but turned
hostile after his death....LOL buddy...
April 29, 2011 at 4:47pm

Rajesh Tyagi for us not only national bourgeois is an enemy, but its friends too....and
all sections of the bourgeois the world over, without exception...are permanent
enemies of the world socialist revolution....
April 29, 2011 at 4:50pm

Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav, in fact you are trapped in the memories of your past which you
refuse to abandon and the needs of the present...from this contradiction emerges out
your politcal outlook, without a head or a tail...dancing on floor spread by the Ghosts of
Stalin and Mao...but to the tunes of that you become really laughable....
April 29, 2011 at 4:52pm

Rajesh Tyagi Coming to the conclusion that the boat of Stalinists and Maoists is
sinking, you want to catch a straw...shy of getting into the ship of permanent you stuck to the bottom of the ship, screaming to the world at your
loudest, that you are not in the ship...though the fact is that you are not in the boat
now, the Maoist boat is thrown to dustbin of history....
April 29, 2011 at 4:58pm

Rajesh Tyagi If quotations could have saved the boat from sinking, Stalin and Mao,
the copying-masters would have sure saved it....
April 29, 2011 at 5:00pm

Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav, you say this: "Lenin believed that the Russian bourgeoisie
cannot fulfill the all the tasks of Democratic Revolution, though it played a role in the
overthrow of monarchy" you want to say lenin attributed progressive role to
russian bourgeois in overthrowing monarchy...lenin attributes only a reactionary role to
russian bpourgeois....its you epigones of leninism who give progressive role to national
April 29, 2011 at 5:05pm

Abhinav Sinha Mr. Tyagi, your latest post show your mental bankruptcy. You are
commenting authoritatively on something, about which your knowledge is zero. You
don't know about the history of the CLI. CLI was never a Stalinist. But arguing with you
has no point. So, I don't want to waste time on debating with you anymore! Anyway,
you still have not responded to Mike. First find the courage to reply to a fellow Trot!!
Have WWW fun!!
April 29, 2011 at 5:54pm

Rajesh Tyagi abhinav for us those who praise stalin are not stalinist.....stalinism is
marked by menshevik its adherence to two stage theory, democratic
dictatorship, socilaism in one country, popular frontism etc etc....CLI was core
supproter of buddy think ebfore you say
April 29, 2011 at 8:33pm

Abhinav Sinha Still you show that you are as ignorant as all idler Trots! It doesn't
matter what means what for you. Because, the Trots don't exist in struggles!! Once
again: you still found the guts to reply to Mike? Shame!! Shame!!
April 29, 2011 at 8:59pm

Rajesh Tyagi Now come back to two stage theory....again and again you point out that
lenin says abt two stages of look what leninist formula of 1904 is...old
leninist formula is that the first stage of revolution in russia would take place under a
democratic dictatorship of workers and peasants ('two tactics of Socila democracy in
democratic revolution) your quote of lenin saying that october revolution carried
out the first stage before entering upon the second is basolutely correct and is in
endorsement of trotsky's proposition...and that for the reason that october is not
democratic dictatorship of workers and was pure and simple proletarian
dictatorship based upon alliance of workers and peasants, in which peasantry followed
the dictatorship of working first tell me do you agree with me on this???
trotsky had no doubt that the proletarian overturn in russia as well in all backward
countries will have to address the democratic tasks as immediate agenda and while
resolving them would enter upon the socilaist tasks....but he did not agree with lenin's
proposition that the first stage would be under democratic dictatorship....trotsky said
that eevn in an alliance of two classes one will essentially establish its
dictatorship...peasantry being the rural petty bourgeois in its social make-up cannot
establish its dictatorship, so this will essentially be the dictatorship of the the working
class, or the power would fall in the hands of bourgeois for a counter revolution to be
carried out...february saw this how a revolution was truned into a counter revolution
under lvov and kerensky...bolshevik leaders, including stalin but except lenin thought
that the february government represents the democratic dictatorship so they issued
repeated appeals in pravda to the workers to elect their representatives to the
provisional goverment....lenin and trtosky opposed it...lenin's hypothetical idea of
democratic dictatorship of two classes was thus refuted by the february
brought bourgeois dictatorship and october brought there was no space
for a democratic dictatorship of workers and peasants as lenin had
assumed....hypothesis are hypothesis till they are tested on the ground of actual
revolution....the briliant revolutionary in lenin took no time in sensing the reality and
took turn to proletarian overturn...while entrie bolshevik leadership remained stuck up
with old formula of 'demoicratic dictatorship....this lenin pointed out in April Thesis how
bolshevik leaders were stuck up with old formula...russia never saw implementation of
this democratic dictatorship...the october dictatorship of the proletariat was socialist in
its form being class dictaorship of the proletairat...but it had immediate bourgoeis
democratic tasks before it...e.g land reforms and the revolution set out
to address the democratic tasks as to be able to address the socilaist tasks
thereafter...but now two tasks were to be completed under the dictatoriship of single
class...the proletairat and not under two under democratic
dictatorship...the pther under proletarian, as lenin had when lenin is talking
about the two tasks or two stages in oc and after october...that is in acocrdance with
the hypothesis of trotsky exactly....
April 29, 2011 at 9:01pm

Abhinav Sinha Read Lenin, Mr. Tyagi! Stop putting your words in others mouth! Read
and read carefully! It seems that you still haven't bought yourself a good textbook
companion to Lenin!! Please buy one asap, because you might claim lives on the
WWW with your ignorance!!!
April 29, 2011 at 9:04pm

Rajesh Tyagi say this..."Mr. Tyagi, your latest post show your mental
bankruptcy"....if you chk my posts i have talked abt political bankruptcy of theories but
never of any person including you...though you must be younger to me...still i dont say
u r so...on the contrary i think that you are from the layers of serious political thinkers
and activists, who must more deeply understand the need not worry abt
my mental bankruptcy...i will take all care that it does not come in the way of would suggest that instead of these things let us try to understand
each other and must debate in congenial atmoshphere for our own and others
April 29, 2011 at 9:09pm

Rajesh Tyagi abhinav you may be a great revolutionary and me be bankrupt, but first
let us try to understand each other...
April 29, 2011 at 9:10pm 1

Dave Ankit Ferri "Now what application to Russia can my critic make of this historical
sketch? Only this: If Russia is
tending to become a capitalist nation after the example of the Western European
countries, and during
the last years she has been taking a lot of trouble in this direction--she will not succeed
without having
first transformed a good part of her peasants into proletarians; and after that, once
taken to the bosom of
the capitalist regime, she will experience its pitiless laws like other profane peoples.
That is all. But that
is not enough for my critic. He feels himself obliged to metamorphose my historical
sketch of the genesis
of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marche
generale [general
path] imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which
it finds itself, in
order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of economy which will ensure, together
with the greatest
expansion of the productive powers of social labour, the most complete development
of man. But I beg
his pardon. (He is both honouring and shaming me too much.)"

