Buddhadeva Bhattacharya
Apart from programmatic differences on the national political situation, Anushilan marxists, as we have observed earlier, also sharply differed from the policy-lines formulated by the Communist International which were based on the primacy of Soviet foreign policy and national security interests. To have a clear idea of their position vis-á-vis the CI it would be necessary to have a look at the programme adopted at the Sixth World Congress (1928) and the Seventh World Congress (1935) formulations of the Comintern.
It will be recalled that the theory of 'victory of socialism in one country' was first codified by the CI in 1928. The USSR, says the programme, has become the leading force of the world revolutionary movement,' the base of the international movement of all oppressed classes, the centre of the international revolution, the most significant factor in world history.' Consequently, since 'the Soviet Union is the true fatherland of the proletariat, the strongest pillar of its achievements, and the principal factor in its emancipation throughout the world, this obliges the international proletariat to forward the success of socialist construction in the Soviet Union and to defend the country of proletarian dictatorship by every means against the attacks of capitalist powers.' The class struggle in each country and the national liberation struggle of the peoples oppressed by imperialism are still important factors in the world revolution, but the essential factor is the building of socialism in the Soviet Union—hence the idea of the 'leadership exercised over the whole world revolutionary movement by the proletarian dictatorship in the UUSR..."1
From the moment when the building of socialism in the USSR was seen as the essential, determining factor of the world revolution, all other revolutionary movements were reduced objectively to a subordinate role. In this connexion it is worth recalling the decision of the Sixth Congress:
In order that revolutionary work and activities may be co-ordinated and given appropriate guidance, the international proletariat requires international class discipline... [which] must be expressed in the subordination of local and particular interests to the common and enduring interests of the movement.2
As has been correctly noted by Fernando Claudin,
This amounts to recognizing that despite an essential community of interest between all the components of the world revolutionary movement, transient contradictions may appear which necessitate a hierarchizing of interests, priorities, options, etc .... The theory of socialism in one country, having become the theoretical foundation for Comintern strategy, signified, in the last analysis that the world revolution, in all of its phases and episodes, was to be subjugated to the requirements of building socialism in the USSR. 3
The ideal mechanism for ensuring this subordination in practice was the Comintern's ultra-centralized structures, with its all-powerful Executive Committee at the top of the pyramid, itself supervised by the Soviet party leadership.4
Anushilan Samiti members who were being drawn, towards marxism-leninism found this formulation unacceptable to them, To them it appeared that the Comintern had ceased to be the guiding organ of the movements of the toiling peoples of the world and there was no scope for the formation of any effective communist party with Comintern affiliation.5
The new Comintern strategy was defined more explicitly in a resolution adopted by the Seventh Comintern Congress. in 1935. This congress declared that the final and irrevocable victory of Socialism in the Land of the Soviets' has been achieved and asserted that all the key problems of this movement, all its tactical problems, revolve around the central axis—the reinforcement of the U.S.S.R. as the base of the world proletarian revolution."6
A brief theoretical analysis of the evolution of Stalin's theory as contrasted with Lenin's position may not be irrelevant here to analyse the reasons behind the Anushilanites' reluctance to accept the general line of the Comintern as derided upon by the Sixth and Seventh Congresses.
As is well known, till April 1924 Stalin held the view that owing to the spasmodic and uneven character of the development of various capitalist countries under imperialism, it was possible to overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish the power of the proletariat in one country. But the victory of socialism in the sense of organization of socialist production was not possible in one country, without the joint effort of the proletarians of several advanced countries.7
During 1925-26 however he came to revise his earlier views and assert that the technical backwardness of Russia was not an insuperable barrier to the building of a complete socialist society. For this the Russian proletariat needed the sympathy and support of the proletariat of other countries but the preliminary victory of the proletarian revolution in countries outside the Soviet Union was not an indispensable condition. Hence victory of socialism was perfectly possible in one country without international revolution, but not complete or final victory. By the term final victory in this context, he however did not mean the attainment of the final stage in the evolution of socialism and passing over of the lower phase of communism into the higher one, or the complete victory of communism. Here by final victory of socialism he had in mind only the assurance of full guarantees against foreign capitalist intervention, and consequently against the restoration of capitalism.8 Proletarian revolution in other countries was needed only for this, and not for the achievement of material preconditions for evolution of socialism into communism. If somehow guarantee against intervention could be obtained, there was no obstacle for proceeding towards complete communism even within the limits of one country.
By 1934-35 it was declared officially that 'final and irrevocable' victory of socialism over capitalism had been achieved in the Soviet Union.9 In 1939 Stalin declared to the Eighteenth Congress of the CPSU that Russia's development could not stop at the socialist stage. 10 It would go ahead towards communism even within the limits of a single country, within the Soviet Union, i.e., till the present capitalist encirclement of the USSR was replaced by a socialist encirclement. Put the fact of capitalist encirclement as such was no insuperable obstacle in the path of development of the Soviet Union towards the higher phase of communism within the limits of a single country. He again gave expression to this view in a categorical manner before foreign representatives in 1947.
