RD April 2023 For E Circulation 1

REVOLUTIONARY DEMOCRACY
Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023
CONTENTS
Protecting Civil Rights of Lawyers Under Conditions of
Hooligan Raj, Padam Kumar.................................................... 3
The BJP Government’s Budget 2023-24, NTUI............................ 6
‘Revdi’ Culture, Political Economy of ‘Freebies’, K.B. Saxena.... 9
The significance of the 30th Anniversary of the Dissolution of the
Soviet Union, Raul Martinez.................................................... 24
A Marxist Position regarding Russian imperialism,
Georgian Communists............................................................... 49
Putin and Soviet Symbolism, Scintilla........................................... 56
What Does a Multipolar World Mean,
Towards Marxist Leninist Unity............................................... 60
“Multilateralism”, a key instrument of Chinese imperialism’s
foreign policy, Communist Platform, Italy............................... 64
Struggle against Warmongering in the Balkans,
Revolutionary Alliance of Labour, Serbia................................ 75
Obituary and Tributes: Ramkotesh Kamepalli (1954-2022) 83
Tributes: Naeem Qureshi (1952- 2022) 89
Book Review: A study of women farmers under Kudumbashree
collective farming in Kerala, K.B. Saxena................................ 92
Condemn the attack on Burji anti camp protestors, Bijapur,
Forum Against Corporatization and Militarization................. 100
Stop the genocidal attack by the Indian State against its own
people, CDRO................................................................... 102
On Corruption in the Post War Soviet Union,
Letter of P. Golub to I.V. Stalin, (30 July 1946)....................... 104
On the New Letter of Yaroshenko, (10th January 1953),
I.V. Stalin................................................................................... 125
Late Soviet Evaluations of Baran, Sweezy and Bettelheim,
Ekonomicheskaya Entsiklopedia............................................... 130
The Use of Identity Politics to Undermine the Left, Anna Coco. 133
Down with the Parliamentary Coup D’état,
Communist Party of Peru (ML)............................................... 140
We Are For A Socialist Homeland Where The Working Class,
The Poor Peasantry And The Peoples Of Peru Can Realize
Their Class Aspirations, Communist Party of Peru (ML)....... 143
Statement on Recent Events in Iran, Toufan................................. 146
No to chauvinist provocations and warmongers in the Balkans!
Statement of European Parties of the ICMLPO...................... 149
Nazim Hikmet: When The Poet Is Communist, Aydın Çubukçu... 152
Poem: Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, Yiannis Rits........................ 162
Illustrations
Front and Back Cover: Chittaprosad, Untitled, Brush, pen and
ink on paper, December 1951.
Inside Front Cover: Ramkotesh Kamepalli (1954-2022).
Inside Back Cover: Naeem Qureshi (1952- 2022).
Editorial Board
Tahir Asghar, Malem Ningthouja, Ashim Roy, Vijay Singh,
Ramkotesh Kamepalli, C.N. Subramaniam.
Editorial Address
K-67, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi-110014.
Web-site
www.revolutionarydemocracy.org
E-mail addresses
editor_revdem@rediffmail.com
editor_revdem@yahoo.com
Views expressed in signed articles are those of authors and

not necessarily of the Editorial Board.
Published Half-Yearly for Revolutionary Democracy by Vijay Singh from K-67, FF,
Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014, and printed by him at Progressive Printers,
A-21, Jhilmil Industrial Area, G.T. Road , Delhi-95.Editor: Vijay Singh.
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS OF LAWYERS
UNDER CONDITIONS OF HOOLIGAN RAJ
Padam Kumar
On 22 March 2023 Sonu Mansoori, a 23-year-old Muslim law intern of
tribal origin, got bail after being in jail for almost two months. She was
granted bail by the Supreme Court of India because the Bajrang Dal, an
RSS wing, and its supporters didn’t allow Mansoori’s lawyers to appear
before the court of judicial magistrate and session or the High Court in
MP’s Indore.
The first law graduate from a daily wage earner family, Mansoori
wasn’t asking for any special favour. She just wanted what was her right
as an Indian citizen. Albeit a false FIR had been registered against her,
she was not seeking quashing of it. She only wanted that she be allowed
to present her case before the court through her lawyers. Her lawyers
were not allowed to appear before the district court or the High Court
Bench in the city.
The Delhi lawyers, who went to Indore to file a bail application for
Mansoori, were threatened and forced to leave the city. These lawyers re-
alized that what they were against was something extraordinary: a com-
munal hooliganism of the worst kind which was supported by the state
government. Where there is state-supported communalism, those who
advocate constitutional rights are labeled traitors.
Mansoori was arrested on 27 January 2023 from inside the court
room. But she wasn’t arrested by the police, rather by the members of the
Bajrang Dal (the lumpen front of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or
RSS). They frisked her without any authority to do so. Their allegations
oozed of communal bias.
Mansoori was carrying Rs 1,25,000/- when she was taken into custo-
dy. Those who frisked her were advocates and members of the Bajrang
Dal. Those “learned” hooligans concluded that if the girl was carrying
that much money it surely meant that she was a criminal. The Bajrang
Dal members also accused her of video graphing the court’s proceedings.
In January this year a movie named Pathan featuring a Muslim Bol-
lywood actor was due to get released. For obvious reasons, the Bajrang
Dal was against its release and carried out protests. During a protest
they raised slogans against Prophet Muhammad. A Muslim man lodged a
Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 3

police complaint against the protestors. An FIR was filed. The man who
was leading the crowd of the protesters was one Tanu Sharma.
After the FIR was lodged, his supporters feared that he would be
arrested. So, they moved an interim bail application in the court. A Delhi
based lawyer Ehtesham Hashmi came to the Indore District Court to
oppose the bail. The local lawyers felt offended and tried to stop Hashmi
from pleading in the court and Hashmi managed to file the objection with
difficulty and return to Delhi.
The next day that is on 27 January 2023 a second bail application
was moved in Indore court for the release of Sharma. Delhi-based lawyer
Hashmi, unable to appear personally, requested his sister Nurjahan, an
advocate in Indore, to keep an eye on the bail proceedings and update
him on the matter. Adv Nurjahan sent Sonu Mansoori, one of her interns,
to the court to check on the status. Mansoori is currently a student of
LLB 3rd year.
As she was about to leave for the court Nurjahan requested Mansoori
to also “collect a fee from a client on her way to the court”. That was how
she was carrying Rs 125,000 in her pocket. In the court room, some law-
yers who knew that Sonu Mansuri was Nurjahan’s intern, rounded her
up. They not only searched the girl without the authority to do so but also
made a video of their act. Afterward, an FIR under Section 419/420/120-
B was registered against Mansoori at Mahatma Gandhi Road Police Sta-
tion. FIR no. is 38/2023.
Even though there was no prima facie crime, the FIR was registered
and Mansoori was accused of cheating and criminal conspiracy. The
complainant of the said FIR was an advocate named Surendra Singh
Alva. One lakh rupee found in her pocket was enough for those with
communal prejudices to pronounce Mansoori a member of a banned or-
ganization.
When Mansoori was arrested and produced before the court, instead
of sending her to the judicial custody, the court thought it appropriate to
send her to police remand. A person is sent on police remand only when
the police expect to recover something from the accused. But it is worth
mentioning that even in the FIR, there was no hint of such expectation
by the police.
Today, even after two months, nothing has been ‘recovered’ from
Mansoori. By sending her to the police remand, only enabled the police
to beat her up in custody. Meanwhile advocate Nurjahan had to leave the
city due communal targeting. Initially Nurjahan’s name was not in the
FIR, but it was added to it subsequently.
4 Revolutionary Democracy
Given the extra-constitutional clout of the Bajrang Dal no one in the
bar dared to come forward to apply for Mansoori’s bail. Failing to get
a lawyer from the city, four lawyers from Delhi, Adv. Mohit Sood, Adv
Padam Kumar, Adv Amit Srivastava and Adv Pratyush Nilotpal, volun-
teered to assist her. The writer of this note is Padam Kumar.
In Indore’s court premise, sensing the hostility, the team realized that
it would be better if we inform the police about our presence in the city
and ask for security. An intimation letter was sent to the DCP office with-
out any positive response. The MG Road police station merely warned,
“we will not be responsible if you are attacked”.
After this we went to the Bar Association of Indore District Court.
Only one office bearer spoke to us. His name was Adv Panditiya. Even
he requested us not to interfere in the case. He told us that the people
there were mad and if we were to be attacked, the Bar Association could
do nothing. He warned us that it would be better if we left Indore as soon
as possible.
One of the two local advocates who were helping us in the case met
with a road accident under suspicious circumstances and got injured. The
other advocate also started receiving threatening phone calls. Neverthe-
less, we somehow managed to file the bail application.
After getting the application filed, all four of us went to the MG Road
Police Station. There the police officer said in no ambiguous terms that,
“we do not guarantee your safety.” We considered filing a petition in the
High Court only a few metres away, but had to give up due to constant
physical threat and stalking.
Back in Delhi, our team sought the help of senior Adv Tyagi who
filed a case in the Supreme Court with the help of AOR Dr. Anil Bakshi.
Meanwhile Adv Hashmi died under suspicious circumstances.
However, the writ petition was filed on 11 February 2023. The case
was to be presented before the Division Bench of Justice Rastogi and
Justice Bela Trivedi on March 13. Three arguments took place in 10
days and on March 22, the court granted interim relief to Mansoori and
granted her bail. The rest of the merits of the writ petition would be heard
later.
Under such a situation it is natural to conclude that the rule of law
and the constitution does not prevail in Indore which is dominated by
extreme right-wing forces. It requires the Supreme Court to intervene
and protect minimal rights of citizens, and that too at extreme risks for
the concerned lawyers fighting for civil rights.

THE BJP GOVERNMENT’S BUDGET 2023-24:
IN THE FACE OF GROWING INEQUALITY, TAX BREAKS FOR
THE RICH WHILST CLAIMING TO ADDRESS
THE NEEDS OF THE POOR
New Trade Union Initiative

At a time when working people are faced with job losses and rising un-
employment, inflation and the erosion of real wages and rapidly widen-
ing income and asset inequalities, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the
BJP government think it is just the right time to lower income tax for the
middle class, the rich and the superrich whilst cutting the government’s
expenditure on food rations, MNREGA, ICDS, healthcare and education
in the Budget Statement 2023-34 (BS). They want us to believe that all
this is possible because the ‘Amrit Kaal’ (golden age) has arrived. What
has certainly arrived is the institutionalised capacity of government, un-
der the BJP, to fudge and fabricate numbers hoping to create an illusion
that all is well.
The economic crisis today is deep and there are no easy solutions
out of it. The truth also is that, for India, the economic crisis began with
the introduction of demonetisation in 2016. It has persisted and gotten
aggravated by Covid, the supply chain crisis that followed and then the
commodity price shock caused by the Ukraine War. We are today such a
heavily indebted economy that the single largest expenditure of the gov-
ernment is interest payments on borrowings. Twenty out of every hun-
dred rupees of government expenditure today will go to interest payment
on the loans taken by the government. In a year from now, government
debt will be more than 50% of our GDP making our economy even more
unstable than it already is.
The government debt also comes at the cost of reduction in income
taxes which will in 2023-24 alone result in a loss of revenue to govern-
ment of Rs. 35,000 crores. The reduced income taxes will most of all
benefit the superrich (people with annual incomes of above Rs. 5 crores)
most of all who will pay about three percentage points of their income
less in taxes. With this, there is also an increased tax shelter on profits
from the sale of high-value property.
The reduction in income tax brings no benefit to anyone who earns
less than Rs. 25,000 a month which means this keeps out the vast major-
ity of the working class – contract workers, the crores of workers who
are on the minimum wage and of course honorarium, domestic and agri-
culture and other rural workers who don’t even earn the minimum wage.
With the Goods and Service Tax on medicines and food products the
poorest worker, in the country, contributes a greater share of their wages
in taxes to the government than the superrich pay in all forms of taxes.
The Budget will only contribute to the ever-growing inequality between
the rich and the poor in the country.
To add to this gains for the rich and decline in benefits for the work-
ing people: the BS has reduced expenditure by nearly one-third on food
rations (by Rs. 100,000 crores) and on NREGA (by Rs. 28000 crores)
as compared to the last year (2022-23). This means there will be less
food available through the PDS and even less employment under the
NREGA. Even funds for the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi have
been reduced. So much for the promise of doubling farmers income by
2022! The expenditure on healthcare, ICDS and education has barely
been touched. This means in reality the expenditure will be lower for all
these services when adjusted for inflation.
Reduced expenditure on social security and social protection will
mean lower earnings for working rural households (reduced NREGA),
increased expenditure on food (reduced rations) and additional expendi-
ture in the private sector because of reduction in healthcare, ICDS (both
healthcare and nutrition for children under 6) and education expenditure
by the government.
The possibility of any of this reduced union government expenditure
being compensated by increased expenditure by state governments also
does not exist with central transfers to state governments being increased
only by a fraction and at any rate lower than the rate of inflation.
The rich and the superrich will in contrast have more money to spend
on luxury goods as a result of their reduced tax payments. More demand
for luxury goods does not grow the economy because there is already an
excess supply of them and a lot of them are imported.
In 2019, just before the pandemic, the BJP government had dramat-
ically reduced taxes on private companies lowering them by one-third.
The BJP said it will increase private investment creating more jobs and
higher wages. That did not happen. Private companies distributed their
increased profits as dividends to their owners and shareholders.
It is widely accepted that reduced taxes on the rich and on companies
do not contribute to investment and growth but the BJP continues to
spread this myth.
Despite all the bombast about government investment being high and
being increased dramatically to a level higher than in 2015, it is still
lower than before the BJP came to government. The rate of savings and
investment by the private sector have at all times been lower than they
were in 2014. Despite the BJP’s clearly pro big business policies, the
capitalist class has as a whole expressed little, if any confidence, in the
BJP. There is no evidence that government investment is helping to raise
private sector investment. Added to that, government investment figures
are in name only – less than half the roads, water lines and houses that
were promised in the last budget have been built.
Low levels of investment result in fewer new jobs, lower wages, low-
er demand for basic goods and therefore lower economic growth which
then leads the cycle to repeat. When it comes accompanied by high in-
flation especially in basic goods and food products it wipes our working
class incomes and lives as the last several years have done.
As if this was not bad enough today we received data for the month
of January 2023 which tell us that manufacturing exports have declined
while our import expenditure keeps rising. If this situation persists, as
the BJP government’s Economic Survey 2022-23 admits is a likelihood,
then our foreign exchange balances (current account deficit) will come
under threat. With no goods worthy of sale in international markets, de-
spite all the sloganeering, of Make In India and Atmanirbhar Bharat, this
situation will lower the value of the rupee in relation to the US dollar and
other strong foreign currencies resulting in an even sharper rise in prices
and greater economic instability.
With the Indian capitalist class having subordinated themselves to
foreign and imperialist interests, for their capital investment needs, ably
assisted by the BJP government for nearly 9 years now, our economy
stands at a precarious place that will only cost the working class dear.
This situation calls upon the trade union to be vigilant and build re-
sistance against the reduction in expenditure on social security and social
protection and a stop to all income tax breaks. Our resistance must be
lead us to a struggle for an economic policy that delivers a job for every
worker, a just minimum wage for every job, universal access to health,
free education for all and a roof over every head to reverse the growing
inequality and to create an equitable and just society.
To this end, the New Trade Union Initiative will take forward a coun-
trywide agitation from Monday 13 March 2023 the day parliament re-
sumes following its recess.
Gautam Mody
General Secretary
‘REVDI’ CULTURE
POLITICAL ECONOMY OF ‘FREEBIES’
K.B. Saxena
Election time throws up new fault lines in political discourse between
the ruling party and the opposition. The latest one relates to canvassing
for votes by political parties on the basis of programmes and promises
they offer to seek the support of the voters. Never to miss an opportuni-
ty to castigate the States for their irresponsible politics and governance
and showing up in contrast its own party and governments in amorally
high position, the PM set the cat among the pigeons by seeking to dele-
gitimise welfare announcements by political opponents. The immediate
context was provided as Delhi Chief Minister (C. M.), Kejriwal of Aam
Admi Party (AAP) announced free electricity, free rides in public buses
for women, waiver of arrears on water bills ahead of polls in Munici-
pal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) (Delhi) and similar such offers in the
election campaign in Gujarat and HP. The PM accused that some States
governments are indulging in ‘revdi’ culture (revdi is a popular north
Indian winter crunchy sweet made of sesame and Jaggery) or freebies
to secure votes while its Government is creating new infrastructure. He
cautioned the voters against it as this short-cut politics is bound to face
a short circuit. (Nivedita, 2022) He also said that this offer of freebies
was dangerous for the development of the country and buying votes on
this basis is analogous to bribery. The media soon picked up the cue and
highlighted the fiscal health of States by referring to the Reserve Bank of
India’s report published in June 2022 which linked the precarious State
finances to freebies and Comptroller and Auditor General (CAGs)’ report
that the share of subsidies in total revenue expenditure of the States had
risen to 8.2% in 2021 from 7.8% in 2019-20 with some States spending
10% of their resources. An article in the Reserve Bank of India Reserve
Bank of India (RBI) bulletin pointed out that based on State Gross Do-
mestic product, Punjab, Rajasthan, Kerala, West Bengal, Bihar, Andhra
Pradesh (A.P.), Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh (M.P.), Haryana and Uttar
Pradesh (U.P.) (mostly opposition-ruled states) have the highest debt.
But what is not mentioned in the report is that indebted States have had a
historical focus on social welfare expenditure (cited in Ghosh, 2022).The
Supreme Court waded into this debate while hearing a Public Interest

Litigation (PIL) filed by Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay, former spokesper-
son of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) seeking to curb the practice of offering
irrational freebies at the cost of public money, suggested setting up an
expert committee with members from the centre, States, Niti Ayog, Elec-
tion Commission, RBI and opposition parties to deliberate on the matter.
It also stressed the need to create a balance between providing welfare
measures and the economic strain on the exchequer (Nivedita, 2022).
Facing strong criticism from political parties and section of civil society,
in subsequent hearing, the top court reiterated this ‘judicial overreach’ by
questioning the difference between welfare schemes and freebies. Can
the promise of subsidy on power seeds and fertiliser to small and mar-
ginal farmers and free health care and drinking water be considered as
freebies? Can we treat promises of consumer products and electronics
free of cost for all as a welfare measure, it asked? (Nivedita, 2022) The
Election Commission in an affidavit to the Supreme Court earlier had
declined to regulate the promises made by political parties as it is a part
of its public activities and had stated that it would be an overreach of its
powers. Surprisingly, however, it re-entered into the debate after PM’s
comments and took a U-turn (Nath, 2022).It has written to the heads
of recognised national and state political parties to declare the infor-
mation on such promises, including the extent of coverage of promise,
cost to the exchequer, the ways in which expenditure would be met and
the implications for the State and Union government’s finances. It also
prescribed a format for this purpose which would include details of the
State or union government’s receipts and expenditure. This information
would be included in the model code of conduct. Election Commission
(EC) justified this notice to political parties by asserting that the infor-
mation sought does not affect political parties’ right to announce what
they consider appropriate. (Nath, 2022) This is obviously more than a
subtle attempt to regulate the politics of States and would bring the State
government’s fiscal health into political discourse.
Not surprisingly, opposition parties slammed the Prime Minister,
saying that welfare measures are not freebies and vehemently opposed
BJP’s comments. They also criticised the overreach of the Election
Commission and viewed the top court’s wading into the debate as ‘ju-
dicial overreach’, which undermines the democratic process. They have
also sought the court’s permission to join the proceedings in the matter.
(Ghosh, K., 2022) Tamilnadu (T N) Finance Minister even asserted that
no political party will heed this sanctimonious intent. (Nivedita, 2022)
Politics apart, the concept of ‘freebies’ itself suffers from definitional
ambiguity. It is a generic term that has no definition. (Pant, cited in
Ghosh, 2022). It has no precisely defined legal framework. In common
parlance, freebies are defined as goods and services offered free of cost.
Any attempt to define it is fraught with contestation and anomalies. This
is exemplified by a critic through three possible models (Bestin, Steuwer,
2022). 1) an investment in public goods such as education and health is
justified as a welfare measure while distribution of private consumption
goods are viewed as freebie. In this argument, PDS (Public Distribution
System) would be regarded as a freebie though it is so essential to elim-
inate hunger and starvation and is also covered by a legal entitlement
(NFSA). 2) expenditure on meeting ‘basic needs’ is legitimate while ex-
penditure on luxury consumption is a freebie. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor
General and some others, however, consider the offer of free water and
electricity as a freebie. But access to clean drinking water and electricity
is widely considered a ‘basic need’. Even goods that serve non-basic
needs like phones and laptops can have high positive effects of bridging
the digital divide and promoting access to education of the poor who
cannot offered it. 3) While distribution of consumer products is justified,
cash distribution is wrong morally and socially. But developed welfare
states widely use cash transfers in the form of unemployment insurance.
The Government of India itself uses cash transfers for old-age pension,
scholarship and compensating farmers for hardship due to the gap be-
tween cost of production and realisation from the sale (Bastin, Steuwer,
2022). Thus no single scenario at definition of a freebie is free from
dissent and controversy. The PM also did not lay down any guidelines
that would term offer of certain free goods and services irrational or a
freebie. Besides, any attempt to define it would depend upon what con-
stitutes the duty of the State in a democracy. Some intellectuals have
sought to define the role of the State by specifying welfare measures
considered essential for the State to provide and would be distinguished
from freebies. For example, Friedrich Hayek, the conservative British
thinker writing in the 1940s confined the role of the state to guaranteed
basic social minimum – food, shelter and clothing which is sufficient to
preserve the capacity and health to work. (Ravi and Kapoor, 2022) This
role is, however, too limited in the context of present-day political ad-
vancement in thinking, and a modern democratic state which is expected
to expand commitment of a guaranteed social minimum to include pro-
vision of education, health, drinking water, sanitation, electricity, skill

development, and other welfare measures for the poor and marginalised
sections. The ‘Basic Needs’ concept has enormously enlarged and can-
not be static as a one-time norm. It must evolve with the condition of
economy and its impact on different sections of the population. Its con-
ceptualization is subjective and, therefore, open to contestation. The Fi-
nance Minister herself asserted that provision of education and health
and free food grains during Pandemic are not freebies. In fact, the defini-
tion one makes in respect of freebies depends upon the perspective of the
person, which is influenced by which side he/she is placed in the distri-
butional pyramid of the economy. What a privileged person may consid-
er a freebie may be an income-enhancing measure to the poor for their
survival (Khera, cited in Perumal, 2022). Clarity is also lacking on the
distinction between a freebie and a subsidy. Freebies are distinguished
from subsidies as the latter are specially targeted benefits considered
necessary arising out of the adverse impact of the economy on certain
sections of the people. On this basis, the offer of various consumer prod-
ucts or cash transfer would be justified as a welfare subsidy and so is
distribution of cycles to girls for facilitating their access to schools, or
laptops and smart phones to needy poor students to promote access to
education. Provision of free bus rides in public buses for women is wide-
ly regarded as the most contentious and considered by many as a freebie.
But free bus rides for poor women enable them to reach their work place
and help in increasing their labour participation. Even distribution of
grinders to poor households is defended as it reduces the drudgery of
women’s work at home and empowers women to utilise their time for
generating income and enhancing their social and economic status. Loan
waivers in respect of small and marginal farmers are offered to reduce
the indebtedness which has caused farmers’ suicides. Expenditure in re-
spect of health, education, and creation of employment are in any case
considered ‘Public Goods’ that are necessary for promoting economic
growth and enhancement of labour productively. Subsidies on power,
seeds and fertilisers have all along been viewed as necessary for expand-
ing agriculture production and bridging the gap between inputs costs and
return from output. This blurs the distinction between a subsidy and a
freebie. Despite this, some experts draw a demarcation line between
good subsidies and bad subsidies. The latter are freebies. Ashok Gulati,
on the most conservative side, not only welcomes withdrawal of PM-
GKAY (Prime Minister’s Garib Kalyan Yojna) under which additional
an 5 kg of food grains free of cost was distributed during Covid but ar-
gues that even the existing allocation of food grains to more than 800
million people at subsidised rates under NFSA (National Food Security
Act) needs to be reviewed and suggests that only the poorest 20% of the
population should be provided food grains free of cost and pre-NFSA
provision of different level of subsidies to Antodya, Below Poverty Line
(BPL) families and Above Poverty Line (APL) families introduced
during Vajpayee’s term should be reverted to (Gulati, 2023 Gulati and
Juneja, 2022). C. Rangarajan, a former Governor of RBI and a member
of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Committee, taking a more
balanced position, argues that the definition of a freebies should depend
upon the nature of the commodity or service distributed and the social
objectives to be achieved. The distribution of commodities considered
essential include subsidised food grains, which has helped reduce pover-
ty, merit goods where significant positive externalities are associated
with their consumption, such as health and education including nutri-
tional programmes of breakfast for children and midday meals for school
students. But he considers the extension of the subsidization to include
such items as TV sets, free power up to 300 units as freebies. Besides,
schemes involving subsidisation should be carefully designed to avoid
their misuse and minimise their costs such as free power to farmers. In
the case of production-related incentives such as tax concessions to cor-
porates, waivers of NPAS (non-productive loans) to business and indus-
try and provision of land etc. for setting up industries, there have been no
convincing studies to show that their stated objectives were achieved in
line with large budgetary costs. Therefore, greater care is required for
determining the quantum of support as well as specific forms of such
support. He also suggests that even in respect of justifiable subsidised
essential merit good, fiscal support should be less than 10% of the total
expenditure of the central and state governments until their revenue GDP
or GSDP ratios are sustainably increased (Rangarajan, 2022). Another
economist has provided a normative yardstick for defining a freebie
(Bhanumurthy, cited in Perumal, 2022) according to which any pub-
lic-policy intervention that does not support medium-term to long-term
production and productivity is a freebie. This argument rests on the
premise that compared to the provision of freebies, public spending on
infrastructure boosts the productive capacity of the economy. It is more
rational and has long-term benefits and greater positive impact on the
people as it creates development which provides income to people to get
their needs fulfilled. This argument is in line with the thinking of neo-lib-

eral economists who view all subsidised expenditure on targeted benefi-
ciaries as wasteful and only public expenditure on infrastructure over
welfare is productive as it creates facilities which would spur growth, the
benefits of which would be shared by all. But this mythology of the su-
periority of public expenditure on infrastructure has long been proved
wrong. Despite increased expenditure on Capex in the successive bud-
gets post pandemic, there has been no visible impact on employment
creation and has also not led to increased private investment. This is be-
cause expenditure on infrastructure is capital intensive. It does not create
much employment and that too for the unskilled workers who need it
most. Infrastructure investment has a long gestation period and does not
promote employment in the short term. The only investment for employ-
ment creation for the unskilled workers is on labour-intensive program-
mers such as MNREGA, the budget provision for which has been re-
duced because it is negatively viewed by the ruling establishment and
neo-liberal economists. While all these positions have been contested,
the long and short of these suggestions is that they oppose targeted ben-
efits of consumer products and services to the poor and restrict subsi-
dised merit goods to education and health generally. This stance is close
to the BJPs position and PM’s statement.
The debate involves several dimensions. One dimension is economic
which is embedded in the sustainability of public expenditure rooted in
the obligation of fiscal responsibility and prudence. Freebies or even sub-
sidies have a bearing on the level of public debt and outstanding liability.
When a state spends beyond the limit prescribed in the FRBM (Fiscal
Responsibility and Budget Management Act), it has an adverse impact
on the State’s fiscal situation, its capacity to meet the debt burden and the
lack of fiscal space for it to undertake essential governance and develop-
ment responsibilities unless the gap is bridged by higher taxation. It also
burdens the future generations because they are deprived of the develop-
ment expenditure which is diverted to meeting past liability. Expenditure
on freebies would raise this burden further. (CAG cited in Chauhan &
Jafferlot, 2022) But the pertinent point is why states have had a revenue
deficit. It is not due to freebies but to the centre’s fiscal policies. This sta-
tus has resulted from the centralisation of fiscal management. While the
centre has expanded its revenue base through indirect taxes – cesses and
surcharges, this luxury is not available to the States. The amount realised
from these cesses and surcharges is not shared with the States, leading
to their dependence on the centre. The end of the centre’s obligation to
pay compensation to States for meeting the loss of revenue as a result of
Goods Service Tax (GST) has further reduced the fiscal space for states
to undertake social development expenditure. With the GST gone, States
are left with little scope to raise taxes. The burden of the slowdown of
the economy due to the pandemic has also been passed on to the States.
Further, the transfer from the tax collections has also been reduced. The
centre has also used considerable tax collections (from GST compensa-
tion cess) to repay the GST Council for loans given to the States during
the pandemic. It is also scaling back its transfers to states for various
centrally sponsored schemes from 60:40 to almost 50:50. Now they have
also directed that even in the centrally-sponsored schemes, the States
should roll out pilots using their funds.(Manoj, G.G., 2023) As a result,
on the revenue side states will receive just 31% of gross tax revenue next
fiscal year as against 42% (41% + 1% for Jammu and Kashmir (J&K))
recommended by the 15th Finance Commission and compared with 37%
in 2018-19. This would result in a re-distribution of resources from the
States to the Centre and either force the states to reduce their public
expenditure or increase their borrowings. (Subramanian and Feldman,
2023) In fact, the centre’s own fiscal performance is no better. Its struc-
tural deficit is larger than the States and its consolidated deficit is running
at -10% of GDP and debt –Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio at -85%.
The centre itself spends more than 40% of its revenue on servicing debt
burden which is way higher than the average of 10% across emerging
markets. (Singh and Mishra, 2023) Several economists have argued that
debt by itself is not bad but what is crucial is the nature of spending.
Social sector expenditure provides a safety net for the vulnerable groups
which would help them move forward as also it would help economic
growth. (Ghosh, 2022) The track record of the States is much better in
this respect than that of the Central Government.
The other economic dimension is that freebies distort resource allo-
cation and impose a large indirect cost because expenditure on freebies
would lead to reduced expenditure on other sectors of economy, thus af-
fecting balanced economic growth (Goyal, 2022). The overall economic
cost of freebies in one sector would be higher than the benefit to the
subsidised group. There would be little room for an incentive to industry
and services. Citing the case of Punjab, it is argued that free electricity
for irrigation led to neglect of industry, and industries started shifting
away from Punjab and relocating outside the state, a decline of per capita
income and reduced growth besides ecological harm (Ravi et al, 2022).

As the freebies are never free, the cost is incurred in reduced expenditure
on other needs. While it is open to question whether ‘neglect’ of indus-
try in Punjab can be attributed to free electricity to farmers, the larger
question of responsibility for balanced growth should be viewed in its
political perspective. The States are democratic entities and responsi-
ble not only for fiscal stability but also the well-being of the poor who
have been negatively impacted by the economy. This balance is carefully
crafted in their annual budget, which is presented to the legislature for
approval. The legislature is the right forum to ensure a harmonious bal-
ance between fiscal responsibility as well as welfare of the poor. It is for
the legislature to question how the expenditure incurred on providing
‘freebies’ is to be managed within the limits of the states’ resources and
how the balance in the public expenditure on different needs is to be
achieved. Besides, the so-called freebies are justified in the interest of
economic growth as well and not merely social welfare. Manufactur-
ing suffers from a lack of demand and high inventory, leading to the
reluctance of industry to invest in capacity expansion despite the tax
incentives offered. A free supply of certain goods such as free cycles,
sewing machines and grinders also boosts the sale of the corresponding
industry and contributes to its expansion capacity. The one-time supply
of a commodity will create demand for it in the future and would break
the bottleneck at least in that particular industry segment. They are also
required to increase the productive capacity of the workforce and, there-
fore, have high positive externality.
The crucial flaw in the entire discussion is that it does not bother to
look into the political, economic and institutional context in which free-
bies have become a feature of electoral politics. (Iyer, Y., 2022) It is the
failure of economic policy to eliminate poverty, under-employment and
low intergenerational mobility resulting in deep inequalities and to build
a welfare state to ensure the dignified survival of the poor and invest in
building human capital that eliminates the rationale for freebie and vot-
ers exerting pressure on the governments to provide them. The freebies
are offered to compensate citizens for what economic growth has failed
to do. The manner in which the debate is framed effectively delegitimis-
es a democratically forged political bargain between the government and
the voter (Iyer, Y., 2022). Besides, the stance of the ruling establishment,
particularly the PM who framed the terms of the discourse, is heavily tilt-
ed in favour of the rich and does not highlight policies that give huge tax
concessions to the corporates without the intended social objective being
realised. The amount of tax forgone as a result is far higher than the sub-
sidies given to the poor. The social justice aspect in this discourse cannot
be lost sight of. The sharp attack on freebies also shows an elitist bias
against the poor, whose vulnerabilities which are caused by iniquitous
growth are not taken into account. The answer to the negativities high-
lighted in the discourse lies in crafting a new democratic understanding
on the model of economic growth which caters to the needs of different
sections of society and seeks to ensure equitable distribution of benefits
across different sections. The distinction between what is a good freebie
and what is a bad freebie is akin to the distinction between a good policy
and a bad policy and is a political decision. Elections are the appropri-
ate mechanism for people to express their view on this. Voters have to
decide which policies are in their interest and also promote public good.
While political choices can and must be questioned and debated in a de-
mocracy, it is the voters who should determine the choice. There should
be no attempt to seek to limit the option for democratic contestation.
The debate is sanctimonious hypocrisy of the ruling establishment, as
all political parties including the ruling BJP have resorted to it. The dis-
tribution of gas cylinders, housing, free rations, cash transfers to farmers
are not considered freebies while attacking opposition-led governments.
In fact, the NDA government’s extension of benefits of a non-financial
nature to its vote bank, such as providing reservations to economically
poor but socially advanced groups is the greatest freebie (Kundu, 2022)
and that too by creating eligibility limit of Rs. 8 lakh per annum, which
is 11 times the limit of the most recent rural and urban poverty lines.
(Deshpande, 2022)
The third dimension of debate is the morality of the policy. At a ver-
tical level it is argued that the supply of freebies distorts the informed
decision-making of the voter. It is analogous to bribing them and legit-
imising corrupt practices (Pandita, 2022). Only the form of corruption
has changed from the earlier practice of bribing the voter with cash or
liquor. Incentives before elections is not a good practice. Government
should focus on long term policy-making and better policy reach. (Man-
isha Priyam cited in Anand and Babu, 2019) It is a short-term measure
that shows a lack of vision. This argument commodities’ the electoral
process, deprives voters of their agency, considers them passive receiv-
ers of doles and strikes at the core of the political bargain which has been
arrived at between the voters and their elected representatives. (Iyer, Y.,
2020) The second moral aspect is its economic justification. Since the

economy has a poor track record in creating jobs, enhancing per capita
income and reducing inequality and normal development projects have
not delivered. Besides, the poor subsidise industry by providing cheap
labour. Real wage rates have stagnated, increasing at the rate of 1.82%
and 0.94% annually for agricultural and non-agriculture workers during
2016-2022. Any support by way of cheap rice or even a saree for a poor
woman keeps them afloat and makes living less difficult. (Chaudhery,
cited in Anand and Babu, 202 2) The assumption that poor voters are
swayed by such freebies is not entirely correct. Political parties have
lost elections even after promise of freebies. Aam Admi Party (AAP’s)
defeat in Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh (HP) is the recent example. Some-
times, freebies have worked while at other times they have not worked.
Freebies provide people with hope that life would be better. In Odisha,
Chhattisgarh and Tamil Nadu (TN), it made some difference in elections.
(Chaudhary, cited in Anand and Babu, 2022) It works only if the people
trust the government to deliver what has been promised. (Sanjay Kumar,
2022 cited in Anand and Babu, 2019).Even the CJI (Chief Justice of
India) asserted that people are not looking for freebies but for a dignified
opportunity to earn like MNREGA.(Ghosh. 2022)The corruption-induc-
ing propensity of freebies has been effectively rejected by the Supreme
Court itself. In Subramannan B. vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2013),
it upheld the distribution of TV sets or other consumer goods on the
ground that such schemes target women, farmers and the poor and were
in furtherance of the Directive Principles. As long as funds were spent
based on an appropriation cleared by the legislature, they could neither
be declared illegal nor could the promise of such items be termed as cor-
rupt practice. (Hindu, editorial, 2022; Cited in Anand and Babu, 2019).
The third moral dimension is the rich and poor divide and bias in the
establishment towards small benefits going to the poor by way of free-
bies, while ignoring the huge material benefits extended to the corporate
without question and debate. (Nivedita, 2022) No PIL is filed against
such production incentives for the corporates or the rich. (Steuwer, 2022)
Also not questioned is the huge expenditure incurred by the government
on self-promotion. (Shah and Shah, 2022) The world inequality report
has found that the ratio of private wealth to national income jumped from
290% in 1980 to 555% in 2020.The top 10% of the country’s population
hold 57% of the national income. The income-tax base is stagnant. No
attempt is made to increase the tax base by using many tax instruments
– wealth tax, estate tax, inheritance tax, enhanced property tax, etc. The
tax exemption limit keeps rising year after year. (Khera, cited in Pe-
rumal, 2022) There has to be some redistribution. It is the core function
of government to do this redistribution. The supply of freebies is one
mechanism of achieving this. Besides, freebies are policies which further
the constitutional vision as laid down in Art 36 and Art 39 of Directive
Principles. The former exhorts the state to secure a just social order and
the latter mandates the state to reduce the concentration of wealth and
promote public good. Thus, by offering certain consumer products or
supplying free services, the concerned governments are performing their
constitutional duty to reduce the inequalities and economic hardships of
the poor, as argued by Aam Admi Party (AAP) and Dravida Munnetra
Khadgam (DMK). While doing so, the distinction, however, should be
made between public spending on basic needs and luxury consumption
goods. Free water and electricity are now considered basic needs. Even
goods that provide non-basic needs like scooter, cycles, TV sets serve
the needs of mobility and communication and help in accessing more
durable and sustained income earning opportunities to a target group.
While the privileged oppose freebies as a waste of tax payers’ money,
their hypocrisy lies in their unwillingness to give up when they are the
beneficiaries of such freebies, which shows acceptance and appeal to it
at both the demand and supply side of the equation, though for different
reasons. (Bakshi, 2022) The demand for and offer of freebies would be
reduced with greater social and economic wellbeing and with more po-
litical awareness. (Abhilash, cited in Ghosh, 2022)
This is not to say that the realities that RBI has highlighted should
be ignored. The answer does not lie in criticising states but in building
a new democratic consensus on the model of economic growth and to
recognise that freebies are not a symptom of poor politics and seduction
of voters with such promises but about limited economic imagination
and vulnerable livelihoods. (V. Iyer, 2022) Besides, even while support-
ing the rationale for freebies given the economic context, there is a need
to effectively target them at the right audience and judiciously demand
base without any leakages and with effective delivery so as to eliminate
its wrong targeting. An example of this was cited by one critic in the
framework of Delhi’s electricity subsidy, which is neither a function of
household income nor of state’s finances and is elite targeted at the most
undeserving. (Bakshi, 2022) But it is rightly asserted by a wide-ranging
section of political parties and civil society that there is no case for regu-
lating political parties about poll promises as Election Commission (EC)