[Letter from Marx to Editor of the

Otyecestvenniye Zapisky, end of 1877]

April 29, 2011 at 9:11pm 1

Dave Ankit Ferri ..porque es el anti-heroismo de quien hasn't read Marx

April 29, 2011 at 9:21pm

Abhinav Sinha Politics of a person can make him mentally bankrupt as well! As they
say: "Personal is political!" You can't escape the bankruptcy of Trot politics even at the
personal psychological level!
April 29, 2011 at 9:26pm

Rajesh Tyagi abhinav for sure when i would become bankrupt i will automatically join
the ranks of comardes are not going to tolerate me in trotskyists
ranks...however now i fear your own bankruptcy...are you driven crazy by defeat after
defeta in political debate...
April 29, 2011 at 9:28pm

Abhinav Sinha Now, why on earth Mr. Tyagi liked the above quote of Marx!! My
goodness!! The height of ignorance! Probably you did not read this quote as well!
April 29, 2011 at 9:28pm

Rajesh Tyagi lol abhinav...

April 29, 2011 at 9:29pm

Rajesh Tyagi i think now dave can explain it to

April 29, 2011 at 9:29pm

Abhinav Sinha Ha! Let the readers decide about win or loss in this debate! And only a
bankrupt Trot like you will think in terms of winning and losing!! (P.S.: Respond to Mike,
buddy! Still found the courage?)
April 29, 2011 at 9:30pm

Abhinav Sinha The quote has nothing to do with Trot position.

April 29, 2011 at 9:30pm

Abhinav Sinha Anyway, signing out! Have a nice "Revolution" on WWW, Mr. Tyagi!
April 29, 2011 at 9:31pm

Rajesh Tyagi abhinav why dont you respond to mike if you find somethig to say there?
April 29, 2011 at 9:31pm

Rajesh Tyagi thanx abhinav, better leave www for us and find your place among the
most backward mass, i m sure they will think you have some semblance of a
April 29, 2011 at 9:32pm 1

Dave Ankit Ferri Hello guys, nice talking to both of you.

I premise I don't define myself as a Trotskyist, but as an Orthodox Marxist. On the
other hand, I shall recognise that the two-stage theory, whether it has been promoted
or not by Lenin, or Mao or Stalin or whomever you want, merely ridicules Marx's
thought and hides a huge poverty of well as the ignorance of the existence
of Marx's above mentioned letter.
April 29, 2011 at 9:34pm 1

Abhinav Sinha Mr. Tyagi, I've responded to Mike above in a detailed way. Read then
write! Remember?
April 30, 2011 at 12:26am

Abhinav Sinha Dear Ferri, in the period of Marx, there was no need for two-stage
theory. Lenin shows why. It was only with the advent of imperialism and the colonial
world that this theory came into being. It was mainly due to the fact that there emerged
a bourgeoisie in the colonized countries which either didn't have the will or the ability to
fulfill the democratic tasks. Therefore, the proletariat was entrusted with the
responsibility of accomplishing the Democratic as well as the Socialist tasks. That was
not the case in the period of Marx. So, please read the thesis of Lenin on PDR. He
explains how it is in the continuity of Marxist method of devising the strategy and
general tactics of revolution. With revolutionary regards, Abhinav.
April 30, 2011 at 12:29am

Dave Ankit Ferri Respected Abhinav,

first of all thanks for evaluating the above mentioned quote and reply with diligence and

Marx lived long enough to see (and write about) the progressive tendency of
concentration and centralisation of Capital eventually leading to imperialism, as well as
he witnessed the colonial 'trend' of European countries (noteworthy are his writings on
India too) and even the improvement of the working class conditions in Capitalism;
whilst never revising or put into revision - unlike in his youth - his own philosophy and
political economy.

Furthermore, we shall recognise that the dialectical process of dismantling of free

competition (R.I.P.) - which undoubtedly annoys the fancies of apologetics la Ayn
Rand - was carried out during the period 1860-1880 in Europe.
And it is not me to prove that, it is Lenin.

I certainly don't deny that the development of productive forces certainly help. it is not
me to prove that it is Marx.
On the other hand, this certainly does not imply we should think about pursuing a two-
stage theory approach 'a-priori', and label it as 'Marxism' when it is not the case;
that's all.
Philologically talking, I also don't see why Marx should have contradicted himself with
such an alledgedly 'non-marxist' consideration.
(We're still talking about the framework of 'Marxism' and Epistemological consistency
of (Marxism)-Leninism, Marxism-Stalinism or whatever we want.)

I would also recall the fact that Marx and Engels actually suggested another path for
the Russian Revolution in the Preface to Russian Edition in the Manifesto of the
Communist Party.

Nice talking to you both. Dave
April 30, 2011 at 1:02am

Mike Pearn Sunny Singh quoting my remark about the Indian bourgeoisie in 1947
misses the point by a country mile. He also exposes himself as being unable to
comprehend the English language. I would have thought it obvious by my reference to
the Tatas that I am aware that an Indian bourgeoisie did exist in 1947 but not in a
political sense. I note that even in the 1950s an openly bourgeois party, Swatantra,
failed to develop into a rival to Congress because it lacked a material base. Indian
capital accumulation owes its all to the state midwife.
April 30, 2011 at 3:51am

Mike Pearn Abhinav wrote "Marxist method is inductive method. Trotskyist method is
deductive method. Trotsky has no analysis of problems of Socialism in the USSR.
Thats what his problem is." On the contrary Trotsky had several analyses concerning
the degeneration of the workers and peasants state in Russia. The problem was that
he constantly had to update his analysis and was always lacking hard data especially
after his communications with the comrades in Russia were severed. Due to their
being murdered. Moreover his methodology was weak and he failed to start with the
relations of production preferring to look at formal or legal property relations. Now it is
true that normally legal property relations are identical to relations of production but this
was not the case in Russia. As a result of this error Trotsky failed to understand the
degeneration of Russia into a bureaucratic state capitalist state.
April 30, 2011 at 4:03am 1

Mike Pearn By the way the journal I am involved with has produced some very good
history. In my opinion not that I always agree with every dot or comma of course! here
is a link to it
April 30, 2011 at 4:06am

Mike Pearn Rayesh wrote "trotskyists believe that the world as a whole is ripe for
socialist revolutions". This is true but by putting the matter in such a crude manner you
miss, at least, two major points. Firstly this position is simply that of the Comintern of
which the Bolshevik Leninist movement is the heir. Secondly you confuse the idea of a
revolutionary epoch, the imperialist epoch of today, with a revolutionary conjuncture.
Now the fact is that the Fourth International and the BLPI were founded on the basis of
the conception that the Second World War would result in an international
revolutionary conjuncture much as the First World War had. in this their hopes, alas,
were frustrated.
April 30, 2011 at 4:11am

Mike Pearn Abhinav claims that Trotskyists are absent from struggles. I would suggest
that he read some issues of Revolutionary history to find a defintive refutation of this
claim. And, out of personal curiousity, I would be interested as to what tendency he
April 30, 2011 at 4:28am 1