Anushilan members who were being increasingly attracted towards marxism-leninism did not find it possible to reconcile themselves to accepting Stalin's formulation as officially approved by the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in 1928. The Seventh World Congress line came as a further shock. Anushilan revolutionaries who during their detention between 1930-38 had the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the marxist-leninist classics (as we have seen above it was during this period their final conversion to marxism took place and a thesis was adopted) recognized Stalin's theory of socialism in one country to be a deviation from the marxist-leninist position on proletarian internationalism,11 Being equipped with the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin they critically examined the stalinist formulation and came to the conclusion that while the victory of proletarian revolution and the establishment of a basically socialist mode of production and distribution was perfectly possible within the frontiers of a single country, as Lenin said,12 owing to the unequal development of capitalism, the final and irrevocable victory of socialism and the achievements of higher socialist organization of production for the fullest satisfaction of all social and individual needs, and for the maximum extension of human values for which revolutionary marxism stands, was possible only on the international scale and on the historical premise of international socialist revolution covering the principal capitalist countries of the world.13
But rejection of stalinism did not automatically mean for them acceptance of trotskyism. Incidentally, the leninist conception of international socialist revolution is different from Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution which deduces the necessity of world revolution primarily from the impossibility of the numerically inferior proletariat in a semi-feudal and semi-capitalist backward peasant country like Russia holding power for any length of time and successfully undertaking the task of socialist construction in hand without the proletariat of the advanced capitalist countries outside the Soviet Union coming to power through an extension of socialist revolution in these countries and coming to the aid of the proletariat of the U.S.S.R.14
Anushilan marxists adhered to the marxist-leninist theory of 'Permanent' or 'Continuous' revolution. '...it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent, declared Marx as early as 1850, in course of his famous address to t1 Communist League, 'until all more or less possessing classes have been forced out of their position of dominance, the proletariat has conquered state power, and the association of proletarians. not only in one country but in all the dominant countries of the world, has advanced so far that competition among the proletarians of these countries has ceased and that at least the decisive productive forces are concentrated in the hands of the proletarians.15 Hence it is that Lenin declared with regard to the victorious October revolution in Russia that 'a correct appraisal of our revolution is possible only from an international point of view' and characterized the Russian revolution as a link in the chain of international proletarian revolutions.16
Anushilan members who by the middle and late 30s were converted to marxism found that the organic and integral connexion between the task of evoking, leading and guiding the international proletarian revolution was snapped in the perspective of the Comintern. The entire international working class movement under the leadership of the Comintern with Stalin as its undisputed leader, in the eyes of Anushilan marxists, was transformed into a movement solely for the defence and political reinforcement of the Soviet Union and its foreign policy. It was impermissible therefore, from the marxist-leninist point of view, to join forces with the Comintern-directed communist movement—such was the line of argument of Anushilan marxists.
This line of argument found its expression in the first document they adopted in 1938 where they clearly defined. their international task and obligation. They categorically declared the Party wants to be Internationalist in deeds and not merely in words' basing on the distinction between two kinds of internationalism as pointed out by Lenin.17 Defining its internationalist perspective it was said in the said document that
Consistent with this Leninist internationalism the Party seeks to establish direct and first-hand contact with other sections of the international working class revolutionary movement and co-ordinate its own activities without delay with theirs and to unite as soon as possible with really revolutionary working class bodies of other countries. At the same time the Party recognises the U.S.S.R. as the base of the coming Socialist World Revolution and seeks always to defend it from all external attacks. In this as in all other questions the attitude of the Party is one strictly in accordance with the fundamental tenets of Leninism…18
1.Jane Degras (ad.), The Communist International (1019-1943) Documents, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. vol. II, pp. 488 & 511-3. See also Fernando Claudin, The Communist Movement From Comintern to Cominform, Penguin Books, 1975, p. 75.
2. The Communist International, op. cit., p. 525.
3. Fernando Claudin, op. cit., p. 77.
4. ibid., p. 78.
5. Tarapada Lahiri, op. cit., p. 287.
6. C. Adhikari (ed.) op. cit., p. 248.
7. J. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, Foreign Languages Publishing Mouse, Moscow, 1954, pp, 188-9.
8. ibid., pp. 189 ff, For detailed discussion on Stalin's revision of his earlier formulation, see E. H. Carr, Socialism in One Country 1924-1926, vol. II, ch. 12. Also Fernando Claudin, op. cit., pp. 71ff.
9. J. Stalin, op. cit., pp. 617ff.
10. ibid., pp. 759ff, 777ff.
11. Interview with S. V. R. Achariar, 17 November 1975.
12. 'On the Slogan for a United States of Europe,' Collected Works (hereafter CW), Progress Publishers, 1964, vol. 21, p. 342 'The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution,' CW, vol. 23, p. 79.
13. Many quotations could be given to show that with remarkable consistency, Lenin saw the final victory of socialism in Russia as dependent on the spread of the revolution, and in particular, on its spread to the advanced capitalist countries. For a brief selection of Lenin's view on the subject, see Marcel Liebman, Leninism Under Lenin (trans. Brian Pearce), Merlin Press, London. 1980, pp. 360-1.
14. 'Historic References on the Theory of "Permament Revolution".' Appendix III in Lean Trotsky. The History of the Russian Revolution (trans Max Eastman), vol. 3, Sphere Books Ltd., London, 1967.
15. Karl Marx Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1978, vol. 10, p. 281. Emphasis added.
16. To Lenin the Russian revolution was only an episode in a larger operation 'Only the beginning,' as he put it in December 1917, of 'the world socialist revolution.' CW, vol. 26, p. 386.
17. 'The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution,' CW, vol. 22. pp. 74-5.
18. The Thesis...of the R.S.P.I. op. cm., p. 15.