seems to have done and SC seems to have hinted at, though retreating
from it as a prescriptible advice or policy engineering. ‘Manifestos are
not Initial Public Offers (IPOS). Curbing states’ political and economic
imagination by subjecting them to regulatory scrutiny in a democracy
where entry barriers are already high is akin to a political IPO’. (V. Iyar,
2022) Is it even possible for the Election Commission of India (ECI) to
specify parameters for promises which do not have a financial cost such
as reservation in jobs and education?
Yet another thorny issue in this discourse that has emerged relates
to the promise by some opposition-ruled states to revert to the old pen-
sion scheme (OPS) for government employees. In fact, Rajasthan, Ch-
hattisgarh, Jharkhand and Punjab have already restored OPS. The latest
example of such a shift is HP which won 40 of the 68 seats in the recent
assembly poll. While the victory in the election in HP cannot be attribut-
ed to this since government employees constitute a miniscule section of
the voters, the media has, however, highlighted it as a serious draw on
States’ finances as the cumulative pension Bill of State has jumped to Rs
3,86,001 cr in 2020 from Rs. 3,133 cr in 1990-91. (Sharma, 2022) The
New Pension Scheme (NPS) was introduced in 2003 by the NDA gov-
ernment based on the recommendation of an Expert Committee, which
had pointed out that pension pay-out had risen from 2.1% of total revenue
receipts in 1980-81 to 11% by 2001-02 and were projected to hit 20%
by 2020-21. The scheme was continued during the UPA government,
the primary reason for which was sustainability as the Union Budget
provided for pension every year but future liability remained unfunded.
Overall, pension payments by States take away a quarter of their tax rev-
enue. The pension liability will keep rising. (Modi, 2022) Old pension
scheme required the State to pay ½ the last pay drawn by a government
employee post retirement. Given better healthcare facilities, the people’s
life span has risen and will rise further, putting pressure on the exchequer
in the future. The New Pension Scheme (NPS) required employees to
contribute 10% of their basic pay and dearness allowance while the state
contributes a matching amount, which is deposited into a pension fund
managed by a statutory authority. The immediate benefit to the govern-
ment employees in reverting to the old scheme would be that they would
not set aside their 10% contribution and the government would also ab-
solve itself of making a 10% contribution. This would imply that the
state would be required to contribute the entire pension after retirement,
which would create a permanent liability. It would be a committed ex-
penditure and shrink the available resources of the States to manage their
finances in the future and burden the taxpayers. ‘It is sinful, unprincipled
and quite unethical to create liabilities that don’t apply to the present
government but to a government in the future’. (Modi, 2022) Montek
Singh Ahluwalia, former Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commis-
sion, termed restoration of old pension scheme as the greatest ‘revdi’ as
the decision benefits only the government employees who constitute a
tiny section of the total population and cannot be considered as a welfare
measure which benefits the poor or a larger section of the population. It
is thus a decision which would please these employees at the cost of the
larger population and cannot thus be defended on ground of basic need
or equity (Sharma, 2022). However, the demand for restoration to Old
Pension Scheme lies in the insecurity of government employees about a
guaranteed pension after retirement, since their contribution along with
that of the government is invested, subject to market risk and dependant
on stock market uncertainties. Chief Minister Rajasthan, who has resort-
ed the OPS, succinctly pointed out that the OPS provides security to the
employees. If the employees remain insecure about their future, it will
also lead to corruption. With the OPS, employees are assured that the
government will be with them and won’t indulge in corruption. (Manoj,
2023) Those defending the NPS are only protecting the interests of the
Government at the cost of employees who have loyally served them. In
fact, Andhra Pradesh has proposed a new model which seeks to combine
the benefits of OPS and NPS, in which employees will get a defined pen-
sion with a defined contribution. (Indian Express, 2023) Whatever model
is adopted, there is a hint that the central government is looking into AP’s
proposal to make NPS more acceptable. (Indian Express, 2023)
Overall, the discourse on freebies is a misdirected debate (Shah and
Shah, 2022) meant as a distraction from the real conditions faced by the
people (People’s Democracy, 2022) and motivated by the desire to reg-
ulate the politics of opposition-ruled states, curb their political choices
and denigrating them for swaying the voters in their favour in election.
If the intention was to raise the issue for better policy-making, neither
the context nor the manner in which the debate is framed were appropri-
ate. The debate is all the more meaningless as the current government’s
social sector expenditure is very low. (Peoples’ Democracy, 2022) The
proper way would have been to engage with states in a nonpartisan and
non-adversarial mode, not at the election time, on building a democratic
understanding on how to deal with the adverse externalities of economic

growth, reduce the vulnerabilities of the poor, help the States by ensur-
ing transfer of their mandated share from the central pool and increase
their resource base in the spirit of cooperative federalism. Till such an
understanding is reached, the Government should concentrate on pro-
viding basic needs – health, education, social security, drinking water,
sanitation and employment. But the ruling party is least interested in
this exercise and is solely interested in winning elections by attacking
the profligacy of opposition-ruled states, curb their political choices and
dragging constitutional and statutory independent bodies into this debate
to its political view point. This would only sharpen the faultlines in cen-
tre-state relations and would fail to sensitise them and the people to the
generic concern involved in the issues raised.
Reference:
1.
Anand, Jatin, Nikhil M Babu (2022), ‘Freebies not a good practice, say
Experts’, The Hindu, April 25, 2022.
2.
Bakshi, Ishan (2022), ‘The irrationality of revdis’,
Indian Express, December 1, 2022.
3.
Business Line (2022), ‘It’s complicated in the freebie debate explained’,
August 26, 2022.
4.
Chauhan, Trishali and Christophe Jaffrelot (2022), ‘The Cost of GST’,
Indian Express, December 13, 2022.
5.
Deshpande, Satish (2022), ‘It is not about poverty’,
Indian Express, November 9, 2022.
6.
Gulati, Ashok (2023), ‘Go easy on revdis’, Indian Express, January 23, 2023.
7.
Gulati, Ashok and RitikaJuneja (2022), ‘Poverty and Politics of Freebies’,
Indian Express, April 25, 2022.
8.
Indian Express (2023), ‘An Imprudent Proposal’, Editorial, February 3, 2023.
9.
Iyer VaidyanathaiP.(2022), ‘Is a Manifesto an IPO?,
Indian Express, October 6, 2022.
10.
Kamalika Ghosh (2022), ‘The Freebies Debate: Should Supreme Court
Engage with Subject That Falls Outside its Purview’,
Outlook Business, August 18, 2022.
11.
Kundu, Amitabh (2022), ‘EWS Quota, a political freebie’,
Indian Express, November 29, 2022.
12.
Manoj, CG (2023), ‘Interview: Ashok Gehlot, Rajasthan Chief Minster’,
Indian Express, February 12, 2023.
13.
Modi, Sushil Kumar (2022), ‘OPS Vs NPS: Backsliding on Pension Reform
is bad politics’, Indian Express, December 10, 2022.
14.
Nath, Damini (2022), ‘Pitch on Cost of poll promises not linked to freebie
debate’, Election Commission official.
15.
Pandita, Ramesh (2022), ‘Politics of Freebies’,
Baba Ghulan Shah Badsha University, March, 2022.
16.
Perumal, Prashanth (2022), ‘Should there be limits on ‘Freebies’,’
August 19, 2022.
17.
Press Trust of India (2022), ‘Freebies come at a Price economic’,
August 22, 2022.
18.
Rangaranjan, C (2022), ‘Good and Bad Freebies’,
Indian Express, June 16, 2022.
19.
Ravi, Shamika and Mudt Kapoor, ‘Visible benefits, hidden costs’,
Indian Express, August 30, 2022.
20.
Shah, Neha and Atman Shah (2022), ‘A Misdirected Debate’,
Indian Express, September 2, 2022.
21.
Sharma, Hari Kishan (2022), ‘After EC, Now CAG wants to red flag
freebies, State largesse’, Indian Express, October 23, 2022.
22.
Sharma, Hari Krishan (2022), ‘Himachal: Fiscal Challenge in Old Pension
Scheme’, Indian Express, December 9, 2022.
23.
Singh, N.K. and Prachi Mishra (2023), ‘An Eye on the Future’,
Indian Express, February 3, 2023.
24.
Steuwer, Bastien (2022), ‘In defence of freebies’,
Indian Express, October 16, 2022.
25.
Subramanian, Arvind and Josh Felman (2023), ‘India’s fiscal Dilemmas’,
February 13, 2023.
26.
The Hindu (2022), ‘Sop or Welfare debate: on freebies’, Editorial,
August 5, 2022.
27.
Yamin Aiyar (2022), ‘Let’s debate freebies’, Indian Express, August 9, 2022.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE DISSOLUTION OF THE SOVIET UNION
The slogan of the restoration of the Soviet Union today
Raul Martinez
Introduction
December 25th 2021 marked the 30th anniversary of the formal disso-
lution of the Soviet Union. Mikhail Gorbachev on that day unceremo-
niously resigned from the Presidency of the Soviet Union, passing the
nuclear launch codes to Yeltsin, the then President of the Russian Fed-
eration. The formal dissolution of the USSR was preceded by a momen-
tous event. August 31st1991 is remembered in the history of modern Rus-
sia as the day an alleged last attempt to preserve the Soviet Union failed
in the form of coup d’état that did not come to fruition. While the process
of disintegration had started years back, the failed coup indeed further
accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union as a unified state.
Much has been written and speculated about regarding the role of
Gorbachev, Yeltsin, representatives of the nationalist movements and
those that allegedly attempted to stop the dissolution of the Soviet
Union. Patriotic and anti-Western sentiments are prevalent among to-
day’s Russian historians, where a lot of resentment is targeted towards
the treacherous and duplicitous role of the Gorbachev-Yakovlev clique.
Yakovlev had infamously followed through with Gorbachev’s request to
investigate the so-called secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
Spearheaded by the same nationalist movements that collaborated and
fought alongside Nazi Germany and actively participated in the mass
atrocities committed over Soviet citizens of all nationalities, including
Slavic peoples, Jews and other groups, the so-called secret protocols
served as a trigger to the disintegration process. Indeed, Gorbachev dis-
honesty and chicanery have become more and more apparent to Russian
historians and the Russian public in general. Despite his assurances to
the contrary, Gorbachev played a pivotal role in the dismemberment of
the State. It is mainly for this reason why Gorbachev has become a hate-
ful figure in today’s Russia. Here we will try to unpack the complexity of
this sentiment in a broader historical context.
The new Union Treaty (Soiuznii Dogovor) was supposed to be
signed on the 20th of August, as announced by Gorbachev on August 3rd
on national TV. The text of this new agreement was officially published
on August 15th.1 According to this new agreement the Soviet Union
would cease to exist and be replaced by Union of Soviet Sovereign Re-
publics. This economic formation underlying this new union would no
longer be considered socialist, according to Gorbachev’s formulation,
where open forms of market relations of the neo-liberal type would de-
velop instead. These would replace the type of market relations adopted
during the revisionist period. It is believed that the imminent adoption
of the new Union Treaty prompted certain structures, such as the KGB
and other institutions strongly tied to the Soviet federal government, to
react in order to avert the adoption of the new Union Treaty. Individuals
among the so called “conservatives’, such as Yanaev, Kruchkov, Yazov,
Pavlov and others, ventured to step forward alarmed by the potential
consequences of the adoption of such a treaty. That said, it is important
to note that these “conservatives” were not opposed to the liberalization
of the market and their worldview had nothing to do with Marxism-Le-
ninism.
Russian historians argue that the preparations for the state of emer-
gency were already known to Gorbachev and others. Gorbachev appears
to have left for holidays to Faros as a means to provoke a reaction from
the so called “conservatives”. It is argued that by leaving on vacation as
a critical time would be viewed as a sign of weakness leading some to
believe that new political actors would have to come to the scene. This
came at a time with the social, political and economic situation was at
a critical juncture, where the “conservative” elements felt that resolute
action was necessary to avert chaos and violence. The possibility of state
of emergency had been discussed at different levels of the state. It was
of common knowledge that economic slump had impelled various sec-
tors of the working class to openly oppose the regime, where strikes
had become commonplace in a country where such forms of expression
were rare to say the least. It is believed that Gorbachev had instructed
the chairman of the KGB, Kruchkov, to setup a plan to enact a state of
emergency on account of the above-mentioned grounds.
It is reasonable to believe that those that participated in the coup
had initially hoped for the support of Gorbachev on the grounds that
the situation in the country was threatening the integrity of the Soviet
Union as a State. Kruchkov, one of the leading instigators of the coup,
multiple times stated that the state of emergency was supposed to be
headed by Gorbachev and no one else. In retrospect, the proverbial

lack of leadership displayed by the committee seems to confirm this in-
terpretation.2 However, Gorbachev did not appear to have supported the
idea of a state of emergency with the intent of preventing the dissolution
of the Soviet Union. Instead, he was of the belief that the new accord
would bring a balance of correlation of forces that would allow the cen-
tral state to remain in some form. His views were not shared by many
among the “conservatives” who saw their old privileges threatened in
this new order.
It is now known that Gorbachev was never arrested, nor forcibly
isolated, nor removed from power by the Emergency Committee. The
latter sent a delegation to convince Gorbachev to join in, which he re-
fused. For that, he was never retaliated against, leading many to specu-
late that he was aware of the plans, perhaps participated in conceiving
them while remaining ambiguous and non-committal. When Gorbachev
was requested to fly back to Moscow to take over the reins of the Emer-
gency Committee, he refused to do so leaving it to its own devices and
leaderless. It has also been argued that Yeltsin was also aware of the coup
and that the coup had no chance to succeed, as it lacked the necessary
support nor had the participants the political will to follow through. As
such, he categorically refused the offer to get refuge at the American
embassy, located within walking distance to the building of the Supreme
Soviet of the then RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic)
where he was entrenched. This and the poor coordination with the armed
forces and elite forces dispatched to Moscow impel many to believe that
the coup was rather a self-coup intended to neutralize any potential re-
sistance to the dissolution of the USSR. This supports the hypothesis
that the coup was planned or induced to accelerate the dissolution of the
Soviet Union, as opposed to a being a genuine attempt to preserve it. The
members of the State Committee of the State Emergency were eventual-
ly pardoned in 1994.
In this article the historical events of 1991 are placed in a broad his-
torical perspective pertaining to the evolution of the revisionist system
towards the neo-liberal model of market relations. It is in this context
that the significance of the slogan of the restoration of the Soviet Union
30 years ago is evaluated and put in perspective. In this article a brief ex-
pose of the historical evolution of the bourgeois dualism of the revision-
ist period is given. The emergence of bourgeois dualism in Soviet poli-
tics following the death of Stalin played a pivotal role in the destruction
of the socialist model of production in the second half of the 50s. The
revisionist State that emerged and that survived till 1991 was heavily
reliant on the bourgeois dualist tandem composed of the “conservatives”
and the “liberals”. The conversation revolving around the preservation
or dissolution of the Soviet Union in the late Perestroika period remained
in the realm of this bourgeois dualism.
The attitude of the Russian working class and toiling masses at large
has changed considerably since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Grow-
ing discontent with neo-liberal reforms and the continued economic
crisis that engulfs Putin’s regime have triggered the Russian people to
revisit its history. Today Russia’s toiling masses are sympathetic to the
Soviet past and have vindicated the role of Stalin in Russian history.
This is a spontaneous process that has occurred despite the efforts to
the contrary by Putin’s regime and the heirs of modern revisionism. Pu-
tin now uses neo-Soviet rhetoric to strengthen his grip on power in the
context of prolonged economic crisis and steady decline of the standards
of living of the Russian population in recent years. Putin is also using
growing pro-Soviet sentiments among Russians to substantiate the inva-
sion of Ukraine. The neo-fascist and racist Ukrainian regime discrimi-
nates against the Russian population and has committed atrocities, where
thousands of civilians have been killed in the East of the country. Putin
is opportunistically using the pro-Soviet sentiments and the atrocities
committed by the Ukrainian Government to remove a regime that has
sided with the West. The latter seriously threatens the domestic and in-
ternational standing of Putin’s regime. Putin does not intend to help the
Russians struggling against the neo-fascist regime of Kiev. In fact, deep
down, Putin is also threatened by the pro-Soviet sentiments of Russians
in Ukraine that have been radicalized in their struggle against Ukrainian
fascism.
With the vindication of the Soviet past and the historical role of Sta-
lin prevalent today among the Russian toiling masses and the crisis of
neo-liberalism, several important questions emerge. What is the signif-
icance of the slogan of the restoration of the Soviet Union today? Does
the slogan of the restoration of the Soviet Union today remain within the
realm of bourgeois dualism? What should be the position of the Marx-
ist-Leninist in Russia today with regards to this slogan? In this article,
the position of the heirs of modern revisionism today vis-a-vis the resto-
ration of the Soviet Union and socialist construction is succinctly sum-
marized. The contradictions and weaknesses of today’s revisionism are
outlined.

Bourgeois dualism in the revisionist USSR
Shortly after the death of Stalin, the Soviet leadership embarked in
a series of economic reforms that undermined the socialist character of
the Soviet economy. Pro-market tendencies had emerged in the post-war
period among many in the intellectual elite, in the army and had clear-
ly taken stronghold in the upper echelons of the party. The publication
of Stalin’s Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR exposed the
right-wing character of the deviationism that emerged in the post-war
period, in addition to constituting a classical work in Political Economy
in its own right. Whether Stalin was assassinated, his demise induced, or
whether he was simply left to die, it is of no real substance to the history
of the construction of socialism and the subsequent liquidation of the
socialist formation under Khrushchev. The reality is that the dismantle-
ment of the socialist formation occurred because of a conscious effort to
undermine the pillars that socialism rests upon by certain sectors of the
Soviet elite.
The arrest and subsequent execution of Lavrentiy Beria has been por-
trayed in the West and the liberal media as palace infighting, as a fight for
succession. In reality, Lavrentiy Beria with the power vested in him went
too far in the so-called political “liberalization” of the country.3 This in-
cluded reverting the policies in regard to the leading role of communist
cadre, promoting nationalism in the republics, where it was suggested
that the language of communication in production should be in the lo-
cal languages; leading party and government cadre were systematically
replaced with representatives of local nationalities, displacing reliable
cadre of Russian ethnicity. Beria spoke in favour of a certain degree of
decentralization, where the Republics would have more autonomy with
respect to the central government. It is believed that Lavrentiy Beria ad-
vocated the reversal of socialist construction in Eastern Germany and
for the unification of Germany on the basis of capitalism, as long as
the German land remained a neutral buffer between the East and the
West.4 It was with Beria that a massive revision of incarceration poli-
cies and rehabilitations took place soon after Stalin’s passing, where a
number of high-profile cases were summarily closed. It is also believed
that Beria reached out to Tito through Rankovich in order to normalize
relations with Yugoslavia, which had been seriously compromised due to
the pro-market character of the economic development in that country.
Beria went too far too fast, or perhaps some in the upper echelons
may have felt threatened by his powerful position as the Minister of In-
ternal Affairs and his influence in the intelligence community. Much has
been speculated regarding this relation with other colleagues in the Polit-
buro5 and why the different fractions colluded to arrest and to eventually
execute Beria, where much of the proceeds leading to his indictment
still remain under seal. That said, these circumstances are not of criti-
cal substance to the true nature of the political and economic reforms
that followed Stalin’s passing.6 It is important to note that many of the
above-mentioned decisions, even if Beria is conceded as a main instiga-
tor, could not have taken place without the support and participation of
the Politburo and other relevant stakeholders. These were not decisions
that Beria adopted singlehandedly or unilaterally, as he did not possess
the power to do so. Much on the contrary, documental evidence indi-
cates,7 that the Politburo as a whole did not have fundamental differences
with some of the aspects of the reforms, in particular regarding socialist
construction and the issue of political repression. It is factually incorrect
to ascribe them to Beria alone. In particular, it is worth paying attention
to the allegations regarding Beria’s disruptive attitude towards the effort
of the Politburo and the Soviet Government to deal with deficiencies in
agriculture and in particular with cattle. Several members of the Politbu-
ro seemed to indicate that Beria indeed played such a role. However, we
cannot ignore the fact that those that exposed Beria were the same that
used the need for remedial action in the countryside as a Trojan horse to
slow down the growth of industrial production and with which to even-
tually revise the nature of the five-year plans. In fact, Khrushchev did not
conceal his petty-bourgeois views vis-à-vis agriculture, which no one
during the Plenum seemed to oppose. It is therefore problematic to argue
that Beria was alone in his views and that removing him would have
resolved the ills that afflicted the Soviet leadership at the time. Beria
was not the source of the problem but rather a manifestation of a much
bigger issue.
A significant fraction of the Presidium of the Central Commit-
tee, which included Molotov, Kaganovich, Malenkov and others, who
were later expelled from the party in their struggle against Khrushchev
in 1957, played a pivotal role in exposing the treacherous character of
Beria’s reforms. Khrushchev also chimed in. What is, however, over-
looked more often than not, is that Beria’s Perestroika did not come out
of the blue. Much to the contrary, it incorporated the views of many in
the upper echelons of the party and the statе, which got the upper hand
and eventually emerged victorious. As such, it is difficult to understand

Khrushchevian reforms without scrutinizing Beria’s vision for the Soviet
Union.
Some have ventured to characterize Beria the father of Perestroika.
In fact, modern Russian historians have argued that Gorbachev’s Pere-
stroika, to a certain degree, was borrowed from Beria’s playbook, even
though the ideologists of Perestroika chose to demonize him as a Stalin’s
right hand, as one of the lead perpetrators of political repressions in the
Soviet Union. Anti-Stalinism was central to Gorbachev’s Perestroika,
as the core of its anti-Soviet rhetoric. As such, we cannot understand
Perestroika without the political and economic reforms of the 50s. The
so-called process of de-Stalinization in the Soviet Union and the Peo-
ple’s Democracies was a top-down undertaking, instigated and forced
upon the rank-and-file members of the parties, the working class and
toiling masses. The process was inherently and viciously anti-democrat-
ic; Democratic centralism was subverted together with the Dictatorship
of the Proletariat in favour of the dictatorship of the elite. Stalin’s leader-
ship was tremendously popular among the working class and the toiling
masses in general, both domestically and abroad. His leadership inspired
the progressive minded world, where not only fascism was annihilat-
ed, but most of the colonial system came crumbling down and socialist
construction spread throughout the world. Stalin’s leadership became a
beacon for the struggle for justice and national liberation. As a result,
Stalin’s leadership was undermined and overthrown from above by
means of insidious political and economic reforms. While Khrushchev
was defaming Stalin at the XXth Congress, rank-and-file Soviet citizens
were proudly holding portraits. It took years for Khrushchev to dare to
remove Stalin’s body from the mausoleum, as he was concerned about
popular backlash. The fact of the matter is that anti-Stalinism in the So-
viet Union and the former People’s Democracies has been unequivocally
linked to attacks on socialism, the rights and the standing of the working
class and the toiling masses.
It is at this juncture it is important to introduce the concept of bour-
geois dualism in Soviet politics of the revisionist period. The Beria-Po-
litburo tandem, eventually followed by Brezhnev and ultimately Gor-
bachev in 1985, encapsulates the dissolution of the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat as the engine of socialist and communist construction by
bourgeois dualism that dismantled the socialist mode of production. The
most far-reaching consequences of the brief, but momentous three and
a half months between the passing of Stalin and Beria’s arrest, is the
emergence of bourgeois dualism leading to the liquidation of the Dic-
tatorship of the Proletariat. Whereas formerly the Soviet State carried
out the functions of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, where the propo-
nents of socialist construction were in constant strife with foreign and
domestic enemies in all possible incarnations, Beria’s reforms shifts the
political spectrum towards a qualitatively different plane. Bourgeois du-
alism emerges, where more radical and less radical proponents of reform
dominate the conversation, where adhering to the socialist principles
of economic development are left behind. The need for political and
economic “reforms” was no longer questioned as a matter of principle.
That consensus led to the radical transformation of the Soviet econo-
my, from a thriving planned economy with growing restrictions on com-
modity-money relations, preeminence of heavy industry and machinery,
growing productivity of labour, systematic lowering consumer prices,
a system of material incentives for those that produced and innovated.
Instead, the socialist principle of planning is obliterated and replaced by
loose central coordination (rather poor, one might add), where factories
now operate as independent productive units, the socialist principle of
remuneration and incentives are subverted, growth of labour produc-
tivity and technological innovation are seriously hampered, crumbling
infrastructure, growth of consumer prices and hidden inflation coupled
with growing income inequality between manual and intellectual labour,
the city and the country side, the centre and the periphery.
By the early 60s, the Soviet economy was in crisis, where the rates
of growth were but a shadow of what they used to be.8 Poor economic
performance, mismanagement and growing social discontent triggered
Khrushchev’s irreverent and disloyal removal by his peers and many
among those that he himself promoted. However, Khrushchev’s removal
did not result in the reversal of the political and economic reforms that
led to the crisis in the first place. Brezhnev did not fundamentally deviate
from Khrushchev’s reforms, where the dominance of commodity-money
relations in the Soviet economy was never questioned and remained the
directional vector of economic development. In fact, the literature of that
time in political economy further emphasized the commodity charac-
ter of the Soviet economy. Brezhnev, while he distanced himself from
Khrushchev’s neo-Trotskyism, made every possible effort not to reha-
bilitate Stalin in any form or shape.9 Paradoxically, today’s regime in
Russia is far more liberal towards Stalin than Brezhnev ever was. Under
Brezhnev, Stalin became some sort of tabu, the mention of whom was
essentially censored.

At this point it is important to make a clarification as to when the
Soviet economy ceased to operate as a socialist mode of production, and
how this is so important in this conversation. As pointed out above, Beria
plays a pivotal role in triggering anti-socialist reforms even if he found
himself politically isolated and was eventually executed. Without Beria’s
vision it is not possible to comprehend the tandem composed by Khrush-
chev on the one side and Malenkov-Kaganovich-Molotov, on the oth-
er. The essence of the economic reforms implemented in 1953 is in the
spirit of Beria’s thinking. These were blessed by all parties involved and
not just Khrushchev. This is decisive in understanding the emergence
and evolution of bourgeois dualism in the history of the Soviet Union.
Eventually, Khrushchev emerges victorious, where he accelerates the
economic reforms that destroy socialist planning and institute commodi-
ty-money relations as the vector of economic development. Khrushchev
is deposed in the wake of poor economic performance, where the leading
arguments put forward to the Soviet people were not a matter of princi-
ple, as we understand in Marxism-Leninism. Instead, arguments were
put forward regarding shortcomings of this leadership, such as the erratic
character of his decisions. Brezhnev’s leadership did not question the
essence of the new economic relations that emerged as a result of the
economic reforms of the 50s, as the “corrections” implemented were not
of fundamental character. It is here where the dividing line between the
heirs of modern revisionism and Marxist-Leninism lies. This is far from
a question of ideological purity. It speaks to the core of the economic
theory of revisionism and how today’s heirs of Brezhnevism articulate
their political and economic programme for today’s Russia. By defend-
ing the thesis that the Soviet Union remained a socialist formation under
Brezhnev, even if caveats are conceded, today’s revisionists stand by
the defence of the market. They stand by the anti-Marxist thesis that the
transition to higher forms of socialization goes through the development
of the market. The need to expand the market plays a fundamental role
in the economic theories of modern revisionism.
Why is it so important in this debate to set the record straight regard-
ing when the Soviet Economy eased to be socialist? Why do the revi-
sionist forces, from Nina Andreeva to Gennady Ziuganov going through
many others over the past 30 years adamantly insist that the Soviet Union
remained socialist till its demise in 1991? The economic programme of
today’s revisionists revolves around the development capitalist relations
under some form of state control and the political patronage of the revi-
sionist communist party, which will be discussed further below.
Brezhnev brought about a form of bourgeois dualism that will en-
dure till the dissolution of the Soviet Union: the tandem of the so-called
“conservatives” and the “liberals”. The former appear opposed to the
liberalization of the market, while the latter advocate further liberaliza-
tion of the market. That said, both tendencies operate under econom-
ic relations defined by market relations, which defined the essence of
the economic relations in the Soviet Union. Brezhnev’s rule brings a
balance to both tendencies in the Soviet government, where “liberal”
and more “conservative” reforms would alternate, ultimately leading to
economic collapse. The so called “conservatives” or hard-liners are as
essential as the “liberal” reformers to the political super-structure that
emerged after Stalin’s passing. Their level of influence alternates over
time, similar to the politics of Western bourgeois “democracies”, where
the “left” and the “right” change places as appropriate. The so-called
“left” in the bourgeois system does not question the fundamentals of
capitalist exploitation nor the need for private property on land and the
means of production. The so-called “conservatives” did not question the
commodity character of the Soviet economy and became as relevant as
the “liberals” in destroying socialist planning and the socialist essence of
the Soviet economy. One has to be cognizant that the “liberals” and the
“conservatives” became the two sides of the same coin, both necessary
for further liberalization of the market.
But it is not the alternation, or the more or less improper balance
of power struck between the “liberals” and the “conservatives”, or the
particulars of the implementations of the pro-market reforms that de-
termined the demise of the revisionist system. It is the objective laws
of the market that eventually run their course that led to the demise of
the revisionist system. The revisionism system has nothing to do with
socialism in terms of the nature of the economic relations and political
system: it retains some appearances through certain external attributes.
This includes retaining Soviet symbolism, which is strongly tied to a
victorious past, the memory of which was (and still remains) heavily en-
trenched in the psyche of the Soviet people. This also includes retaining
social benefits that the socialist past provided to the Soviet people: free
universal health care, education at all levels, housing, full employment,
guaranteed retirement funds and several other social benefits. While over
the years these would certainly degrade and the real purchasing power
of the Soviet toiling masses would steadily decline, these remain serious
constraints to the development of the market. The elites were no longer
content with certain type of privileges, they strife to get more than that.

Under Gorbachev, the liberalization of the market was taken to a
whole new level. Here, the accumulation of wealth in few hands served
as the basis of private capital accumulation in the post-Soviet space. The
forceful privatization of state assets in the early 90s was performed on
the basis of the economic reforms of Perestroika and were intimately
connected with them. The liberalization of the market under Gorbachov’s
Perestroika was in fact its most important core function, where the talk
about democratization, Glasnost, intrigues with other political figures
were but decoys. Without Gorbachov’s economic reforms one cannot
understand the nature of Glasnost and Perestroika.
This exposition is hardly new in the Marxist-Leninist literature. That
said, what concerns us now is the role of the bourgeois dualism prevalent
in the revisionist period, its importance to the revisionist superstructure
and its relevance to understanding the politics of the past 30 years. This
will help us understand the essence and relevance of the slogan of the
restoration of the Soviet Union back in the 90s compared to today.
The discussion pertaining to the preservation or dissolution of the
Soviet Union in the early 90s was not revolving around whether its peo-
ples should choose between socialism and capitalism.10 The discussion
was rather about the form of government that will preside over the tran-
sition to neo-liberal forms of market relations: should the country follow
along the Chinese path, or should the Soviet Union disintegrate into in-
dependent states. Gorbachev’s clique chose the second path, despite his
assurances to the contrary. The “conservatives” would have preferred the
former. The “conservatives” were not more progressive than Gorbachev
in the big scheme of things, nor did they have the interests of the Soviet
toiling masses at heart. The “conservatives” advocated the preservation
of the Soviet Union as a centralized state with the intention to follow a
path close to that of China. The one-party system would have probably
been preserved together with centralized armed forces, intelligence and
other functions. The market would have been further liberalized with the
creation of private corporations, similar to the Chinese path of develop-
ment.
One has to recognize that the slogan of the preservation or the res-
toration of the Soviet Union under the leadership of the “conservative”
elites, had nothing to do with socialism, nor with the defence of the class
interests of the working class and the toiling masses. The same applies
to the so-called “left”-wing parties in the bourgeois system, where the
social-democratic narrative is intended at ensuring that the working class
acknowledges the need to retain the private character of the property on
the means of production, that capitalist exploitation is necessary, as it is
inherent to economic relations, and for that reason socialism was bound
to irrevocably fail.
Lastly, it is in this light that one has to review the events of October
1993, when certain political forces once loyal to Yeltsin got in conflict
with the regime. Following the dissolution by Yeltsin of the Congress of
People’s Deputies Supreme Soviet of Russia, a standoff culminated with
the assault by the Kantemirovskaya and Taman divisions of the so-called
Russian White House on Yeltsin’s order. Hundreds of people, mostly an-
ti-Yeltsin activists many of which genuinely opposed the character of the
economic reforms, were killed and wounded. As a result of the so called
“shock therapy” embodied in the economic reforms launched early 1992,
the economic standing of the Russian roiling masses suffered a cata-
strophic blow. Yeltsin’s popularity and the whole notion of privatization
of state assets and the liberalization of the market were loathed by many.
This sentiment was capitalized by political figures, such as Alexander
Rutskoi, Ruslan Khasbulatov, Viktor Barannikov, Vladislav Achalov and
others, to challenge Yeltsin’s rule. These quickly gained the support of
grass-roots political activists many of which were sincere communists
who genuinely fought for the restoration of the Soviet Union. That said,
the leadership and the political character of the anti-Yeltsin opposition
in 1993 had no intention of reversing the liberalization of the market,
let alone restoring the Soviet Union, even in it is revisionist form. This
speaks one more time to the treacherous role of the so-called “conser-
vatives”, which calls for an independent mass movement lead by the
Marxist-Leninist as opposed to revisionist political organizations.
The slogan of the restoration of the Soviet Union today