Rajesh Tyagi Com Mike. though it is for Abhinav to tell you where their group belongs
to, but as they find themselves shy of telling that, I am telling you: they are splinter
group of old CLI which has since fallen apart in dozens of pieces, issues remiaing
more personal, less political..everyone craving for leadership of a bureaucratic sect
they created.. not having followig more than 3-4 they are loosely
conencted with magdoff group..and in fact have no historical roots...except the bogus
legacy of Maoism in you know..
April 30, 2011 at 8:07am

Rajesh Tyagi Comrade Mike...thats true that the hopes of post WW-II scenario could
not come true, like the hopes of october revolution ushering into a world socialist
revolution were shattered....but the whole question is: if we should adapt to the victory
of bourgeois in collusion with Stalinism, or should continue to fight against it...obviously
we select the second path...and that validates the program of 4th international in the
same way in which the defeats of 1918-1919 were dealt with by the Comintern under
Lenin...yes we saw defeats in 1919 and after capitalism emerged
victorious in 1919 with aid of social democracy and after WW-II with aid of
Stalinists...but we had continued our tirade against them...and they both are headed to
dustbin of hisotry...i have no doubt that we are emerging victorious in this war, though
long drawn in hisotry....
April 30, 2011 at 8:15am

Rajesh Tyagi Good for you abhinav

April 30, 2011 at 12:13pm via

Abhinav Sinha Dear Com. Pearn, The approach of Mr. Tyagi in introducing my group
reveals quite a bit about him! Anyway! Leave the clowns aside! We were part of the ML
movement emerging out from the Naxalbari rebellion. But we made a radical rupture
from the programmatic framework of Indian ML movement, which believed that India
was a semi-feudal semi-colonial social formation. We argued with statistical analysis
and following the approach that Lenin adopted in his seminal work 'Development of
Capitalism in Russia'. Our group came to the conclusion that India is in the stage of
Socialist revolution as the democratic tasks have been fulfilled in a non-revolutionary
way. This group assumed the form of a pre-party forum in the early 1980s. Mr. Tyagi
seems preoccupied and obsessed with the nomenclature of the Party, but since we
follow the party principles propounded by Lenin, I will not dwell too much upon name.
However, I'd like to introduce you to our ideological and political position. We believe
that India, and for that matter, the post-colonial societies of Asia and Africa are in the
stage of SR. Secondly, this will be a new kind of Socialist revolution, because for the
first time there will be socialist revolutions in the post-colonial societies, that are
politically independent and economically dependent. The bourgeoisie of these
countries cannot be force-fit into orthodox ML binary of 'national' or 'comprador'. The
bourgeoisie of these post-colonial backward capitalist societies are junior partner of
imperialism. They are dependent for technology and capital on imperialism, but not on
one imperialist country. They negotiate with different imperialist blocs and use the
method of pressure-compromise-pressure and bargain with them. We believe that the
old "Maoist" (please take note of the inverted commas) orthodoxy of NDR and PPW
(Protracted people's war) could be implemented in the peculiar semi-colonial semi
feudal socio-economic structure of China and some other East Asian countries and
some countries of Africa and Latin America during a certain period. Now, that old
framework has become obsolete. There is no such thing as 'semi-feudal semi-colonial'
in the structural edifice of Classical Marxist Political Economy; these social formations
emerged in a certain era and now they're gone! But the ML groups of the world are
unnecessarily stuck with the program of NDR, which is not leading them anywhere.
Now I'd like to introduce you to our approach towards Stalin. We believe that the
Socialist experiment of USSR failed due to the economism prevalent in the European
Working Class movement right since the period of Marx. It was based on a misreading
of Marx, which argued that productive forces are the dominant factor and determining
factor, whereas the factor of production relations are a kind of derivative. This is not the
Marxist approach. This economism succeeded in taking deep roots in the Working
class movement of Europe, though Marx fought hard against it. Lenin took cue from
this struggle and continued this fight against economism. But Stalin failed to
understand this struggle. As a result, his conceptualization of building Socialism
became fraught with a number of problems. First, he thought that for the development
of Socialism, we have to develop the productive forces as rapidly as possible. Thats
the reason behind his mistake of pumping surplus out of the agricultural sector and into
the industrial sector, because, industrial productivity has no physical bottle necks as
such, but the agricultural sector does have one, the fertility of the soil. Though this
mistake has also been induced due to the pressure of preparation of the war
machinery. But that cannot be an excuse. There was a problem with the understanding
of Stalin. Secondly, Stalin's conceptualization of Socialist society was not correct. In
1936, he concluded that there are no antagonistic classes in the Soviet Union. He
disowned his claim in 1949, however, this statement shows that his conceptualization
of the socialist society was not based on a rigorous class analysis. Mao, in his 'A
Critique of the Soviet Economics' draws our attention to the problems in the
understanding of Stalin about Socialist transition. These two problems were something,
which Stalin did not invent. He failed to take cue from Lenin, and inherited this
economistic tendency from the Working Class movement of Europe. Now, our
approach about Mao. We believe that Mao was a great dialectician and he succeeded
in continuing the approach of Lenin, in the light of the mistakes of Stalin. We believe
that the basic contribution of Mao wasn't NDR and PPW. It was in fact GPCR. The
principles of GPCR helped in solving the riddle presented by the Soviet experiment. It
took a great leap in the resolution of problems of socialism. A number of people, like
Mr Tyagi think that GPCR is related only with the cultural superstructure. Thats
because they know nothing about GPCR. They haven't even read the documents of
the GPCR. We can discuss about our understanding of Mao's contributions in the
theory of GPCR, sometime else, because it'll take some time. We strictly believe in the
59-point program on Party structure presented by Lenin to the Comintern, which
became the basis of Lenin's party principles. That is why Mr Tyagi is so obsessed with
nomenclature and we're not!
April 30, 2011 at 2:42pm

Abhinav Sinha Anyway, let me now introduce to our works. We are right now working
in 6 states in India. Our main force in deployed in the working class. We have nothing
to do whatsoever with the Magdoff school or the MR School. Mr. Tyagi should be
careful about branding people I think. We are very critical of the MR School. We have
been in the Trade Union movement and working class movement in general for the last
21 years in the North India. We also have cells in at least 15 major universities of India.
We recently led three major workers' movements in North India. About these you can
find details on the internet. First was the Gorakhpur workers' movement; second was
the Almond Workers' Strike in Delhi, which is the largest unorganized sector workers'
movement of Delhi, to this date; and third was the strike of 140 textile factories in the
textile belt of Ludhiana. We have been running various movements of students in Delhi
University, Gorakhpur University and Lucknow University since 2001.
April 30, 2011 at 2:47pm

Abhinav Sinha Dear Mike, I guess I should send you some of our documents in
English. Kindly send me your email id. I'll send you our political literature.
April 30, 2011 at 2:48pm

Abhinav Sinha Lastly, Mike, I do not agree with your analysis of Trotsky's mistakes
and their reasons. I think Trotsky was even more Statist and economistic that Stalin.
You must be knowing his debate with Shlypnikov and Kollontai regarding the trade
unions. He was in the favor of total statization and full party control over the trade
unions. Though, Kollontai and Shlyapnikov also were wrong in advocating full
autonomy of the Trade Unions and giving the functions of State to the Trade Unions.
Lenin was critical of both these extremes. I've commented elsewhere in this debate
about Lenin's position. But I'll not repeat it here because it seems to me that you must
be knowing about this debate.
April 30, 2011 at 2:51pm

Abhinav Sinha Secondly, this is not the question of data or lack of data. This is the
question of approach. Wherever Lenin criticizes Trotsky, he draws our attention to the
problems at the theoretical level. These were the problems from which Trotsky was
never liberated. We do have a critical analysis of the Socialist experiment in the Soviet
Union. But the analysis of Trotsky is Statist. Had Trotsky been at the helm of the affairs
in Soviet Union, the mistakes would have been even more terrible and lethal. The
economism of Stalin was fully shared by Trotsky. I just wanted to know whether you've
read Kostas Mavrakis' book 'On Trotskyism: Problems of Theory and Practice'? It gives
a great insight into the comparison of approaches of Stalin and Trotsky and also
demonstrates the mistakes of Stalin and why they couldn't have been rectified by
Trotsky, had he been there in the Soviet Union. He also shows the problems of
Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution, his aversion to 'Socialism in one country'
and his philosophical views. There is another book by Doug Lorimer called 'Trotsky's
theory of Permanent Revolution: A Leninist Critique'.
April 30, 2011 at 2:57pm

Abhinav Sinha I'm aware of the fact that Trotskyists have been active in some
countries. Even in our neighbouring country Sri Lanka there was a strong Trotskyist-led
movement. However, in most of the cases there presence is in the form of liquidationist
force. Still, I'd like to see and know about these struggles. If you have some documents
about that you can send me at :
April 30, 2011 at 2:59pm

Abhinav Sinha Now let me move to comrade Dave.

April 30, 2011 at 3:00pm

Abhinav Sinha Dear Dave, Its true that the transition from laissez-fair started in the
latter part of the life of Marx and he was able to see the imperialistic tendencies
inherent in the movement of capital. But he wasn't given the time and opportunity to
theorize these changes and suggest the resultant changes in the strategy and general
tactics of proletarian revolution. We find that there is a chapter on 'Share Markets' in
the third volume 'Capital' which is apparently drafted by Engels. It quite clear and
you're right in this respect that they had started to identify the globalizing tendency of
capital. But it is too much to expect from them to reformulate the strategy and general
tactics of revolution according to these changes. Secondly, Marx revised his
assessment of the role of colonialism. He ascribed a dual role to the actions of
colonialism in India and in other countries too. First was the destruction of the
traditional economy and its causing a lot of displacement, poverty, destitution in these
countries by loot and plunder. Secondly, he said that historically colonialism is doing a
progressive job by initiating the process of primitive accumulation and breaking the
inertia of 'Asiatic mode of production'. However, Marx disowned this position and in a
letter to Vera Jasulich (a Russian revolutionary) admitted that he was wrong in
assuming the inertia of the Asiatic mode of production and said that there were
potentialities of capitalist development in these Asian countries; a capitalism of its own
kind. If you want to read that letter and understand the late changes in Marx's
approach towards the colonial question and his late discovery of the fact that the
contradiction between the colonized people and the colonizers is the dominant
contradiction and it has to be resolved first, you can read this book which contains
some rare original documents: 'Late Marx and the Russian Road' (ed by Teodor
Shanin). Its a great book on Marx's method and his observations about advance of
revolution in Russia and other Asian countries.
April 30, 2011 at 3:12pm

Abhinav Sinha Dave, apart from that, I don't believe that there is the stage of
democratic revolution anywhere in the world now. Because with the decolonization
reaching its apogee, and advent of a non-national and non-comprador bourgeoisie in
the newly-independent countries, the democratic task has been fulfilled, though in a
non-revolutionary way. Now we're living in the stage of Socialist revolution, everywhere
in the world and the weak links are the backward post colonial countries of Asia, Africa
and Latin America. But the theory of PDR and two-stage was quite relevant at that
time, when Lenin propounded it. So I don't believe in any theory a-priori. I'm a-priori
only one thing: dialectical! Otherwise, I'll become positivist and empiricist! Please have
a look at the late observations of Marx about Russia and also the rest of Asia and the
so-called 'Asiatic mode of production'. It was nice talking to you...bye!
April 30, 2011 at 3:16pm

Abhinav Sinha Now, you, Mr Tyagi! The answer that you gave to Mike doesn't fulfill
even a single pre-condition of being an answer. Mike had argued that Trotsky's theory
of permanent revolution was quite different from the Lenin's theory of uninterrupted
revolution. You have been argued that Lenin and Trotsky were standing on the same
plane as far as the theory of revolution is concerned. Your answer doesn't have a
single word about it. And for that matter, there is nothing worthy of consideration in
your answer to Mike. Let Mike respond to your pathetic excuse of an answer.
Secondly, you need not to introduce my organizational origins. That shows how
shallow you and your politics are. Shame! Shame!! Thirdly, there was nothing "good"
for me. In fact you must learn how to run a debate in a Marxist way from Mike and
Dave. They say things which are worthy of response. Compare your silly posts with
their posts. Even Mike can identify the "crudeness" of your answers. And lastly, again,
read some Marxism, and also read Trotsky properly. As Mike said, "you bring disgrace
to the memory of Leon Trotsky" and "they have failed to read what Abhinav has
written"! What can I say? You yourself can see the opinion of other interventionists
about your way of "debate"!! Mend your ways, Mr Tyagi! Because otherwise you'll bring
disgrace to yourself, leave alone Leon Trotsky!
April 30, 2011 at 3:23pm

Rajesh Tyagi dear abhinav...from the very beginning except calling names to me, you
are not able to bring out anything sensible...and continue jumping from one to the other omitted to divulge your origins and your political trajectory...coz that will
expose you M-L movement ever emerged out of the naxalbari
uprising...the 'Maoist path' adopted by Charu resulted in complete uprooting of the
peasant uprising at the hands of the bourgeois belong to the
degenerated formation which terrified of the repression after naxalbari uprising ran
away with false theories in hand..
April 30, 2011 at 6:44pm

Rajesh Tyagi look here transformations are in their place and accomplishment of
democratic tasks is another matter...democratic tasks cannot be accomplished in a
non-revolutionary way..transformations carried out through junker path only subjugate
the old contradictions and rather amplify them leaving their resolution for future
revolutions.... capitalist growth in india is always dominated by imperialist capital...and
so the bourgeois state...politicla independence is illusory in backdrop of economic let me know which country in the world today is economically
April 30, 2011 at 6:52pm

Abhinav Sinha Read my post again! Except a few formations (PW, PU, etc.), most of
the other ML groups became critical of Charu's line. Read the history of the movement
properly, then comment on it. You are still stuck with nomenclature! That shows that
politically, you're only good for preparatory school education, or may be a play way!!!
Talk about politics! Name doesn't reveal or expose anything! Its politics! Keep politics
in command, not organization! Thats one of the basic teachings of Lenin. Well, I guess,
its no good to tell you! You yourself prove the names given by me to you are correct!
April 30, 2011 at 6:53pm

Abhinav Sinha Your comments not worthy of reply! Signing out!!