As discussed above, it is essential to bear in mind the bourgeois du-
ality in Soviet revisionist politics to understand the pivotal role of the
“conservatives” in enabling the dismantlement of the socialist formation
and in advancing course towards liberalizing the market in the revision-
ist system. The so-called “conservatives” were necessary to keep up with
the appearances and to disarm the working class ideologically. Just as in
the West, the so-called “left” presents itself as the sponsor of the interests
of the toiling masses against the attacks of the bourgeoisie, allegedly rep-
resented by the “right”. The “conservatives” in the Soviet Union present-
ed themselves as the guarantor of the socialist order, when in reality their

role was to ensure that the working class and the toiling masses did not
revolt as market relations gradually deteriorated their standards of living
in favour of a selected minority. As the economic position of the toiling
masses deteriorated, the “conservatives” were essential in ensuring that
the appropriate response to economic decline should be to further liber-
alize the market, as opposed to challenging the premises of the revision-
ist political economy. It was essential to make sure that the response was
ultimately to further liberalize the market, not to question the market.
The “conservatives” safeguarded the sanctity of the revisionist prin-
ciples that replaced the Marxist-Leninist system of thought. At no point
during the economic decline of the revisionist Soviet Union, did the
“conservative” establishment question the need to revise the theoretical
premises that established themselves during the second half of the 50s
and the 60s pertaining to the role of planning and commodity-relations.
A scrutiny of the literature of the revisionist period bears witness about
how the revisionist establishment doubled down on the theories of the
so-called “market socialism”. “Conservatives” remain as adamant an-
ti-Stalinists in questions of political economy as much as the “liberals”.
In turn, Perestroika used “conservatism” as the scapegoat for the
economic decline, corruption, and mismanagement that the destruction
of the socialist formation and subsequent liberalization of the market
ensued during the revisionist period. The working class has no ally in the
“conservatives”. However, it is the “conservatives” that monopolize the
sanctity of the Soviet statehood and its institutions and act as its guar-
antors.
A similar situation emerged in Eastern Europe, where the Soviet re-
visionist elite actively interfered in the internal affairs of other countries
to ensure that power would shift to individuals loyal to the Soviet Union
as much as the revisionist principles of economic management. In some
of these countries the process of collectivization was liquidated or re-
versed, where different levels of liberalism towards private enterprise
were allowed.
The slogan of the restoration of the Soviet Union (or the revisionist
system in the countries of Eastern Europe for that matter) in the early
90s needs to be viewed in the corresponding historical context and cor-
relation of political forces at the time. While this appears an obvious
statement, it is essential to recognize that the debate around the preser-
vation or liquidation of the Soviet Union was entrenched in the politics
of bourgeois dualism of the revisionist period. The defence of the Soviet
Union in this context remained within the realm of the evolution of the
revisionist system, whether the transition to classical forms of capitalist
exploitation and market relations should happen under the leadership of
the communist party and with the assistance of Soviet symbolism as a
superstructural attribute.
The defence of the Soviet Union, whether in the form that Gorbachov
envisioned or that of the “conservatives”, has nothing to do with the de-
fence of the socialist formation. Socialism was essentially off the table
and out of the question, even though Perestroika’s anti-communist core
presented the revisionist Soviet economic structure as that of a “social-
ist command economy”. The working class was confronted with two
choices, both of which remained within the boundaries of bourgeois du-
alism: either open anti-Sovietism or Soviet revisionism presiding over
a dysfunctional economic system, where the working class had no, or
little say. Whereas the communist party of the Soviet Union had ceased
to be the party of the working class decades prior and the revisionist
economic system was unsustainable, the Soviet working class finds it-
self ideologically disarmed and deprived of a political organization. The
official revisionist ideology subverted Marxism-Leninism in favour of
petty bourgeois ideology embellished with bourgeois academicism and
hollow references to Marx, Engels and Lenin, where Stalin’s contribu-
tion to the development of Marxism-Leninism was surgically removed.
In this context, one also must recognize the powerful role played by
Soviet symbolism and the state of social welfare (even if crumbling) to
provide social stability during the revisionist period. This is essential to
understand why the revisionist system lasted for so long after the liqui-
dation of the socialist form of production was formalized in the second
half of the 50s. And this is despite protracted economic crisis and sys-
temic shortages, both in production and in consumption. This speaks to
the stupendous prestige that the notion of Soviet patriotism had gained
in the psyche of vast layers of the Soviet people. The vindication of Sta-
lin’s role in history and the nostalgia for the Soviet past that is now
prevalent in today’s Russia is yet another demonstration of the same
phenomenon. It is at this point that it is consequential for the purposes
of the thesis advocated here that one views the importance of Soviet
symbolism in the context of the dialectics of form and content. In order
to preserve social stability modern revisionism ventured to preserve
Soviet symbolism, which represents the form that enclosed political
and economic relations of fundamentally different type compared to

the socialist period. Eventually, the tension between form that is con-
stituted by the Soviet symbolism and the pro-market economic reforms
will be resolved in favour of the latter. Nevertheless, the preservation
of this tension played a pivotal role in enabling the liberalization of the
market within the revisionist system.
Fast forward thirty years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union
one now needs to look at the position taken by the heirs of these “con-
servatives”. One realizes that these have also evolved together with the
development of commodity relations. Organizations, such as the Com-
munist Party of the Russian Federation, which continues to be led by
the incombustible Gennady Zyuganov, have evolved into more classical
positions of modern social-democracy and they have de facto embraced
the neo-liberal paradigm. Whereas they praise the Soviet past and even
glorify the historical figure of Stalin, they do not seriously consider the
nationalization of main means of production, as advocated by Marx-
ism-Leninism. Their programme minimum envisions “the nationaliza-
tion of natural resources of Russia and strategic sectors of the economy,
use the income of these sectors in the interests of all citizens”. The CPRF
does not put forward a clear plan for the industrialization of the country
let by the state. Its economic programme does not entail a serious de-
viation from the current state of affairs of the Russian economy, nor its
neo-liberal character.
It is important to note that this attitude is consistent with their overall
assessment of the economic history of the Soviet Union.11 While they
praise Stalin’s leadership, they adopt a Brezhnevite (intrinsically an-
ti-Stalin) position regarding the need to revise the principles of Marx-
ism-Leninist political economy pertaining to socialist industrialization
and planning. In their view, the economic policies under Stalin incurred
in excessive “nationalization and centralization”. This is in sync with
the vision of Khruchev and Brezhnev regarding the need to “reform” the
Soviet economy. The CPRF does not dispute the commodity character of
the economy that presides over the transition to communism. This core
thesis has been proven wrong time and again, in that the development
commodity-money relations are in fundamental contradiction with the
transition to higher forms of socialization, both theoretically and in prac-
tice.12 The expansion of commodity-money relations inevitably results in
economic crisis and low growth rates and the disintegration of socialist
relations of production and distribution. The historical material available
in this respect is insurmountable. Yet, the CPRF, as today’s heirs of the
“conservative” wing of modern revisionism double down on these an-
ti-Marxist and pro-capitalist theses. Why would they insist on something
that is known to fail? The reason is simple: the role of the heirs of revi-
sionism is to uphold the interest of capital should their time come to take
over the Russian government.
Needless to say, the CPRF is also critical of the post-Stalin period.
In their view the Soviet leadership of the post-Stalin period also failed
to act on the deficiencies of the “old” economic system. This is not a
principled critique of the post-Stalin period, as it follows the principle
that they were wrong because the revisionist Soviet economy failed. As
a matter of fact, CPRF’s criticism of the post-Stalin period implicitly
carries within itself a criticism of the Stalin period. It is implicitly argued
that the Soviet leadership of the post-Stalin period was unable to prop-
erly reform
The CPRF considers China as a socialist country. This unequivocally
speaks to their notion of socialism, which is subverted to serve the inter-
ests of big capital. This in essence entails the use of the red flag to cover
up for the neo-liberal model of economic development.13 This is essential
to understand the economic content of their policies should they attain
power as a result of Putin’s eventual political downfall. The CPRF in its
programme envisions a three-stage approach to political and economic
transformation. The CPRF, as the Communist Party of China, advocate
for a lengthy period of economic development where capitalist relations
are allowed to blossom under the patronage of the one-party system.14 In
this neo-liberal model, the role of the State is to provide the necessary
conditions for these economic relations to further develop, where con-
centration of capital becomes inevitable, a question naturally emerges:
how is does the one-party government plan to turn around an economy
driven by monopolistic capital embodied by large corporations to serve
the purposes of the transition to higher forms of socialization. That ques-
tion is never answered theoretically. The transition to higher forms of
socialization is pushed far into the future as a distant perspective.
Should the CPRF seize power as the correlation of political forces
requires further restoration of Soviet symbolism to preserve social stabil-
ity, another question emerges. As the CPRF remains an orthodox advo-
cate of the market, what would it be able to achieve under the economic
conditions of Russia that Putin has not be able to achieve? Under the
conditions of fierce economic competition, severe crises of super-pro-
duction, the overall technological backwardness of the Russian econ-

omy and the lack of investment in industry, let alone heavy industry, it
is un-scientific to believe that the perpetuation of the neo-liberal model
will resolve the economic contradictions that afflict the country. Here
lies one of the major structural contradictions of modern revisionism in
Russia today. As they are unwilling and/or unable to forge ahead with
the socialist path of development, modern revisionism finds itself in a
quandary: how to resolve the contradictions of the neo-liberal model that
is in deep crisis in Russia while refusing to nationalize the main means of
production and turn the State into the engine of economic development
based on socialist industrialization. By contrast, the CPRF in line with
the neo-liberal doctrine, views the role of the state very differently from
Marxism-Leninism. In their view, the role of the State is to create con-
ducive conditions for the development of the national producer based on
the private character of the ownership of the means of production. Here
the State does no longer participate directly in production, but rather
through indirect market mechanisms.15
In this light, it is necessary to delve into the nature of the process
that has led to the vindication of the Soviet Union and Stalin in recent
years. This process has not been instigated by Putin’s regime nor is it
a gain made by the CPRF and similar organizations. Putin had made it
abundantly clear back in the day that he stood and continues to stand
on solid anti-Stalinist positions of the type that had become prevalent
during the times of Perestroika. The CPRF and its leaders also stood at
some point on open anti-Stalinist positions, as they are the true heirs of
modern revisionism. Today they praise Stalin superficially and continue
to adhere to anti-Marxist positions in questions of socialist construction.
Stalin’s vindication has been the result of a spontaneous process, where
the Russian toiling masses have gradually become disenchanted with
the economic disenfranchisement and social exclusion that is prevalent
today. It’s been the toiling masses of Russia and other former republics
of the Soviet Union, not the representatives of the economic oligarchies
that have cleared the name of Stalin in history. Putin and the CPRF have
opportunistically used this spontaneous process for their own political
purposes. Here, Stalin, the Marxist-Leninist, the continuator of Lenin’s
endeavor, is instead portrayed as the great statesman and general among
generals. The Marxist-Leninist essence of Stalin’s contribution to history
is replaced with whatever is convenient to the regime and the heirs of
modern revisionism to maintain the social status quo prevalent today.
The regime tantalizes the toiling masses of Russia with its ambiguous
and tepid support of Stalin’s legacy and the gains of the Soviet Union.
Here Stalin is used to spur patriotic and anti-Western sentiments in view
of the growing contradictions with American imperialism. It goes with-
out saying that the growing confrontation with the US and the conflict in
the Ukraine is no more than a means to divert the toiling masses’ atten-
tion from the economic failure of neo-liberalism in Russia.
Several very important questions emerge. What should be the posi-
tion of the Marxist-Leninist here, why is the slogan of the restoration of
the Soviet Union so relevant today and how should it be articulated. In
order to answer these questions, one needs to adhere to the dialectics of
form and content in politics. Modern revisionism was able to adapt So-
viet symbolism and the external attributes of the Soviet system to their
political needs, where the economic relations that were concealed under
them were no longer of socialist nature. Modern revisionism succeeded
in concealing market relations under the disguise of Soviet symbolism.
This, however, should not prevent today’s Marxist-Leninists to champi-
on the slogan of the restoration of the Soviet Union by injecting revo-
lutionary content in it. It would be a mistake of a neo-Trotskyite nature
to reject the slogan of the restoration of the Soviet Union altogether on
the grounds that modern revisionism used Soviet symbolism for their
own purposes. Indeed, this slogan can be misconstrued and re-directed
by today’s revisionists with the purpose of defending the interests of
capitalists. One can also argue that the nostalgia for the Soviet past in
today’s Russia revolves people’s longing for social stability, prosperi-
ty, and strong statehood, as opposed well-defined class consciousness.
However, this does not preclude the Marxist-Leninist from taking charge
of the slogan for the purposes of socialist transformation and liquidation
of capitalist relations of production. The fact of the matter is that the pop-
ular support for Stalin today is primarily due to the success of socialist
construction in the Soviet Union. It would be suicidal not to recognize
the momentous significance of this statement. This is an invaluable asset
that other revolutionaries in many countries do not have: the historical
memory of a socialist past entrenched among the exploited, which is
associated with prosperity, equal opportunity, peace, stability, and strong
statehood.
As stated above, the task of the Marxist-Leninists, the heirs of the
Bolshevik traditions, is to fill with revolutionary content the slogan of
the restoration of the Soviet Union. One needs to forward the positive
enclosed in the nostalgic sentiments among the toiling masses for the

creation of a popular movement under the leadership of the working
class towards the restoration of socialism. Now we need to hone in on
this important question. In order to do so let’s focus on two main aspects
of the slogan and how these are intrinsically linked with structural weak-
nesses of revisionism:
* The inability of revisionism to link the slogan of the restoration of
the Soviet Union with the social and economic demands of the Russian
working class and toiling masses.
* The inability of revisionism to enact economic policy with which
to satisfy the basic economic aspirations of the Russian toiling masses.
Revisionism rejects socialist industrialization.
The CPRF is unwilling and unable to connect the slogan of the res-
toration of the Soviet Union with the immediate political aspirations of
the exploited. Revisionism does not associate the economic struggle of
the exploited with the political demand of the restoration of the Soviet
Union. This is central to understand how the Marxist-Leninist should
position themselves as a political alternative to revisionism. The Marx-
ist-Leninist proposes socialism as the socio-economic construction that
will resolve the economic contradictions that generate poverty and suf-
fering, where the working class remains that social stratum that leads the
toiling masses towards that goal. It is therefore, essential that the Marx-
ist-Leninist connect the slogan with today’s social struggles through
its different manifestations. For as much as the memory of the Soviet
Union is now vindicated broadly, the socialist Soviet Union will not be
restored spontaneously. It requires a sustained political effort through
social struggle with a clear vision for political action. In contrast with
the revisionist, the Marxist-Leninist are in position to own the slogan
by consistently embracing and owning the Soviet past through social
struggle. It is only the Marxist-Leninist that can elevate the slogan of the
restoration of the Soviet Union to the level of political demand and build
a mass movement around this discourse.
Even though the CPRF does not shy away from glorifying the Soviet
past, it does not elevate this discourse to the level of a political slogan.
Instead, they resort to some sort of emasculated rhetoric, where the past
is a thing of the past, but the past cannot be brought back to fruition.
One must recognize that the CPRF does not uphold the slogan, as it does
not intend to restore a Soviet Union of the Brezhnevite type. Today’s
revisionism does not see the need to restrict market relations in the same
way that modern revisionism of the Brezhnevite type was forced to im-
plement because of concrete historical conditions. Instead, today’s revi-
sionism advocate for open market relations within the framework of the
neo-liberal doctrine, and as such it is unable to bring relief to the toiling
masses. The political and economic programme revolves around the use
of some of the Soviet symbolism to appease the toiling masses and with
which ultimately protect the interests of the Russian bourgeoisie. This is
central to understand the window of opportunity that lies in front of the
Marxist-Leninist.
It has been established that, once in power, the CPRF will not na-
tionalize the main means of production.16 Fast economic growth, full
employment, and the sustainability of a state of social welfare heavily
rely on socialist industrialization driven by the State. Socialist industri-
alization in turn cannot come to fruition without the nationalization of
the main means of production through the State. The core of the Marx-
ist-Leninist economic programme will be the nationalization of the main
means of production, of large capital, as a pre-requisite necessary to al-
leviate the economic hardships of vast layers of the toiling masses. Na-
tionalization will be essential for the Soviet State to meet the aspirations
of broad layers of the toiling masses that today’s neo-liberal Russia is
not able to honour.
Russia remains today one of the weakest links of imperialism similar
to the times preceding the October revolution. Capitalism is undergo-
ing a severe crisis of overproduction and debt (both public and private),
where inter-imperialistic confrontations are on the rise. The collapse of
the neo-liberal political system in Russia will likely take place under
the pressure of social discontent17 coupled with strong pro-Soviet sen-
timents. The CPRF, just like the Kerenskys, social revolutionaries, the
Mensheviks, and the likes, will emerge to save the capitalist mode of
production in Russia. However, just as much Kerensky was not able to
provide peace and land, today’s revisionists will not be able to provide
the social, economic, and political goals that the Russian toiling masses
are longing for. It is only the Marxist-Leninists, the heirs of the traditions
of the party of Lenin and Stalin, that will be able to bring to fruition the
slogan of the restoration of the Soviet Union on the basis of the nation-
alization of the main means of production leading to socialist industri-
alization. The Marxist-Leninist are the only ones capable of articulating
and implementing the necessary socio-economic changes that are con-
sistent with the pro-Soviet and pro-Stalin sentiments of broad layers of

the Russian toiling masses today. Contrary to 30 years ago, the slogan of
the restoration of the Soviet Union has shifted away from the realm of
bourgeois dualism.
Endnotes:
1
The text of the new Union Treaty can be found at https://doc.histrf.ru/20/
dogovor-o-soyuze-sovetskikh-suverennykh-respublik/. One of the founding
principles of this new State reads: “Each republic - a party to the treaty - is
a sovereign state. The Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics (USSR) is a
sovereign federal democratic state formed as a result of the unification of
equal republics and exercising state power within the powers that the parties
to the treaty voluntarily vest in it… The states that form the Union have full
political power, independently determine their national-state and administra-
tive-territorial structure, the system of authorities and administration. They
may delegate some of their powers to other States parties to the treaty, of
which they are members.The parties to the treaty recognize democracy based
on popular representation and the direct expression of the will of peoples
as a common fundamental principle,and strive to create a rule of law state
that would serve as a guarantor against any tendencies towards totalitari-
anism and arbitrariness.” The draft suggested a federal state composed of
sovereign states, where the federal government would retain some of the
functions of the old Soviet Union, such as the “Protection of the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of the Union and its subjects; declaration of war and
conclusion of peace; ensuring defence and leadership of the Armed Forc-
es, border, special (government communications, engineering and other),
internal, railway troops of the Union; organization of the development and
production of weapons and military equipment.“ Needless to say the very
notion of a federal state comprised of sovereign states is so self-contradictory
and unsustainable politically that many interpreted it as a blatant attempt to
dismember the USSR.
2
Upon the temporary removal of Gorbachev as head of the state, the Vice Pres-
ident Gennady Yanayev assumed the post of the President of the USSR. At
the press conference of August 19th Yanaev was visibly distressed, where his
hands were trembling and his demeanour was shaky. This gave the impres-
sion to many that whatever was unfolding was more a charade rather than a
proper coup.
3
Reliable archival sources have been availed to the public, e.g. “Lavrentiy Beria.
1953. CC of the CPSU and other documents”, Moscow Mezhdunarodniy
fond “Demokratia” 1999.
4
It is important to note that, the Plenum of the CC of the CPSU did point to ca-
pitulationism in regard to Beria’s position vis a vis the GDR. That said, the
Soviet of Ministers of the USSR under Malenkov’s chairmanship determined
that the course towards the construction of socialism adopted by the Social-
ist Unity Party of Germany in 1952 was wrong, where the rates of growth
of heavy industry need to be reduced, the five-year plan need to be revised
correspondingly and that the collectivization of the countryside should not
be accelerated. The Soviet leadership accused the German party of leftism.
This sentiment is also echoed by Molotov. The spirit of the Soviet of Min-
ister’s position with regards to the GDR is eventually incorporated into the
economic reforms in the USSR, which was not under the political pressure
that the government of the GDR was subjected to at that juncture. The Soviet
leadership, Molotov included, at the time considered the so-called accelerat-
ed construction of socialism in Germany as erroneous although it argued that
Beria’s position was that of not pursing socialism altogether, in contrast to
the position of the Politburo. What is relevant here is that a fundamental tenet
of the construction of socialism, that of the precedence of heavy industry,
is undermined by both parties. Accusations towards Beria from the side of
the party leadership at the time in this regard are not particularly consistent.
5
In principle, the Politburo (Political Bureau) of the Central Committee of the
party was renamed into Presidium during the XIXth Congress, October 1952.
6
Some historians have speculated that most of the political maneuvering that
during Stalin’s illness and subsequent demise revolved around sidelining
Molotov, a staunch supporter of Stalin’s leadership with Malenkov playing a
significant role here. It is speculated that Khrushchev and Beria were work-
ing closely together to enact some of the abovementioned reforms. For ex-
ample, it is believed that Khrushchev was behind the appointment of the first
Secretary of the Party in the Ukraine.
7
The minutes of the Plenum of the CC of the CPSU of July 2nd-7th 1953, where
Beria was subjected to devastating criticism are available online at http://
istmat.info/node/26522.
8
A number of deficiencies in agricultural production were used opportunistically
by Khrushchev to forward his petty bourgeois vision for the Soviet Union
and the Eastern bloc. Boosting agricultural production at the cost of growth
and investment in heavy industry was one of the key triggers for the eco-
nomic reforms that were initiated the second half of 1953. Paradoxically, it
was in the countryside where pro-market economic reforms of the 50s failed
most vividly. Non-Marxist authors attribute this failure to the so-called “corn
experiment” and other bizarre attempts to “creatively” deal with the prob-
lem of agricultural production. Marxist analysis indicates that the factors
that contributed to the outcome are of fundamental nature, where socialist
economic relations and the process of gradual socialization of the collective
economy were radically disrupted. As a result of Khrushchev’s reforms, the

Soviet Union towards the beginning of the 60s resorted to importing grain.
The Soviet Union never really recovered from this crisis, where import of
grain became endemic reaching a peak in the 80s.
9
Suslov, one of the instigators of Khrushchev’s removal was considered one of
the leading ideologists of the party. He has been portrayed as the epitome of
“conservative”, “dogmatic” Marxist-Leninist, as opposed to the “liberals”
of the Kosygin-Liberman type. It was in fact the “conservative” Suslov that
stood against attempts made at the top to rehabilitate Stalin, even if partially.
10
A referendum took place on March 17th 1991, where following question was
put forward: Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign repub-
lics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any ethnicity will be
fully guaranteed? The referendum took place in 9 of the Republics with 80%
turnout, where 77.85% of the vote was positive.
11
The CPRF is unequivocal in their programme regarding the economic policies
of the Stalin period. While acknowledging the spectacular gains of socialism
during Stalin’s period, it is stated: “However, the task of developing forces of
production that correspond to the socialist mode of production was far from
fulfilled. The mobilization economy [mobilizatsionnayaekonomika], which
had taken root in the country, led to extremely strict nationalization [ogosu-
darstvlenie] and centralization of many spheres of public life. The econom-
ic management was not promptly brought into sync with the needs of the
productive forces. Bureaucracy grew, self-organization of the people was
restrained, social energy and the initiative of the working people were ham-
pered. There were serious deviations from one of the key principles of social-
ism, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” The
achievements of the scientific and technological revolution were not fully
combined with the advantages of socialism.” (https://kprf.ru/party/program)
12
The CPRF writes in its programme “As the level of real socialization of la-
bour and production gradually increases so does its role in the economy”.
One of the thesis put forward to challenge centralization is to establish a
rift between nationalization (ogosudarstvlenie) and socialization (obobsh-
estvlenie). In Marxism nationalization is a necessary condition to achieve
socialization of labour and production in the conditions of the transition to
communism, where the state will become obsolete as communism is grad-
ually achieved. This statement is turned upside-down by revisionism by ar-
guing that nationalization is not a sufficient condition for socialization. It
is argued that nationalization is not enough to establish “real socialization”
and that the latter is achieved when the forces of production are advanced
enough. Nationalization in this context is downgraded to the level of
a juridical relationship, where nationalization would be equated to
“formal socialization”, which would remain deficient as it is not “real social-
ization”. The economic history of the Soviet Union and the People’s Democ-
racies have demonstrated that the socialization of labour and the means of
production through nationalization are pivotal for socialist construction. The
socialist state attains the means to manage the economy as a whole through
planning while amassing vast resources to achieve economic growth and
satisfy the growing needs of society. This is in stark contrast with the market
theories of modern revisionism that got the upper hand right after Stalin’s
passing. The CPRF stands on the same positions of modern revisionism and
as such it opposes the nationalization of the main means of production as a
means to transition to higher forms of socialization.
13
The Chinese Communist Party states in its Constitution: “China is current-
ly in the primary stage of socialism and will remain so for a long time to
come. This is a stage of history that cannot be bypassed as China, which
used to be economically and culturally lagging, makes progress in socialist
modernization; it will take over a century.” In the Constitution of the Com-
munity Party of China (2017),
http://www.xinhuanet.com//english/download/Constitution_of_the_Commu-
nist_Party_of_China.pdf
14
It is probably appropriate to note that the CPRF does not advocate for a
one-party system. The CPRF envisions to achieve power through open elec-
tions in a multi-party system. One can concede that given the strong popular
support for the restoration of the Soviet Union that the CPRF could attain a
large fraction of the vote. While on the surface the CPRF advocates for the
restoration of the Soviet system of representation for the whole people, the
notion of dictatorship of the proletariat is solidly excluded from the political
landscape.
15
The CPRF envisions a three-phased approach for the economic development of
the country. Once gaining power and after nationalizing the strategic sectors
of the economy (natural resources and those sectors that provide revenue
through export) the CPRF would set to protect the interests of the “petty pro-
ducer against large capital, bureaucrats and corrupt structures”. In a second
phase “the economic diversity [monoukladnost or different forms of proper-
ty of the means of production, including private, our note], determined by the
level of productive forces, will still be preserved. … the State will establish
planning of the main indexes of economic development, will formulate a
full-fledged budget and will become the most important customer of products
from domestic manufacturers. People’s power with the help of planning and
market mechanisms will actively regulate the development of the economy
and the social sphere.” These phrases encapsulate the neo-liberal character of
the CPRF’s economic programme. Two are important aspects of this vision.

Firstly, planning in this context has nothing to do with socialist planning. The
latter pertains to the organisation and distribution of material resources and
live labour in the socialist sector and the relations of the socialist sector with
other forms of production. In the CPRF’s view, planning revolves around
influencing the economy of private independent producers through market
mechanisms to achieve certain economic goals quantified through economic
indexes. Secondly, the State is not the main producer of goods, but rather the
private sector, where the State is suggested as the leading purchaser of these
goods. In essence, the State is becomes an asset to capitalist accumulation. It
is therefore preposterous to argue that this system of economic relations may
eventually lead to higher forms of socialisation of labour and production.
16
The nationalization of the main means of production does not necessarily ap-
ply to the petty producer. Depending on the concrete historical conditions
and the levels of development of socialist industrialization certain forms of
petty production may be retained over certain periods of time. That said,
the CPRF’s concept of national producer is much broader than that and it
includes large-scale capitalist production and financial institutions.
17
The recent events in Kazakhstan are a wake-up call for the anti-popular re-
gimes that emerged in the post-Soviet space. The Kazakh regime is an epit-
ome in its own right. The popular revolt that followed the sharp increase of
gasoline prices was spontaneous in nature and was driven by unemployment,
high commodity prices, economic exclusion and poverty. The revolt was not
particularly tied to nationalist and anti-Russian sentiment characteristic to
the Euromaidan movement in the Ukraine. Neither the Western nor the Rus-
sian media gave a voice to the local population and those that participated
directly in the riots. Most of the coverage was about pundits speculating
about the possible causes underpinning the crisis.
A MARXIST POSITION
REGARDING RUSSIAN IMPERIALISM
Georgian Communists
In the history of the early development of Marxism, the question of im-
perialism was central, shared. The final demarcation between the op-
portunistic line of the Second International and revolutionary Marxism
occurred in 1914, at the beginning of the First World War. Under Lenin,
the left-wing minority of the socialist movement signed an agreement in
Zimmerwald, the commitment of which to all the Communists means
adherence to the basic principles of the class struggle. This agreement
meant an implacable struggle against imperialism and the Social Dem-
ocrats subordinate to it. Based on this history, we adhere to the position
that Leninism is the Marxism of the era of imperialism. Today, in the
early era of the aggravation of inter-imperialist antagonism, the strength-
ening of Russian and Chinese imperialisms, the beginning of the inter-
national imperialist conflict, Georgian Marxists are obliged to immedi-
ately raise the issue of Russia, assess the attitude of the Georgian and
international working class towards Russia and oppose the opportunistic
mystification of the issue.
The beginning of Russia’s transformation into a modern imperial-
ist country must be sought first of all where Russian capitalism begins.
This in turn will lead us to the Soviet Union. After the coup of 1953,
the revisionist layers of the Communist Party were finally able to com-
pletely consolidate power, thereby starting in the country of October a
process of complete restoration of capitalism and the elimination of the
dictatorship of the proletariat. It was difficult to bring this process to its
logical conclusion within the framework of the socialist system, so the
collapse of the Soviet Union became necessary. In recent years, under
Gorbachev, the Soviet Union began to make huge concessions to the
Western imperialist powers. Decades before Gorbachev, the Communist
Party adopted an idealistic and opportunistic thesis about « peaceful co-
existence », but this policy took on a completely different scale under his
leadership. In 1987, as a result of the new political course of Yakovlev
and Shevardnadze, the conflict between the Western and Soviet worlds
forever disappeared.
Together with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, Gorbachev,
with the support of the leaders of the world counter-revolution, became

one of the founding fathers of the new era, in which the antagonistic
‘two’ came into harmony, « ideal » global capital. In the 1987-90s, the
Soviet Army was halved, the Council of Economic Mutual Assistance
and the Warsaw Pact were abolished. Restructuring destroys the econ-
omy, the East Bank collapses and the Soviet Union eventually breaks
up. The leadership of post-Soviet Russia passes into the hands of the
comprador bourgeoisie, unshakably standing on guard of Western neo-
colonial interests. The then comprador bourgeoisie, with its politicians
and ideologists, with its Yeltsin and separatism, advocated the neo-liber-
alisation of the entire post-Soviet space. Under President Yeltsin, Russia
took over the debts of not only the Soviet Union, but also the Provisional
Government and tsarist Russia, thus becoming the vassal state of the
West. In 2000, a young, charismatic, pro-American president, Vladimir
Putin, left the ranks of the comprador bourgeoisie. Putin spoke at inter-
national conferences about the western choice of Russia and cooperation
with NATO, which in the eyes of the West portrayed him as a sober suc-
cessor to Yeltsin. At this point, at least in the eyes of the West, everything
was going according to plan, although changes in Russia’s domestic
policy were gradually beginning to radically change the situation in the
country. In exchange for the fact that the oligarchs ceased to hide their
income, the state abolished its tax policy; the government guaranteed the
ruling class the preservation of the achievements of privatization. New
rules were established, and the naughty Putin capitalists left the game.
The Russian oligarchy invited representatives of the repressive state ap-
paratus (the police, the army, security) to the political elite. Their number
in ministries increased from 11.2% to 42.3% from 1993 to 2008. In other
words, Putin begins to consolidate the national bourgeoisie in Russia,
which will gradually develop into an imperialist bourgeoisie. Putin’s rise
in power coincides with a huge increase in oil prices, especially in 2007.
The oligarchs, who retained control of oil and gas, suddenly found them-
selves in a favourable position. The economy began to grow by 5-10%
per year. The number of dollar billionaires has increased since 2001 by
14 times (8 in 2002, 111 in 2014). The growth of wealth has reduced the
demand for external debt, and Russia has become a bold player in the
international arena. Relations between Russia and the West were further
complicated by the fact that Western capital has reigned in the post-So-
viet space on a devastated restructuring since the 1990s.
After the « Rose Revolution » The Kremlin felt it was losing influence
in neighbouring territories. Russia has intensified its role in Abkhazia
and Ossetia, distributing Russian passports to local residents, launching
special services and laying the foundation for the conflict, culminating in
the 2008 war. Where today is « liberated » Russia Abkhazia and Ossetia?
Ossetia — is the economic puppet of Russia, which it uses to smuggle
sub-sanction goods. For example, in order to avoid sanctions, Donbass
coal mining companies are registered in Ossetia, from where goods are
transported to Russia, and from Russian ports — to Europe. The situa-
tion in Abkhazia is even more interesting: in 2020, the “Programme for
the Formation of a Common Socio-Economic Space between the Rus-
sian Federation and the Republic of Abkhazia” was signed. First of all,
the agreement provides for the « resolution » of the issue of Abkhaz and
Russian citizenship. 90% of the population of Abkhazia already has Rus-
sian citizenship, so the question arises of what to “decide” here”? The
purchase of real estate in Abkhazia is limited for foreign citizens, but
the agreement will greatly facilitate the acquisition of citizenship of Ab-
khazia for Russian investors. In addition, the conditions for creating the
legal framework necessary to attract investment in the energy sector are
indicated. According to the agreement, the activities of Russian banks
in Abkhazia will be intensified, financial assistance will be provided to
Russians wishing to acquire real estate in Abkhazia, it will be easier for
banks to own real estate in Abkhazia. Russia also assumes responsibility
for the health care, education and social security of Abkhazia. In addi-
tion, the conditions for creating the legal framework necessary to attract
investment in the energy sector are indicated.
Now let’s go beyond our region and analyze the place of Russian
capital in the international market. Based on empirical data, facts that re-
veal the imperialist nature of the Russian state can be cited. The concen-
tration of capital in Russia is reflected not only in production, but also in
trade: small entrepreneurs and traders are actively crowding out trading
networks belonging to monopolies from the market. For example, « Beer
», « Crossroads », « Carousel » and « Kopeika » are part of group X5.
The share of financial assets concentrated in the banking sector in
Russia is 85-90%. Given that the largest corporations and banks are
wholly or partially owned by the state, we can say that capitalism in
Russia has a state-monopoly form.
We can start analyzing capital exports with direct investment.
Russia’s foreign direct investment amounted to $ 500 billion in 1998-
2013, which amounted to 23.4% of Russia’s gross domestic product in
2013 (4.9% in 1999). Figures for other G7 countries: United Kingdom

- 74.4%, France - 59.7%, Germany - 47.1%, Canada - 40.3%, States -
37.5%, Italy - 28.9%, Japan - 20, 1%.
On the other hand, we can observe indirect investments (portfolio in-
vestment), which means passive ownership and purchase of shares by an
investor. Information on indirect investments of Russia is available for
2002-2013. During this period, 256 billion dollars were exported from
Russia.
The export of capital in the form of the import of labour is one of
the most obvious examples of imperialism. While part of the worker’s
wages is returning to his home country, the surplus value received from
their labour goes into the profits of the imperialist country. Russia ranked
seventeenth in the world in exploiting the cheap labour of migrants in
2000, and remittances sent by workers to their homeland amounted to
$ 1.1 billion. In 2013, with a fortune of $ 37.2 billion, he came out on
second place (after the United States), ahead of Saudi Arabia (35 billion
dollars), Switzerland (30.1 billion dollars), Germany (19.6 billion dol-
lars) and France (13.4 billion dollars). Luxembourg (11.9 billion dollars)
and the Netherlands (11.4 billion dollars).
We will be asked: “after all, Russia forgives the debts of the countries
of the global South?” to which we will be happy to answer: how it for-
gives. The Soviet Union actively financed the countries that were again
freed from Western colonialism, and after the collapse of the socialist
camp, the role of the debtor went to the Russian Federation. Since 2000,
there have been reports in the media that an impoverished, devastated
and devastated Russia has begun to forgive debts to different countries.
Forgiveness of debts to developing countries — are old tactics of the
imperialists, guaranteeing preferential conditions for their future invest-
ments. The Putin bourgeoisie quickly learned this lesson and set to work.
Russia has forgiven various countries $ 140 billion in debt for 18 years.
North Korea was forgiven for $ 11 billion in debt, but in return, Russian
corporations got the right to restore the railway network, which totaled
a project of $ 25 billion. They forgave debts and Guinea in exchange
for gaining control over the extraction of bauxite in their territory. She
forgave Syria’s debts for 2005, and in return received a contract for the
purchase of military weapons, so the Russian military industry receives
good profit from the war in Syria. The debt was forgiven in Iraq, in ex-
change for which the private company « Lukoil » was allowed to work
in Iraq. Russia is focused on enriching its own bourgeoisie by writing off
public debt and external expansion of Russian capital.
Let’s get back to the post-Soviet space. In Ukraine (till the Maidan),
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Uzbekistan, Russian capital was
mainly invested in metallurgy, mining, oil and oil refineries, real estate,
wholesale networks, food industry, telecommunications and finance. The
largest volume of Russian investments was concentrated in Ukraine, as
one of the largest economic regions of the post-Soviet space. By 2014,
Russian business in Ukraine controlled 80% of oil refineries and mili-
tary-industrial complex, transport and engineering, gas and metallurgical
complexes. It also owned 150 objects in Crimea. A materialistic view
of the question makes it possible to understand what intentions are be-
hind the expansionist policy of Russia in Ukraine. In 2014, the « Maidan
revolution » takes place, which frees Ukraine from the grip of Russian
capital and puts it in the greedy throat of Western capital. You do not
need to be a Marxist to understand that the subsequent events were not a
coincidence. Imperialist aggression against Ukraine on February 24 —
was another attempt by Russian capital to regain « its » tidbit.
Speaking about modern imperialism, it is enough to discuss econom-
ic and political aspects, but no less important for our analysis should
be the consideration of the ideology — of this greatest weapon of the
bourgeoisie. Ideology is a reflection of the basis, expressing its inter-
ests, serving to maintain its sustainability. Here, Russia has two most
important mechanisms: one international and the other local. The Rus-
sian ideological apparatus is not satisfied with the expropriation of the
Great Patriotic War; at the same time, Putin’s Russia was able to reha-
bilitate the imperialist white generals who personified the enchanting
form of Russian fascism. Right-wing imperialist forces today — Russian
national heroes, proud warriors. Unlike Lenin and his revolution, which,
according to President Putin, was a conspiracy and a coup, hated Russian
people. It is easy to understand why Putin hates Lenin: Lenin was an
anti-imperialist and supporter of the nation’s right to self-determination,
which is incompatible with the modern Russian state, its ideology and
politics.
The second ideological trick of the Russian bourgeoisie (is much
more dangerous, given its international influence) —is the exploitation
of the Soviet heritage. Russia is actively using the old concept of So-
viet Russia, according to which Russia is a state which is supporting
the anti-imperialist struggle of oppressed peoples. The primary task of
imperialism is — to destroy or absorb its main enemies. The West has
known this for a long time. This function is performed by American and

European NGOs in imperialised countries. To counter them, Russia has
its own agencies. Russia Today, for example, often provides a platform
for those radical left-wing thinkers who are becoming less and less ac-
ceptable in Western media. The Russian bourgeoisie with characteristic
treachery and manipulativeness speaks in its country about the virtues of
tsarism, about an unhappy royal family, the kindness of fascist groups,
the greatness of the Church, and at the international level uses its stands
to criticize homophobia in Eastern Europe, expose the outrage of con-
servatism, criticize liberalism, and highlight information about interna-
tional left movements. « Obviously, — some Russian communists will
say, — that we do not agree with the cultural propaganda of the Russian
government, but we will not forget how Russia helps international an-
ti-imperialist movements». They remind us of Syria, about Venezuela,
point to the sweetened partnership of « communist » China with Russia.
In fact, the struggle for Venezuela and Syria — is an inter-imperialist
conflict, where Russia uses antagonism with the West for the sake of its
economic and geopolitical interests. We have already mentioned Rus-
sia’s relations with Syria, but in fact this story does not end with the pur-
chase of military equipment. In Syria, « The Islamic State » seized most
of the oil field and began selling local oil at a low price through Turkey,
which Russian corporations could not allow. Russia had the opportunity
to seize oil companies itself, and she did it. In the best traditions of im-
perialism, tanks have always been followed by capital, and since 2015,
Russian companies have invaded Syria. In 2019, the Syrian parliament
adopted a resolution allowing two Russian companies to develop oil and
gas. The total area occupied by these oil companies is up to 12 thousand
square kilometers, and the volume of gas in these fields is 3.4 trillion
cubic meters. In Syria, these corporations use the Wagner Group to de-
fend themselves, but we will talk about it later. Russia also hunts for oil
in Venezuela, where the United States threatened to impose sanctions
against the Russian company « Rosneft » in an attempt to curb Russian
influence, in response to which « Rosneft » transferred oil companies
in Venezuela to a Russian state corporation. The bourgeois-democratic
governments that have won in countries oppressed by Western imperial-
ism are gradually losing their status and moving to the positions of the
comprador bourgeoisie, this moves them to the control of the capital of
Russia and China.
Before moving on to the conclusion, let’s say a few words about the
« Wagner group ». Wagner’s group, whose name is inspired by the Third
Reich, was founded by Dmitry Utkin, a former Russian lieutenant. Its
current leader is Putin’s closest supporter, Russian billionaire Yevgeny
Prigozhin. The group is a private military company that directly armed
itself and participated in various international conflicts in Crimea, Don-
bass, Syria, Sudan, the Central African Republic, the Second Civil War
in Libya, Mozambique, Mali; has armed groups in Zimbabwe, Ango-
la, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau. An interesting parallel — is the American
private military company Blackwater, which conducted similar « Wag-
nerites » operations in Iraq. The company that belongs to Prigozhin «Lo-
baye Invest» is engaged in diamond mining, gold and other minerals in
the Central African Republic since 2018. On July 31, 2018, Wagnerians
killed a group of journalists who arrived in the Central African Republic
to investigate the military and economic activities of «Lobaye Invest»
and Wagner’s group. Such operations are carried out with the full sup-
port of the Russian government.
In conclusion, we must return to the beginning, to the Second In-
ternational, Zimmerwald and Lenin. From the very first day of the Eu-
ropean Social Democratic movement, disputes have been ongoing on
important theoretical and practical issues, although the main reason for
the collapse of the International lies in the First World War. The interna-
tional socialist movement legitimized fundamentally anti-Marxist, an-
ti-internationalist discourse, which sought to distinguish and support «
the best » or « the less bad » empires. Today, like a hundred years ago,
socialists can sit down and decide which empire is the most « evil » and
« harmful ». They can, and as socialists, have the right to do so, but not
as Marxists. The counter-revolutionary discourse of the empire deceived
not only the right-wing social democrats, but also momentarily such ide-
ologists of the proletariat as Antonio Gramsci. That is what Lenin stood
out for saying that in the imperialist war we must fight not only against
any international manifestation of imperialism, but also that the work-
ing class of the imperialist country (in this case, the Russian proletariat)
must do everything to, so that his country is defeated. This, of course,
can mean material and physical sacrifices for the proletariat, but where
was liberation, revolution and internationalism without such victims?
Real Leninist Marxists are different from the ideological successors of
the Mensheviks, the social imperialists and revisionists of « 21st Centu-
ry Socialism » in that they remain committed to communist theory and
principles. Communists have always opposed any country whose pros-
perity and strengthening is due to the subordination and enslavement of
the world proletariat.