April 30, 2011 at 6:53pm

Rajesh Tyagi you say your group reached the conclusion that it is stage of socilalist
revolution in India, which group??????? was it a research student group which arrived
diametrically opposite conclusions overnight???? truth is somethig else...those who
run away from repression after naxalbari took refuge under the false slogan of SR,
while still rooted in more false and bogus theories of GPCR.....
April 30, 2011 at 6:55pm

Rajesh Tyagi socio-economic system, not only in india, but the world over is since
1900 taken over and subjugated by world capitalism...does it mean democratic tasks
are completed everywhere??? so proletariat after taking power does not have to
address the democratic issues??? this is waht you say: "Our group came to the
conclusion that India is in the stage of Socialist revolution as the democratic tasks have
been fulfilled in a non-revolutionary way". So you mean to say that bourgeois has
practically carried out a democratic revolution, in a non-revolutionary way???? lol
Abhinav...then you must go with bourgoeis and adhere to it firmly...if it can carry out
the democratic revolution yesterday in a non-revolutionary fashion, so it will sure carry
out the socialist tasks of tomorrow in a non-revolutionary fashion...oh sorry!! you are
already you modern apologists for imperialism argue this that the democratic
and socialist tasks need not be carried out in revolutionary fashion, but they can be
carried out in non-revolutionary too...
April 30, 2011 at 7:08pm

Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav...this is further caricature of Maoism: "Our group came to the
conclusion that India is in the stage of Socialist revolution as the democratic tasks have
been fulfilled in a non-revolutionary way" least poor Mao thought that democratic
tasks could be fulfiled only in a revolutionary present the most degenrated
version of even Maoism...absolute crap...
April 30, 2011 at 7:11pm

Rajesh Tyagi you say that the indian bourgeois, which came to power in 1947,
thorugh a compromise with imperialism, fulfilled the task of democratic revolution,
which lenin thought even in 1904, that russian bourgeois cannot mean to
say what russian (imperialist) bourgoeis could not have fulfilled in 1904, the indian
bourgoeis 100 times weaker than russian, enetering upon world stage so belatedly,
could have performed in a non-revolutionary way...aahhhh had lenin know it, why he
should have at all striven to overturn the februray government in russia...the russian
bourgeois would have also fulfilled the tasks in a non-revolutionary way...i think only
your group know that mysterious non-revolutionary way of completing the democratic
April 30, 2011 at 7:16pm

Rajesh Tyagi abhinav, you want to knwo what i think abt cde mike's assertion abt
lenin's uninterrupted revolution and trotsky's permanent let you know
that trotsky has used the word 'uninterrupted' several times even in his initial
work...there is not even slight differenc ebetween the two...lenin is saying the same
thing...under the dictatorship of proletariat an uniterrupted revolution goes on from
resolution of democratic to socialist tasks....this is theory of permanent revolution...
April 30, 2011 at 7:21pm

Rajesh Tyagi we say you are most reliable lackey of bourgeois in india, cause it is you
only after the bourgoeis parties who says that the indian bourgeois has carried out the
democratic tasks without a revolution...this is exactly all apologists of bourgoeis the
world over are telling you...that the tasks of democracy and by the same analogy, of
socialism too, can be carried out by the bourgeois, in a non-revolutionary no
need for a are echoing the same program of bourgeois....the peaceful
gandhian path of democracy and socialism....DAMN YOU....
April 30, 2011 at 7:25pm

Rajesh Tyagi rest is rhetoric....absolutely meaningless....crux is that for you bourgeois

has accomplished the democratic tasks and exhausted the democratic program of the
democraitc revolution in a non-revolutionary us the bourgeois has only
aggravated the conflicts, deepened the contradictions, changed their forms here and
there... we dont find resolution but aggravation of democratic tasks...take for example
the nationality question in Kashmir...
April 30, 2011 at 7:31pm

Rajesh Tyagi bourgoeis has not destroyed the medieval structures as you think, it has
only subjugated them....that means aggravations of contradictions...add upon the old of
new contradictions, not the resolution of the old one...its your intrinsic love for the
national bourgeois and your inherent wish to share bed with it, which is pushing you in
the arms of national bourgeois...seeing the beauty in it...of performing
miracles...resolving the tasks of democratic revolution in a non-revolutionary
way....LOL abhinav...
April 30, 2011 at 7:36pm

Abhinav Sinha I don't think you're in any way eligible to know about nomenclature.
Talk about the politics. Those who can't talk about the politics start talking about
"what's what" and "who's who".
April 30, 2011 at 10:50pm

Abhinav Sinha I can't read any more crap you've written. You don't know about our
group. We've been fighting for worker rights in various parts of the country and we've
been facing state's repression ever since. Look for the news that has appeared in
national dailies about our comrades who had been arrested or tortured by the Police:
the keywords to search are "Gorakhpur workers' movemen", "almond workers' strike,
delhi" and "ludiana textile workers' movement". We are not accumulating capital by
practicing law and proving right as wrong and wrong as right! We've been fighting and
struggling for workers' right. So we don't need to learn the lesson of bravery and
courage from an idler coward big-mouthed mentally ill "law" practicing Trot!! I don't
think you are worthy of a dialog! Since, your retarded mind is drawing flak from all
quarters, now your sick frustration is clearly out in the open. And from here on, there is
no point in debating with a good-for-nothing sitting duck! Now let the world see and
respond to what a retard has to say!! From my end, this debate is over.
April 30, 2011 at 10:57pm

Abhinav Sinha And all your allegations are baseless! There is not a single sentence in
any of my quote that can support your allegations! Let others react to it. I don't have
time to react to this retard crap! Good bye!
April 30, 2011 at 10:59pm

Rajesh Tyagi Dear Abhinav, now this is high time for our readers to judge who is who
and what is what, as you say...the Trade Union struggles you referred to, are the traits
of all economist parties from CPI, CPM to RSP etc.etc. The fact is that for you Trade
Union struggles are everything and politics nothing. You made reference to all trade
union struggles, but to no serious political struggle at all. This is how all economists
understand the concept of 'workers struggle' and for that they were rightly rebuked by
Lenin in 'what is to be done' are sam proginies of robert nite whom lenin
compared with karl leibknecht...economism, which you depict with the slogan-'go to the
masses', is everything for you, and politics is nothing...thats why you are so much
against politicla debates on www, as these debates appear to you the job of : "idler
coward big-mouthed mentally ill "law" practicing Trot" (i am repeating your words)
far as demeaning personal allegations about me and my practice are concerned,
everyone knows what I am doing, so no need to dwell upon that...there are hardly any
'accumulations' and whatever is there is dedicated all time to the service of
revolution...whatever litle i have is hard earned labour...on the contrary (you are forcing
me to say that) you people do nothing to earn your bread even, and put all burden
upon the subscriptions you collect from workers and those who give you ears....instead
of doing something for workers you levy them for the bogus service you presumably
render to them...these trade union subscriptions remain lifeline for all bogus
economists...thats why you are always oriented to the trade union struggles, which you
call 'mass work' onstead of politicla debates and evolution of a program...which of
course is a thankless job and cannot churn out talked about my
source of income, but did not tell yours...if I would tell, thta would embarrass you to the
core...anyway I dont want to dip so low...the issue is that you want to sub-merge the
real political debate in this sort of baseless things...You felt shy of telling about your
organisation and your origins...cause these would direct the audience to the nature of
disputes which remained at helm of the shattering of your organisation, the CLI...CLI
shattered on all personal things. It is in the school of CLI that you learnt this art of
abusing and character did this with all your own comrades and the
CLI came to pieces with tracing your origins would surely come to know the
disputes around: (C) urrency, (L) ust and (I) nsolence, that is how CLI is
doubt, like all other petty-bourgeois organisations you might have gathered some
around you...but this hardly matters in politics...mensheviks always remain in active
majority in the times of peace and defeat of the proleatriat and thats why bourgoeis
remians in power. I remind you that it were not bolsheviks, but mensheviks even upto
July 1917, who held sway eevn upon wokers soviets, while SRs held over
peasantry...however it was not Mensheviks or SRs...but the bolsheviks who came to
power in october...the very same workers and peasants who followed the lead of
mensheviks and SRs till July 1917, made a radical rupture with opportunists and too
abrupt turn to bolsheviks...coz it was bolsheviks who had the real program of revolution
in their dear abhinav its all about the program and not the mass one gathers
around from backward layers of the classes...
May 1, 2011 at 8:58am 1

Abhinav Sinha A comment definitely not worthy of reply! This debate is over!
May 1, 2011 at 9:06am

Rajesh Tyagi your frustration is this: you supported naxalbari mometarily, till it was
subjected to state repression...with repression you ran away with your back towards take shelter under your more bogus concept of socialist tell the state that you have turned inot good boys...but the bogus Maoist
path remained at your never left relinquished it only to the
extent of truning away from the armed peasant struggles carried out under maoist
leadership at naxalbari and running away you were not alone, there were
many...who are marginalised thereafter like that time none of you was aware
of the debates inside Comintern on the russian and chinese you made a
caricature of marxist startegy...borrowing and rejecting arbitrarily from Stalin and
Mao...Trotsly meant nothing for you, as he was defeated in the struggle against
Stalinist bureaucracy. You kept on towing the old line and abusing Trotsky, left-
opposition and permanent revolution, without even taking care to read the debates, just
echoing Mao and Stalin...history dealt rightly with were pushed to as we started the debate relying upon crucial disputes which came up
before Comintern, you have landed in big trouble and thus showing your vent to it in personal allegations against me....finding nothing you
come to my profession assuming that i have accumulated a lot...this is to hide your
complacent ideas where you say that the Indian bourgeois has completed democratic
tasks in a non-revolutionary to the hilt, you now want to take refuge
under personal things, which is special trait of CLI school, but fail in that too...even in
my law practice, as all of you know well, can you point out even a single instance
where i have gone against revolutionary
May 1, 2011 at 9:17am

Rajesh Tyagi Dear Abhinav...I still suggest you that instead of getting so frustrated,
keep your balance...think seriously and come to political debates...instead of making
issues of ego, conversate, if you wish, in the interest of revolution...yes you and all
have the right to challenge me in my personal life too, cause that is never separate
from political life..but then say something intelligible...and tell about yourself first to the
readers...what are your sources of income apart from workers' subscriptions?? your
frustration emenates from the fact that as soon as you turn away from Maoism, you
have to put your feet on trotsky's path, which you have abused for decades...this
creates a political dilemma for you...the only way to get over it is to show the courage
of self-criticism and take a clear turn to trotskyism, the revolutionary marxism-leninism
of our times...don't try to enter into trotsky's house from the back door, that too abusing
him...I though have little hope that you would show such courage...but then let the
readers of these posts decide about it...while we continute the you said you
don't have time to do it...its good for far as we are concerned we are absolutely
clear on this that our place for the time being is not among the 'mass', rather is in the
debates to evolve a program, to arm the advance sections of the proletariat with it and
through it the mass of workers...instead of advising us on the strategy and abusing us
for what we are not doing, do whatever you like...and leave the decision to
May 1, 2011 at 9:29am

Abhinav Sinha Not worthy of reply!

May 1, 2011 at 11:19am

Rajesh Tyagi abhinav you tell us you do not belong to this or that, but still shy of
telling, where you belong to...i am afraid that you may claim tomorrow that 'permanent
revolution' was innovation of your group, and trotsky bororwed it from you...thats why it
is necessary for us all to know wherestands your group today and whose behalf are
you arguing?? you want to keep both hands free to cross the floor at fact, trait
of political oportunism of extreme kind is that it does not have any feet to stand in say we must talk of politics...but before we talk of politics, we must know
where you stand??? the fact is you stand nowhere...with demise of Stalinism and
Maoism, you have started to turn away, but feel shy of accepting you run away
from Maoist path, shouting "long live maoism"...CPI Maoist openly defending Maoism...
May 1, 2011 at 7:08pm

Rajesh Tyagi you say your group had conducted there trade union struggles...which
group anyway and with what program, what politics...its mystery to which group you
belong to...bolsheviks were aprt of second international...broke away with it, to form the
third...which international you belong to??? lol
May 1, 2011 at 7:10pm

Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav, admittedly you are a nationalist tendency....and in fact stand
consciously in opposition to proletarian internationalism, as it does not contain any
meaning for you, except a simple arithmatical conglomeration of national
say you are bulit up in several states, by which you mean you collect subscriptions to
run the bureaucratic clique in the name of 'group'...which time to time fights over
'control of funds' and divides in further are accusing us of not doing
anything!! do you know in how many countries we are bulit up??? do you know we
were leading the wisconsin workers struggle??? lol... In almond workers' struggle the
role you people played is not a secret now...very truly you are not a party, nor you can
be after betraying the naxalbari are a economist trade union sect, living
on subscriptions from workers, in lieu of your services to their trade short
you are no more than an established tarde union bureaucracy...which has to be fought
against if workers movement has to go forward...
May 1, 2011 at 7:21pm

Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav, let me know buddy, after saying that junker type tranformation
of land relations has taken place, does lenin deduce a conclusion that the democratic
task of land reforms is assume so...totally incorrect...the tansformation
of feudal lanlordism in capitalist landlordism, following penetration of capital into the
rural regions, leads to further comlication of the democratic tasks and prepares more
volcanoic base for proletarian revolution, flaring up the old contradictions with the fuel
of new...but you say indian bourgeois has accomplished the democratic tasks,
specially land reforms, in a non-revolutionary way...for you the tasks of rural
unemployment and the deeping of caste polarisation is not part of democratic
revolution...with its core agrarian content...your home made recipe of SR line neither
fits in Stalinist Maoist or Trotskyist politics...
May 1, 2011 at 7:28pm