PUTIN AND SOVIET SYMBOLISM
Scintilla
In an article entitled “On the situation in Ukraine”, which appeared in the
Indian magazine Revolutionary Democracy of September 2022, com-
rade Bikram Mohan, after denouncing the imperialist and aggressive
character of the so-called “Special military operation” aimed at safe-
guarding the interests of Russian capitalism in Ukraine, focuses on a
specific aspect of Putinist propaganda: the use of pro-Soviet symbols.
The question deserves to be investigated, both for the causes and conse-
quences that it entails, and because various “fellow travelers” are trapped
and confused by this propaganda.
Comrade Bikram rightly observes that after 30 years of devastating
reforms, vast strata of the Russian popular masses show understanding
and admiration for the Soviet past.
Of particular importance in modern Russian ethos and national pride
is the victory over Nazi Germany and European fascism achieved with
the Great Patriotic War, which was led by the Bolshevik Party, under
the leadership of Stalin. The greatness and power of the State that was
based on the worker-peasant alliance, under the hegemony of the work-
ing class, is an irrefutable historical fact, with which any bourgeois gov-
ernment in Russia must deal with.
Even Putin, despite being a visceral nationalist and anti-communist,
is forced, especially in times of war, to adopt, in an open or sublimi-
nal way, a propaganda based on the victories of the past. Therefore, the
memory of the Soviet victory over Nazi-fascism has become a central
and recurring element of present-day Putinism. The pro-Soviet propa-
ganda element and the appeals to the common anti-fascist sentiment of
the oppressed Russian masses are used to carry out a war of an imperi-
alist character, the character of which must be hidden behind the slogans
on the “demilitarization” and “denazification” of Ukraine.
Undoubtedly, far-right chauvinism and neo-fascist ideology are
prevalent in the Ukrainian army, but Putin’s regime is not in a political,
ideological and moral position to denazify, both because its aims are
oppressive and aimed at denying the self-determination of the Ukrainian
nation; because Putin himself has close ties with neo-fascist personalities
and organizations, such as Dugin and the Wagner group, as well as with
other far-right organizations. The exchange between the criminals of the
Nazi Azov battalion and the oligarch Medvedchuk is proof of Moscow’s
lies.Putin is a consciousanti-communist and his ideology is inherently
anti-Soviet and anti-Leninist, as we have demonstrated in several articles
published in Scintilla.
However, his “liberal” attitude towards Soviet symbolism and histo-
ry of the Soviet Union has spread totally unfounded speculations about
an alleged ideological turn.In reality, Putin is opportunistically using the
liking of large sections of the Russian people to the Soviet past for his
own political purposes and for war propaganda.
The more the Putinist regime finds itself in difficulty, the more it
will get bogged down in Ukraine and the more often and with greater
intensity it will bring out the Soviet symbolism to compact and divert the
masses that bear the weight of the war.
It is therefore no coincidence that in recent months the red flag sym-
bolizing the victory of the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany, with the
hammer, sickle and the star, has been appearing more and more often.
For example, it is exhibited in official military parades and flies on some
Russian tanks in Ukraine.
The Russian media even highlights the fact that the red flag of victory
flies in the cities where the Ukrainian armed forces have been expelled.
Even the Russian cosmonauts waved the glorious banner, in an operation
with a strong symbolic and media impact.
With this Putin wants to convey the idea that the war in Ukraine is
an anti-fascist war, against a fascist regime supported and armed by the
US and the EU, and not an inter-imperialist war in which Russian im-
perialism is trying to defend by the sword, deals with its sphere of influ-
ence and its own market, perpetuating the dependent status of Ukraine, a
country disputed for more than a decade between the US and the EU on
the one hand, and the Russian Federation on the other.
Putin must appear as Russia’s saviour against the aggression of Eu-
ropean fascism. At some level, it is positioning itself to be viewed pos-
itively, as much as Stalin is considered Russia today. Therefore, it is of
the greatest importance to point out that Putin’s ideology and political
and strategic goals have nothing to do with the glorious past of the Soviet
Union of Lenin and Stalin.
But there is another relevant aspect that Comrade Bikram highlights.
Putin’s regime has allied itself with the heirs of the revisionist CPSU,

which today are mainly represented by the Communist Party of the Rus-
sian Federation (PCFR). The PCRF constructs its rhetoric in favor of the
unjust partition war in Ukraine based on the need to eradicate fascism
and Western aggression. Furthermore, the PCFR insists that failing to
complete the military operation in Ukraine would have serious conse-
quences for Russia.This is not a coincidence. Revisionism is always on
the side of capital and against the interests of the working class, regard-
less of the historical era or the social stages of development.
Today the PCRF is on the side of Russian capital, just as modern
revisionism was against the working class and socialism in the Soviet
Union and other Eastern bloc countries. The PCFR, like other revisionist
parties, does not recognize Russian imperialism because it is its perma-
nent ally. Support for Putin’s war effort is support for the destructive
and aggressive character of imperialism: this has nothing to do with the
struggle to rebuild the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin.
The revisionists of today have allied themselves with the Putin re-
gime and support an imperialist war in which Russians and Ukrainians
are killed by the tens of thousands, creating irreparable damage to thou-
sands and millions of other people. An unspeakable suffering that is im-
posed in the name of the political, economic and strategic interests of the
opposing imperialisms. The Soviet flag of victory has nothing to do with
this dirty war.
There must be no ambiguity in the struggle against the inter-imperi-
alist war. Appealing to the pro-Soviet and anti-fascist sentiments of the
Russian masses is a false and dishonest political and propaganda act and
as such must be denounced and exposed.
Putin and the revisionists are misappropriating the symbols and glo-
rious history of the socialist Soviet Union, exploiting the just aspirations
of vast Russian social strata who aspire to social emancipation, peace
and brotherhood of peoples, which Lenin’s Soviet Union and Stalin had
conquered.
Aggression against Ukraine is not in the interests of the Ukrainian
people, much less the Russian working class. It is therefore up to the
Communists (Marxist-Leninists) of each country to reveal the true class
nature of the treacherous Putinist and revisionist propaganda, to explain
to the working class and the popular masses that behind this symbolism
there are capitalist relations of production and an imperialist partition
war, openly fight the social-chauvinist positions.
The Putin regime’s need to use Soviet symbols and anti-fascism to
justify war represents a contradiction that highlights the weakness of
Putinism.But it also expresses an important change in the attitude of the
oppressed Russian masses towards the victories of the socialist Soviet
Union, while the neo-liberal model adopted by Putin is in serious crisis,
aggravated by Western sanctions.The war in Ukraine will only accelerate
the bankruptcy of the Putinian regime and capitalism in Russia.At the
same time it will bring about the revolution which will liberate Russia
from capitalism and imperialism again, rebuilding proletarian socialism.
Scintilla, October 2022 #127.
REVOLUTIONARY DEMOCRACY
A Half-Yearly Journal
Single Issue: £ 6.00 US$ 6.00

Annual Subscription: £ 12.00 US$ 12.00
Inland Subscription
Individual: Rs. 200
Institutional: Rs. 1000
Life Membership: Rs. 1500
Subscription may be remitted by M.O. only to:

The Manager, Revolutionary Democracy
U.S. Distribution
c/o George Gruenthal,
192 Claremont Ave., #5D
New York, NY 10027
United States of America.
Payment by cash, money order or check in the name of

George Gruenthal
Canada Distribution
C/o Antonio Artuso, Communist Reconstruction
pueblo@sympatico.ca

THE END OF UNIPOLARITY
WHAT DOES A MULTIPOLAR WORLD MEAN,
AND DOES IT BENEFIT THE WORKERS AND PEOPLES?
From the end of World War II until about 1975, and to a large extent
later, the U.S. was the chief imperialist power. It was by far the world’s
largest producer, the major trading power, and was (and still is) by far
the world’s leading arms producer. Most of the oppressed countries were
(and many still are) dependent on U.S. imperialism.
I use the date 1975 above as this was the year of the U.S. defeat in
Vietnam. This marks the beginning of the long but slow decline of U.S.
imperialism.
Of course, the U.S. decline was interrupted by the collapse of the So-
viet Union and the Warsaw Pact.1 The U.S. was able to expand economi-
cally into this region (as did also a united Germany). It also expanded its
military arm, NATO, including most of the Eastern European countries
and even many of the former European Soviet Union (but not officially
Ukraine). Russia under Yeltsin was a very weak capitalist power, until
Putin took office and tried to turn Russia back into a strengthened impe-
rialist power.
However, most of the era of imperialism (dating basically from the
beginning of the 19th century) was a period of multipolarity, that is, of
several competing imperialist powers. Until the end of World War I,
there was competition particularly between Britain and Germany. Again,
particularly after the rise of Nazism to power in Germany, there was a
period of conflict between Britain, Germany and the U.S. Both these pe-
riods ended in a world war to see which imperialist bloc would become
dominant.
Today, besides the decline of U.S. imperialism, we are seeing the rise
of new imperialist powers, particularly China and Russia. Thus this mul-
tipolar world is once again becoming a world of conflicting imperialist
powers. The BRICS countries do not form an anti-imperialist bloc – they
consist of imperialist powers (Russia and China) and dependent coun-
tries (Brazil, India and South Africa, even if they are somewhat more
developed than other oppressed and dependent countries).
However, most of our petty-bourgeois leftists do not recognize this.
For example, John Parker of the group Struggle for Socialism – Lucha
por el socialism, one of the more recent splits from Workers World Par-
ty, spoke at St. Mary’s Episcopal Church in Harlem on January 13. He
stated that “the former European colonial African states… now want the
Russian army to ensure their security.” Does he really think that, if that
were to happen, Russia would not use this to build their own bases and
take advantage of Africa’s abundant mineral and agricultural resources?
He also said: “Beijing is building roads in Eurasia from East to West.
None of these relationships are imperialist relationships – they are not
exporting capital; they are helping developing countries build up their
infrastructure for mutually beneficial economic interests, unlike the fi-
nancial gangsters of the West – the IMF and World Bank.”2
It is fine that he attacks the imperialist gangsters of the West (see also
his article: “Zelensky complicit in corporate takeover of Ukraine: ‘It’s
an investment’,” at https://www.struggle-la-lucha.org/2023/01/07/zel-
ensky-complicit-in-corporate-takeover-of-ukraine-its-an-investment/).
It is always the task of revolutionaries to concentrate their attack on
“our own” imperialism. But this does not mean to turn a blind eye to
the interests of the opposing imperialists. If he thinks that China is “not
exporting capital,” then what are the Chinese mining interests doing in
Ecuador and Peru, or its coltan interests in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo?
The competition between imperialist powers can allow a certain
room for breathing space to socialist and other progressive forces. For
example, in the period after World War I, when the Soviet Union was
invaded and then boycotted by the major capitalist powers, it was able
to establish trade relations with Germany under the Treaty of Rapallo, as
Germany was subordinated by the unequal Versailles Treaty.
Today, the fact that there are contradictions between the U.S.-E.U.
imperialist bloc and the Russia-China bloc allows for a country like Ven-
ezuela, which has a bourgeois-democratic national government, or Cuba,
which has a revolutionary-democratic government, to avoid U.S. sanc-
tions by trading with Russia and China.
However, maneuvering between imperialist blocs is not the same as
allowing for dependence on one or the other. When this is the case, one
is just switching from one oppressor to another. And unfortunately, this
is the way that many on the petty-bourgeois left in the United States see
this multipolarity.
Towards Marxist Leninist Unity, New York.

Endnotes
1
I will not deal here with the question of whether the Soviet Union and the
Eastern European countries (except Albania) were still socialist after the
death of Stalin), as this is not the subject of this article.
2
https://www.struggle-la-lucha.org/2023/01/17/instead-of-focusing-on-russia-
look-at-the-planners-of-this-war/
Clara Zetkin: Rosa Luxemburg’s Views

on the Russian Revolution
Some of the writings of Rosa Luxemburg on the Russian

Revolution have been used to oppose Lenin, Stalin and the Great
October Socialist Revolution. Clara Zetkin wrote this book which
establishes that in the course of the German Revolution Rosa
Luxemburg modified her views in her last months prior to her
assassination so that they came to proximate to those of Lenin and
the Bolsheviks.
This book was originally written in German in 1922 and
translated into Russian. It has been now published in English for
the first time and published by Red Star Publishers in the United
States with the co-operation of the journal Revolutionary
Democracy, India.
Contact:
Red Star Publishers
P.O. Box 1641
Manhattanville Sta.
New York, NY 10027
USA
webmaster@RedStarPublishers.org
Price: $12 plus postage
220 pages
Checks must be made out to U.S. Friends of the Soviet People as

Red Star Publishers has no bank account.
THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS
may be viewed on the website of the journal at:
www.revolutionarydemocracy.org
Stalin Archive
Documents of the Indian Communist Movement
Polemics of Revolutionary Democracy and Proletarian Path on the
Stage of the Indian Revolution
Books and Pamphlets
Questions of Soviet Music
On Trotskyism
On Che Guevara
People’s Front
People’s Democracy
Documents from the Cominform
The Colonial Question
The Colonial Question in India
The Women Question
Liquidation of People’s Democracy in Yugoslavia
Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union
Liquidation of People’s Democracy in China
Material from Albania
Material from China
Material from Yugoslavia
Clara Zetkin Archive
Jose Diaz Archive
Georgi Dimitrov Archive
Aleksandra Kollontai Archive
Antonio Gramsci Archive
Ho Chi Minh Archive
Mao Tse-Tung Archive
Rajani Palme Dutt on the Colonial Question 1948-1952
Ubaldo Buttafava Archive
William B. Bland Archive
Moni Guha Archive
Tufail Abbas Archive
Badruddin Umar Archive
Putchalapalli Sundarayya Archive
National Question in the USA

“MULTILATERALISM”
A KEY INSTRUMENT OF
CHINESE IMPERIALISM’S FOREIGN POLICY
Communist Platform, Italy

1. THE CHINESE CONVERSION TO MULTILATERALISM
Since 1986, the Chinese revisionists have used “multilateral diplomacy”
as an integral part of their foreign policy.
The theme of multilateralism made its official entrance into Chinese
political discourse with the report on the work of the government pre-
sented by Zhao Ziyang on the occasion of the launching of the VII five-
year plan (1986-90).
During the 1980s, capitalist “reforms” and the opening to the market
were the driving forces behind China’s move toward multilateral institu-
tions and its growing diplomatic activism.
In the 1990s, the Chinese “conversion” to multilateralism developed
with a progressive participation in international organizations and fo-
rums, especially of an economic nature. In fact, the new Chinese strategy
required a more extensive and diversified participation in various multi-
lateral forums, to avoid isolation and international condemnation. In this
way China, increasingly linked to the international capitalist market, was
drawn into the spider web of imperialism, as an integral part of it.
This strategy developed especially after the events in Tiananmen
Square (1989), also to promote an image of “responsible power” and
to begin to redesign a global order more favorable to the rising Chinese
superpower.
Hence the re-evaluation of multilateralism, traditionally seen as a ve-
hicle of external pressure and interference, and the start of a process of
gradual development of this policy.
In the following years, the growing economic power of the Chinese
dragon enabled Beijing to pursue greater diplomatic and foreign policy
activism.
Since the 15th Congress of the CCP (1997), in the name of pragma-
tism the revisionist leaders of the CCP have formally adopted “multilat-
eralism” as a guiding principle and operational tool in their international
affairs, relations and initiatives.
New theses on multilateralism were further elaborated during the
16th Congress of the CCP (2002) in order to expand activism in interna-
tional affairs and to make China accepted as the challenger of US global
power.
At the same time, multilateralism has become an essential require-
ment to ensure long-term economic development, political stability and
social peace, both within China and on its borders.
2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHINESE MULTILATERALISM

In recent decades, the development of the struggle for world hegemo-
ny between U.S. imperialism, which is in economic and cultural decline,
and the rapidly rising Chinese one (economically it could reach and sur-
pass the USA in a few years; militarily it is continuously strengthening),
has reshaped the pragmatic use of multilateralism by the revisionist lead-
ership in Beijing.
Consequently, Chinese multilateralism has constantly evolved, with
its own characteristics, under the pressure of its monopolies and domi-
nant groups that want to transform economic force into political-military
force to win more favourable positions in the struggle for the re-division
of the world.
Chinese multilateral politics thus passed from a conception focused
above all in the crucial Asian region (the APEC, the Shanghai Cooper-
ation Organization, the creation of the free trade area with the ASEAN
countries, the Boao Forum, the Six Nations dialogue on North Korea, the
creation of the Asian Investment Bank to support huge projects such as
the “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI), the cooperation between BRICS,
the numerous bilateral agreements that are very advantageous given
China’s economic power, are examples of this approach), to expressions
with a broader base, characterized by China’s entry into global forums
and institutions, traditional haunts of imperialist leaders (e.g. WTO,
G-20 as a member state, G-8 as an observer). Even within the U.N.,
China has developed its participation in “peace missions” in dozens of
countries (Afghanistan, Haiti, Kosovo, Lebanon, Liberia, Sudan, etc.).
Multilateralism has thus become a central element of Chinese ambi-
tions to continue rapid development and in a few decades to build a new
international order in which China is no longer in a “strait-jacket” but
holds a decisive and predominant position.
The development of Trump’s isolationism and the crisis of U.S. mul-
tilateralism have offered new strategic opportunities to imperialist China
to establish itself as an advocate of “inclusive” economic globalization,

of international order and of multilateral architecture, in opposition to
protectionism.
Indeed, China has developed rivalry with the US using the same in-
ternational organizations hitherto run by the Yankees, but at the same
time it has worked to change the balance of power within them, under-
mining norms and agreements that favour the superpower currently led
by Biden.
The concept and practice of Chinese multilateralism have developed
amidst the clash of interests and values between the U.S.-led Western
powers and the rising medium and large powers (BRICS and other cap-
italist states), which want to escape U.S. domination and gain a status
appropriate to their growing economic, political and military weight in
the international hierarchy.
The multilateralism pursued by China therefore seeks to push through
in the tensions that are shaking the current system of international rela-
tions; its rhetoric hides the struggle for hegemony between imperialist
powers, and behind its diplomatic mask there is the old strategy of alli-
ances and blocs.
3. THE CURRENT PHASE OF CHINESE MULTILATERALISM

With Xi Jinping’s rise to power in 2013, China has shifted to a major
foreign initiative, of which the BRI is the most obvious manifestation.
The current phase of Chinese multilateralism, more active and assertive
than in the past, was expressed by Xi Jinping during the World Economic
Forum in January 2021, who criticizing hegemonism and unilateralism
emphasized a consensual system of global governance, based on univer-
sal consultation and rules. A utopian imperialist world, in which differ-
ences “are not a pretext for antagonism and confrontation, but rather an
incentive for cooperation”.
Chinese propaganda is based on the revisionist rhetoric that the old
U.S.-led postwar international order has become increasingly unsustain-
able, while the trend is towards a multipolar world and globalization.
Hence the push for the “development of a community with a shared fu-
ture for humanity” (Xi Jinping, report to the 19th Congress of the CCP)
to be achieved by reforming the liberal-democratic institutions to create
an environment more favourable to the interests and ambitions of Chi-
nese imperialism.
Despite the official narrative, the “true multilateralism” with Chinese
characteristics is both strategic and opportunist, part of a counter-hege-
monic design.
The U.S. and China are constantly struggling to extend their influ-
ence internationally, the tension in the South China Sea and on Taiwan
is growing, albeit for now the two superpowers don’t want go to a direct
war (China needs time to strengthen itself; it has an interest in armed
conflicts taking place in other regions of the world in this period). This
struggle also develops within multilateral agencies in which China is
resolutely defending its decisive interests.
The Chinese multilateralism that has emerged in the last twenty years
must be understood in combination with the discourse on “multipolar-
ism”. Both are part of the strategy to extend Chinese influence and dom-
inance, especially among “developing” countries, creating an image of
China as a benign world power on the rise.
Through multilateralism China is gradually gaining power at the re-
gional and global level, pursuing the penetration of its capital through
bilateral agreements with dependent countries of Africa, Asia and South
America (in which Beijing gets the “dragon’s share”) while striving to
form a world political structure that corresponds to its strategic aims.
Despite the deceptive propaganda on fair, transparent, democratic
diplomatic relations, on “mutual benefit”, “win-win cooperation “, etc.,
in fact an exclusive and competitive “bipolar” model is emerging, based
on regional or international institutions hinged on two great imperialist
powers, U.S. and China, which are challenging each other: the first to
maintain hegemony, the second to win it. It is an inter-imperialist strug-
gle for supremacy within the dying imperialist system.
4. CLASS VISION OF MULTILATERALISM

From a revolutionary class point of view, what is the “multilateral-
ism” supported by the Chinese revisionists and their followers?
At the root of multilateralism (and multipolarism), there is Kautsky’s
reactionary theory of ultra-imperialism, which deceives the masses with
the hope of the possibility of permanent peace in the capitalist system
(i.e., the peaceful division of spheres of influence and colonies), which
hides the profound contradictions inherent in imperialism, in the name of
the bourgeois perfection of imperialism, of full integration with it.
Chinese multilateralism is the further development of the “Five Prin-
ciples” of peaceful coexistence promoted by Zhou Enlai since 1954,
which have completely replaced the principles of proletarian internation-
alism, including the coexistence of exploited and exploiters, oppressed
and oppressors, the abandonment of revolutionary struggles, the rela-

tions with fascist and reactionary regimes (over the years, Pinochet’s
Chile, Franco’s Spain, the reactionary factions in Angola, Taliban’s Af-
ghanistan, etc.), the encouragement of the free world market, etc.
Furthermore, Chinese multilateralism continues and deepens the an-
ti-Marxist and reactionary theory of the “three worlds”, which was aimed
at mitigating the contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoi-
sie, at eliminating the leading role of the proletariat in the revolution, at
suffocating the class struggle and the national liberation struggles of the
peoples against the imperialist yoke to achieve the goals of cooperating
with the US in the fight against the revisionist USSR and putting China
at the head of the “third world” states, painting it as their main defender.
Multilateralism is based on typically bourgeois concepts and practic-
es that reflect the political and legal philosophy of the project of a liberal
international order. Therefore, it is completely alien and in contrast to the
Marxist-Leninist conception of the world and of society.
The foundations of modern U.S.-led multilateralism were laid at
Bretton Woods in 1944, with the creation of major international organi-
zations, including the United Nations (UN), the World Bank (WB) and
the International Monetary Fund (IMF), institutions that have strength-
ened the exploitation and oppression of dependent, semi-colonial and
colonial peoples and countries.
From the moment Mao’s China steered its course towards the United
States of America, defining the Soviet Union as its main enemy, it also
began to enter or openly support many mechanisms of the imperialist
political game.
At the basis of multilateralism there is class conciliation, the attempt
to mitigate the class struggle, to deceive the working class and the op-
pressed peoples with captivating formulas. Behind the demagogy of the
“search for suitable solutions” in a phase of international change, mul-
tilateralism preaches collaboration and social peace between exploiting
and exploited classes, between oppressed and oppressor countries, be-
tween oppressed and oppressing nations.
The Marxist-Leninist conception of social differentiation is based on
the theory of classes and the class struggle, up to the recognition of the
dictatorship of the proletariat.
Multilateralism, on the other hand, is based on the relationship be-
tween states, or apparatuses of the dictatorship of the ruling classes,
whose existence shows that class antagonisms are irreconcilable.
By supporting multilateralism the Chinese revisionists deny the ob-
jective character of the existence of class contradictions (starting with
those existing in China); they try to reconcile antagonistic classes; they
credit the idea that imperialism and capitalism are factors of progress
and peace in the world.
For the Peking revisionists – who for decades have replaced the es-
sence of the revolutionary theory of classes and class struggle with bour-
geois concepts and practices – it is not the popular masses, the classes,
who are the subjects of the process and historical action; the class strug-
gle is no longer the driving force for the development of the antagonistic
society.
Their position is not accidental: they must try by all means to con-
vince the proletariat and the peoples that class contradictions and those
between imperialist and capitalist powers are compatible within the
framework of the bourgeois system, that the solution of the existing
dramatic problems must be found in greater understanding, mutual and
better cooperation between the ruling classes, in the coalition with the
imperialist bourgeoisie.
Multilateralism does not question the capitalist social relations of
production, now predominant in China, but defends them. It therefore
reflects the interests of the exploiting classes which are inevitably in
contrast with the demands of social progress; it is a liberal methodology
which has the evident purpose of convincing the proletariat to resign it-
self to its condition as an oppressed class, to become a docile instrument
of bourgeois politics.
At the same time, multilateralism is the most flagrant denial of the
principle and practice of proletarian internationalism, which is replaced
with Chinese nationalism and solidarity with the oppressors of the peo-
ples. In particular, the function of multilateralism is to promote and sup-
port the process of integration of the dependent countries into the institu-
tions and mechanisms dominated by the imperialist countries.
Behind these typical concepts of Chinese foreign policy and actions
there is the financial oligarchy of the Asian giant which is frantically
seeking to invest capital abroad, striving to conquer markets and spheres
of influence, seeking to establish its hegemony everywhere. This is a
policy that cannot go ahead without the intensification of the exploitation
of the Chinese working class and labouring masses.
5. THE MASK OF IMPERIALIST AMBITIONS

AND WAR PREPARATIONS
For decades China has abandoned its phraseology of a “revolutionary
power” and adopted a position as a power defending the capitalist-im-

perialist system. Its international policy, as well as its domestic one, is a
means of consolidating the power of the exploiting classes.
If Khrushchevite revisionism declared the end of the struggle against
imperialism and for “world integration”, Chinese multilateralism is the
mask of the unbridled ambition of the Chinese imperialists who want to
replace the United States in the political and economic domination of
the world.
This dangerously deceives peoples about the goals of Chinese im-
perialism and tries to attract the ruling cliques of dependent countries
under this banner.
Under the ideological as well as practical aspect, multilateralism is in
flagrant contrast with the interests of the proletariat and with the scientif-
ic principles that express the objective tendencies of historical evolution.
It tends to maintain imperialism, not to overthrow it in order to suppress
any exploitation of one human being by another, any oppression of the
peoples.
The views and positions of the Chinese revisionists are counter-rev-
olutionary and align with those of the bourgeoisie of the Western impe-
rialist and capitalist states, with which they collaborate and compete.
But despite the efforts of the revisionists, multilateralism does not
eliminate class contradictions, nor those between imperialist powers,
much less those between imperialism and the oppressed peoples.
Today’s capitalist-imperialist world is objectively more and more
fragmented, divided, in conflict. The fact that some countries are emerg-
ing and others declining, given the inequality of economic and politic
development (and not because of the struggle for self-determination and
sovereignty, as the revisionists claim) does not mean that the world is
safer.
On the contrary, this very inequality of development makes rear-
mament, conflicts and imperialist wars inevitable for new divisions of
the world and spheres of influence, markets, sources of raw materials,
transport routes, etc. The discourses on multilateralism are only a screen
behind which the great powers hide the preparations for new wars, de-
ceiving the peoples.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES

The conception and practice of multilateralism have nothing in com-
mon with communism, but are aimed at diverting the proletariat and the
peoples from the struggle for the revolution and socialism.
The ideological and political battle against all those who promote
and defend the concepts of multilateralism, “multipolarism”, bourgeois
“rules of international law”, interclassism in the field of international
relations, is an important aspect of the struggle against revisionism and
opportunism in all its variants that continues to cause serious damage to
the International Communist Movement.
The lack of understanding of multilateralism and its ideological and
political function highlights the lack of understanding of imperialism
and its activities in the international arena.
There are forces and currents that limit their analysis and understand-
ing of imperialism only (or mainly) to its aggressive, militaristic or open-
ly hegemonic foreign policy, such as that of the US.
There are others who argue that China and Russia play an anti-im-
perialist role because they clash with the United States of America, and
therefore consider these powers as allies of the peoples and points of
support for the development of dependent countries.
These serious errors in understanding imperialism – the highest and
final phase of capitalism –which usually accompany the support of the
theses on the multipolar world and the politics of multilateralism, in-
evitably lead to underestimating the capacity and danger of imperialist
powers such as China and Russia; in other cases they lead to concealing
or justifying the causes of the inter-imperialist war, to justify rearmament
and to put themselves at the service of the imperialist powers opposing
the USA with social-chauvinist arguments to divide the proletariat and
pit them against each other.
The parties and organizations that define themselves as communists,
but which consider a new “peaceful coexistence” desirable and possible
in the context of sharpening of the contradictions between imperialist
powers; who dream of a “non-aggressive” imperialism, or one whose
aggressiveness can be channeled through multilateralism; who preach
the theory of the “balance” between imperialist powers and the related
“security architectures” in the so-called “multipolar world”; who rely on
one imperialist power to fight another, betray the cause of the proletar-
ian revolution and transform themselves into forces subordinate to the
bourgeoisie.
The historical experience of the communist movement shows that
there cannot be an “intermediate” line or ground between those who
support Marxism-Leninism and those who support opportunist and revi-
sionist theories, strategies and practices; between those who fight for the

revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat and those who support
multilateralism, social peace and false bourgeois democracy.
Any centrist attempt to hold diametrically opposed positions and
tendencies, to establish an “intermediate” line on questions of princi-
ple, is not only useless, but also leads to ideological degeneration and
reactionary results in the political field. Towards the social-imperialists
and social-chauvinists, no other attitude is possible than an implacable
struggle.
The new international order for which the communists are fighting
is founded on the revolutionary alliance between the working class and
the oppressed peoples and has as its goal socialism and communism, the
classless society.
The unity we fight for is a true, Leninist unity. It is completely il-
lusory, dangerous and misleading to think of reconstituting a powerful
international workers’ and communist movement, a new Communist In-
ternational, without a complete and definitive ideological and organiza-
tional separation from modern revisionism and opportunism which aim
to divert the proletariat from the revolutionary struggle.
One cannot fight imperialism, cannot fulfill the revolutionary tasks
of proletarian socialism, and cannot build the revolutionary unity of
the workers’ and communist movement, without freeing oneself from
imperialist and chauvinist pressure and influences, without recognizing
and denouncing the revisionist and opportunist failure, without breaking
openly and clearly with these currents and their national and internation-
al organizations.
This dutiful separation, favoured by the sharpening of the main con-
tradictions of our epoch, is historically inevitable and necessary to devel-
op the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat.
Today more than ever it is necessary to maintain complete theoret-
ical, political and organizational independence, firmly adhering to the
principles of communism in order to forge the most solid international
union of the revolutionary proletarians of all countries.
The defence and development of Marxism-Leninism, the unmasking
and relentless struggle against all forms of revisionism and opportun-
ism within the communist and workers’ movement, the living practice
of proletarian internationalism, are fundamental aspects of the struggle
to advance cooperation and conjunction of the revolutionary parties of
the proletariat.
The ICMLPO, which is based on a clear Marxist-Leninist platform
and has always fought for the international unity of the communists,
plays an essential role in creating a strong centre of attraction for the
revolutionary proletarian forces.
This is why it invites the parties and organizations of all the countries
that fight for socialism and communism to join with it for the constitu-
tion of a powerful International Communist Movement, which will proj-
ect itself into the reconstruction of the Communist International.
Communist Platform – for the Communist Party of the Proletariat

of Italy
Revolutionary Democracy is on sale at:

May Day Books, Red Emma’s
301 Cedar Ave, 30 W. North Ave.
Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA. Baltimore, MD 21201
Bookculture Housman’s Bookshop,

536 West 112th Street 5, Caledonian Road,
New York, NY 10025. King’s Cross,
London N1 98X
Center for Marxist Education, U.K.
550 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139. The journal is on sale in the UK at
The Stalin Society, London and
Sankofa Video & Books, Birmingham; and the National
2714 Georgia Ave. Office of the New Communist
Washington, DC 20001. Party in London.

Revolutionary Democracy is available at
JANCHETNA, D-68, Nirala Nagar, NOTUN PADATHIK, Opp. Assam
Lucknow- 226020. Engineering Institute, Chandmari,
Guwahati 781003, Assam
PRAGATISHEEL SAHITYA SADAN,
Indralok Apartment, Opposite PROGRESSIVE BOOK CENTRE
Allahabad bank, Patna 800006. BHU Campus, Viswanathan
Temple Gate, Varanasi, U.P.
PEOPLE’S BOOK HOUSE,
Meher House, Cawasji Patel Street, LOKAYAT PRAKASHAN,
Fort, Mumbai- 400001. 883 Lodhon Ki Goli, M.D. Road,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
THE BOOK MARK, 6, Bankim
Chatterji Street, Kolkata - 700073. KEEZHAIKKARU,
c/o A.Mukundan, 16,
MANISHA GRANTHALAYA, 4/3B Arumanaichaavadi, Near Anthonyaar
Bankim Chatterjee Street, Chittaranjan Church, Cantt Palaavaram,
Avenue, Kolkata 700073 . Chennai 600043.
SETU PRAKASHANI, (Beside Coffee PROGRESSIVE BOOK HOUSE,

House), Shyamacharan Dey Street, M.L. Nehru Road, Pan Bazaar,
Kolkata 700073. Guwahati-781001, Assam.
SETU PRAKASHANI, 12A, Sankar CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY,

Ghosh Lane, Kolkata 700006. 23/90 Connaught Circus,
New Delhi 110001.
NAVODAYA BOOK HOUSE, Opp.
Arya Samaj Mandir, Kathigada, PEOPLE’S PUBLISHING HOUSE,
Hyderabad 500027. 18A Marina Arcade, G Block,
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
MYTHRY BOOK HOUSE, Masjid
Lane, Karl Marx Road, Vijayawada PEOPLE TREE,
520002, Andhra Pradesh. 8, Regal Building, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001.
PRAJASAKHTI BOOK HOUSE,
Door No. 27-1-54, Karl Marx Road, GEETA BOOK CENTRE,
Vijayawada -52000 2, Andhra Pradesh. Kamal Shopping Complex,
JNU New Campus, New Mehrauli
PUNJAB BOOK CENTRE, S.C.O. Road, New Delhi-67.
1126-27. Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
PEOPLE’S PUBLISHING HOUSE,
ANWESHA BOOK STORE, J.N.U. New Campus, New Mehrauli
Barowary, Chenikutti, Road, New Delhi -67.
Guwahati-781003.
READERS BOOK STORE,
EKLAVYA PRAKASHANI, Malow Heijigang Keithel, Canchipur, Imphal,
Ali, Jorhat, Assam-785001. Maipur, 795003.
STRUGGLE AGAINST WARMONGERING
IN THE BALKANS
Revolutionary Alliance of Labour, Serbia

This summer (2022), the spokesperson of the ruling party in Serbia and
the regime in Belgrade and its official lawyer in scandalous criminal pro-
cesses, V. Djukanovic nicknamed “Bison”, announced that “Serbia will
be forced to begin the denazification of the Balkans”. The same night
pro-Belgrade criminal gangs in Kosovo organized barricades in the north
of Kosovo, using the tried and tested method of the “log revolution”.1
Germany and France mediated this incident, but military forces continue
to mobilize, tensions are still high and are going from bad to worse as we
are writing these words.
Serbian Marxists-Leninists and our organization have been warning
for a long time about the growth of renewed Greater Serbian aspira-
tions of the ruling Belgrade clique, which have been further strengthened
by Putin’s criminal imperialist aggression against Ukraine (which the
aggressor calls “denazification”). In January 2022, together with other
Balkans anti-fascist organizations, in a statement “Let’s stand up against
a new war!” we warned, with the logic of the deepening capitalist crisis
and growing inter-imperialist tensions, of the dangers of a new war in
the Balkans.
Strategy of the newly developed Greater-Serbian bourgeoisie

In the past period, the public witnessed the provocations of the Vučić
regime and its satellites in Bosnia, Kosovo, Montenegro and Croatia.
Some members of the Serbian government, like the Minister of Police,
Vulin – openly calls for a programme of Greater Serbia, which he, in
line with the Great-Russian chauvinists-Putinists, calls “Serbian world”.
Vulin, once champion of the Milošević and now of the Vučić regime,
is the only Belgrade official that visited Russia after its invasion on
Ukraine. In the new government, he will get the position of the chief
of State Security. Revisionist parties in Serbia are in close connection
with this obscure fascist police official, who leads the “Movement of
Socialists” and presents himself as a “leftist”; the face of social-fascism.
Other representatives of the most reactionary, most chauvinist sec-
tors of monopoly capital and of the fascist aggressor Putin also took high

political positions in the Balkans. Corrupt chauvinist Dodik in Bosnia,
charlatan Milanović in Croatia, chetnik Mandić in Montenegro, mafia
boss Radojčić in Kosovo, reactionary Janša in Slovenia, Orban in a
neighboring Hungary, share among themselves new maps and “non-pa-
pers.”2
All of them are part of the almost open preparations for war in the
Balkans. The Vučić regime wants at least Kosovo and Montenegro un-
der the control of Belgrade and to divide Bosnia using Dodik and Mi-
lanović. At the same time Vučić’s main ally Orban and the new Italian
prime-minister, the neo-fascist Meloni, are openly calling for a redivi-
sion of Croatia, Vučić’s great obsession. Orban is openly showing maps
of Greater Hungary containing Croatian Slavonia and Serbian Voivodina
and parts of the Croatian and Slovenian Adriatic coast (and also parts of
Ukraine, Romania, Slovakia, Austria; it is actually a map of the old Aus-
tro-Hungarian Empire).The politics of Greater-Serbian and other chau-
vinists was and still is: to conquer other peoples and help the imperialists
to conquer its own. It is fascist chaos.
The newly formed Greater Serbian clique is seeking revenge for its
defeats in previous wars in the former Yugoslavia;3 just as Putin wants
revenge for the defeat and humiliation of the revisionist social-imperial-
ist Soviet Union in the Cold War and for a “Bolshevik stab in the back”4
to the Russian Empire in the First World War. This was the same way
Hitler wanted revenge for the defeat and humiliation of the German Em-
pire after the First World War.
Monstrous and diabolic phenomena of the imperialist era, fascism,
representing the most reactionary, most chauvinist sectors of monopoly
capital, which organizes the petty-bourgeoisie and reactionary lumpen
gangs – is again showing its face and wants the re-division of Europe,
of the Balkans. They dream about their “multipolarity”, about the re-di-
vision of the world. As Georgy Dimitrov pointed out: Fascism is war.
The strategy of the Great-Serbian bourgeoisie had more than a cen-
tury to develop (just as the communists had at least a century to learn to
recognize it; read Stalin’s reply to Semich on the national question in
Yugoslavia). It continues the Belgrade bourgeoisie nationalist politics
of the bloody Karađorđević kings and the revisionist criminal Tito: be a
good servant of all the imperialists, especially of the most powerful ones,
and to seek for a chance to conquer the Balkans.
The regime of the capitalist super-agent Vučić continues to play this
game, having ties with both U.S. and Russian, German and French, Brit-
ish and Chinese imperialists, guaranteeing all of their interests in the
Balkans at the same time and wagering on what side it will go at the right
moment to fulfill its plans.
The world imperialist system and general capitalist crisis

To put it in an Enverist way, this “dance of the inter-imperialist strug-
gles and alliances” that is confusing for some is not only the result of the
special conditions of the Balkans, but of imperialism as a world system.
Russian capitalist monopolies are not only fighting with the American,
but are also tied to large sections of the European and U.S. monopo-
ly bourgeoisie, with its most reactionary and most chauvinist sections,
and especially with the US and European far-right, Trumpist and fascist
movements. Serbian bourgeoisie is using this situation with traditional
cunningness…
The Black International: imperialist “democratizers”, “denazifiers”,

“patriots”, “businessmen”, capitalist cliques – united for profit, against the
working men and women and the peoples of the Balkans and the world
Will U.S. imperialism get strengthened in today’s international mo-

bilization against the aggressive Russian imperialism? Well, did British
imperialism get strengthened in the international anti-fascist mobiliza-
tion against the aggressive Hitlerite German imperialism? It certainly
did not. Soon after the defeat of German fascism, the British Empire and
the world colonialist system collapsed. Why this was the case? Because
the Second World War, as the First one, as Stalin said, was the result of
the general crisis of capitalism and not (only) because of mistakes of any
particular statesmen.5 Today’s international situation is also the result of
ever sharpening of the general capitalist crisis. So the decline of US im-
perialism, which was made official by its withdrawal from Afghanistan,
cannot be stopped.
Even more, the struggle against the most reactionary, most chauvin-
ist, most aggressive sector of international monopoly, namely finance
capital6 is a struggle against the head of the snake of the world imperi-
alist system. Putin and Lavrov are even cynically proclaiming they are
imitating American imperialism; as Bush accidently mixed up Iraq with
Ukraine (but it is not an accident that Putin supported Bush in imperi-
alist adventure in Afghanistan). The decay of the capitalist crisis and
imperialist forces also gave the Hitlerites conditions, encouragement
and justifications for monstrous plans and launch catastrophic wars for
a new division of the world. While there is a capitalist system of the
world economy, for which “Marxists more than once declared harbours
elements of general’s crises and armed conflicts (and that, hence, the de-
velopment of capitalism in our time proceeds not in the form of smooth,
and even progress but through crises and military catastrophe)”6 - dan-
gers of fascism and new world war, new Hitlers and Putins, will come
again and again…
In critical historical moments of fighting fascism and war, it would
be disastrous to drop out of sight that the capitalist crisis is characterized
by the social struggles not only between the working and the bourgeoisie
classes, but also between, smaller or bigger or even monopoly bourgeoi-
sie classes among themselves, both nationally and internationally. The
class of the era, the working class, is fighting to win more and more
allies and to isolate the most aggressive and most reactionary class ene-
my, primarily fascist and pro-fascist elements of the monopoly financial
bourgeoisie. The Comintern-Dimitrovian strategy of the people’s demo-
cratic front is proving to be perfectly correct and is a mighty weapon in
the hands of the revolutionary working class and the Marxist-Leninists.
Dreams and reality of the great-state megalomaniacs

War in Balkans, provoked by Putinists, could be an opportunity for
the Vučić regime, which is seeking ways out to emerge from its accumu-
lated problems and the mire of crime and corruption into which it has
sunk and the catastrophic social, economic and political situation, which
through demonstrations and elections the people and citizens of Serbia
have shown they no longer want or can tolerate.
Mass protests against Vučić regime and foreign monopoly capital,
December 2021, Belgrade
But all of the monstrous plans of the Balkans arsonists of war are being ruined
by the great counter-offensive of the armed Ukrainian people against
the criminal fascist Putin’s invasion.
We can now all see what the future of Europe would have been if
Hitler was stopped in Spain, if Britain and France did not put an embar-
go on the Spanish Republic, if European governments and not only the
Leninist-Stalinist Soviet Union and the Comintern had sent arms and
support to the Spanish people to defend their independence and democ-
racy, to fight against Hitler, Franco and Mussolini, against fascism; if Eu-
ropean reactionaries had not betrayed Czechoslovakia and principles of
collective international security (pushed by the Leninist-Stalinist Soviet
foreign policy), being feared from Hitler and making business with his
regime. If the hypocritical European Chamberlainism and U.S. isolation-
ism had been defeated earlier, Hitler would have been stopped, his fascist
regime would have “collapsed under the weight of its own crimes” (Sta-
lin) and the Holocaust in Europe might have been avoided. We can also
imagine that, if the arms embargo to Bosnia during the Greater-Serbian
aggression in the 1990s was lifted, genocide in Srebrenica would never
have happened. In these critical moments, when the imminent danger of
diabolic Putin’s plans and of nuclear catastrophe is still not out of sight, it
is an important lesson of our modern history. Only the people’s struggle
can defeat fascism and imperialism, only the armed revolutionary peo-
ples can show that the imperialists are “paper tigers”.
All the peoples in Balkans understand very well that if Kiev had fall-
en into the hands of the Great-Russian invaders, the war in the Balkans
would have happened the following day. The Balkans Putinists were
sharpening their knives and preparing their plans. The peoples of the
world know that the danger of a general imperialist and nuclear war
could, in the case of not defending Kiev, happen at any moment. They
know Putin would not stop there, as Kremlin propaganda machine open-
ly declares. But the struggle of the people of Ukraine and the peoples of
the world will define this century, and not imperialist megalomaniacs
like Putin. Now, faced with all-Ukrainian peoples resistance and count-
er-offensive, the fascist-Putinists and their agents in the most reactionary
sections of the European and American bourgeoisie and in the Balkans
are getting into trouble, try to wash their bloody hands but also to buy
time to make new vicious plans.
The essence of the politics of the Greater-Serbian bourgeoisie na-
tionalists is ethnic cleansing; there is no other way that they can fulfill
their dreams of conquest. Everything else is just a maneuver. But they
will face defeat once more, because it cannot be otherwise. Despite their
previous atrocities and their new bloody plans and wishes and those of
their new pro-fascist allies, Bosnia will remain one and undivided, Al-
banian people in Kosovo will defend their right of self-determination,
Montenegro will remain Montenegrin, and Slavonia, Istria and Dalmatia
will remain in Croatia, as Vojvodina will remain an autonomous region
in Serbia despite the plans of such “friends” as Orban. Peoples cannot be
destroyed, their struggle is stronger than any clique of bloody profiteers,
than any “paper tiger”.
“Hitlers come and go, but the German people and state remain” –
said Stalin…
The Greater-Serbian Belgrade politics is the principal enemy of peace
and freedom in the Balkans. It is a focal point and knot of the imperialist
influence in the Balkans. It is a filthy source of the reactionary chauvinist
virus in the Balkans. Destroying it would mean revolutionizing the Bal-
kans, it would mean qualitatively greater freedom for the development
of the democratic peoples’ and working-class movements in the Balkans
– and there is no one else to destroy it except the revolutionary struggle
of the democratic forces of the people led by the working class.
The people of Serbia is preparing its rebellion against the corrupt,
warmongering and traitorous regime in Belgrade; that will strengthen the
democratic forces in the Balkans that want peace and friendly relations
among the good and brave Balkans peoples and nations.
Down with the corrupt Belgrade gang of chauvinist provocateurs
and warmongers!
Down with Putin, down with fascism and war! Arm Ukraine now!
Glory to Ukraine!
Imperialists – hands off the Balkans!
In the fight for peace and freedom among the Balkans peoples!
Let’s stand up against a new war!
Let us all unite in the people’s front against the capitalist crisis,
fascism and war!
“Let us unite against poverty, fascism and war!” under the “Independence,
Democracy, Socialism!” flag, leading banner at Mayday 2022 in Belgrade,
Revolutionary Alliance of Labour
October 2022
Notes:
1
Paramilitary action organized by Greater Serbian agents in Croatia that began in
1990 with the proclamation of a separate “Serbian” state within its border (a
similar process as today’s Great-Russian “People’s Republics” in Ukraine).
The action included building of barricades with logs.
2
A term used in diplomacy to refer to papers that do not carry official letterheads
or seals of a government. These are the remains of secret diplomacy (which
October revolution put an end to).
3
Vučić himself is remembered for calling for “killing of 100 Muslims for each
dead Serb” in July 1995, while the Srebrenica genocide was happening. It
comes from the German fascist occupier that had policy of “100 dead Serbs
for each dead German” to stop the anti-fascist rebellion in Serbia.
4
Old police corporal Putin, as the army corporal Hitler, blames the communists
for the collapse of the “sacred Empire”. He repeated it in many speeches. In
general, Putin’s anti-Bolshevik and fascist speech before invasion of Ukraine
in February 2022 is repeating his old White-Russian thesis. He openly
proclaimed his real goal is “decommunization” of Ukraine, destroying
its national independence, its people and national state.

5
The Origin and Character of the Second World War, 1946, Stalin.
6
“Comrades, fascism in power was correctly described by the Thirteenth Plenum
of the Executive Committee of the Communist International as the open ter-
rorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most impe-
rialist elements of finance capital.” – Georgi Dimitrov, The Fascist Offensive
and the Tasks of the Communist International in the Struggle of the Working
Class against Fascism – Main Report delivered at the Seventh World Con-
gress of the Communist International, August 2, 1935.
This Land is Their Land

A Revolutionary Working People’s History
Of the United States
By George Gruenthal
A brief, 130 pages, working people’s history of the United

States from the wars against the Native Peoples to the War of Terror
against the peoples of the world. Each of the 38 chapters is short,
with illustrations and songs.
The cost is $5 to the author, postage included within the United
States. For postage from other countries please contact the author:
georgeg0626@hotmail.com
The cost is $5 to the author, postage included within the United
States. For postage from other countries please contact the author:
georgeg0626@hotmail.com
George Gruenthal
192 Claremont Ave., #5D
New York, NY 10027
Obituary
RAMKOTESH KAMEPALLI
(20th January 1954- 18th December 2022)
The Editorial Board of Revolutionary Democracy deeply condoles the

untimely death from cancer of Comrade Ramkotesh Kamepalli. Com-
ing from a family from Andhra Pradesh which produced many famous
communist revolutionaries, ‘Comrade Kotesh’, as he was known, came
to communism in his student days in Hindu College, Guntur in1969, and
later, Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi. He was active in the com-
munist movement, adopting communist revolutionary positions, from
his student days in the University of Delhi. He was a member the Editori-
al Board of Socialist Albania, the journal of the India-Albania Friendship
Society and was associated with the journal Proletarian Path (2nd Se-
ries) edited by Moni Guha and others. He returned to Andhra Pradesh in
the 1980s to take up assignments teaching English Literature in colleges.
He was active in teacher’s union politics. He retired some years ago and
took up the cause of popularizing Marxist Leninist literature in Andhra
Pradesh by translation into Telugu and circulation of important works.
He was on the Editorial Board of the journal Revolutionary Democ-
racy and was actively associated with the Stalin Society, India. On the
occasion of the centenary of the Great October Socialist Revolution in
2017, he organised a day long lecture and discussion on the revolution;
further he was instrumental in organising in association with the Stalin
Society, India, a two day international seminar also in Guntur, Andhra
Pradesh. Delegates from across the country and the neighbourhood re-
member with fondness his warmth and hospitality during the seminar
days. He was active in social media and attended online meetings even
during his prolonged illness.
The Journal Revolutionary Democracy condoles the loss of a clear
headed upholder of Marxist Leninist theory and practice and a humane
comrade and expresses solidarity with his family at this time of grief.
A condolence meeting was held by the family in Guntur on the 28th
of December. Communist revolutionaries of various trends spoke on the
contribution of the comrade to the cause of people’s democracy.
Comrade Kotesh is survived by his wife, son and daughter.
Comrade Kotesh Amar Rahe!
Comrade Kotesh Lal Salaam!
Revolutionary Democracy
28th December 2022.
TRIBUTES TO RAMKOTESH KAMEPALLI
A meeting in memory of late com- Kamepalli Ram Kotesh was

rade Ramkotesh was held on 28th of a left intellectual. He hails from
December 2022 at Guntur, Andhra Narasayapalem village in Guntur
Pradesh. district. Andhra. This village was in
Com. Masyiang, a long term the forefront of many progressive
friend, and a committed Marxist movements. His father Kamepally
Leninist convened the meeting. He Venkataramaiah got the award of
shared memories of his friendship freedom fighter.
with Kotesh and narrated his experi- The village was a shelter to the
ences. Com. CSR Prasad, member cadre and leaders of the banned
of the Revolutionary Writers Asso- Communist Party during the po-
ciation brought to light the innate lice repression and it faced a num-
strength of Com. Kotesh. He also re- ber of criminal cases. The villagers
called the commitment of Kotesh to- named their children, STALIN,
Kalpana Datt, Jhansi Rani, Mao Tse
wards Marxism Leninism. Com. N.
Tung, Joshi, Ranadive, Russya Rao,
Rukmini of the RWA narrated her
Swarajyam etc. He went to Delhi
experiences with Com. Kotesh while
for IAS training and was returned
working in the civil liberties move-
a well-trained Marxist. As per Ram
ment. She also narrated how they
Kotesh, this credit goes to comrades
as members of various fact-finding at Delhi. He became an ardent sup-
committees toured various places, porter of Enver Hoxha of Albania, in
and paid rich tributes to him. the international communist debate.
Com. Sambasiva Rao, re- He alone organised a lecture on the
tired Librarian of National Library, centenary of the Great October Rev-
Calcutta paid rich tributes to com. olution of the USSR and efficiently
Kotesh. He was classmate of Kotesh conducted a two-day international
both at Guntur and Delhi. He was seminar on the same theme under the
sent by his family to Delhi Univer- auspices of the Stalin Society, India,
sity to become an IAS officer. But in Guntur. He participated in every
Kotesh, because of the influence of left meeting and translated many
his teachers returned to Guntur as an speeches of leaders from English to
ardent follower of Marxism Lenin- Telugu. The demise of Left intellec-
ism and Stalinism. Mr Rao said that tual Ram Kotesh is a great loss to the
Com Kotesh never poked his nose in left movement in this area.
unnecessary polemics but through-
out his life propagated and practiced Dr. Kolla Rajamohan, Nallamada
his cherished ideals. Rythu Sangham.
Dear friends and comrades, immense loss by the death of Com.
On the very outset I convey my Ramkotesh. Let us all forget our
sincere thanks to Comrades from differences of our paths to achieve
Delhi present here who transformed Marxist goals. Let us aim only the
Com Ramkotesh, a raw stone, as an communist goals to be achieved. To-
ever-shining diamond, a committed day we are in a worst political situ-
communist. A Hindi proverb says ation. Religiosity, Neo-Nazism and
guru remained as gud (jaggery) and Capitalist Fascism are imposed on
Shishya (disciple) became sugar. the society. Let us unite and strug-
But these two gurus remained as gle in all the ways from all the fronts
Shrestha gurus i.e., sugar and con- to change this political set up. That
tinued as good teachers, educated shall be the correct and actual trib-
many to change the society. Inspired ute to Com. Ramkotesh. I on my
by these, our Com Ramkotesh also personal behalf and on behalf of All
became guru i.e., lecturer. Our ac- India Progressive Forum, assure our
quaintance with Com Ramkotesh tireless efforts in carrying forward
has been for the past 8 / 10 years. the ideals of Com Ramkotesh to
He used to attend all the meetings of change the society.
progressive organisations. We both, We are aware of persons of two
I, and my wife, also had been doing births. The upper caste people are
the same. He was very polite, to- notified as such. I say about two
wards women. He was attending all deaths of a person. First death is
the meetings, physical and zoom, of physical disappearance from this
the All India Progressive Forum. We earth. The second death occurs in
frequently used to discuss the socie- the moment he is forgotten. Let us
tal crises. He used to sell periodicals not bring this second death to Com
of his organization. He was supply- Ramkotesh.
ing some rare books for reading. He I thank the organizers of this
was leading a simple way of living. meeting for giving me this opportu-
He was using bicycle for local con- nity.
veyance.
On the death of a person, even S. Hanumantha Reddy,
if he / she is of 96 years old, we of- General Secretary Andhra
ten say that we are put to great loss Pradesh Unit,
by the sudden demise of that person National Secretary, All India
and that we would carry forward his Progressive Forum
/ her ideals. But conveniently forget
that person very soon. Com Ram-
kotesh, 64 / 66 years old, is young, Camred Kotesh did not desire a
more so mentally. Really the society luxurious life. He desired a mean-
more so the Marxist society is put to ingful life. A meaningful life means

striving for a better life for the poor, ed on several occasions. Kollipara
needy and working class. He was Venkateswara Rao paid him tributes
committed to Marxism and Lenin- and stated, his death would be a blow
ism and strived and stood for it till to the revolutionary movement.
the end.
Johar comred Ram Kotesh Jo-
har Johar! CPI (ML) Red Star Polit Bu-
reau member Comrade Mannava
NV Narasimha Rao, Hariprasad said that he has known
Civ
il Liberties Committee, AP, Comrade Rama Kotesh for more
Guntur than three decades. Similarly, those
who opposed the revisionist ideol-
ogy in India were positive towards
Revolutionary Johar to comred the Marxist-Leninist movements.
Ramkotesh! Similarly he described those who
Leader of Stalin Society of In- were in constant contact with Marx-
dia, prominent Marxist-Leninist ist-Leninist ranks. Johar was paid
thinker, Comrade Kamepalli Rama- that he was a great Marxist thinker.
kotesh Memorial meeting was held
at Surya Devra Kalyana Mandapam,
Navbharat Nagar Guntur on 28- First of all, I convey my sincere
12-2022. In this meeting, The Sec- condolences to the family members
retary of Andhra Pradesh State of Comrade Ramkotesh on his un-
Committee of CPI (ML) Red Star, timely demise. It is a great shock
Comrade Kollipara Venkateswara to the progressive and democratic
Rao said that he has been associated forces. Our introduction to Comrade
with Comrade Ramakotesh. He was Kotesh took place in the process of
a Marxist from the days of being a the progressive and democratic forc-
student at Delhi. He was attract- es and its activities in Guntur. As to
ed to the Marxist Leninist theory my knowledge with a short period of
and described by as devoted to the association he was a dedicated com-
Marxist Leninist movement since rade and sincere comrade and stuck
then. He participated in many move- to his ideology firmly. I observed
ments. He explained that even while he is in depth in his knowledge and
working he used to participate in the worked hard to learn a vast amount
Stalin Society, India. Similarly, he in different aspects of society. He
persistently participated in many op- believed in Marxism and Leninism
pressed people’s movements and he and has a commitment to the Stalin
believed that Marxist theory was the Society and the journal Revolution-
solution for the liberation of human- ary Democracy is unquestionable.
ity. He translated the lectures of CPI He is a true person who spread its
(ML) Red Star leaders also, translat- activities in this area. He actively
participated in all activities of the
Comrade P. Purushottam Raju Me- Prof. M Rama Devi
morial Trust (a great Marxist-Le- Govt IASE, Hyderabad. (Mother-
ninist leader of the P&T trade union in-law of KRK’s son, Gautam).
movement) and he paid rich tributes
to Com. Raju even in the corona pe-
riod in his village. I cannot forget Dad had a tremendous impact on
his deep association with social and everyone who interacted with him
revolutionary teachings. I deeply ex- including his many students. He was
tend sorrow on behalf of the Com. a kind person who strived for edu-
P. Purushottam Raju Trust for his cating society. He cared a lot for us,
untimely demise which is a loss for his children also. He brought us up
his family and to the progressive with a lot of effort and care.
movement. I hope to take his inspiration and
Red Salute to Comrade Ram continue the good work done by
Kotesh! him.
Lal Salaam to Comrade Ram
Kotesh! Goutham Babu Kamepalli.
Com Ch. Venkateswarlu, Secre- I’m Dr. Swathi Rosa Kamepal-

tary, Com. P. Purushottam Raju li ... comrade Ramkotesh’s daugh-
Memorial Trust. ter... I ‘m a pulmonologist. what I ‘m
Ram Kotesh Anna is a true hu- now is totally the outcome of my fa-
manist through and through. We got ther’s hard work...He always wanted
to know him for just about a year me and my brother Goutham babu
when my daughter, M Suma, mar- Kamepalli to be the top as human,
ried his son, K Goutham Babu. He in profession and position...From
is a strong-willed person and has childhood he took utmost care...His
led an exemplary life. His breadth ideology, his life style was always a
of knowledge, social responsibility, inspiration to both of us.
deep love for education, and work Today in this condolence meet I
towards civil rights are but a tiny got to know few new things about my
glimpse of what makes him a great father. We always feel proud to be
man and a role model. his children. Even I promise that I ‘ll
Ram Kotesh Anna, you will re- continue to keep up my father’s name
main with us forever - your love and high and accomplish his targets.
affection for family, friends, and so- Last salute to comrade Ram Kotesh.
ciety is eternal. You are a bright ray
of sunshine, showering warm smiles
and witty quips. We will always I met Kotesh (as we were calling
cherish the fond memories we have him by this name) in 1978-79 when
with you. May your noble soul rest he was studying in Delhi. I think we
in peace. met through Vijay or Ashim Roy. He

was a nice comrade of ours and also his life and used his academic skills
a good human being. Once I with to write in various journals. Apart
Vijay and Moni Guha visited Guntur from Stalin Society of India, he also
for a meeting organised by Kotesh wrote in Revolutionary Democra-
in 1985 (don’t remember properly cy. From his writings, the proletariat
the year) Last time I met him when around the world got a lot of guid-
he came to Delhi for a meeting of ance, he was also a member of the
Stalin Society. Comrade you will editorial board of Socialist Albania,
be always with us in our cherished he was also a Trade Unions activist.
memories. Very dear farewell to you Comrade Ram Kotesh’s way,
my Comrade. our way!
Long live the proletarian revo-
Balram Sharma, lution!
Kamgar Prakashan Workers of the world unite!
Shaukat Ali Chaudhury

Salute to Comrade Ram Kotesh Pakistan Workers Front
Kamepalli!
Comrade Ram Kotesh Kamepalli
worked for the labour revolution all
Tributes
NAEEM QURESHI
(12 December 1952- 3 December 2022)
Qazi Ahmad Naeem Qureshi, The death of Qazi Ahmad

was the spirit of the historic stu- Naeem Qureshi has caused irrepara-
dent movement, which started from ble loss to the labour movement of
the National Students Federation, a Pakistan.
revolutionary organization of stu- In a joint meeting of the Unit-
dents against the 10-year military ed Labour Federation and Pakistan
dictatorship of General Ayub Khan
Labour Front, the participants of the
in Pakistan in 1968, who continued
meeting expressed their deep sor-
his struggle from 1968 to 2022. He
played a very important role in po- row over the death of Pakistan La-
litical training of Pakistani youth, bour Front Chairman Qazi Ahmad
students and workers. He was an Naeem Qureshi and said that Naeem
advocate by profession. He started Quraishi’s association with the la-
the journey from 1968 under the bourers started from his students
leadership of Tufail Abbas, the well- days. He had been working hard for
known communist leader of Paki- more than 55 years. He struggled to
stan, and he continued this journey organize and fight for the rights of
till the last breath of his life. the working class. With his death,
He was a true revolutionary. the hard-working Pakistanis have
Comrade Tufail Abbas died in 2019. lost his colleague and leader who
He was the chairman of Pakistan always fought their legal battle for
Mazdoor Mahaz, a revolutionary
the revolutionary and working class.
party of workers of Pakistan. After
his death, Qazi Ahmad Qureshi was Qazi Ahmad Naeem Qureshi
elected as the chairman of Pakistan played an important role in organiz-
Mazdoor Mahaz. ing students and workers from his
He died on December 3, 2022 student days.
in the city of Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Condolence reference orga-
It is a great tragedy of the progres- nized by Pakistan Inqalabi Party
sive movement of Pakistan that an and National Students Federation in
enlightened and true revolutionary Rawalpindi for Qazi Ahmed Naeem.
like Qazi Ahmad Naeem Qureshi is Qureshi Chairman Pakistan Maz-
no longer among us today. door Mahaz .
He was buried on December 3, Addressing the condolence ref-
2022 in the presence of thousands of erence, the speakers said that the sta-
mourners. tus of Qazi Ahmed Naeem Qureshi
was like a fruitful tree, who, apart
Pakistan Mazdur Mahaaz from providing political training

to the workers of all over Pakistan, door Mahaz, Tufail Abbas and NSF
provided legal guidance and help leaders Meraj Muhammad Khan and
to them. He started his political ac- Dr. Rashid Hassan Khan and PPP
tivities in 1967 from Government made a alliance with Qaumi Maz-
College Asghar Mall Rawalpindi on door Mahaz and NSF. In 1970, Qazi
the platform of National Students Ahmed Naeem Qureshi met with
Federation (NSF) and he and his Bhutto in Rawalpindi along with
colleagues Hasamul Haque. Parvez Hasamul Haq, Hafiz Tahir Khalil
Rasheed - Hafiz Tahir Khalil. Abdul and his other colleagues and played
Khaliq. Shaukat Chaudhry, Shafiqur an important role in advancing this
Rahman Imtiaz Khan Masood Usma- alliance. Although after Bhutto came
ni along with Ghulam Nabi Butt and to power, as a result of differences
many others, he played an important with many of Bhutto’s policies, Tu-
role in the organization of NSF. This fail Abbas, Meraj Muhammad Khan
was the time when the leadership of and Dr. Rashid Hassan Khan had to
NSF was in the hands of revolution- bear the hardships of imprisonment,
ary leaders like Meraj Muhammad but all these leaders never deviat-
Khan and Dr. Rashid Hasan Khan. ed from their ideals. Qazi Ahmad
In 1968, when NSF and Qaumi Naeem Qureshi remained steadfast
Mazdoor Mahaz started a movement on his progressive ideas till the last
against the government of General breath of his life.
Ayub Khan from Karachi, soon this The role of Naeem Qureshi was
movement would spread all over very key in organizing the move-
Pakistan. Like Karachi, Rawalpindi ment against Ayub Khan in the en-
also became the stronghold of this tire country.
movement. Naeem Qureshi not only After his student days, when he
started study circles of students and took up the profession of lawyer,
workers in many cities of Punjab in- he made his office at Asghar Mall
cluding Rawalpindi, Azad Kashmir, Road in Rawalpindi a rest house for
Gilgit-Baltistan, besides Rawalpindi the leaders and workers of the Paki-
and also organized NSF along with stan Mazdoor Mahaz from all over
teaching them Marxism. Pakistan and also for the trade union
He was a committed Marxist and leaders. Apart from this, he followed
Stalinist. the cases of the workers from Pesha-
He was a very high-level organ- war to Karachi and Balochistan to
iser. He was a slow-tempered but the Supreme Court and without any
very determined and courageous fee. The speakers said on this occa-
leader. When Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto sion. Naeem Qureshi held the posi-
broke away from Ayub Khan and tion of a shade tree for the working
founded the Pakistan Peoples Party, class. His compassion towards the
he met the Chairman of Qaumi Maz- workers was like a father. He was
a “ dervish” human being and Wali The death of comrade Qazi Ah-
Allah who served the workers with- mad Qureshi is a great loss not only
out discrimination according to his to the Pakistan workers and commu-
ideas. nist movement, but also for the revo-
They said that when it has been lutionary proletariat of all countries.
mentioned in the Quran (Holy Book) The bright example of comrade
that this land and everything belongs Qazi Ahmad Qureshi life and work,
to Allah, then why do people write his will remain in the heart of all
their own name in the property, why those that fight for the cause of the
don’t they write the name of God? working class and the oppressed
He was very much against the peoples.
feudalism, tribal system and Ameri- In our common struggle for rev-
can imperialism and he was not only olution and socialism his name and
against all forms of exploitation but his great contribution for the victory
also continued to struggle against it. will ever live.
He was a founding member of We wish that in his name will be
Pakistan Mazdoor Mahaz and from continued the fight for the unity of
the last three years he was the chair- the communists on Marxist-Leninist
man of Pakistan Mazdoor Mahaz. principles and a powerful Interna-
All the speakers including Qazi tional Communist Movement, for
Ahmed Naeem Qureshi’s daughter which ICMLPO is struggling.
Amna Qureshi. Shaukat Chaudhary Please, transmit our deep regret
of PMM. Ali Nasir Akram Banda and sympathy to the family of com-
and Syed Abbas Shah. Tahir Javed rade Qazi Ahmad Qureshi.
Malik of PAT. Nasir Mohammad of
AWP. Comrade Jameel Bhatti, La- With internationalist feelings,
bour Qaumi, Movement Pakistan, Communist Platform (Italy)
Comrade Mudassar Mehboob, La-
bour leader Abdul Sattar. Pakistan
Inqalabi Party’s Mushtaq Chaudhry,
Comrade Mumtaz Arzoo and Raja
Shafiqur Rehman and Communist
Party’s Comrade Amar Lal were
present.
Dear comrades,
Please accept the expression of
our deep regret about the loss of the
chairman of Pakistan Mazdoor Ma-
haz, comrade Qazi Ahmad Qureshi.

Book Review
FROM THE REALM OF NECESSITY TO THE REALM
OF FREEDOM BY JAYA MEHTA AND VINEET TIWARI:
A STUDY OF WOMEN FARMERS UNDER KUDUMBASHREE
COLLECTIVE FARMING IN KERALA
Aakar Books, JAISS and Action Aid

K.B. Saxena
This book is unique in more senses than one. It is a study of women
in Kerala coming together for undertaking farming on their own initia-
tive without any external pressure or inducement. It is also unusual that
this effort is accomplished without assured access to land and capital.
It also breaks the ground in that they not only pool their labour but also
their small parcels of land and also take land on lease from those who
are unable to cultivate it or do not cultivate but keep it as an asset. It
also attracts attention because the entire operation from accessing land,
mobilising capital and decision making on crops to be grown, produce to
be marketed and income from produce to be distributed is accomplished
collectively without any conflict or tension or friction. The most remark-
able aspect of this operation is that it is informal without any structural
format, decision making procedure and written record. Most important
of all this activity has transcended from the level of strategy for eco-
nomic survival and poverty alleviation to a social movement where its
economic dimension of benefit sharing is overtaken by its social spirit
of bonding by the members of the group and even beyond, to solidarity
of women to undertake social welfare tasks in the neighbourhood. The
book is striking in bringing out that the social returns of the group soli-
darity in terms of changing the world view of the members beyond their
immediate families and individual problems to offering support to one
another in need. More important achievement is the freedom, exposure
and confidence gained in collective capability and pleasure of working
together and their capacity to undertake challenging tasks.
This, of course, did not happen all of a sudden. The building of this
social consciousness owes it to the trigger provided by the Kudumbshree
(welfare wellbeing of the family) programme formally known as State
Poverty Eradication Mission (SPEM) which envisaged that women from
poor households should form groups and collectively participate in plan-
ning and implementation of poverty alleviation programmes. This pro-
gramme harnessed the tradition of collective endeavours by neighbour-
hood groups to mobilise funds for important social events and manage
credit cooperative societies promoted by the church. The community ac-
tion in the programme started with identification of poor households and
forming neighbourhood groups with women from them as members and
training them for implementation of poverty eradication schemes, fol-
lowed by notifying uniform byelaws of community development societ-
ies and conferring autonomy on them. The poverty alleviation was rede-
fined as not just economic wellbeing but political empowerment which
facilitated women’s participation in the political process. This translated
into a basket of diverse activities ranging from micro-finance, collective
farming and micro enterprises in production, trading and marketing in
the economic sphere to volunteering for education and health services
in the neighbourhood, and rehabilitation of most destitute families, com-
bating atrocities against women and children and gender self-learning in
the social sphere. But collective farming was the most significant and
complex of all activities as it encompassed forming groups, accessing
land, engage in production, its marketing and distribution which tested
the strength and sustenance of frictionless collective operations. It start-
ed with forming groups of largely Below Poverty Line families, planning
and reorganising them into Joint Liability Groups (JLGs) with 4 to 10
members as required by NABARD (The National Bank for Agriculture
and Rural Development) for accessing institutional credit. The groups
are formed largely though not exclusively from same caste / religion/
tribal / backward classes and, where heterogeneous, shared the same
occupational categories. Economic background, educational status, and
affiliation / affinity with a political party also mattered. None of these,
however, affected the solidarity and cordial working conditions. Most
of the group members engaged in family cultivation of small parcels of
land where land was owned by husband / male members of the family.
But the majority of SC / Muslim members worked as agricultural la-
bourers. 70% of members belonged to families with a per capita income
less than or equal to Rs. 3000/- per month. There was by and large
no hierarchy in decision making and task distribution. Access to land
was obtained by pooling land of individual members and additionally,
acquiring it by taking land on lease - either oral or through a written
agreement. This was followed by registration of the group to obtain ac-
cess to institutional credit and government support. Members shared the
labour input required for cultivation which included multiple crops rang-
ing from paddy to banana, tapioca, yam, ginger, turmeric and vegetables.

The distribution of returns from produce, taking into account labour and
resources contributed by members, was effected by collective decision
making. This cooperative spirit which characterized frictionless decision
making and the solidarity they experienced in the process enables mem-
bers to realise their collective strength and encourage them to extend
this spirit to non-materialistic activities. The members begin to view this
coming together as a step towards helping one another in adversity and
improve quality of their lives. They enlarge the area of cooperation and
extend the boundaries of family ties.
As the title very aptly suggests, collective farming by Kudumbshree
women started as an economic necessity to increase the livelihood op-
portunities, upgrade their status from that of an agricultural labourer to
a self-employed cultivator free from control of an employer, realise the
genuine fruits of their labour and make optimum use of their resourc-
es – land, labour and capital to alleviate their poverty and increase the
wellbeing of their families. But the outcome in terms of economic gain
to individual members is far from incentivising. In fact, their effort bor-
dered on self-exploitation. This is because the area of the land for culti-
vation was very small to make for a viable holding in most cases though
topography, cropping pattern and expenditure on inputs also contributed
to the meagre returns, 2.78% of landholdings in the sample study were in
the range of 50 cents to 5 acres (11% were smaller than 50 cents). Only
11% were larger than 5 acres in size. Besides, tenurial insecurity was a
big constraint as the land taken on lease was for a very short duration
– mostly for a year or even less for a season. Lease rent had to be paid
generally in cash which was substantial in some cases. This disadvan-
taged JLG members while the land owner gained in two ways – getting
lease rent in cash or kind or both in some cases as well as to get his/
her uncultivated land converted into a fine cultivated plot through the
labour input of these hardworking women. The economic returns from
farming were meagre. Out of 63 JLGs in the sample, there were only 4
JLGS where net annual income was above four lakhs. At the lower end,
the net income of 10 JLGs fetched below Rs. 20,000. Only 23 JLGs
generated net income of about one lakh which translated into Rs. 1000
or 2000 per month per member. As many as, 107 JLG members had a net
annual income of Rs. 5000/- or less which would provide each member
Rs. 100-200 per month besides some share in produce not marketed for
self-consumption. Thus, in most cases, the meagre financial gains did
not provide even the equivalent of wage of an agricultural labourer for
the labour contributed. The fact that despite this discouraging material
prospects, Kudumbshree women continue to engage in collective farm-
ing willingly the motivation has to be located in non-economic realm
which compensates for economic loss. The non-economic realm is what
the title of the book succinctly terms as ‘freedom’. The freedom here has
many dimensions- control over process of production and distribution,
opportunity for acquisition of new skills, confidence in their ability to
accomplish tasks undertaken, assertion in decision making within the
family and in interaction with government agency and enhancement in
the bargaining power in the market. But far greater was the Joy of real-
ising their potential, the satisfaction they derive from coming together
for sharing and caring and realising the meaning of life and social con-
sciousness to look beyond their family and contribute to improving the
quality of lives of people around them.
But how long does this uplifting motivation sustain in the absence
of sufficient material wellbeing. This material wellbeing is not possi-
ble without access to sufficient land and tenurial security over it. The
authors have suggested radical land reforms involving redistribution of
land to the actual tiller. But land reforms, for all practical purposes, is a
lost battle. No political party, not even communist parties have appetite
for mobilising poor for radical land reforms which ensure land to the
tiller. In fact, Government of India’s policy on the subject has gone in
the reverse direction. The Central government has recommended liberal-
isation of tenancy and removing all barriers to the marketability of land
to accelerate growth. They have even circulated a draft tenancy law to
this effect which strengthens the owner’s hold over land and freedom to
lay down terms of the contract in leasing land to the poor for cultivation.
Land owners stubbornly maintain their hold over the land even when
they neither cultivate the land not have any interest in getting it cultivat-
ed by tenants for fear of losing it. They fiercely resist enforcing tenancy
rights to actual tillers. Even ceiling laws have been relaxed diluted in
most states permitting industrialists and big business to own land beyond
ceiling limits. Agricultural land is being liberally diverted for non-ag-
ricultural purposes such as mining, industry and infrastructure creation.
In Kerala, plantation land after expiry of lease has not been distributed to
landless persons despite the agitation to this effect having been launched
by the poor. While the pressure from women groups along with support
from progressive sections of society should continue to be exerted on the
State to promote access to land to landless women cultivators to harness

the spirit of cooperation that has been built up by them, women groups
have to engage in other income generating activities - small scale man-
ufacturing, service provisioning, construction activities for which their
skills may be expanded along with training in entrepreneurship in order
to improve their income.
The authors have not only dealt with collective farming by Kudumb-
shree women but have also given suggestion for resolving agrarian crisis
which the country has been witnessing during the last two decades. The
first step suggested for addressing it is a moratorium on further transfer
of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes to profit based entities.
This has been a persistent demand by the farmers for which they agitated
over a long period and which ultimately resulted in enactment of Right
to Transparency & Fair compensation, Resettlement and Rehabilitation
Act, 2013. But the demand was not conceded. All that the Government
accepted was that in a small number of cases related to some categories
of acquisition for private companies for profit, consent of 80% / 70% of
the affected land owners would have to be obtained before proceeding
with acquisition. In fact, even this small concession did not find favour
with the NDA government that came to power shortly after enactment of
the 2013 legislation which sought to exempt its application along with
mandatory Social Impact Assessment of proposed land acquisition in a
large number of development projects through an ordinance virtually
nullifying this provision. Having failed to convert the ordinance in to a
law due to stiff opposition in the parliament and from farmers across the
country, it encouraged State governments to undertake amendments to
this effect (States enjoy concurrent power in the matter in the Constitu-
tion) in the interest of smooth and speedy acquisition of land. A number
of States resorted to such amendments which indicated that speedier and
cheaper land acquisition for attracting investment outweighs interest of
the farmers. So, the likelihood of this suggestion getting formally ac-
cepted is remote irrespective of the party in power. Even the attempt
to ban the acquisition of irrigated multi-cropped land was opposed by
State governments which led to its dilution in the 2013 law which per-
mits such acquisition in special circumstances with the only condition
that such acquisition should not exceed the limit specified by the State
government and obligated the government to develop equivalent area
of cultural waste land to compensate for this loss. Where even this is
not possible, the equivalent value of acquired land should be invested in
irrigation. For agricultural land which is not irrigated / multi-cropped,
the acquisition should not exceed the total net sown area of the district or
state. This makes it obvious that private sector growth fundamentalism
prevails over even the imperative of food security. People’s concerns
have little value in policy and governance when pitched against interests
of private investors. There is little prospect of revival of land reforms
as the entire policy direction has changed to negate it in the neo-liber-
al transformation of the economy. Manifestoes of political parties too
do not promise such a revival. Besides, some of the residual problems
left over by the power implementation of earlier land reforms such as
non-delivery of possession to assignees of land, pending litigation lock-
ing up a substantial area of acquired ceiling land, dispossession from
land distributed to the poor etc. remain unaddressed. There is also a siz-
able area of unutilised land which was acquired for development projects
in the past. This land, rather than being returned to the original owners
or alternatively distributed to landless poor is being pooled to from a
land bank from which land could transferred to the industry for growth.
Fragmentation of land over time has resulted in small parcels of land
on which farming is economically unviable. Land consolidation was
therefore, an integral part of land reforms policy of the Government
along with abolition of intermediaries, tenancy reforms and imposition
of ceiling on ownership of agricultural landholdings. This programme
was taken up by some states under the laws enacted for the purpose,
notably Punjab and UP in the early decades after independence. In Bi-
har, the implementation of the programme became controversial and was
given up. There is no popular demand for a government sponsored land
consolidation programme as it leads to enormous conflicts and litigation.
Voluntary pooling of land as suggested by the authors and admirably
exemplified by Kudumbshree women is the desirable option and would
have large acceptance provided it is kept free from legal rigidities and
incorporates maximum flexibility in its operationalisation and is volun-
tary in nature rather than driven by external force and where members
are free to leave the group if they so wish and cultivate the pooled land
as a combined unit or individual units. In order to give a formal struc-
ture to this collective arrangement such as a cooperative or a registered
society in order that it can access institutional credit and support pro-
vided under government schemes, a law would have to be enacted to
facilitate it. While the suggestion that small and marginal farmers could
be persuaded to form cooperatives is highly desirable programme and
should be incentivised by the government through various supportive

instruments. Such cooperatives should be federated into a bigger entity
to operate in the market to protect the interest of the producers as sug-
gested by the authors. These federated units should form an apex body
to liase with the government to get necessary economic / non-economic
support for sustainability of operations. Similar cooperative structure
has been suggested for landless persons to be integrated with the farm
cooperativization structure for engaging in labour activities specified by
the authors. In fact, this idea of cooperativision of farming is not new.
It was strongly pushed by Nehru during his Prime Ministership who was
inspired by the Soviet model. But the idea could not take roots. This was
because of attachment to land and strong sense of property. Kudumb-
shree women’s success in collective farming perhaps lies in the fact that
the ground for cooperation was prepared by Kudumbshree programme
which was preceded by a great deal of mobilisation by Kerala Sastra
Sahitya Parished for decentralised planning. The other contributing fac-
tor was that Kudumbshree women in group formation did not follow a
formal structure but kept it a loose voluntary effort of women sharing the
same socio-economic / occupational background. The decision making
was also informal though the JLGs were formally registered to get ac-
cess to institutional credit and government support. Besides, the sheer
necessity of expanding space for income generation for poverty allevi-
ation incentivised by the Government also helped. Evolution a formal
structure emerged from voluntary effort. It may also be that women are
relatively more amendable to cooperate and bonding with fellow women
than men. For such a programme to get popular acceptance it is a crucial
that the legal / formal structure should incorporate maximum flexibility.
Incentives should be created by way of financial / other assistance to
such efforts and a sustained campaign should be launched in which gov-
ernment. agency and civil society organisations should work together
to generate social consciousness in this direction. A strong cooperative
movement with a well-knit structure of producer and marketing units
federated into a national agency alone can resist the increasing neo-lib-
eral globalisation of economy and aggressive push towards depeasanti-
sation and corporatisation of agriculture.
The book is a must read for those who are interested in knowing what
group efforts can achieve in an agrarian structure consisting of over-
whelming marginal farmers and agricultural labourers not only for the
alleviation of poverty of poor women though farming but also for im-
provement in quality of their lives and social environment around them.
But the book has also value as a brief introduction to agrarian and social
reform movements, evolution of land reforms, and political economy
of social mobilisation for women’s empowerment and their participa-
tion decentralised development in Kerala. As a research study, it has not
only meticulously collected and analysed information gathered through
surveys but enriched it with case studies in which the relevant socio-eco-
nomic details of the members have been captured to provide insights
into motivations for participating in the activity. Lucidly written with
empathy for the women farmers, the book is eminently readable. The
book would have served its purpose if women farmers in other parts of
the country are inspired by this example and take to collective farming
and other income generating activities.