Rajesh Tyagi you say indian bourgeois is neither national nor

comprador...hushhhh....but you fail to say what it is then??? Indian bourgeois?
plain??? in that sense all bourgeois belong to some or the other country!! you fail to
understand that Indian bourgeois is both at a time and simultaneously...national and
comprador...national cause the world capitalism is still rooted in national structures
ruled by local groups of capitalists...comprador because in the age of imperialism there
can't be an independent national bourgeois at par with the old european national
bourgeois of 18th-19th century...contrary to your baseless assumptions the no national
bourgeois is politically or economically independent...economically they depend on
each other with metros dominating the periphery and politically the world regime of
capital now dictates every national government from US to Nepal..though once again
metros get upper hand, with US at their lenin teaches us in his 'imperialism'
that formal political independence of nations becomes illusory under the conditions of
imperialism...this is more true, rather absolutely true in our times than lenin's....but you
refute say Indian bourgeois is politically independent...and that it has carried
out democratic reforms in a non-revolutionary way...i don't think a poltical group under
the banner of marxism, can chant better sermons in praise of bourgoeis than
this...thats why we say that you all lackeys of Indian bourgeois and consequently of slogans are cover up for your real politics....DAMN YOU
May 1, 2011 at 7:51pm

Rajesh Tyagi and abhinav for you the political struggle by us against your opportunist
group on www is not workers' struggle....workers struggle for you is in TRADE-UNIONISM..ECONOMISM...ROBERT NITES OF
May 1, 2011 at 9:01pm

Abhinav Sinha Well, your comment is too filthy and non-sense to be replied!! Not
worthy of a reply!! Any reader who'll read this debate will know what are you and what
am I? I need not to reply to a big-mouthed idler ignorant non-reading Trot!!
May 1, 2011 at 10:07pm

Rajesh Tyagi lol abhinav...they all know you n me....

May 1, 2011 at 10:08pm

Rajesh Tyagi and whats filthy in it??? lol

May 1, 2011 at 10:08pm

Abhinav Sinha Non-question!! Not worthy of answer!!!

May 2, 2011 at 12:45am

Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav...your chanting about the 'mass-work', reminds me of the

christian misionaries, rather than a revolutionist...who declares for roof-top that his
mission is to 'serve the people'...the flop show of demand-charter agitation you carried
out on May Day is a live example of your bogus politics...instead of calling upon the
workers to turn to poor pesantry for support, you aksed them to present demands to
what you call 'peoples' representatives' serious revolutionary could ever think of
making the workers kneel down before the agents of bourgeois..whom you address as
'peoples' representatives' always, you tried to copy the Chartists of 1840
chartists were right in breaking that way from bourgeois, organisationally and
politically...but in 2011 you are completely reactionsry in copying their program...the
trade union you have under your bureaucratic control, is turned into an instrument to
deliver the workers to the feet of turned the glorious May Day into a
day of treachery and collaboration with ruling sowed the worst illusions in
the minds of workers as to the role and charcter of bourgoeis politicians...your
economist trade unionism is a trap for working class...DAMN YOU......
May 2, 2011 at 9:08am

Rajesh Tyagi abhinav, and what sort of 'mass-support' you claim....when the rally you
planned on May Day just turned out to be a flop-show of not even a handful in you understand this is your net outcome of the 'mass work'...of
which you were boasting so loud...i think this is time for you to introspect, instead of
hurling abuses on trotskyists...revolutionists are not going to get anything from mass
work at this stage, as masses follow the lead of bourgeois in times of comparative
peace between the classes...they turn to us in tumultous are warrior of
leace times, like the war time will approach you will show your back as
you did in continue to shout "mass mass" only till masses turn up to
revolution...the monent masses turn up, you will be on the run like ever
can see with open eyes that masses today are behind the bourgeois leadership and
with those who follow lead of bourgeois...CPI-CPM....we focus on defending the
foundations of revolutionary marxism in fight against the alien trends like you in these
times of history....preparing ourselves to address the upheavels of the future, when
real masses will turn to that a real red-army may be trotsky
raised it in october brand us 'idlers'...I told you about the mass influence
we exert in revolutionary was in 1905 that trotsky was unanimously elected
president of the first workers soviet in was repeated in 1917...big
mouthed people like you keep dancing only till real dance starts...the monent it starts,
you vanish like the morning star...tell me frankly, where your mass work has taken
you...what mass follows you anyway??? NONE...
May 2, 2011 at 9:27am

Rajesh Tyagi are making 'a handle' out of the cries for 'mass work'
against us, who are seriously building a revolutionary program from all sides to arm the
advanced layers of workers and youth with it...your 'mass work' is nothing but an
apology for divesting from the real but arduous work of debating a program...your
mass-work is outright diversion from the path which led bolsheviks to triumph in
october...conscious workers rightly and simply ignore this therefore take
refuge in most backward layers of preach economism...look at yourself in
this mirror at least once...
May 2, 2011 at 9:33am

Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav, the bureaucratic "Trust" you have made, over and above all
political organisations, functioning through 'paid' employees, cannot lead workers to
revolution...degenerated as you are, can only infect the working class with ocunter-
revolutionary plague of Maoism...thats exactly your role inside the left camp, albeit as
an intruder....
May 2, 2011 at 9:46am

Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav, you say this.......: "It was mainly due to the fact that there
emerged... a bourgeoisie in the colonized countries which either didn't have the will or
the ability to fulfill the democratic tasks. Therefore, the proletariat was entrusted
with the responsibility of accomplishing the Democratic as well as the Socialist
tasks" borrowed this from us, so we absolutely agree to this position......but it is
you who has hereinbefore argued that Indian bourgeois has completed the democratic
tasks in 'prussian way' according to you the indian bourgeois later sezed that
entrustment by history of democratic tasks to the proletariat...and completed them in a
'prussian way' by 1960's...instead of saying that the bourgoeis instead of
accomplishing these democratic tasks, has deepened the contradictions out of which
these tasks emerge....instead of drawing a balance sheet of bourgeois rule of last 60
years in a revolutionary declare that indian bourgeois has completed the
democratic tasks in 'prussian way' don't understand the difference between
penetration of world capitalism and the resolution of democratic tasks...democratic
tasks can never be resolved by bourgeois rule....they are essentially passed over to
the future revolutions...
May 2, 2011 at 10:21am