CONDEMN THE ATTACK
ON BURJI ANTI CAMP PROTESTORS, BIJAPUR
Forum Against Corporatization and Militarization

On the intervening night of 15-16 December 2022, the soldiers of Dis-
trict Reserve Guards (DRG) came to the Burji Anti Camp Protest site
in Bijapur District of Bastar, Chhattisgarh and started removing tents
of protestors. According to the protesting villagers, when they resisted
such forceful removal of tents, they were attacked with lathis (batons)
as a result of which, many protestors including women and children sus-
tained injuries. Burji Anti-Camp movement, opposing the establishment
of paramilitary camps forcefully set up without the consent of Gram
Sabha and continuing for more than one year now, is one of more than
20 anti-camp movements, many of them completing one year or more in
Bastar, against the forceful occupation of village land and establishment
of multiple paramilitary camps. These camps are being built, without
the consent of Gram Sabhas (village council) by violating provisions of
Panchayat Extension of Schedule Areas Act, as ‘Forward Operational
Bases’ under the aegis of Operation SAMADHAN-PRAHAR, in a bid
to build carpet security around the mining rich belt of Central India. It is
also pertinent to mention that auxiliary forces like DRG, Bastariya Fight-
ers etc., are being formed under this notorious operation, comprising of
Adivasis, mostly the forced ‘surrendered naxalites’ and erstwhile Special
Police Officers of state backed Genocidal Vigilante militia named Salwa
Judum, despite the Supreme Court disbanding it and prohibiting deploy-
ment of ‘Surrendered Naxalites and Civilians’ in anti-naxal operations.
The news of this incident was covered in few media portals, only
after video recordings of the incident was circulated by the protesting
villagers after 5 days and it clearly depicts the widespread media black-
out of struggles against corporatization and militarization being waged
by the most oppressed and exploited section of our peoples and subse-
quent state repression on these very movements in areas like Bastar. This
media blackout is an extension of widespread suppression of information
that started with attack on ground level journalists, spearheaded under
the leadership of SRP Kalluri (then IG Bastar Range) in these regions
during Operation Green-Hunt. Said widespread suppression of informa-
tion is an attempt at creating a ‘war without witnesses’ by controlling
public perception, which is another facet of SAMADHAN-PRAHAR.
Crores of rupees are being spent in the name of “anti-naxal propaganda”
to either buy off unethical ‘journalists’ or to prop up some, that favour
the state narrative on these subject matters.
Last, but not the least, it is very concerning that despite more than a
year long continuing struggles against camps in Burji, Bechaghat, Be-
chapal as well as illegal minings in Raoghat, proposed mining in Amdai
Ghati hills etc., in Chhattisgarh alone; the demands of the movements are
not even discussed let alone be accepted by government. What is even
more concerning is that opposition parties are also not paying much heed
to these movements. The very reason that these movements are continu-
ing for one year and more, facing brutal state repression including kill-
ings in a state run by Congress Party, exposes the ‘Bharat JodoYatra’ of
Rahul Gandhi and the Congress Party. These very movements, while
posing a substantial resistance against Brahmanical Hindutva Fascist
BJP government, also raise serious questions on Congress Party regard-
ing what Idea of India it is trying to portray as an alternative to BJP-RSS.
Forum Against Corporatization and Militarization condemns in
harshest tone, the attack on the protestors at Burji Anti-Camp move-
ment in Bijapur and the attempt to dismantle the democratic protest
site of the struggling masses and puts forth following demands:
1. Withdraw Paramilitary Camp Pusnar in Bijapur and many
such paramilitary camps being protested against by the villagers.
2. Stop building paramilitary camps in Bastar and elsewhere to
loot people’s resources.
3. Register F.I.R against the responsible DRG personnel and take
strict action against them.
4. Implement Panchayat Extension of Schedule Areas Act.

STOP THE GENOCIDAL ATTACK
BY THE INDIAN STATE AGAINST ITS OWN PEOPLE
Aerial bombings have been carried out on the Chhattisgarh-Telangana

border. Aerial bombings, in the name of countering Maoist influence, are
genocidal assaults by the state on its own citizens. CDRO firmly believes
that these aerial bombings, in the name of countering Maoist influence,
are genocidal assaults by the state on its own citizens.
On 11th January 2023, a joint operation was launched by the CoBRA

squad of the Central Reserve Police Force, the anti-Naxal squad of Grey-
hound and the District Reserve Guard comprising the SPOs of the no-
torious Salwa Judum. According to different news reports, widespread
aerial bombings have been carried out on the Chhattisgarh-Telangana
border. CDRO firmly believes that these aerial bombings, in the name
of countering Maoist influence, are genocidal assaults by the state on its
own citizens. These aerial attacks, even considering the region to be an
internal conflict zone, are in violation of international human rights and
laws meant to safeguard the rights of civilians in the zone of conflict and
to restrict the damage to all concerned. But here we find that while the
rest of the country is celebrating harvest time, the tribals in the regions
are afraid to step out and participate in harvesting agricultural products.
CDRO would like to point out that this is not the first time that the Indian
government has resorted to this type of bombing. In the last two years,
several villages have borne the brunt of aerial bombing.
Why does the fascist regime so interested in carrying out the
bombing? An answer to this lies in the fact that these regions of Ch-
hattisgarh-Telangana-Odisha, as well as regions in adjacent states of
Jharkhand and Maharashtra, are rich in minerals and are also zones of
conflict between the people and the corporates. The rights and liveli-
hood of the common people are getting trampled every day at the hand
of greedy corporates aided by the fascist government at the centre. The
government is carrying out a two-pronged attack on the common peo-
ple— on one hand, they are diluting the provisions of the Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) to facilitate the corporate loot and on the other
side, the government is carrying out direct military action to suppress
any opposition to the land grab by the corporates in the name of coun-
tering Maoists. Further, the affected villages are inhabited by the tribal
population. It may be noted that the attempts to forcefully evict these
people under the guise of economic development go against the provi-
sions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996
which stipulates that the recommendations of the Gram Sabha or the
Panchayats at the appropriate level shall be made mandatory prior to the
grant of prospecting licence or mining lease for minor minerals in the
Scheduled Areas. CDRO strongly believes that these aerial bombings are
attempts to create terror in the hearts of the common people of the area
and thereby ensure getting mining rights easily.
CDRO urges all democratic and justice-loving people of the country
to oppose the aerial bombing and the military attack by the government
on its own people. CDRO demands:
Immediate halting of aerial bombing by the government on its own
people
Immediately withdraw the military and semi-military forces involved
in this genocide
Recognize Maoist issue as a socio-political-economic question and
engage with them politically
Coordination Of Democratic Rights Organisations (CDRO)

17th January 2023.

ON CORRUPTION
IN THE POST WAR SOVIET UNION
LETTER OF P. GOLUB TO I.V. STALIN
(30 July 1946)
P. Golub was a low to mid level employee of various People’s Commis-

sariats during the 1930-1940s. He was a long time Party member (once
he mentioned he was in the Party for 25 years) and judging by his letter,
an honest and hard-working comrade dedicated to the communist cause.
In the summer of 1946 he sent a letter to the CC of CPSU(b) addressed
to Stalin and Zhdanov concerning various ‘small matters’ of Soviet life,
particularly of the functioning of state apparatus, which were disturbing
him. There are indications that letter reached its address. Across the text,
many paragraphs are marked by red pencil, and the line addressing the
letter to com. Stalin was also underlined by red pencil. And lastly, the
letter was found in the Stalin archive.
In his letter, Golub touched two main themes: 1) the widespread cor-
ruption in the Soviet society (see also a letter by Arbuzov published by
RD previously), 2) the poverty in which Soviet people lived. There were
also two relatively minor themes he touched briefly: 1) family relations
and 2) democratic centralism inside the Party.
Drawing from his experience, mostly serving in the People’s Com-
missariat of Sovkhozes, Golub writes that the state apparatus functions
ineffectively, that it doesn’t serve the interests of the people and the state.
It is important to note here that Golub always assumes the interest of the
people and the socialist state to be one. He describes how corrupt offi-
cials steal state property in order to make it their own de-facto private
property, how state institutions and individual bureaucrats enter relations
of exchange of stolen goods and services, de-facto market relations. Gol-
ub, to credit his insight, makes a correct conclusion that corruption in the
socialist society is not just violating the law but represents the resurgence
of capitalist relations. He mentions that many people who amassed great
wealth during the war are waiting for the ‘change of policy’ from the
above and mentions that this would be against all he believed and fought
for.
One particular term he uses multiple times is worth some explana-
tion. Blat means a service given by a person enjoying certain privileges

(like access to limited goods) to a person he or she knows (not just any-
one). It is not just about the money, but about having a privilege to spend
it. Blat is not just corruption, it is a corruption inside certain group of
people who tend to form a close circle. In this sense, it is opposed to the
‘free market’ and is a form of resurgent pre-capitalist formations.
Golub mentions that the rise of corruption was possible due to war
and the great shortages produced by it. He gives many striking examples
how difficult was life of ordinary Soviet workers and peasants and intel-
ligentsia (particularly doctors). Golub considers himself better off just
because he was having an apartment and will probably able to find work.
We tend to view the last Stalin years (1945-1953) mechanically, as a
period of post-war reconstruction and the revival of productive forces.
In reality, and Golub’s letter shows this very well, it was a period of
acute class struggle between forces which pushed to the restoration of
capitalism (the state apparatus, the criminal elements, shadow private
bourgeoisie) and the forces which stood for socialism and communism
(the honest state and party officials and members, workers and peasants).
The question of quality of life which Golub finds crucial, was the
key to winning this battle and the Soviet leadership understood this very
well. During last years of socialism, many improvements had been made,
including the financial reform and famous annual reduction of consumer
prices. However, this wasn’t enough and Khrushchev after coming to
power used this question opportunistically to gain mass support. How it
turned out is another story.
Considering family matters, Golub is somewhat reactionary because
he firmly believes the family should consist of mother, father and chil-
dren. He opposes the law which let women not to name the father of their
child. It is difficult to say what exactly Golub was proposing to rectify
this, because no one can to forcibly create a family by issuing a decree.
What he argues (from reactionary standpoint) is that such a law would
‘reduce morals.’
The question of democratic centralism Golub touches only briefly
but is important. He says that the Party leadership stopped consulting
ordinary Party members about important decisions and rank and file do
not even know what is currently the Party line. Golub finds it offensive
and a sign of distrust towards ordinary Bolsheviks. Indeed, the last Par-
ty Congress was in 1939 and it was not called again till 1952 (the fact
which Khrushchev also used opportunistically to attack Stalin). During
the late Stalin years, democracy inside the party was reduced and

position of party apparatus strengthened which also contributed to the
defeat of socialist forces after 1953.
Summing up, Golub’s letter offers an important insight into Soviet
life immediately after the war and is also a human document of great
emotional strength showing the will of a Bolshevik to fight and to go on
despite immense difficulties.
N. Svetlov
_______________
(Starting with File 36)
5. Elements of indiscipline and fraud in the state apparatus flour-

ished in full bloom. The reports - five-day, ten-day, monthly, quarterly,
semi-annual and annual-are compiled so unscrupulously according to
mass indicators that they cannot be seriously trusted. Conclusions are
drawn from the same reporting, and planning is based on it. It is no won-
der that the heads of departments have lost interest in economic analysis
according to their reports.
I will give just one example from the little-known ones. At one time,
the GKO [State Defence Committee, the supreme governing body of the
USSR during 1941-1945] and the Council of People’s Commissars of
the USSR received quarterly reports on the number of all those working
in the system, and of those who were liable for military service and those
who were exempt from it. I had to be directly involved in the preparation
of these reports. In fact, it turned out that there were literally no primary
reports without serious flaws, and the bulk of them were simply com-
piled at random. These lies were summed up and finally delivered as re-
liable data to the government. If you need documents on this issue, then
the military department of the former NKSH [People’s Commissariat
of Sovkhozes] has preserved copies of -a thick pack - that were written
about these reports. They did not achieve their goal, because the system
was so used to lying that pointing out a lie only on one question did not
make an impression.
I was told in the former NKSH that “You must come to work on time,
do not leave early, sometimes even stay in the evenings, but during the
day do what you want, even if you do nothing.” When I said to the Depu-
ty People’s Commissar of Sovkhozes Comrade Ivchenko, that such way
of work is not in the interests of the people, and no one wanted to change

the situation, and I asked him to fire me, he only asked me: “Do you have
children?” The same question was recently posed to me by the Deputy
Minister of Construction and Road Engineering, comrade Ivanov, when
I asked for my dismissal from the Glavurs [Main Directorate of Work
Supply] due to the fact that his boss leads the wrong line, supports those
employees who do not work in the interests of the state (the people).
Only now do I understand why they ask about children - in the name of
children, one must accept and tolerate the wrong way of work.
I happened to read that when it was necessary to ensure the rapid
deployment of mass production of a combat aircraft of a new design, you
called the designer to you and asked him what he needed for successful
work; as a result, the designer quickly got what he needed, a new person-
al car (even two) was waiting for him at home. This is the style of how
to take care of an employee.
Of course, the state does not have the ability to provide every em-
ployee in this way, but it was always possible to provide a comfortable
workplace – without a blat [this means to use acquaintances and con-
nections] - an inkwell, a table, an abacus, a ruler, printing materials, ref-
erence literature, an apartment and everyday life (light, water, fuel). I do
not know of a single case in the ministries that any of the main managers
came to an employee’s workplace and asked how he works, checked the
storage of cases and processing of incoming materials, found out wheth-
er the employee was working on the right issues and whether he used
everything that was needed. The complete impression that no one needs
your job, and if you work here, that’s what you need, because you have
children and they want to eat.
If the head of the enterprise does not want to carry out the order of the
minister, or wants to justify his shortcomings, because of which the work
was failed, then he turns to the Deputy Minister. Failed to get what he
wants from this one, he will succeed at getting it from the other Deputy.
This has developed an extreme indiscipline of the apparatus from bottom
to top. It seems that a lot of deputies are introduced in order to tie and
untie these knots.
There was a resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR,
signed by you, number 705 of March 29 of this year, which said that the
subsidiary farms of enterprises do not have the right to sow less than last
year. Minister of Construction and Road Engineering, comrade Sokolov
issued an order, established a plan for sowing. But by the end of sow-
ing, the head of the Glavurs saw that the plan would not be fulfilled,

and decided to reduce the plan, he went to the deputy and achieved his
goal, and I was forced to leave because of this, I lost my job. I went to the
Central Committee of the CPSU(b) to see some employees, but they did
not help me. This is a small thing, but there are thousands of such small
things. If we take into account that almost all decisions and orders of the
Council of Ministers on economic issues, and especially on the distri-
bution of material funds, are never fully implemented, then it becomes
clear what happens to the orders of lower-level bodies, they are often not
worth a penny. It is said of the Ministry of Commerce that its instruc-
tions on funds are not directives to the Regional Trade Authorities, but
the right of the latter to act as they see fit. In order for the Minister of
the Ministry of Industry or his deputies to achieve the fulfillment of their
orders by the director of the enterprise, they often have to repeat their
orders several times.
But it also sometimes happens with orders signed by you. Take for
example the resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on the
transfer of a number of enterprises to the Ministry of Construction and
Industrial Development. After that, there was a fight between the depart-
ments. Only after repeated instructions, the enterprises were transferred
to the new ministry at the end of May.
The law “On the Protection of Collective Farm Land from Squan-
dering” has actually been repealed, and local organizations dispose of
collective farm land at their discretion. Documents on the boundaries of
land use of state farms are lost in a huge number of cases. The same can
be said about other laws issued before the Patriotic War, and because of
this, it is difficult to determine where the beginning of expediency is in
violation of the law, and where it is the end of criminal lawlessness.
Here is the law on propiska [registration]. How can it be observed if
during the elections to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR only at one poll-
ing station revealed about a hundred unregistered policemen working in
Moscow and receiving supplies here? If representatives of the rule of
law act as violators of it, then how can one demand the execution of laws
from other citizens? Here is another small fact - the head of the ORS
[Department of Work Supply] of the Ministry of Power Plants enrolled
me as the chief agronomist of the state farm without any documents and
without my written request. This is important for another reason. During
the war, there was a movement of huge masses of people, but documents
about them (sheets on personnel records, workbooks, etc.) remained in
organizations. If many people shamelessly steal people’s goods, then it

is all the more easy for such a type to steal and use other people’s doc-
uments, and this is especially important for those who want to cover up
the traces of their criminal work forever. There is no verification of how
personal files and documents of employees are used and where they have
gone.
The cases of unregistered police officers and the situation with the
storage of personal documents also indicate that the matter of protecting
the personal security of citizens and their rights requires, to put it mildly,
serious improvement. Verification of the correctness of the registration
was not carried out. Quite often, people are registered fictitiously, and
this is done with the knowledge of even big managers. The service staff
(elevator operators, janitors, cleaners, etc.) in large houses are selected
quite simply, since for 114 roubles and 50 kopecks of a monthly salary,
it is not possible to choose quite reliable persons to whom you can en-
trust the personal safety and property of residents, and if a good person
is selected, then he or she uses a significant part of the service time to
make a living [on side jobs]. There are many facts that reveal the fear of
the police, train car conductors, etc. to annoy the criminal world, and it
operates with impunity and freely.
Most often, for many, the form is observed, but the essence is un-
ceremoniously trampled on. They make sure that reports are provided
on time, that subordinate enterprises make plans and balance sheets in
time, and what is written in them, and how reliable it is, few people
care. In terms of the development of animal husbandry, for example, a
table must be filled in, a plan for mating animals, this is what attention
is drawn to, if the plan is viewed, but according to the plan sometimes
there are such incidents as getting foals from geldings, then this is in the
order of things.
Usually, the heads of central organizations do everything in their
power to ensure that the documents to the government are drawn up as
well as possible, competently, and concisely. It’s good. If for other cases
there is no vellum paper to write a particularly important request, then
they will try to commit a blat, but get such a thing.
It is a different matter if it concerns sending a paper to a grassroots
organization. No special energy is spent on paperwork. Not to mention
the fact that all orders and other mass documents are certified by anyone,
the names of the grassroots leaders are impersonal or confused, the press
and editorial staff are sloppy, the paper is grey, but often even in im-
portant documents blotches are made, the leaders allow even after their

signature to make corrections to the text or correct it themselves. The
director of the state farm “Karavaevo” repeatedly submitted reports on
labour with false data. An order was prepared for this occasion. Deputy
People’s Commissar of Sovkhozes Balyasny in the copy that went to the
addressee, made a correction with his own hand and so ordered it to be
sent. This is also a style of work. But this is not the only fact, there are
many of them.
The storage and the procedure for passing the papers are grossly vi-
olated. Actually, there is no order at all. The originals and main copies
of the documents sent to the government are kept by the executors in
different departments. If it was decided to check how many times and on
what issues this apparatus applied to the government, and what grounds
there were for this, then it is impossible to find many documents. What
is worst of all, these orders, petitions and projects for the distribution of
material funds are kept by their authors. I believed that in this regard,
the ideal order should be in the NKVD of the USSR, which is obliged to
monitor the order in other departments, since this is also important for
the protection of state secrets. Unfortunately, this is not the case. I had to
go there several times and I saw that the “poetic disorder” is also charac-
teristic of this department. The same piles of papers on the tables of the
employees, they also go out, and the visitors are left alone, apparently to
protect the scattered papers, and then they find it, and it turns out that the
paper was not registered and got to another employee not by affiliation,
they also forward individual requests and letters “ for consideration and
for action” sometimes (maybe often) exactly to the same persons that the
petitioners complain about.
At one time, on your initiative, the party apparatus was put in order.
Small things were not spared. It was to be expected that measures would
also be taken in relation to the state apparatus, since without this it is
unthinkable to instill a careful attitude to the people’s goods, but the war
prevented it. If in the party apparatus, which has always been distin-
guished by the greatest scrupulousness and accuracy, so many egregious
violations were found in the office work and its technique, then in the
other apparatuses these violations increase exponentially.
What is the main occupation of the existing huge state apparatus? I
do not know how many employees of the central state apparatus there
are in Moscow. But if there are 100 thousand people, then at least 50
thousand of them are busy every day writing draft resolutions and or-
ders of the government, as well as orders for their departments,

distributing, implementing and extracting material funds. Actually, ev-
eryone is engaged in obtaining material funds, up to the typist and the
courier (the first obtains carbon paper and tapes for the typewriter, and
the second-items for cleaning the office, since often no one cares about
the latter). Now the person who is valuable in the business is the em-
ployee who knows how to get the items, while the employee is not asked
how he actually gets it. This is my personal tragedy, I admit my complete
worthlessness in obtaining various material funds for my department.
In the image and likeness of the central office, grassroots organiza-
tions write orders and decisions, and the primary recipients put every-
thing in a pile, without even reading it, there is no time, no time to read
everything.
The state apparatus has the main task of guarding socialist property,
but in view of the above, it has neither the time nor the opportunity to
monitor the saving and proper use of the people’s goods.
The Patriotic War created an acute shortage of everything. А director
of the state farm or MTS needs up to ten thousand, and sometimes more,
items, parts and materials to ensure smooth operation, the same can be
said about a director of an enterprise. Sometimes there is not enough of
a trifling thing, a detail, but this is enough to slow down the work (sow-
ing, harvesting, etc.) In search of the right item directors go to all sorts
of combinations, meeting insurmountable obstacles, go to exchange,
and even to bribe in the interests of fulfilling the production tasks of
their enterprise. In this connection, with the huge industrial apparatus
of the country, a farmer became an additional industrialist, organizing
expensive artisanal production of the necessary items, parts and even
“golden”[meaning: very expensive] machines, in turn, with a powerful
agriculture capable of producing the necessary products and raw ma-
terials, the industrialist became an additional farmer. Now there is no
director of the enterprise who would not be engaged in agriculture, in all
its diversity. This made it extremely difficult for the personnel to work.
Their workload has tripled.
But the same difficulties in material supply are met by managers,
directors of hospitals, schools and other organizations. This is used by
the dark elements, material funds are alienated from the state in various
ways and through the market or in other ways they get to large consum-
ers in need.
On this basis, unwritten rules have grown and taken root, which now
cannot be circumvented or circumvented - “everyone should only take

care of themselves” and “you do it for me, I do it for you”, that is, blat.
This puts a terrible weight on the enterprise. It is not uncommon for a su-
perior to help his subordinate only on the basis of reciprocity. The direc-
tor helps the agronomist or zootechnician, if it will be profitable for him,
otherwise they are obliged to provide their own work. Something similar
takes place in the relationships of employees of the same apparatus.
Touching on the shortcomings of the apparatus, you cannot ignore
another important detail. The fact is that grassroots organizations are in-
terested in a particular issue until the overall plan is implemented. If it
concerns agriculture, then this approach gives rise to lagging collective
farms.
6. The attitude towards the needs of the working people on the part of
those who are obliged to take care of them tirelessly also has many small
but serious shortcomings, which give rise not only to simple discontent,
but also to laxity in the work of individual organizations, and sometimes
of entire branches of the national economy or individual systems.
Take healthcare, for example. No other country has done as much in
this area as we have. A truly great thing was accomplished by the Soviet
government in the field of public health. But the material and household
provision of medical personnel in the mass is so unsatisfactory that it has
led to a decrease in the quality of medical care, the formal attitude to the
work performed and the protection of the health of specific people even
in this system has its own development. Wage rates in relation to the high
cost of living are extremely low. Junior medical staff are poorly provid-
ed. There is something to compare it with. In your memory, the provision
of zemstvo doctors who treated mainly the rich. Why is it that now, when
doctors are appointed to protect the health of workers, their standard of
living has fallen so much? If there are a lot of doctors and medical staff,
and the state does not have enough funds, then is it not possible to charge
a small fee from visitors to use these funds to build good apartments for
doctors and improve their material security, and thus increase their inter-
est in better public services? Look at what is being done - some charla-
tans in private practices earn up to a thousand roubles or more a day, and
people go to them. Even the police are forced to organize their special
protection due to the large earnings. Strange thing, in private practice, a
doctor can earn a lot of money and not deny himself anything, and the
doctor of the clinic is half-starved and is forced to occupy up to a dozen
positions and thus compensate for the insufficiency of basic salary. But
this also turns the bearers of a noble profession into rude artisans, and the

main thing is that the interests of the working people suffer. Can a doctor
who does not have not only a good apartment, which he must be provid-
ed with, but even a decent room, no sheets for changing the bed, no bed,
no soap to wash the laundry, no opportunity to hand over underwear to
the laundry (there are no laundries) –can such doctor make the necessary
requirements for the service of patients in clinics and hospitals?
But in the worst situation are the agricultural workers, from the ordi-
nary worker and employee to the director of the state farm and the MTS.
How can these people devote all their time to the protection of the state
(people’s) interests, if their personal needs and interests are essentially
in the last place for the state? It is not necessary to look for many reasons
for the poor performance of agriculture, except for this, especially since
the most difficult work is the work of the director, specialist and employ-
ee of an agricultural enterprise.
How many resolutions and decisions on carrying out various agricul-
tural works are written and printed, everything is described as what to
do, up to the fact that a highly specialized method of how to determine
the foal numbers for mares, is publicly published. But if we compare the
powerful energy capacity of agriculture, its saturation with specialists,
with what was before collectivization and state farm construction, then
we cannot say that agriculture has gone far in terms of crop yields and
livestock productivity. Previously, the peasant was armed with a plough
and the precepts of his grandfather. Now he has powerful technology
and science. The entire herd of productive cattle, if not completely pedi-
greed, is metatized, a variety renewal has been carried out over the entire
area of crops, grass crops have increased many times, there are many
hundreds of experienced institutions, but the results are disproportion-
ately small.
It’s all about ensuring the material, household and cultural needs of
agricultural workers. During the war, the specialists of the MTS and state
farms, especially the latter, were virtually excluded from rationing. If we
take into account that even before the war, the supply and earnings were
not brilliant (the senior zootechnician received 325 roubles a month, and
the shepherd in the Zagotskot [office for procurement of livestock] of-
fice received 500 roubles), then this is the reason for the huge turnover
of specialists and senior personnel in agriculture, and their departure to
other industries. During the existence of the Soviet government, so many
specialists with higher education were trained that if they all had re-
mained in agriculture, they would have been more than enough even for

all collective farms. However, they are not fully staffed at MTS and state
farms. In the role of senior and junior specialists, there are (quite often)
practitioners who do not have any education at all. If the latter is appro-
priate, then what is the need to have a large number of higher educational
institutions for the training of agricultural specialists?
It is also appropriate to say that so many agrotechnical and zootech-
nical instructions are written in the legislative order that the impression
is created about the exceptional illiteracy of the specialists working at
the bottom. A specialist who has been studying at a university for 5 years
does not need much guidance, often on the spot he knows better what
to do to achieve good results. From him it is necessary to demand a
high harvest and a high yield of livestock, and in return to take care
of him, creating appropriate conditions. If this happens, then without
any solutions, tens, and maybe hundreds of thousands of specialists who
have not yet lost their qualifications and who love this job, will return to
agriculture.
Compare the material security and care for the workers of the first
political departments and agricultural specialists, compare the security
of the district agronomist when he served a private farm, and now. This
is the reason for the fluidity of cadres -the scourge of any economy that
generates irresponsibility.
There is a state farm in Bolychevo in the Ostashevsky district of the
Moscow region, where the old personnel workers of this state farm, great
specialists in their field, have been preserved, and yet they live in the
worst conditions. They certainly deserved to be awarded the medal “For
Valiant Labour during the Patriotic War”, but no one thought to organize
their household support and to celebrate their good work. If it is nec-
essary to start every business with the care of housing for a person and
food for him, then in this sense the organization of state farms and MTS
is not yet finished. In most large state farms, only the central estates are
well equipped for the main workers, but their farms are a parody of a
cultural socialist agricultural enterprise. For the first years, people lived
in the hope that everything would be improved, but these hopes are not
realized, which gives rise to a huge turnover of labour, or even worse,
the organization of individual peasant farms by workers within a large,
socialist one, leading to the disintegration of the latter.
Last year, Pravda wrote an editorial entitled “Taking care of the
needs of the working people is the first duty of a Bolshevik.” In the state
farms, this editorial did not find any response in the sense of increasing

care for people. But after a while, the Sovkhoz Newspaper published its
editorial “To provide cattle with a warm and well-fed winter”. This is a
very specific editorial. State farm people do a lot to carry out this, get
by all sorts of ways some glass and other building materials to insulate,
whitewash and carry out other necessary repairs to the premises for live-
stock. For the people themselves, the concern is less specific. Maybe
because it’s harder for people to get what they need. If it were the other
way around, I think there would be no need to write editorials like the
editorial of Sovkhoz Newspaper, just as there would be no need to write
laws on agricultural technology, since local people, under the guidance
of specialists, know quite well what to do to successfully complete the
tasks that the Motherland sets for them.
Your words that the most valuable capital is people, personnel, espe-
cially all the Soviet people, who with their blood and heroic work, full
of hardships for decades saved humanity from a terrible catastrophe, I
understand quite literally.
So why do we have such facts when even the cadre workers of state
farms, not only in the zones that were subjected to occupation, are forced
to live in rooms worse than pigsties, and in order to eat at least some
tolerable food and not to walk in rags, they are forced to steal?
And another issue that is important for the productive work and life
of the Soviet people is the issue of its provision in the event of long-term
disability or old age. The fact is that only a limited number of employ-
ees receive a sufficient superannuation pension, and the rest, hundreds
of thousands of them, maybe millions, like me, receive it on a general
basis, that is, in amounts that do not provide for the possibility of at least
somehow existing. The unstable value of the rouble made it impossible
to make savings for an accident. If the economic life of the country and
earnings were always such that a person with a modest behaviour could
make savings, then of course, this issue would not be so acute for the
country.
I speak of myself as an extra example. My life is still good - I have
an apartment and maybe I will still be able to work. But here sometimes
I met a lot of completely homeless people, people from the grassroots,
inconspicuous, meekly and persistently fulfilling the tasks of the Party.
The fate of many of them is to end their lives somewhere in the “Stol-
bovaya”, a branch of a psychiatric hospital, since they do not even have
a small corner of their own and no means of subsistence. They must be
dear to the party, and the socialist country was built by their hands, by

these inconspicuous propagandists, agitators and organizers. The Bol-
sheviks must constantly take care of the needs of the working people,
and who will take care of those Bolsheviks who have outlived their time?
I can be punished for this letter, I am ready to take it down, but I
ask you to explain why in our country, where much has been done to
improve the present and future life of a person, facts like the three listed
below are possible.
At one of the railway stations of the Sverdlovsk - Tyumen railway in
1945, a worker cleared the road of snow, in the crackling frosts and in
bad weather in winter, in one jacket, in torn shoes and without gloves, for
a meager fee, she worked conscientiously. No one noticed this, including
the leaders of the party and trade union organizations. She herself began
to ask for help-to give her some shoes. After a long walk, “help” was
provided –covers were issued for mittens for up to 6 months, but suitable
for one day (very poor quality). When it was time to subscribe to the
state loan [state borrowing from the people], and the employee signed
up for a small amount, the indignant secretary of the party committee
literally an hour later called this employee for a threatening explanation.
On the same stretch of railroad, the workers of a large depot prepared
firewood on their own near the railway line, but 40 km from the place of
consumption. The Minister of Railways, Comrade Kovalev, allowed the
use of local wagons for transporting firewood to housing. It remained to
resolve the issue of transport for the delivery of firewood to the railway
line. The depot had a tractor, two cars and working horses, which in the
fall were used mainly for the needs of the management staff, the district
authorities (mutual services) and various combinations. The depot work-
ers were unable to get transport until December, and many sat in unheat-
ed apartments or gave their wages for armfuls of firewood at speculative
prices. I don’t know if they got the transport after that. Both of these facts
may be known to you, and action has been taken on them.
In the Moscow Bolshevik last year (in November or December), there
was published a material like a feuilleton with a caricature and an evil
satire in verse about the fact that a tram driver, seeing a birch log near
the tram line, got out of the tram and picked it up. Of course, this is not
right, if everyone gave up work to provide for their personal needs, then
what would it be? But why didn’t the newspaper just as vigorously find
out the specific reason for this wrong action of the employee? Perhaps
the worker had no firewood, could not get it, could not buy it at the mar-
ket, and probably her children were cold. Why didn’t the newspaper pay
attention to this side as well?

Callousness and indifference to a person are manifested precisely in
such trifles, from which, in fact, our daily existence is formed. I regular-
ly read the Moscow Bolshevik, but I have seen little when the question
of callousness to specific people on specific cases has been raised so
strongly.
By the way, in all Moscow institutions, employees often use their
working hours to buy food and purchase orders, as well as for other per-
sonal needs. Many stores operate at the same hours as the institutions,
and the best products are also brought in and sold during the employees ‘
working hours. Why does the newspaper not raise these questions?
The question of relations to the needs of the working people will not
be exhausted if we do not mention paper. Textbooks are sorely lacking.
Children at school have nothing to write on - there are not enough note-
books. Very, very few notebooks. I myself have seen a lot of facts when
children (especially in the village and in remote district centres) wrote
their works on dirty scraps. These are skills for culture, something that
is laid down in childhood, and remains for life. Even in Moscow, there
are very few notebooks issued. For the 3rd grade, you need 15, and only
6 notebooks are given. High school students do not have the opportunity
to write notebooks in all subjects and keep notes somehow. This is also
the rudiments of an attitude to future government work. Not everyone
can buy notebooks at the market and in the store at an expensive price.
There is an acute shortage of various reference books for agricul-
tural and industrial workers, without which it is simply impossible to
work. Accounting is launched partly due to the extreme lack of necessary
forms of primary accounting. In the grassroots offices, there is not even
wrapping paper for writing extremely necessary references. The store
clerks even forgot that such thing as wrapping paper, exists. For the low
level offices, paper is purchased on the market at a speculative price, but
for public money. Smoking paper has long since disappeared from sale.
This is not such a petty question. No wonder tobacco was listed under the
Ministry of Food Industry. At the front, a good shag tobacco contributed
to the successful conduct of operations, the lack of smoking reduces la-
bour productivity, this is also known. A lot of good books in the country
are spent on cigarette paper, wasted on writing and wrapping. The cost
of an average size of a book suitable for smoking in Siberia reached 500
roubles, and newspapers of the Pravda format - up to 10 roubles per
copy.
Meanwhile, we produce many times more paper than ever before.
If you seriously think about it, then the urgent needs of a person will be
provided. There is enough paper for everything.
Under your leadership, the country has created an industry that can
solve any problem. V. I. Lenin only dreamed of 100 thousand tractors,
but now they are in agriculture-up to one million, that is, we have every-
thing we need to immediately improve the working and living conditions
of the Soviet people, which will ensure the early implementation of the
five-year plan, since there are great reserves and opportunities for this.
A lot of things need to change. The apparatus is incredibly swollen,
almost all of it is engaged in the extraction and use of material funds,
on a large and small scale. The functions of the organizations are mixed
up. Industrialization without the division of labour would be impossible.
In our country, as a result of the difficulties caused by the Patriotic War,
each organization became unique, and hence its personnel became so
too. A director of the plant is an industrialist, a farmer, an individual
gardener, a merchant, a procurement worker and a builder. The same can
be said about the head of any grassroots organization. Often, for each
function, the director bears strict personal responsibility, for the failure
of any of the listed works, he can be removed from work and put on trial.
This reduces discipline and responsibility. As a result of incorrect meth-
ods of distribution of goods, a huge amount of them is alienated from
the state and enters the market, money from the state pocket is pumped
into private ones. Monetary wages for the vast majority of workers have
ceased to serve as a material incentive for good work. Another negative
moral factor has emerged - people learn how to ask, replacing their right
to demand, and they stopped considering it humiliating when they are
offered to receive something from the outside for services arising from
their duties. Out of this grows a bribe and an extreme laxity of the appa-
ratus. When not the state, but the clients care about the maintenance of
employees, since they understand that an employee cannot exist on his
salary, then the possibility of strict enforcement of laws is excluded, but
life is still developing uncontrollably in this direction.
7. And finally, the last question is about the law of July 8 on the
promotion of childbearing in the country. There are no words, this is
necessary, because in the end, the preponderance of forces in the last
clash with the old, fading world will also be decided by the size of the
population. But not only that. The development of a vast territory and the
growth of social wealth, and on this basis the improvement of the mate-
rial well-being of the working people, requires rapid population growth.
But why did the law exclude the father from raising children? Why
does this law take away the possibility of children having a father and

allows the right to marry persons of close kinship - incest (the right of
the mother not to indicate the true father of the child)? This is not a sen-
timent, but a question of deep social significance. By law, the relations
of the sexes are so simplified that all the lyrics of Pushkin, Lermontov
and Tchaikovsky, as well as the moral of Tolstoy’s “Resurrection”, were
thrown of high moral qualities out of the education of the youth.
This law is also the law on the family and children. The family goes
back to the dawn of human society, and it is unlikely that the prerequi-
sites for its destruction will arise so soon, and whether this will still be
necessary in the future. Before this happens, it is not the state, but the
family that should be the primary basis for raising children. Who does
not know that in a family where the father and mother are on good terms
with each other, they correctly treat their civil duties, then their children
will grow up to be good citizens?
The immediate negative result of the war is that many children have
fallen victim to the streets, and these are mainly children who have no
parents or only one mother, who is busy all day at work. A lot of juvenile
delinquents are serving sentences. Do we need such citizens?
By allowing even a mother to abandon her children in favour of the
state, the law encourages the irresponsibility of parents in raising chil-
dren and the complete irresponsibility of men for this. A human being,
including a man, also differs from an animal in that he or she is respon-
sible for their offspring. The law also removed this responsibility from
men. If a man will not be responsible for the children who owe birth to
him personally, that is, for his children, then where is the guarantee that
he will be better responsible for the children of the public, while in public
office? In life, it often happens that the number of children depends more
on the father than on the mother. The question is in the family economy.
In addition, the state cannot take over the education of all children,
and never, under any circumstances, can replace good parents for them.
This law can cause serious consequences for the country. Of course, we
are not talking about conferring titles [“Mother-heroine” - translator’s
note] and receiving state benefits, but this is not the main thing in the
law. There are a lot of facts that show that children have lost all data
about their origin, due to the fault of children’s institutions. Often, their
officials, in order to get rid of unwanted children, attribute extra years
to them, exchange documents. At the same time, the paperwork itself is
such that the bill in the grocery store is made out more culturally and
reliably than the identity of a child who enters into life. Documents for

horses in collective farms and military enlistment offices are better and
more reliable than documents for many pupils in children’s institutions.
Whether it is all the same to the state that Vanya Petrov, whose father
was killed at the front, and mother was tortured by the Germans, became
Kolya Sidorov, whose mother fornicated with a German, or not, but the
child does care. Any falsehood turns the soul into ashes and causes a
deep trauma in the child’s mind, leading to serious, often irreparable
consequences in his life.
Isn’t it a lot for the state to take on the upbringing of all the children
who will be born to women without specifying the father’s name? And
has the state asked the people how legitimate this socially responsible
step is?
Children are not toys. And the law actually turns them into an easy
toy - the mother can give the child to the state if she wants to get mar-
ried, then, if she pleases, to take him back, etc. What are the moods of
children who can be treated so easily, and who for some reason needed
to be initiated into all the secrets of the relations of the sexes, the family
and the state?
You are not only proud of your mother, but you have the right to be
proud of your father, but our people are also proud of them, both of your
parents. Why should Soviet children be deprived of the right to have a
father? If he is a scoundrel, then this is also a lesson for the child, he will
grow up, he will understand that it is not right to behave like this.The
misfortune caused by the war cannot be taken as a starting point, since
everything will return to normal, and the large preponderance of the fe-
male population over the male will also disappear.
Every day I happen to meet children begging, or who are in an ex-
tremely difficult situation. Most recently, a boy of about 15 years old was
standing in a bakery, he came to Moscow from Vologda, where he was in
prison for hooliganism. He left the orphanage unfit for life, without any
profession. He doesn’t know what to do, how to make a living. If there
were at least one parent, the situation would be easier. No, it is impossi-
ble to remove from parents the responsibility for raising children, on the
contrary, it is necessary to strengthen it.
Many very important decisions and events are carried out in the
country not only without prior discussion in the party organizations, but
even the party members are not informed about them, that is, they are
not explained the vital importance of these events, so that the Commu-
nists have the opportunity to conduct an appropriate explanation in the

masses. It is possible that some special circumstances do not allow you
to do this (especially external ones), but in this case it would be better
to say at least a hint. Sometimes the wild idea comes to mind that the
Communists have stopped being asked for their opinion, they have lost
respect in the eyes of the party leadership. It is not a matter of disagree-
ment, but of the traditions in which we were brought up by V. I. Lenin
and you for decades. These traditions have already become a habit, and
many members of the party may no longer be able to become different.
In addition, you have repeatedly expressed the idea that certain events
can be carried out more successfully when the entire party undertakes
to carry them out. If an old member of the party cannot abandon the es-
tablished traditions, then he should not be thrown away. An old man, in
particular, differs from a squeezed lemon in that the latter can be thrown
out without a twinge of conscience, and the former is a human being,
and it is not good to do so. Did the Motherland need him before? Yes,
she did. Therefore, in accordance with the benefits brought by him, it is
necessary to take care of him when he’s resigning.
I see a forest of successes in socialist construction. They are not ob-
scured by the young growth of those negative details mentioned in the
letter, which are drawing to the restoration of private-capitalist relations
in the country. In nature, it happens that the young growth overcomes the
old mighty forest, itself becomes a forest in its place. If the same cannot
happen to our Soviet society, then at any rate this growth weakens the
mighty forest of the socialist economy. I cannot be indifferent to this, and
the only thing I am not able to do is to contribute to the growth of this bad
fit. That’s what this letter is about.
What prompted me to write this letter?
During my 25 years in the party, I was a propagandist and a guide of
its decisions among the masses. Therefore, everything that is wrong, that
does not correspond to the teachings of Lenin and yours, to the decisions
of the party, from which the vital interests of the people suffer, is per-
ceived by me as if it is I who am doing the wrong thing, that it is I and
only I who have had a gap between word and deed.
Negative facts affecting the deep interests of the state (the people)
and the lives of the Soviet people, which we have to deal with every day,
dig into my soul like rusty needles into the body.
How does my mind react to such facts?
A skilled worker of a state farm lives for 15 years in a kennel, his bed
is a pile of rags, the toilet is the space around the shack. Isn’t that the
result of my work? This is a great reproach to my work too.

At the station, there are a lot of street children lying around, unable
to get a clear answer anywhere, met with callousness and indifference.
They have all their wealth in their pockets - fake papers issued by the
director of the children’s institution, they are chased from everywhere,
they are considered to be thieves. This is the result of my work too.
A whole carload of children-prisoners, from 11 to 13 years old.
Among them are children with great inclinations, their lives are already
broken, and they have not yet had time to live. The teacher teaches one
of them how easy it is to live at the expense of the others, who are not
given the right to leave the car without a guard. Is this what I wanted? I
s this the fate I was preparing for those who would be handed over to the
state by their mothers?
Many millions of Soviet people cannot live on the nominal salary
they receive, the ration is designed for a half-starved existence, they have
nothing to sell on the market. How can they exist? Did I agitate for this?
In order for a simple person to get the basic necessities of life, it
is necessary more than once to humiliatingly ask the person in whose
hands these necessities are. Is it for this that I fought?
To get every little thing for his small business, without which even
large-scale production cannot work normally, the director, specialist of
the state farm, MTS, enterprise must spend days and nights, waste mon-
ey and materials belonging to the state (the people) and circumvent the
laws. Was it such an organization of socialist agricultural production that
I called for?
In order to work, to have personally a good income and the mate-
rial wellbeing of the family, it is necessary, together with the People’s
Commissar of Sovkhozes Lobanov, to lie to the state (the people) and
encourage a negligent attitude to the people’s wealth, or it is needed
together with the head of the Glavurs Zakharevsky, to deceive your own
conscience, to cover for the robbers of the people’s wealth. Is it the moral
I preached?
We have everything in our country to prevent the humiliation of a
person’s personality and to provide conditions for normal productive
work for every Soviet worker, big and small, to remove all worries from
him and to leave him only one thing-to conscientiously fulfil the duty
assigned to him.
To do this, it is necessary to put the care for a person in the centre of
attention. To respond to the demands of the working people, as the coun-
try responded to the shortage of weapons and ammunition at the front.

This will be the magic wand that will cause a new huge surge of energy
in the people and all the tasks set by you, the government and the party
will be completed much faster than expected.
The time has come when every Soviet worker wants to be confident
in the future, not only in the political sense of the strength of the socialist
state, but also in the personal economy. The latter, in particular, is asso-
ciated with the rouble. The integrity of the state in relation to the people
is also tested by the strength of the rouble. It is necessary to eliminate
the situation when the rouble turns into a jumping little goat and to en-
sure that it becomes a Georgian buffalo, in the reliability, endurance and
unpretentiousness of which every farmer who has dealt with it believes.
There are not many nations in the world who are as patient as the
Russians, as the Soviet people. There are entire nations who prefer capi-
talist slavery to freedom for the sake of imaginary economic well-being,
and the low standard of living of the Soviet people plays an important
role in this. The immediate improvement of the lives of the working
people and the implementation of other measures that ensure the per-
sonal material interest of citizens in strengthening the socialist state and
in concrete work, not only according to the law, but also according to
personal desire, increases the chances of our country on an international
scale.
To preserve our country is to clear the way for all mankind. All the
main burden in the liberation from the capitalist bonds fell on the shoul-
ders of our people, and therefore they deserved a sharp improvement in
all aspects of their existence, since all the opportunities for this appeared.
Perhaps I will not only be punished, but I will also be publicly ridi-
culed in the press for this letter, but this is less difficult than to ignore the
implementation of the destructive process of those little things that are
mentioned here, and many others that I could not touch on in my letter.
I’m not the only one waiting for an answer to the letter. Observa-
tions show that many of these issues are also of concern to other Soviet
citizens. Apparently, some did not have the patience to wait and took
the path of personal enrichment, assuming that things are heading for a
serious change in economic relations in the country. I cannot accept this,
because I understand perfectly well that the creation and accumulation of
wealth in the hands of society is the basis for the wellbeing of millions of
Soviet workers, for which I have fought all my adult life, and now even
more so I cannot do otherwise.
If there was no certainty that the letter would bring at least a small
benefit to the Motherland, it would never have been written.

Member of the VKP (b), party card number 2781062
P. Golub
August 8th,1946
Moscow, Chkalov Street, house 23, apt. 45
Received by the Special Department of the CC of VKP(b) on August 9th

1946
Translated from the Russian by Irina Malenko

Source: Письмо П. Голубя И.В. Сталину от 30 июля 1946 г.
http://sovdoc.rusarchives.ru/sections/personality/cards/49422
РГАСПИ. Ф. 558. Оп. 11. Д. 870. Л. 36-62.

ON THE NEW LETTER OF YAROSHENKO
(10th January 1953)
I.V. Stalin
Preface
The subordination of the relations of production to the forces of pro-
duction was a persistent strand of thinking in the Soviet Union. Most
pronounced in this understanding was the work of A.A. Bogdanov in his
writings on Tektology. Bukharin was profoundly influenced by his ideas.
In the context of socialist industrialisation, the development of directive
centralised planning and the construction of the collective farms of the
poor and middle peasantry the Soviet leadership found it imperative to
come to terms with right wing philosophy and political economy whose
proponents bitterly fought against the construction of socialism. The
Bogdanov-Bukharinist trend was temporarily defeated in the 1930s.
But after the economic discussions in November 1951 on the draft
political economy textbook, Stalin pointed out that Yaroshenko followed
the notions of Bogdanov and Bukharin in downplaying the role of the re-
lations of production. This was particularly troublesome when the party
was tackling the questions related to the transition to communism. The
critique of the Yaroshenko ideological tendency is evident in Economic
Problems of Socialism in the USSR.
The notions of Yaroshenko were to be revived after March, 1953.
The initial freezing of the relations of production of Soviet society, the
end of the programme for the transition to communist society, the rapid
introduction of market relations, involving the commodification of the
instruments and means of production, are all evidence of this.
Yaroshenko was brought in by Khrushchev to play a role in the 20th
Congress of the CPSU though this in itself was not a crucial question.
More important was the all-pervasive dissemination of the views of
Yaroshenko in the CPSU and the Soviet state. It is no exaggeration to
say that Yaroshenkoism and with it Bogdanovism and Bukharinism re-
placed Marxism-Leninism as the dominant ideology of the CPSU and
the Soviet Union. The elimination of the advance of social relations in
the Soviet Union in the spirit of Yaroshenko are evident in the speeches
of Khrushchev, Brezhnev and the other leaders until the end of the Soviet

state. The views of Yaroshenko also stand at the centre of the contempo-
rary communist movement in Russia.
Khrushchev gave his active support to the Yaroshenko ideology as
did Mao in his work on political economy, Critique of Soviet Economics.
Mao and Khrushchev as is known opposed the views of Stalin which
were hostile to the commodification of the instruments and means of pro-
duction as advocated by Notkin, Venzher and Sanina. The concurrence
of Khrushchev and Mao on the creation of a market economy is evident.
After March 1953 moreover the CPC balked at converting the democrat-
ic dictatorship established in 1949 to the dictatorship of the proletariat in
People’s China, and in terms of social relations it incorporated the for-
mer kulaks, the former landlords into the rural people’s communes and
the national bourgeoisie in the urban people’s communes. It is instruc-
tive to note that the people’s communes were not founded upon social
property but in fact retained the form of group property which contained
the former social property of the Machine Tractor Stations in addition
to the private property of the middle bourgeoisie. Mao went back on
his commitment in People’s Democratic Dictatorship to nationalise the
properties of the national bourgeoisie. The criticism of Stalin by Mao
and his support for the ideology of Yaroshenko had this as its context.
Yaroshenko survived the fall of the Soviet Union and continued to
hold on to his views.
The document below reveals some details of the struggle against the
views of Yaroshenko after the publication of Economic Problems of So-
cialism in the USSR.
Vijay Singh.
______________
To
The Members of the Bureau of the Presidium of the Central Com-
mittee regarding the new letter from Comrade Yaroshenko to the Central
Committee dated 20, December, 1952
In December 1952, Comrade Yaroshenko sent a new statement to the
members of the Presidium of the Central Committee. In this statement he
denies having made any errors in his previous speeches. He asserts that
Comrade Stalin, in his letter about the mistakes of Comrade Yaroshenko
distorted his views, and requests that the editors of Pravda publish his
statement about the same.

However, along with this statement to the Central Committee there
is another statement by Com. Yaroshenko dated 31st May, 1952, of a
completely contradictory content to the Central Committee. Comrade
Yaroshenko in this statement, in connection with Comrade Stalin’s let-
ter about the mistakes of Com. Yaroshenko, wrote that “on questions of
political economy he made a number of crude mistakes”, and that from
Com. Stalin’s letter he “realised how much my (i.e. Com. Yaroshenko’s)
theoretical positions are wrong, shallow and truly childishly naive.
Here is the text of this statement by Comrade Yaroshenko
To the General Secretary of the CC AUCP(b)

Com. Stalin Iosef Vissarionovich
Dear Iosef Vissarionovich,

In my address to you on questions of the theory of political econ-
omy, I made a number of very crude mistakes. Despite my incom-
petence in matters of theory of political economy and knowledge of
the classic works of Marxism, I had the audacity to define the subject
of political economy and the basic economic law of socialism, and
of course I could not say anything sensible. More than that I lost my
sense of reality so much that I dared to oppose my point of view on
these issues to your point of view.
I did not have the necessary sophistication even to correctly for-
mulate the problems. I was arrogant and tactless, in connection with
which I ask you to accept my sincerest apologies.
Thinking about these actions of mine, I don’t find any excuse for
myself.
From your criticism, I saw how my “theoretical” assumptions
are wrong, shallow and truly childishly naive. I strongly reject them.
True, my statements at the discussions, appeals to the Central Com-
mittee of the Party and to you personally, Iosif Vissarionovich, came
from my most sincere desire to help the party’s cause. There were no
other considerations. Only now, from your criticism, I realised how
little knowledge do I have and how deeply mistaken I was on ques-
tions of the political economy of socialism.
I request you, dear Iosif Vissarionovich, to give me one more op-
portunity to rectify my mistakes while still being a member of the
party through honest work.
For all my 33 years in the party, I have always fought to the
best of my ability for the general line of the party, was never ever

a member of any opposition and anti-party groupings and honestly
worked in any area where the party put me.
Yaroshenko L.D.
31.5.1952
We have thus two completely opposite statements of the same party

member on the same question.
Since these statements negate each other and are completely incon-
sistent for one single person to make, it is obvious that one of them is a
false statement, calculated to deceive the party.
The matter is complicated by the fact that Yaroshenko’s letter dated
20th December, 1952 was sent to the Central Committee not before the
19th Congress but after the 19th Congress of the party, after the Congress
had approved the main propositions of Comrade Stalin’s work “The Fun-
damental Problems of Socialism,” and consequently, it also approved
Comrade Stalin’s letter “about the mistakes of Comrade Yaroskenko.” It
turns out that in his letter to the members of the Presidium of the Central
Committee dated 20th December, 1952, comrade Yaroshenko opposes
the well-known decision of the Congress on the work of Comrade
Stalin, and, moreover, he appeals against this decision of the 19th Con-
gress not to the new congress, which can only cancel the decision of
the 19th Party Congress, but to the Presidium of the Central Committee
which can in no way cancel the decisions of the Congress, but only carry
them out. Therefore, the letter from Comrade Yaroshenko dated Decem-
ber 20, 1952 represents, in essence, the call of one of the party members
to violate the well-known decision of the 19th Party Congress.
A truly active member of the Party, who considers himself to be a son
of the Party, would not dare to put himself in such a stupid and idiotic
position. and if Comrade Yaroshenko decided on this quixotic step, then
this can only be explained by the fact that he had long ago ceased to feel
like a member of the party, a son of our great mother - the Party.
As for the essence of the theoretical propositions put forward in
Comrade Yaroshenko’s essay of December 20, 1952, these propositions
are just as far from Marxism-Leninism as are the “concepts” of all de-
generates like Bukharin, Bogdanov, Trotsky and others.
Comrade Shepilov’s letter, which is sent along with Comrade Yaros-
henko’s letter, gives a correct assessment of Comrade Yaroshenko’s new
anti-Marxist mistakes.

I propose to create a Commission of the Bureau of the Presidium of
the Central Committee consisting of Comrades. Malenkov, Khrushchev,
Shepilov, Shkiryatov and Suslov, instructing it to hear the explanations
of Comrade Yaroshenko and submit a draft of the appropriate resolution.
I.V. Stalin
10th January 1953
RGASPI F. 558, Op. 11. D. 1273, LL. 31-34.

Translated from the Russian by Tahir Asghar.

LATE SOVIET EVALUATIONS OF
BARAN, SWEEZY AND BETTELHEIM
The western economists, briefly analysed here by Soviet economists in

the Brezhnev period, have been very influential in India amongst pro-
gressive opinion which considers them to be Marxist and even Marxist
Leninist. With this background the views presented here are of interest
even though the Soviet economists themselves were functioning within
a generalised system of commodity production.
1.
Baran, Paul (1910 - 64) was an American bourgeois economist. He
was born in Ukraine, emigrated and studied in Berlin and Paris. Lived in
the USA since 1939 and continued his studies at the Harvard University.
After the Second World War 1939-1945 he worked at the office of the
Federal Reserve Bank in New York. Since 1949 he was a professor at
Stanford University. He has authored works on the political economy of
developing countries and contemporary imperialism, in which he criti-
cally examines contemporary capitalism from a liberal bourgeois stand-
point using certain Marxist views. His best known work – “The Political
Economy of Growth”, (1957), has been translated into many languages.
For an analysis of the process of economic growth, Baran uses the cate-
gories of potential and real economic surplus. The former, according to
Baran, consists of surplus value and excess value created in the non-cap-
italist sector of a given country. Real economic surplus is that part of the
potential economic surplus that remains after parasitic consumption of
the ruling classes, useless for the development of society expenditure
and transfer of funds abroad, etc. Baran seeks to give an analysis of the
processes of formation and use of real economic surplus in developing
countries. In 1966 he published his book “Monopoly Capital” (“Monop-
oly Capital”), co-authored with P. Sweezy. On a large factual material,
the authors show the parasitism and decay of the monopolistic US econ-
omy in the 20th century. On a number of theoretical issues, in particular
in the definition of economic features of imperialism, Baran opposes the
Marxist-Leninist theory of imperialism, which is also evidenced by the
article ‘Notes on the theory of imperialism” (in collection “Prob-
lems of economic dynamics and planning”, 1964), written by him in
collaboration with Sweezy. Development. Baran considered the growth
of national revolutionary movements as the main path of transition of
human societies towards socialism, thereby underestimating the revolu-
tionary role of the proletariat of capitalist countries.
Yu. A. Vasil”chuk, Moscow.

(Ekonomicheskaya Entsiklopedia, Politicheskaya Economia, ed. A.M.
Rumantsev, Volume 1, 1972, p. 135.)
2.
Sweezy Paul Marlor (b.1919) an American economist and journal-
ist. In 1934 graduated from Harvard University in which had a teaching
position till 1942 in the economics department. Founder and publisher of
the journal Monthly Review (from 1949) where he published articles on
burning political-economic historic-economic problems. In a number of
works he refers to important postulates of the economic theory of Karl
Marx, as a consequence he came to be known in the bourgeois circles as
a proponent of Marxism. However, Sweezy’s views were formed under
the very strong influence of bourgeois ideology and essentially deviate
from Marxism (eg. on questions of the labour theory of value, surplus
value and accumulation of capital). While characterising modern Capi-
talism, Sweezy promotes revisionist ideas of transformation of the bour-
geois society, in which supposedly shifts of a socialist nature take place.
As a supporter of the theory of “economic stagnation”, Sweezy explains
the drop in the pace of development of the American economy due to
the fact that the United States have achieved economic “maturity”, after
which a period of “natural” stagnation has set in. Sweezy considers an
insufficient increase in the population to be one of the reasons for this
stagnation leading to a shortage of labour, increase in the level of wages,
and consequently, to a reduction in the profits of the capitalists, a de-
crease in accumulation and lessened incentive to invest. Sweezy comes
to the conclusion that the modern capitalist economy cannot successfully
develop and overcome the growing economic contradictions without the
active intervention of the state in the economic life and the introduction
of a system planning.
Works: Socialism, New York, 1949; Cuba: Anatomy of a Revolution,
NY, 1961; The Theory of Capitalist Development, Principles of Marxian
Political Economy, NY, 1968; Present as History, 2nd Edition, NY, 1970.
V.G. Sarychev, Leningrad.

Rumantsev, Volume 4, 1980, p. 86.)

3.
Bettelheim Charles (b. 20.11.1914) was a French bourgeois econ-
omist specialising in the field of economic planning. He was a doctor
and professor of economics (1939). He graduated from the University
of Paris in 1931. He was the director of the Centre for sociological re-
search and international studies at the ministry of labour during 1944-
48. In the period 1945-50 he was a professor at the National School of
Economics and Social Organisation and from 1948-52 he worked at the
National School of Administration. Bettelheim headed the UNO mis-
sion for technical assistance to India (1945-56). Bettelheim was director
of the research journal “Problèmes de planification” and the Centre for
the Study of Socialist planning. The problems of economic planning are
considered by him in general theoretical and specific economic aspects,
in close connection with the analysis of the sectoral structure of the na-
tional economy, production, processes of distribution, use of the gross
domestic product and national income, the role of technical progress,
processes of the monetary system, employment, labour productivity,
wages, external trade and outflow of capital. However, the constraints of
his bourgeois positions prevents Bettelheim from giving scientific solu-
tions for problems of planning.
Works: L’économie soviétique, P., 1950; Une ville française moy-

ennc Auxerre en 1950, P., 1950; Aspects de l’économie tchecoslovaque,
«Cahiers internationaux», 1950, fevr. mars; Théories contemporaines
de l’emploi, P., 1953; Long-term planning problems, ( L.,) 1956; For-
eign trade and planning for economic development, (L.,) 1956; Studies
in the theory of planning, Bombay, 1961; Some basic planning prob-
lems, Bombay, 1961; Planification et croissance accelerée, P., 1964;
La construction du socialisme en Chine, P., 1965 (coaBтop); Les cad-
res socio-économiques et l’organisation de la planification sociale, P.,
1965; Le problémes théoriques et pratiques de la planification, 3 èd., P.,
1966; in Russian translation: The Economy of France 1919-1952, M,
1953; The Economy of France after the Second World War, M, 1956;
Independent India, M, 1964.
V.S.Afanas”ev, Moscow.
Rumantsev, Volume 1, 1972, pp. 155-6.)

THE USE OF IDENTITY POLITICS
TO UNDERMINE THE LEFT
Anna Coco
The US government and ruling elite have infiltrated and attempted to
destroy the Left since its inception. In the 1960’s the CIA think tanks
came up with numerous strategies to destroy the Left, such as promoting
drug use and promiscuous sexuality as a form of not only “Brave New
World” escapism, but diverting attention from working class issues. Re-
member Jerry Garcia repeating Timothy Leary’s famous quote “turn on,
tune in, and drop out?” Even the decriminalization of marijuana today is
really not to stop the Prison Industrial Complex, which is still arresting
millions of young men, especially those of colour, but about pushing es-
capism as a replacement for protesting in a country where half the popu-
lation lives near or below the poverty line. “Get high; forget your cares.”
“Don’t fight back. Jesus was a pacifist.” (Forget that Jesus flogged the
bankers in the temple during Passover.) The Communist Party USA and
other Left parties were successful in pushing back this degeneration, dis-
couraging drug and alcohol use as well as criticizing sexual objectifica-
tion, particularly of women.
Another government strategy involved promoting Identity Politics,
which along with political correctness in the late 1980’s actually achieved
its goal of successfully undermining the Left as can be seen in its current
state. This time period wasn’t coincidental, since this was the time the
Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union was collapsing. It was at this point
that the Left started turning inward and becoming fragmented, with no
centre to keep it together which is what the Soviet Union represented.
Feeling betrayed, demoralized, and bewildered, the CIA easily infiltrated
and injected the Left with its poisonous sting, causing many Left parties
to reject dialectical materialism, and in some cases even Marxism itself!
ID politics was the late 1960’s brain child of the CIA to divide and
conquer the Left, pitting groups against each other. Political Correctness
helped promote ID politics by using the same methods as McCarthy-
ism. Since socialism is a logical, scientific economic system, proponents
couldn’t be allowed to explain or discuss what is was or it would convert
others; therefore McCarthyism relied on shutting down debates and free

discussion by employing name calling, shouting down speakers, and fur-
ther isolating and marginalizing Leftists, especially through blacklisting
them.
From the 1930’s to the 1970’s the motto of the Communist Party
and the Left was “Black and White Unite”. The question for example of
the CP getting involved, whether in the Scottsboro Case or in unioniz-
ing the segregated South, took place with many open debates, where all
questions were allowed to be raised, discussed, and answered, including
those by less advanced white workers who didn’t understand or agree.
It was the openness of these discussions and debates that allowed this
sector to understand the nature of racism and to make the CP’s motto a
success. In a nation that was then only 12% black, gaining white support
during the Civil Rights era was crucial in changing the nation and its
laws. The Black Panther Party understood this and gave talk in some of
the poorest white communities such as in the Appalachians; even con-
verting and forming important alliances with white working class orga-
nizations, such as the Young Patriots in Chicago.
The CIA unfortunately successfully changed “Black and White
Unite” into Identity Politics in the 1970’s, where different special inter-
est groups began vying for crumbs, promoting selfish individualism and
rejecting collectivism, one of the basic foundations of Marxist Leninist
ideology.
Following bourgeois feminism, white men were now the enemy and
women felt pitted to fight men in order to demand more managerial jobs.
Blacks began demanding the right to have more black police officers; as
if women oppressing other women or black officers cracking the heads
of black men was somehow progressive. What followers of ID politics
failed to understand was that changing the driver didn’t change the sys-
tem. My chances as a woman of dying from a preventable heart attack
are the same whether the doctor at the hospital today is male or female,
as are the chances a black man having his head smashed in by the cops
whether the officer is white or black. Instead of collectivism, workers
divided among race, sex, ethnicity, religion, etc., promoting selfish indi-
vidualism. Of course there are supportive women and people of colour.
But certain individuals are not the system. A perfect example was the
Left dismantling the anti-war movement during the Obama administra-
tion because it would be seen as racist to protest a black president. What
was forgotten were the millions killed abroad in US wars of Imperialism,
especially Africans who didn’t care what race the current president was.
As a result, today, Libyan men are being sold into slavery!

Whereas before ID politics, the enemy was clearly understood to be
US imperialism, or the 1%, now the enemy had become the white, het-
erosexual, male workers. Marxists understand that white men are not
our enemies, but our necessary allies in getting reforms under capitalism
and in overthrowing the true enemy, the 1%. United we stand, divided
we fall.
Unfortunately this vilification and exclusion of white males led to
bitterness, creating the racism and sexism we see today. Many were driv-
en into the arms of the right-wing in order to feel included. Enter trans-
gender ideology, the new ID politics of today. Exploiting the Lesbian,
gay, and bisexual movement, although the ideology itself is anti-gay and
homophobic, it has been promoting itself as the Civil Rights movement
of the 21st century. Let’s forget that Native people, African-Americans,
and women still haven’t won many significant civil rights.
If white men were the enemy of yesteryear, women are now the new
enemy, regardless of colour or race, allowing men their turn to experi-
ence inclusion in the Left by attacking and excluding women.
It’s not for nothing that penises are still called penises, but vaginas
are front-holes, breast-feeding is chest-feeding, and woman can get their
monthlies just like men (although I would seriously suggest that any man
who does should go see a doctor ASAP and have their hemorrhoids put
back in). Because transgender ideology, which is not the same as trans-
gender individuals, just as all feminists are not bourgeois feminists, is a
two-pronged attack not just against women, but the Left, too.
Its first prong of attack undermines women’s contribution to repro-
ducing capital, both as the sex that bears tomorrow workers and cannon
fodder and as workers. Discussions on birth control, maternity leave,
food stamps, public services, as well as low wages and work inequality
along with sexual harassment that affect working class women, become
subordinate to transgender questions that affect less than 1/10 of 1% of
the population, such as unisex bathrooms.
The second prong undermines the unity of the Left and the possibil-
ity of revolution. As Lenin said, “There can be no real mass movement
without the women.” How can there be when women represent half the
population and are the most exploited sex under crapitalism? In fact,
how many people are aware that every major revolution in history was
started by women? From the English, French, and the Russian Revolu-
tion, which by the way took place on March 8, 1917, International Wom-
en’s Day, it was women demanding bread that began it all. It is women

who generally have to take care of and feed the family, especially the
children. Prevent women from organizing or leading their own organiza-
tions, and the 1% are guaranteed there will be no reform or revolution.
What is Marxism? What does it represent? It doesn’t represent Hege-
lian idealism nor does it represent bourgeois mechanistic science. It rep-
resents a historical, dialectical materialism that analyzes the evolution of
human society from one form to another, as Charles Darwin’s theories in
the Origin of the Species analyzed the evolution of living beings.
Much of the transgender movement isn’t even working class; it main-
ly represents white, upper middle-class males who are racist, homopho-
bic, and misogynist. It argues for gender stereotypes that tell homosex-
ual men, for example, that they are really women or that racism is an
imaginary concept. When transwomen says they are women, they are
in fact negating not just biology and science, but eliminating the whole
history of oppression that women experience. You heard the expression,
you are what you eat. Imagine someone saying “I ate some soul food last
night and I’m feeling black, although I’ve never seen a black person in
my lilywhite town.”
Transgender ideology has set a dangerous precedent by referring to
feelings rather than biology, which ultimately allows discrimination not
just against women, but people of colour including native people.
Women aren’t oppressed because of a feeling, but because of their
sex; for physically being the only sex that can literally reproduce the
workers for capital. Being a woman isn’t a feeling. Just like being black
isn’t a feeling. Being a Native American isn’t a feeling. I can’t wash off
my sex any more than a person of colour can wash off their colour. Is
capitalism a feeling, too? Can we unfeel exploitation on Monday morn-
ing?
Liberals who reject dialectical materialism reject nature and the evo-
lutionary connection in nature.
Transgender ideology is effectively using language to erase wom-
en and subordinate them to the fetishes of men in nearly every En-
glish-speaking country. With the passing in England of the Gender Rec-
ognition Act, which Congress is trying to pass in the US as the Equality
Act, women must defer to men as men now have the right to enter fe-
male facilities and colonize female sports at will against the wishes of
women and the safety of girls. It took until 1920 for women in the US
to have separate bathrooms, which Russian women won in the 1917
revolution. Lenin in fact championed female-only spaces and female

leadership in female organizations. Really, how many women would like
to turn around in the women’s showers and see a throbbing hard boner
on a transgender woman staring at you? What about at a Rape Centre
or women’s prison? For those who don’t know, it’s already happening:
paedophiles and male rapists insisting they feel like women have been
allowed into girls’ bathrooms and even placed in women’s prisons where
they have raped women. Female sports and scholarships, better kiss that
goodbye as men by birth have a physical advantage over women. Let’s
go back to 1950’s America.
When the Left so wholehearted absorbed trans ideology, it threw sci-
entific socialism under the bus as well as thoroughly self-destructing,
making it the butt of jokes for the right-wing. From Black Lives Matter
to FRSO Left, ISO, WWP, CWL, and PC USA to name just a few, all
these organizations are now being redubbed Politically Correct USA.
It is rape to ever demand or try to coerce someone to have sex re-
gardless of their age, sex, or gender. There is no place in any civilized
society to allow rape or rape culture, and especially not the Left. In other
cases, women were expelled for exposing male sexual predators, such
as in ISO, DSA, WWP, and PC USA. I was told I should be ashamed of
myself for shaming the PC USA by exposing a predator, when that party
should be ashamed. In other cases, women were expelled because they
didn’t agree with male comrades over the question of prostitution and
violent porn. Imagine the outrage if a black man was stripped of his po-
sition and expelled, because he didn’t like to be called an N* and didn’t
agree that slavery and lynching films weren’t empowering? In fact, why
is the Left offended by Black Face, but not by Drag? Transgenderism is
misogyny in drag.
Soros has spent over millions of dollars promoting transgenderism.
Yet women on the Left who complained were ridiculed and silenced.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the CP subverted itself to neolib-
eralism when it decided to pimp itself to the Democratic Party. Even the
ISO, FRSO right and many other so-called Left parties began embracing
bourgeois liberalism, which has its roots in neo-liberalism or the free
market economy, completing wedding themselves to parliamentary in-
stead revolutionary goals.
Think of the level of misogyny; the CIA couldn’t destroy so many
grousp like WW, which has existed for 60 years. How did it finally de-
stroy these parties through transgenderism? Before we think this is an
organic movement, which is separate from being transgender, it is

actually funded by the CIA and its think tanks. That is the reason why it
funded by so much money. Any legitimate organization would distance
itself from these elements and I’m sure there are LGBTQ+ organizations
that did.
When the National Center for Transgender Equality Action Fund
hosted the 2018 Trans Equality Now Awards in Washington D.C. on
May 17, 2018, its sponsors looked like something from a parody. The
list included: the CIA, George Soros’ Open Society, Facebook (which is
partially funded by the Atlantic Council, i.e. NATO), Google, Amazon,
Capital One Bank, Shook, Hardy & Bacon (a law firm dedicated to de-
fending Big Pharma), as well as a number of pharmaceutical companies
and clinics including: Gilead Sciences, Meltzer Clinic, and Pharma. [See
comments at the end of this article.] For women on the Left, this open
display by the CIA and Soros was like the government and the bankers
sticking their middle finger at them. It proved what they had been saying
all along.
To this day, the Left still hasn’t apologized to women and is still
promoting destructive ID politics, pushing women to the hypocritical
right-wing. It makes perfect sense for liberals to be doing this, because
as their name suggests neo-liberalism, they want to push women to the
right. But why the Left? In fact, why was the Left so eager to adopt trans
ideology and expel women.
Either promote the Left, that is the Left we’ve inherited and, like a
corrupt union, we understand as Marxist-Leninists that we don’t destroy,
but attempt to revitalize, or create female Left organizations like Women
for Racial and Economic Equality to push Left more left.
Comment on sources
The source for the CIA and others having funded the 2018 Trans
Equality Now Awards seems to have “disappeared” from the internet,
and they seem to have decided that their sponsorship of the 2019 awards
would have been too open. However, after some searching, we were able
to find the Transgender Equality Annual Report 2017, at: https://transe-
quality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/annual%20report%20
2017%20final.pdf (page 8; page 10 of pdf), which includes the same
sponsors as in 2018.
Also, Soros’ Open Society Foundations has funded individual trans-
gender activists who are leaders in various Left organizations. One is

Imani Henry, a leading member of International Action Center and
Workers World Party. The source of this is available at: https://www.
opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/cfp_20050101.pdf, on p.
10-11. This criticism is more aimed at his party than at him himself, for
allowing him to accept this funding, just as no progressive trade union
organization would have its members accept money from the American
Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD), a notorious conduit for
CIA funding.
As sources mysteriously disappear from the internet, we have put
these sources on the web-site used by Towards Marxist-Leninist Unity
(www.RedStarPublishers.org).
Towards Marxist-Leninist Unity

DOWN WITH THE PARLIAMENTARY COUP D’ÉTAT,
ORCHESTRATED BY THE RIGHT AND US IMPERIALISM!
FOR A SOVEREIGN AND POPULAR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY,
THEY SHOULD ALL GO!
Communisty Party of Peru (ML)

What happened today, Wednesday, December 7, 2022, at noon in Peru,
has not been an unplanned event or just an outburst of adventurism of
former President Pedro Castillo, who gave a televised speech to dissolve
the Congress of the Republic and thus seek to put an end to the disputes
between the Executive and Legislative Branches. This dispute trapped
many bills that could provide some solutions in the current context of
food, energy, economic and political crisis that the country is experienc-
ing. There are major elements that we cannot lose sight of, so as not to
become foolish victims of the deception of others and our own, and to
unmask the class interests that have been in contest in the current situa-
tion, in the face of which we cannot be naïve.
The OAS mission, stationed in the country weeks ago, was more than
a mission to contribute to the stability of Peru, the possibilities of estab-
lishing a transitional government within the framework of maintaining
calm in the region. This was one of the directives of US imperialism; of
which the government of Pedro Castillo did not affect any of its interests,
but on the contrary gave it more possibilities to consolidate its domina-
tion, following the recommendations of the IMF and World Bank.
The mission of the OAS and the interests of US imperialism should
have been to seek stability, so that the forces of the left would no longer
raise the demand for the “Call for a Sovereign and Popular Constituent
Assembly.” This would lay the foundations for a new economic mod-
el that would enable national development and the improvement of the
living conditions of working people. In addition to this, it would avoid
a new government that would bring Peru closer to Chinese and Russian
influence, after the constituent assembly.
There exists in the world a context of inter-imperialist contention,
which puts us in danger of war. The United States, the countries of the
European Union, Russia and China, are fighting for a new redivision
of the world in the context of the economic, political, food and energy
crisis on a global scale. For this, US imperialism had to cool the foci that

would make possible the progress of the left forces and pay more atten-
tion to the inter-imperialist contradictions.
There is a very important background in which the Peruvian oligar-
chy plays a role, because that plotted that Pedro Castillo would feel confi-
dence in the support of the Armed Forces and Police so that in his speech
he would “temporarily dissolve Congress” and in the end be abandoned.
This would provide all the tools to proceed with a Constitutional Va-
cancy from the Congress of the Republic, in which First Vice-President
Dina Boluarte assumed the leadership of the country, For a long time she
had been the transition card for the parties of the right and had already
prepared a speech that denounced Castillo’s attempted self-coup and
raised the banners of the defense of the Constitutional Order and respect
for the institutionality of the Armed Forces and Police.
Pedro Castillo wanted to carry out a coup d’état in the Fujimonte-
sinista style, repeating the unhappy phrases that lead us to remember the
origin of the violent plan of establishment of neoliberalism in Peru. Marx
said “History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.”
The farce in which Pedro Castillo fell undoubtedly means a blow to the
banners raised by the popular movement for the change in the Political
Constitution, to limit the action of the monopolies and oligopolies, to put
an end to the subsidiary role of the State and to stop the blatant sale of
our natural resources to the transnational companies.
The workers are in the streets raising their voices in protest against
this maneuver of the oligarchy and US imperialism, who with a false call
for “national unity” are trying to divert our attention from the danger that
is currently being experienced by the peasant and indigenous communi-
ties and national agricultural production. There are more than 46 mining
mega-projects that they want to carry out by grabbing communal territo-
ries, without a social licence and without fully evaluating the impact on
the environment and agricultural production. At the same time, they lim-
ited the use of the referendum to make changes to the 1993 Constitution.
This is in the context of a food crisis, which so far in the first national
productive stage has already lost 20% of agricultural production due to
the absence of rain. There is no fertilizer production or petrochemical
plant that industrializes our gas; all this will affect the food supply start-
ing with the second two months of 2023.
The monopolies that control the import of food, the financial system
and the press that agitated for the vacancy, in order to continue to receive
money for state propaganda, are the ones that benefited the most by this

right-wing coup d’état, orchestrated by US imperialism and that does not
prevent the movement in the streets of the workers and organized people.
We the Peruvian Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) call on the
workers and peoples to remain in the streets in order to defend the popu-
lar programme, to counter the attempt of the parasitic bourgeoisie to im-
pose transnational projects and interests on the country. They should ad-
vance in an organized manner to demand that all the corrupt ones leave
and convene a Sovereign and Popular Constituent Assembly, in which
the organized forces of the people can discuss the model of country that
we currently need.
Recent experience has shown us that the electoral path of bourgeois
democracy has its limits and should not be the only way in which the
working people express their will. Likewise, it is clear that the Armed
Forces and National Police are always at the service of the ruling classes
in the country and we cannot believe that the changes that the people
and country need can be made by the Congress and the new presidency
of the country. There will be no caudillo who can replace the role of the
organized working people in the task of building a People’s Democratic
Republic, or to defend their interests.
Neither the forces of nationalism of a pro-fascist-tendency that cov-
ered the escape of Montesinos in 2000, nor social democracy and the
NGOs (which want new elections without changing the Constitution) are
sure paths for the fulfillment of the programme of the popular movement.
Only the organized people can save the people!