Rajesh Tyagi are playing treachery upon your fact, while
abusing trotsky you have stealthily borrowed many things from him to transplant in
your nationalist and bogus idea of SR in India...e.g. the character of indian bourgeois,
which you say is neither national nor comprador, is basically a clever but distorted steal
of trotsky's analysis that national bourgoeis is comprador at the same time....your
concept of indian bourgeois being junior partner of Imperialist bourgoeis is neinther
Stalinist nor Maoist, but a clear distorted deduction from feel shy to admit
it that you are borrowing from the man you abuse have turned away from
Maoist path only to the extent you have borrowed trotsky..but alas you drew a
caricature of his theories too, in an attempt to reconcile them with that of Stalin and
Mao...your pretensions that you have innovated something are fasle to the core and
are handle to befool your unsuspecting have practically made a jumble
of opposing make a false claim that you have invented a new
path....however, neither you know about national nor comprador character of
bourgeois, and how all bourgoeis finds place between these two extremes....your
posts, if they depict anything, they depict your MENTAL PARALYSIS.....
May 2, 2011 at 10:37am

Rajesh Tyagi this MENTAL proved by your repeated advisory upon
your opponents to read marx, lenin and trotsky...instead of answering to the issues
raised by them....this depicts your misconception that you have already read
them...though as your posts show...despite of cut-paste from '', you never
permit even your posts to go inside your continue to churn them out in a
parrot like manner...without caring to understand them and without any care that they
speak rather against you...misplaced assumption that you have 'read' marxism, is the
symptom of your 'MENTAL PARALYSIS' far as we are concerned we humbly
submit that we are no more than students of marx and lenin and ever will be....and will
continue our quest for understanding of marxism......your arrogance is not something
personal but emerges out of your petty-bourgoeis stance in politics....
May 2, 2011 at 10:49am

Rajesh Tyagi you ask what you borrowed direct from trotsky, it is this where you
say...:"The bourgeoisie of these countries cannot be force-fit into orthodox ML binary of
'national' or 'comprador'. The bourgeoisie of these post-colonial backward capitalist
societies are junior partner of imperialism. They are dependent for technology and
capital on imperialism, but not on one imperialist country. They negotiate with different
imperialist blocs and use the method of pressure-compromise-pressure and bargain
with them." this all you borrowed from trotsky, from his plank where he opposed
Stalinism...but without reference to him...this is political plagiarism...worst act one can
do in politics....
May 2, 2011 at 11:03am

Rajesh Tyagi though this is very superficial understanding of trotsky and his theory of
permanent revolution...but your conservative bureaucratic brains can hardly go beyond
that as all your focus is now to defend yourself in new world conditions....against you embrace trotskyism, though from behind, to evade the
May 2, 2011 at 11:06am

Rajesh Tyagi the position of you, the real clowns, comes to this: YOU
shift stealthily to the political positions of trotsky, albeit under sloganeering.."long live
Mao zedong thought"...this makes You people real jokers in political circus of Stalinism
and Maoism....
May 2, 2011 at 11:10am

Rajesh Tyagi you argue this: Stalinism and Maoism were right yesterday, so long live
Stalinism and they are obsolete....but still down with trotsky...the fact
is Stalinism and Moaism are not the formulas of past or present...they are counter-
revolutionary doctrines standing in direct opposition to trotskyism....yesterday, today
and tomorrow...they stand where thye were, but you keep jumping here and there like
monkeys....having lost all sense of a political dialogue...
May 2, 2011 at 11:15am

Abhinav Sinha Your frustration is evident in your posts now!! You've gone nuts,
buddy!!! Chill!!!
May 2, 2011 at 2:03pm

Abhinav Sinha Still your posts are worthy of only this reaction: HA! HA! HA!!
May 2, 2011 at 2:03pm

Abhinav Sinha Not worthy of answer! Readers will read the whole debate and will
know what they're to no!! I'll not spend a single calorie now to respond to a crackpot!!
May 2, 2011 at 2:04pm

Sunny Singh @ rajesh Tyagi. Ha Ha Ha. By the way LOlist Mr. Tyagi do you know
1+1=2? Ok leave it you can still debate over it with your Lolism. You are not worthy a
May 2, 2011 at 3:16pm

Rajesh Tyagi Sunny why are you appearing proxy for abhinav, speak for yourself!!! lol
May 2, 2011 at 5:24pm

Rajesh Tyagi abhinav, your whole mass approach comes to do not have
even a fraction of mass base what CPI-CPM have today....CPI-CPM are no match in
theri turn in the field to the mass base fo congress and can this be the
criteria??? your whole mass work was made a mockery with your failure to gather even
a handful of workers at Jantar Mantar on 2nd of May...still I say...even if one gathers a
hundred thousand of them, it hardly peace times conservatives like you
reamain ahead for sure...revolutionary tendencies come up only in revolutionary cheer up buddy with your mass work...we are not oriented towards
economism and trade unioninsm...
May 2, 2011 at 5:30pm

Rajesh Tyagi anyway you can still chk this: http://new-wave-
May 2, 2011 at 5:31pm

Rajesh Tyagi this article presents a mirror for you to have a look at your image..
May 2, 2011 at 5:33pm

Rajesh Tyagi militant only in postures..capitulationist in deeds...

May 2, 2011 at 5:35pm

Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav....the trade union struggles you refer to at ludhiana, delhi and
gorakhpur...are the kind of economic struggles where workers hardly need any political
leadership...just secretarial assistance...and as lenin puts it...workers can conduct it
well even without us...on their remain there to form a bureuacratic crust over
it and to make false claims that its "YOUR" movement...for no use
remained present in a trade union agitation..does it mean anything in politics??? Don't
you take bureaucratic false pride and credit in that????
May 2, 2011 at 5:42pm

Abhinav Sinha Again, not worthy of response! Cannot afford to write long answers to
a political retard! Keep enjoying the monologue!! Rest the readers will decide when
they read the whole exchange. Enjoy your crap unto yourself!!
May 2, 2011 at 7:42pm

Sunny Singh Mr. Rajesh Tyagi looks you a very low threshold of excitation... You dont
want to understand your faults. You dont undersatnd a process, just are stuck in
barriers.. Well anyone can see your posts and understand your "foolishness in
process", but dont bother you can not understand that. Mr. Lolist!!
May 2, 2011 at 8:20pm

Rajesh Tyagi sunny let me be stuck...but why don't you think with your brains, why do
you echo abhinav...??? as if you are other mouth for him!!! lol
May 2, 2011 at 8:24pm

Sunny Singh Why you write in english? why not device a language for you and your
idiotism? I am standing with logic and science, which I seriously doubt for you....
May 2, 2011 at 8:27pm

Rajesh Tyagi sunny you ppl are figures in a dumbo...

May 2, 2011 at 8:32pm

Abhinav Sinha Not dumbo, Mr Tyagi, you are plain and simple DUMB!!
May 2, 2011 at 9:24pm

Rajesh Tyagi abhinav...may be we shd leave the matter here...its not
remianing political now...else i dont like...wont fight for egos..good bye...
May 2, 2011 at 9:25pm

Abhinav Sinha Good bye, Mr Tyagi! Thats what I've been demanding for last 3 days!
Just look at my pleas in my previous posts!!
May 3, 2011 at 12:58am