Down with the Parliamentary Coup d’état plotted by the right
and US imperialism!
For a Sovereign and Popular Constituent Assembly, all the cor-
rupt ones must go!
Nilo Candela
Secretary General
Forthe Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Peruvian
Communist Party (M-L)

WE ARE FOR A SOCIALIST HOMELAND
WHERE THE WORKING CLASS, THE POOR PEASANTRY AND
THE PEOPLES OF PERU CAN REALIZE
THEIR CLASS ASPIRATIONS.
December 27, 2022
Communist Party of Peru (ML)

We Marxist-Leninist communists and revolutionaries of the world de-
fend to the last consequences the right to self-determination of the peo-
ples, but just as the people have their right to self-determination, the
proletariat also has the right to establish its system, Scientific Social-
ism, wherever it is. We provide this preamble because a current has ap-
peared in the popular organizations of “Southern Peru”, which want to
promote a process of independence in the regions that have currently
shown greater combativeness in confronting the usurper government of
Dina Boluarte, the coup Congress of the Republic and its civilian-mili-
tary dictatorship. They are responsible, together with the Armed Forces
and Police, for more than 28 civilian deaths in the protests against their
attempt to seize the Executive Power, together with their allies of the
parasitic bourgeoisie of Peru and US imperialism, mainly.
Apurimac, Arequipa, Ayacucho, Cusco, Huancavelica, Madre de
Dios, Moquegua, Puno and Tacna, would be the regions that form this
“new republic”, given the permanent violation of rights from Lima’s cen-
tralism, which attacks with racism, fascism, discrimination and embez-
zlement of resources, which gives crumbs and marginalizes the regions
where extractive projects for gold, silver, copper, gas, lithium, among
others are carried out; which were also imposed through concessions
that permanently violate the possibility of the progress of the peoples
throughout the country.
The Congress of the Republic, filled with the most rancid reaction
and social democracy and presided over by someone accused of crimes
against humanity such as José Williams Zapata, carried out a coup d’état
to remove Pedro Castillo from the government, who came from a ru-
ral background and who was carried to the presidency by the desire for
change that exists and the push of popular organizations. The South has
played a leading role; it feels that a president has been taken away, in

addition to having restricted the right to referendum so that the people
could intervene in the political development of the country. Elections
were called without consultation to a Constituent Assembly; these are
arguments that from its point of view justify the desire for separation of
the regions of “Southern Peru”. As an organized party of the working
class and its ally the poor peasantry, we state our position, so that adven-
turous decisions do not have negative impacts on the development of the
popular movement, nor distract the people from the central problem of
power, nor damage their fabric of organic resistance.
1.- The independence of the South must be illuminated not only by
desires for revenge or by a plan to consolidate a project for the country
and a new political, economic and social system that conflicts with the
foundations of the country that it renounced. The “South” does not pro-
pose the establishment of Scientific Socialism and its leaders are not go-
ing to build the Workers’ Homeland, so the danger of a war of secession
to preserve capitalism in the “South” or to rely on one imperialist bloc
hungry to take away our natural resources is not justified.
2.- There is a lot of talk about the income from the canon [the share
that local governments receive from extraction of natural resources –
translator’s note] and other extractive royalties that Lima appropriates
and that it is time to recover them. However, it does not listen to the
desire of the peasant and native communities who demand the cancel-
lation of extractive concessions and who are not willing to be soiled by
being petty cash for any project of consolidation of reaction or separat-
ism, nor to fatten any new bourgeoisie or regional bureaucracy, nor to
sell themselves to any imperialist power by sacrificing their agricultural
production and sovereignty.
3.- The “South” has shown that it can put presidents into government,
that it has the capacity to mobilize and that it has allies in the workers
of the centre and the north of the country, with peoples who continue in
the struggle. Together with them real transformations can be promoted
in our homeland; so that their capacity to create change cannot be di-
minished, nor can they accept to leave a single centimeter of Peru to the
exploiters and fascists. If we want an emancipated and free people, the
reactionaries must leave; the peoples, the working class, the poor peas-
antry, their organizations and the Party can take up a new government
that builds Scientific Socialism.
4.- The declaration of independence for a part of Peru the whole
country puts in danger of war, in which it will be the children of the

working class and poor peasantry who die so that the bourgeoisie and
imperialism continue to feast on our resources. In place of a declaration
of war of secession we propose a declaration of revolutionary war of
national and social liberation. If the current capitalist system is not re-
placed by Scientific Socialism, any danger of war is unjustified. The only
war that is justified is that of the whole people against the exploiters and
fascists, in which Marxist-Leninist communists are in the front line of
combat without ever giving up our historical mission.
5.- In the face of the desire for change of the “South”, we propose
the struggle for a Democratic Popular and Federative Republic, com-
posed of macro-regions with relative independence in government, eco-
nomics, legislature and judiciary with respect to the Central State. In the
current circumstances that can be established with popular pressure and
the achievement of the calling of a Sovereign and Popular Constituent
Assembly, where the peoples, nations and cultures that make up Peru are
recognized.
Just as the people have their right to self-determination, the working
class has its right to establish its system wherever it is!
Long live the struggle of the working class and the people for nation-
al and social liberation!
For a Democratic, Popular and Federative Republic and Socialism!
We will not lower our arms until they all go and a Constituent Assembly
is called!
Nilo Candela
Secretary General
For the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Peruvian
Communist Party (M-L)
December 27, 2022.

STATEMENT ON RECENT EVENTS IN IRAN
The Party of Labour of Iran (Toufan)

Forty-three years ago, in a great revolution, the people of Iran overthrew
the U.S. puppet regime of the Shah.
The February 1979 revolution in Iran removed imperialist domina-
tion from the country and achieved the political independence of Iran.
Since that date, U.S. imperialists and the major NATO counties have
been making every effort to divide and destroy Iran. The strategy of im-
perialism is that there should be no country in the region that can stand
against Israel.
The regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a backward and re-
actionary regime. During the time of the Shah, the clergies were given
propaganda and organizational resources that benefitted the interests of
the West and that could be used as weapons against communism. During
the revolutionary upheaval in Iran, the clergies were practically the only
force capable of seizing the struggles of the people, who hated the Shah’s
regime and the U.S. and British imperialists.
By implementing the neoliberal policies of the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund, the capitalist regime of the Islamic Repub-
lic of Iran, backed by internal pro-West forces in the government, spread
poverty and unemployment in Iran. As a result of such policies, the class
gap in Iran widened to such a degree that more than half of the people
now struggle to feed themselves.
The suppression of democratic rights, especially the suppression of
women, symbolised in the policy of mandatory hijab, was high up on the
regime’s agenda. With the establishment of the offensive “Guidance Pa-
trol - Morality Police,” a huge resistance was mobilized. All the demands
of the workers, retirees, teachers, and other sections of society are being
suppressed. The capitalist regime of the Islamic Republic prevents la-
bourers from establishing trade unions that would enable them to express
their concerns regarding poor wages and working conditions. Iran’s pris-
ons have been crowded by leaders of workers’ and teachers’ movements.
The inhumane sanctions by the imperialists have worsened the situa-
tion in Iran. Every day, dozens of “Mehsa Aminis” are killed as a conse-
quence of these sanctions. The imperialists and “revolutionary” defend-
ers of the sanctions continue to operate without a conscience.
The rebellion in Iran today is the product of the economic and repres-
sive policies of the capitalist regime of the Islamic Republic.

This is not the first time in the last forty-three years in Iran that a
woman has been killed in a conflict with the regime or in prison. But this
time, the accumulated anger of the people during the forty-three years
rule of the Islamic Republic was released. The people resorted to vio-
lence in the fight against the regime.
The murder of Mahsa Amini is insignificant to the imperialists and
their Iranian mercenaries. But the imperialists have made connection be-
tween the issue of Mahsa Amini and the war in Ukraine. Iran plays a de-
cisive role in the construction of the Silk Road and helps to defeat NATO
economic sanctions on Russia. Iran is an important pillar in the delivery
of equipment, supplies, and goods needed by Russia through the Oman
Sea and the Indian Ocean. The fate of the war in Ukraine is highly de-
pendent on the destruction of the Russian allies. For this reason, the flags
of Ukraine, Israel, and the USA are used in the global protests against
Iran. What is the point of carrying crossed-out pictures of Russian and
Chinese leaders and slogans against them in denouncing the murder of
Mehsa Amini?
The understandable and spontaneous rebellion that took place in Iran
was a consequence of the accumulated people’s anger. It was against
the Guidance Patrol, in favour of punishment for those responsible for
the murder of Mehsa Amini, and an advocate for other democratic and
just demands. The rebellion turned into violent clashes within a short
period of time. Unfortunately, the lack of leadership of this rebellion
inside Iran provided an opportunity for counter-revolutionary and cyber-
space activists outside the country to abuse the people’s struggles. The
counter-revolutionary Iranians abroad, including supporters of the West,
opponents of Iran’s assistance to China and Russia in the construction
of the Silk Road, supporters of the former Shah, the terrorist sect of the
People’s Mujahideen, which operates under the supervision of the Unit-
ed States and Israel and Saudi Arabia in Tirana, succeeded in inciting
large protests abroad. They were aided by massive NATO propaganda
and with the pretext of the murder of the beloved Mahsa Amini. The
demonstration that was held in Berlin on October 22, 2022 was carried
out with the help of the European Union and NATO. It was reactionary
and anti-Iran by our assessment. Many protesters were deceived by the
one-sided and widespread propaganda of the Western media. Yet, they
were mobilised and organised enough to travel to Berlin at the cost of
ten million euros. The nature of this demonstration was reactionary and
counter-revolutionary. There were similar demonstrations globally with
the same reactionary nature. Imperialism and its Iranian mercenaries are

planning to stage similar reactionary shows at great expense and fanfare
in Brussels.
The policy of imperialism is to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs.
The policy is designed to exploit people’s discontent for their own in-
terests and to keep the protests ignited even though they are scattered
and confined to young people, especially university students inside and
outside of Iran. Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States give millions
of dollars to anti-Iranian media in London. Examples of this include
“Manoto—I and You” and “Iran International”, propaganda initiatives,
which are engaged in spreading fake news and encouraging people to
arm themselves and to assassinate regime agents. Their goal is not to
realise the rights of women or the demands of workers in Iran. Instead, it
is to create insecurity, unrest, and civil war in order to provide the Syrian
scenario in Iran and to prepare the ground for invasion. Encouraging and
strengthening lumpen elements in Iran and abroad and beating critics are
on their agenda now. The police of imperialist countries support these
degenerate elements.
As always, our Party defends popular protests to realise rightful de-
mands, and we will fight against their abuse by Iran’s enemies, who have
no interest in freedom. Our demands, which are expressed in our inde-
pendent protests, are as follows.
Equal social rights for men and women;
The release of all political prisoners;
The abolishment of the “Guidance Patrol -Morality Police”;
The abolishment of the policy of mandatory hijab;
Progressives must condemn the inhumane sanctions on Iran as
imperialist crimes against humanity.
Imperialist threats and preparation for a “humanitarian” inva-
sion of Iran must be condemned as war crimes.
We defend the territorial integrity of Iran.
The Party of Labour of Iran (Toufan) is of the opinion that the fate
of every nation should be determined by the people of the nation, itself.
Therefore, we desire the overthrow of the capitalist regime of the Islamic
Republic only by the concerted activities of the Iranian people and for
the goal of securing the rights of the majority and especially the rights
of the working class.
The Party of Labour of Iran (Toufan)

October 26, 2022

NO TO CHAUVINIST PROVOCATIONS
AND WARMONGERS IN THE BALKANS!
In recent times the striving for “Greater Serbia” by the Serbian bourgeoi-
sie, which has always had historical pretensions, has been revitalized.
Considering favourably the context of the conflict created by the Rus-
sian invasion of Ukraine to make progress towards this goal, the Serbian
bourgeoisie, with the Vucic government, is looking for a new adventure.
It is said that tensions have cooled since Vucic declared that the Serbs
in northern Kosovo have begun to tear down some barricades that they
had erected, but the situation has not changed overall, as the reasons for
the conflict have deep roots.
Vucic seems to have set his sights on Kosovo, where the chauvin-
ist and racist Serbian nationalist gangs, the Chetniks, do not stop. They
began to create tensions with Kosovo by deploying troops to the bor-
der. The Serbian bourgeoisie, which has good relations with Hungary’s
Orban and the far right in the new Italian government, also has its eyes
on other parts of former Yugoslavia, assuming that by annexing parts of
Kosovo and other Balkan countries it can create “Greater Serbia”. Vucic
is trying to materialize step by step the dream of the Serbian bourgeoisie
together with the reactionaries in Montenegro, Croatia and Bosnia.
Since Serbia is a powerful Balkan country, the nationalism of the
Serbian bourgeoisie and the aspiration for “Greater Serbia” should not
be underestimated. This orientation of the Serbian bourgeoisie, which
has increased especially before the First World War, has constantly posed
a serious problem in the Balkans. The nationalist fervour of the Serbian
bourgeoisie, which was taken up by Tito immediately after the liberation
of Yugoslavia, continued with the repression of the nationalities in that
country, which he detached from unity with the countries of the people’s
democracies.
The domination of modern revisionism paved the way in Yugoslavia,
in the USSR, and then in all the Balkan and Eastern European countries
except for a few decades in Albania, to openly adopt the capitalist order
of exploitation. This led to the collapse and disintegration of these revi-
sionist countries.
As a result, the bourgeoisies of the Balkan countries, first and
foremost those of Serbia, who considered collaboration with the US,

European, Russian and Chinese imperialists a solution, have provoked
rivalries and conflicts between nations, spread enmities between peoples
and produced national differences, in order to strengthen their hegemony
in the region.
In the 1990s, under the conditions of national oppression by the Ser-
bian bourgeoisie, which fueled nationalism and national differences, the
bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO, which led the country to destruction,
was bloody but not difficult. The Great-Serb aggression led by Milosevic
and the disintegration of Yugoslavia led to the deterioration and widen-
ing of nationalist rivalries and conflicts among the Balkan bourgeoisie.
The Balkans must not once again become a terrain of conflict and
war, a war that will inevitably affect all the workers and peoples of Eu-
rope.
It is necessary to prevent the bourgeoisies of the Balkan countries,
especially the Serbian bourgeoisie, in collaboration with the imperialists
and with the support of the remnants of revisionism, from dragging the
peoples into a new nationalist struggle.
The Balkans remains once again a centre of conflict among the im-
perialist powers. The US and NATO “protect” Kosovo for their own in-
terests – not for the freedom of the Albanians and the other peoples in
Kosovo – and many Balkan states are now members of NATO and the
imperialist EU, which are using and deepening conflicts and encourag-
ing the pro-Western imperialist forces in the region. Russian imperialism
seeks to maintain and extend its influence by fueling conflicts, support-
ing and fostering Serbian chauvinism.
It is up to the working class and the peoples of the Balkans, with
their communist, revolutionary and progressive organizations, to take
responsibility.
As members of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Par-
ties and Organizations (ICMLPO), we declare that we stand with the
peoples of the Balkans and the revolutionaries who raise the demands of
peace and brotherhood against chauvinism, warmongering and fascism.
The solution lies in socialism against capitalism, in real indepen-
dence, in political democracy against fascism, in equality of national
rights and in the international unity and solidarity of the working class
and peoples against bourgeois nationalism and all imperialists.
January 2023

European members of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist
Parties and Organizations (ICMLPO)
Communist Party of Albania – CPA
Communist Workers’ Party of Denmark –APK
Communist Workers’ Party of France –PCOF
Organization for the Construction of a Communist Workers’ Party of
Germany
Movement for the reorganization of the Communist Party of Greece
(KKE 1919-55)
Marxist-Leninist organization Revolusjon – Norway
Revolutionary Labor Alliance of Serbia –RSRS
Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist)
Party of Labor (EMEP) – Turkey

WHEN THE POET IS COMMUNIST
Aydın Çubukçu
Nâzım Hikmet began to write poetry from a very young age. He was of
a noble family and had received a very good education. Alongside clas-
sical Turkish poetry, he was also well acquainted with leading works of
folk literature. In his early poems, themes such as patriotism, heroism,
love and nature are in the forefront. At a time when the Turkish national
liberation against imperialism was still in its early stages, he moved over
to Anatolia with his friend Valâ Nurettin at the age of 19. Meanwhile, the
Soviet Revolution was advancing with victory and the news from there
had giving rise to great excitement in Anatolia too. He met a socialist
named Spartakist Sadık Ahi in a town at the coast of Black Sea. He was
influenced by him and decided to go to the heart of the revolution know-
ing too well how long and arduous a journey it would be.
At the period, the last month of the Russian Civil War was underway,
and the Soviet Revolution was advancing towards victory. He came in
touch with the Communist Party of Turkey in Russia. In the Communist
University of Labourers of the East (KTUV) he received Marxism-Le-
ninism education comprised of philosophy, political sciences and eco-
nomics.
He became acquainted with the works of Mayakovski which would
have a lasting influence on his poetry.
Becoming acquainted with Marxism-Leninism as well as coming
into direct contact with the revolutionary products of the great Russian
literature radically changed the main themes and the form of his poetry.
THE CHILD OF A WORLD IN TRANSFORMATION

The evolution of Nâzım Hikmet’s poetry and personality is evidence
of the strong impact of a world in motion. The working class and peo-
ples’ demonstration of their power to change the world in the struggles
waged against imperialism in Anatolia and against capitalism in Russia
presented a great opportunity for the young poet to find new spirit. This
is the decisive source enabling the transformation of a young man who
could have been a good bourgeois or petty bourgeois poet in regular
conditions into a communist poet.

On his way to Moscow, he met a lot of people from different nations
and classes spread over a broad geography. Thanks to his great ability
to observe, he discovered the deep social stories hidden behind each in-
dividual life. He became acquainted with the customs, tradition and the
way of life of the peoples. He united all this knowledge and insight with
the fire of communism in his heart. Becoming aware of a world that
needs to be changed and that can be changed enabled him to write poetry
with a completely new content. His whole life changed by learning what
it means to conceive the world as a Bolshevik from Lenin. He put his
talent at the service of world revolution. He wrote poems declaring the
eventual triumph of the proletariat, calling the masses to the struggle.
HUMAN LANDSCAPES
“Human Landscapes from My Country”, which we can consider as
the pinnacle of his poetry, began to be written in 1939 in prison and was
completed eight years later, in 1947. This great work represents a new
type of poetry bringing together features of the poetic, novelistic, narra-
tive, dramatic and screenplay genres. Nâzım Hikmet states the following
to summarise the purpose for writing this work: “I want this concrete
expression of human crowd to convey to the reader the social state in a
certain historical stage in Turkey through the people of Turkey belonging
to various classes in a certain period… So that the world surrounding
the society of Turkey is understood… I want the question of where it is
comes from, where it is and where it is going, to be answered.”
Indeed, in this respect the poem has fully achieved its purpose. The
work begins at Haydarpaşa Train Station, at the great station where trains
from Istanbul to Anatolia depart. Firstly, people of different classes, get-
ting off the trains and getting ready to set off, pass in front of us carrying
their own stories. Then the train moves. The passengers of the wagon are
ordinary peasants, soldiers, workers and prisoners.
The second book deals with the passengers of another train. This time
the passengers are politicians, diplomats, town merchants and bourgeois.
The third book takes place in prison and hospital. Nâzım Hikmet also
knew these environments where people felt most helpless and lonely.
Throughout this great river poem, the selected places and people display
the social, political, economic and cultural scene of Turkey in a certain
period in its totality. Each person’s individual story corresponds to a
cross-section of general class relations.

SOCIALIST REALISM
Nâzım Hikmet’s poetry, first of all, has historical significance in
terms of its full application of the basic principles of socialist realism.
This is because many literary and artistic products produced in the name
of Socialist Realism have been works that are generally devised for
educational and propaganda purposes, have an official character, meet
current needs, but whose effects are limited to the life of current needs.
Nâzım Hikmet’s work, on the other hand, has been able to maintain its
currency and influence despite the intervening 90 years. The main reason
for this is that it has a content that goes beyond current political needs
and encapsulates aesthetic concerns and ideological depth at the same
time. Nâzım Hikmet also wrote propaganda and agitation poems. These
are poems that describe dialectical and historical materialism, defend life
in a socialist society, call to fight, and deal with current aspects of class
conflict. In each of his poems, historical optimism, confidence in the
future, a complete conviction that the emancipation of the working class
will come through its own power appear as essential features.
However, individual passions, love, longing, loneliness and grief are
also among his themes. Effective romanticism, occasional eroticism, hu-
man characteristics such as betrayal and regret have also been the subject
of his poetry.
UNIVERSAL AND NATIONAL
In his youth, Nâzım Hikmet took poetry lessons for a long time from
Yahya Kemal Beyatlı, one of the most important poets of Turkey. Yahya
Kemal is a poet who successfully applied Aruz Prosody, which is a very
important feature of Arabic poetry, to Turkish. Yahya Kemal was a mas-
ter who frequently used the harmonic effect of Arabic and Persian poetry
in traditional Ottoman poetry in his own poetry. Prosody brings a sound
harmony that gives the poem a deep musicality and emphasizes emotion
especially in the recital of the poem. Nâzım Hikmet used Aruz very often
in his free-form poetry. Aruz has played a role that strengthens these fea-
tures, especially in his poems that require an emphatic voice, where he
shouts, calls, or those which contain anger and violence. Unfortunately,
it has not been adequately possible to reflect this feature in translations.
On the other hand, Nâzım Hikmet made the Syllablic Verse, char-
acteristic to Turkish poetry, an element of his own poetry by examining
the great masters of traditional folk poetry. He utilised rhyme scheme
and rhythm features in his poetry. Thus, he brought not only the poetry
accumulation of the nearby geography, but also the rich creations of his
own people to socialist literature.

Nâzım Hikmet also studied the classics of world literature such as
Shakespeare, Goethe and Pushkin. While espousing the understanding
of form of the great Russian poet Mayakovsky, he added the creations
of these great poets to his own poetic treasure. In this way, he created
a great understanding of poetry and a worldwide voice, which emerged
out of the melding of national and universal values with the socialist
worldview.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARTS
Nâzım Hikmet was also closely interested in other types of litera-
ture and other branches of art. His mother was one of Turkey’s famous
woman painters. He had acquired the culture and skill of painting from
her. During his prison years, he discovered the painting talent of İbrahim
Balaban, who was a simple peasant, and trained this prisoner who would
later become a very famous painter. He created a great novelist out of a
prisoner called Orhan Kemal interested in literature. He has also written
plays and novels himself. He was very interested in the art of cinema.
In the letters he wrote to his friends from prison, he explained his com-
ments and views on literary theory, socialist realism, and the general po-
litical world situation. These letters are of invaluable theoretical scope,
summarizing the socialist conception of art.
The picturesque features in Nâzım Hikmet’s poetry are the result of
his interest in non-literary arts.
DON QUIXOTE AND ROMANTICISM

One of Nâzım Hikmet’s most famous poems is named after the hero
of Cervantes’ great novel. In this poem, Nâzım Hikmet identifies himself
with Don Quixote, who sets out for big dreams. He updates his struggle
through a fiction that equates Windmills with capitalism. Through this,
he creates an important example that renders the concept of “revolution-
ary romanticism” functional. His description of himself as a romantic in
his semi-autobiographical novel “Living is a Beautiful Thing Brother” is
also interesting in this respect.
Revolutionary romanticism, which is considered as one of the im-
portant elements of the socialist realism movement, has been the subject
of many criticisms. Nâzım Hikmet’s attitude against criticism claiming
that romanticism is an idealist movement and cannot therefore be com-
patible with socialism is important both in the theoretical respect as well
as in terms of explaining the communist individual’s attitude towards
life and struggle. The possibility for a scientific explanation as to how
a communist world will affect the relations between people and the
characteristics of the human individual does not exist today. About ques-
tions on this subject, Marx said that the people who lived that life would
answer them. Not only a poet but also a worker can only but dream about
the world of the future. Deep sentimentalism and excitement accompa-
ny these visions. Those who struggle for such a world by confronting
many difficulties cannot evade idealizing both communist society and
their struggles. Songs, poems, anthems written for comrades who die at
the barricades, under torture, in prison, tributes to heroism, sacrifice, and
the revolutionary struggle and party of the proletariat, always describe
a life beyond ordinary reality. These are, to be sure, life scenes from a
world very different from ordinary human life. The founders of the So-
cialist Realism current experienced all the phases of the Great October
Proletarian Revolution and witnessed the enthusiasm and determination
of the masses and revolutionary communist individuals as well as their
dreams for a new world. Beyond politics and theory, they saw the revolu-
tion as a human achievement and saw how important the stories of each
individual and the events in which they took place were. Upon identify-
ing that it would not be possible to explain this with the usual literary
methods and entrenched perspectives, they resolved also to develop a
new movement such as socialist realism. Due all this, the concept of rev-
olutionary romanticism has become one of the characteristics of the new
movement. Bringing a revolutionary content to classical romanticism,
developing new images and new forms of expression is one of Nâzım
Hikmet’s achievements.
CONCLUSION
Because of these features, Nâzım Hikmet is a communist poet not
only of his time, not only of his country, but a communist poet of all
times and the entire world. His following lines describing the function of
his own art explain what he wrote for:
Our songs
must attack the enemy in the forefront, foremost.
Before us must be painted
the faces of our songs in blood...
His poems fulfilled this task assigned to them. Banned for years, its
readers were imprisoned, tortured and dismissed from their jobs. Today,
his songs continue to call on everyone to join the fight at every moment
of the revolutionary struggle of the working class, and to attack the bour-
geoisie, capitalism and imperialism at the forefront.

BUILDING AND BUILDERS
Builders are singing while building

but building isn’t like singing.
It’s a little more difficult.
Builders’ hearts, bustling like fairgrounds

but building sites are not fairgrounds.
Building sites are full of dust, earth,
mud, snow.
On a building site you get your foot sprained,
your hands bleed.
On a building site,
neither is the tea always sweet and hot
nor is the bread fresh and soft
neither is everyone a hero
nor are friends always faithful.
Building isn’t like singing.

It’s a little more difficult.
Yes, difficult it is,
but the building is rising regardless.
Flower pots have already appeared
on the windowsills of the lower floors.
The birds carry, on their wings, the sun
to the newly completed balconies.
There is a heartbeat
in every beam, in every column, in every brick
Yes, it is rising, it is rising
the building is rising in blood and sweat.
1955
TO ASİAN-AFRİCAN WRITERS
My brothers,
don’t look at me being blonde
I am an Asian
don’t care my blue eyes

I am an African
the trees don’t make a shadow under themselves here
just like yours there
where I live, money doesn’t grow on trees
dragons lie over the fountains
and one dies before he’s fifty
just like you do there
don’t look at me being blonde
I am an Asian
don’t care my blue eyes
I am an African
eighty per cent of my people doesn’t know how to read
the poems wanders around from one mouth to another,
becoming a folk song,
the poems can be a flag where I live
like where you live
my brothers
our poems must be trotted beside the skinny ox
and plough the field
they must go into the mud in the rice fields
up to their knees
they must ask all the questions
they must collect all the light
they must stand by the road
like a milestone
they must see the approaching enemy before anyone
they must beat the tamtams in the jungles
till there is no single captive land and single captive person
till there is no single atomic cloud in the sky
our poems must give all they have, bricks and mortar, wit,
and whatever else,
to the great freedom
MAYBE I
Maybe I
long before
that day,

I will release my shadow on the asphalt in the morning
by swinging on the bridge.
Maybe I
long after
that day,
I will survive
with the mark of a white beard on my shaved chin...
And I
long after
that day,
if I could survive
to the old men
who lean against the walls of the city squares
and survived on the last fight17
like me,
I will play the violin
on feast evenings...
The illuminated sidewalks
of a perfect night around
And the steps
of new people
who are singing new songs..
(Translated by Cahit Baylav)
ON LIVING
1
Living is no laughing matter:
you must live with great seriousness
like a squirrel, for example—
I mean, without looking for something beyond and above living,
I mean living must be your whole life.
Living is no laughing matter:
you must take it seriously,
so much so and to such a degree
that, for example, your hands tied behind your back,
your back to the wall,

or else in a laboratory
in your white coat and safety glasses,
you can die for people—
even for people whose faces you’ve never seen,
even though you know living
is the most real, the most beautiful thing.
I mean, you must take living so seriously
that even at seventy, for example, you’ll plant olive trees—
and not for your children, either,
but because although you fear death you don’t believe it,
because living, I mean, weighs heavier.
2
Let’s say we’re seriously ill, need surgery—
which is to say we might not get up
from the white table.
Even though it’s impossible not to feel sad
about going a little too soon,
we’ll still laugh at the jokes being told,
we’ll look out the window to see if it’s raining,
or still wait anxiously
for the latest newscast...
Let’s say we’re at the front—
for something worth fighting for, say.
There, in the first offensive, on that very day,
we might fail on our face, dead.
We’ll know this with a curious anger,
but we’ll still worry ourselves to death
about the outcome of the war, which could last years.
Let’s say we’re in prison
and close to fifty,
and we have eighteen more years, say,
before the iron doors will open.
We’ll still live with the outside,
with its people and animals, struggle and wind—
I mean with the outside beyond the walls.
I mean, however and wherever we are,
we must live as if we will never die.

3
This earth will grow cold,
a star among stars
and one of the smallest,
a gilded mote on blue velvet—
I mean this, our great earth.
This earth will grow cold one day,
not like a block of ice
or a dead cloud even
but like an empty walnut it will roll along
in pitch-black space...
You must grieve for this right now
—you have to feel this sorrow now—
for the world must be loved this much
if you’re going to say “I lived”...
(Translated from the Turkish by Randy Blasing & Mutlu Konu)

JOSEPH VISSARIONOVICH STALIN
by Yiannis Ritsos
No. It is not true.
It is not true.
So stop the bells.
Stop them.
Joseph Stalin did not die.

Stalin is present
in his world post.
Stalin is raising on the ramparts
of the five continents
the flags of peace.
Stalin is preparing
with the scattered flour of the world
a round loaf of health.
So stop the bells.

Stop them.
As much as the one-eyed cannons

turn their black muzzles
straight against the blast furnace of our hope
Stalin is awake in his world post.
Hush, grandma,
and wipe with your black kerchief
your eyes.
When your fire is going out under your pot
it is Stalin who bends over and blows your fire
to light up.
When the bread is missing from our table
and the dream from our mattress
and the oil lamp from our flat roof
it is Stalin who turns on the big electrics
on the horizon
and we hear under the night tunnels
the roar of the trains
carrying oil and bread and coal
to the hungry.
Because Stalin is
the first son of the proletarians
and Stalin is their father too.
For this
even the blackest wall
of the darkest night
is full
from the tubes of the light.
So stop the bells.
The centuries are climbing

at the top of his soul to breathe.
Do not say that the sun has orphaned.
Look.
Every sun and page —day by day —
with the suns of his 74 years,
made a thick book of steel
and put it on the knees of the people.
Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.

With his name History opens
its gates to human.
Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.

His work:
Freedom.
So stop the bells

and listen.
Above Red Square, on the platform of the sun,
Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin
speaks:
“Defend, Peoples, Peace”.

YIANNIS RITSOS 4.ΙΙΙ.53.
The poem was published on 5 March 1953 in the reformist Journal

“Avgi” because the official communist newspaper was banned after the
Civil War, as well as the Party too.
Translated from the Greek by Reddie

RD April 2023 For E Circulation 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RD April 2023 For E Circulation 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVOLUTIONARY DEMOCRACY

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023

Views expressed in signed articles are those of authors and

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 3

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 5

New Trade Union Initiative

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 9

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 11

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 13

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 15

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 17

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 19

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 21

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 23

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 25

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 27

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 29

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 31

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 33

The slogan of the restoration of the Soviet Union today

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 35

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 37

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 39

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 41

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 43

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 45

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 47

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 49

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 51

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 53

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 55

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 57

Scintilla, October 2022 #127.

Single Issue: £ 6.00 US$ 6.00

Subscription may be remitted by M.O. only to:

Payment by cash, money order or check in the name of

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 59

Towards Marxist Leninist Unity, New York.

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 61

Clara Zetkin: Rosa Luxemburg’s Views

Some of the writings of Rosa Luxemburg on the Russian

Price: $12 plus postage

Checks must be made out to U.S. Friends of the Soviet People as

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 63

Communist Platform, Italy

2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHINESE MULTILATERALISM

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 65

3. THE CURRENT PHASE OF CHINESE MULTILATERALISM

4. CLASS VISION OF MULTILATERALISM

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 67

5. THE MASK OF IMPERIALIST AMBITIONS

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 69

6. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 71

Communist Platform – for the Communist Party of the Proletariat

Revolutionary Democracy is on sale at:

Bookculture Housman’s Bookshop,

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 73

SETU PRAKASHANI, (Beside Coffee PROGRESSIVE BOOK HOUSE,

SETU PRAKASHANI, 12A, Sankar CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY,

Revolutionary Alliance of Labour, Serbia

Strategy of the newly developed Greater-Serbian bourgeoisie

Volume II, No. 1 (New Series) April, 2023. 75