The Swing Back - Tridib Chaudhuri
It is patently absurd to suggest, as is being done by leading Stalinist circles in course of 'critical, self-critical' analysis of their recent mistakes in the light of Cominform Editorial, that the non-sensical adventurist tactics of struggle to which the CPI resorted since the Calcutta Congress had any relations with Ranadive's conception of the inter-relation between the so-called People's Democratic Revolution and the Socialist Revolution, or with his definition of the character of the present phase of revolution in India as a national democratic or Socialist one. Neither did it have. any logical or ideological relation with the slogan of Socialist seizure of power. We have to note firstly that in spite of his attempts to pass on Stalinist People's Democratic reformism as a kind of near-Socialism before CPI rank-and-file and the masses, Ranadive never raised the slogan of Socialist revolution as the immediate historic object of the party. In fact he never forgot to emphasise that the coming phase of revolution in this country would clearly take the character of a People's Democratic Revolution immediately, and will not definitely be a Socialist one. He, of course, wanted to prove at the same time, more as a sop to the militant Socialist covictions of the party rank-and-file, that this revolution-though called 'democratic' would not be like the old type of bourgeois-democratic revolutions. State power in a People's Democracy would be wielded by the workers, peasants and other toilers, the common people, under the leadership of the working-class, and not by capitalists, landlords and other vested interests as in bourgeois-democracy. It would therefore quickly pass-over into Socialism; although it was not a Socialist revolution directly in the immediate present.1 Secondly, as we have seen above, there is no reason to suppose that in spite of his call for a seizure-of-power struggle, he ever had any illusions about the actual level of consciousness of the masses or their organisation being prepared for such a struggle.
But nevertheless he had to give the call for such a struggle, because only in this way he could ideologically inspire the rank-and-file to engage in hit-and-run armed struggles against the Congress government, which he was pursuaded to think, would be the easiest of way of making that government feel the weight of CPI against its pro-Anglo-American foreign policy. If one needs to be convinced of this, he has only refer to the CPI polit Bureau's statement on the "Fight Against War Danger" which was published simultaneously 'along with the allegedly "Left- Sectarian" Report on "Strategy and Tactics" which is supposed to have given the call for seizure-of-power struggles.
"To day when the world bourgeoisie is making an insane drive for the war, when unknown to the Indian people the treacherous Indian bourgeoisie is conspiring with imperialism for an anti-Soviet War "—argued the PB document "On War Danger" failure to isolate, to fight the bourgeoisie…constitute a danger and a menace." Every effort must be made to expose, isolate and run down the bourgeoisie and its foreign policy; and the best way to do this would be the method of combining loud 'vocal' propaganda against the India Government's 'collaborationist' foreign policy with the method of "fight" or launching offensives against the governments. The real meaning of the exhortations in the statement on "Strategy and Tactics" about "the necessity of combining the most advanced and elementary forms of struggle—with the one object of bringing the masses to the point at which they themselves will echo the party's cry for ending the government"—can only be understood in this context. Only by this means would it be possible to make India government realise that its support to anti-soviet war- mongering policies of Anglo-America would not be tolerated by the masses, the working class, and at least by the CPI.
The statement on the "Fight against war Danger" accordingly emphasises the imperative necessity of combining the "fight against the bourgeoisie" with the "exposure of the India Government's anti-Soviet and pro-Anglo-American foreign policy" with the campaign to explain to the people "how the Soviet Union is the real defender of the Sovereignty of all nations." It was especially urgent, it was pointed out, to raise the demand that India should enter into economic and other agreements with the Soviet Union (see pp. 90-96, The Communist, No. 4; 1949). Pacts with the Soviet "would develop the economic strength of the nation and keep national sovereignty inviolable." And, although it was true, there was no real semblance of independence and national sovereignty in India at present in the opinion of the CPI, the party must carry on a vigorous propaganda "for defending them;" and for the view that "the country would be enabled to defend its independence and national sovereignty only by allying itself with the Soviet and democratic anti-imperialist bloc." If we care to bear in mind the context of the post-war break up of Anglo-
US-Soviet alliance in this connection and the theory of the division of the world into "two camps" as set forth by Zhdanov in his inaugural Cominform speech, we would have no difficulty in appreciating the object that CPI hit-and-run struggles against the Congress Government (glorified as seizure-of-power actions) had in view. Though couched in zingle-zingle 're-revolutionary' phraseology of an imminent upsurge, political strikes, general rising etc. these had no relation even in the allegedly 'ultra-left' consciousness of the Ranadivite leadership with any immediate practical possibility for actual 'seizure of power,' whether 'democratic' or Socialist. Its only purpose in view was to mobilise immature petty bourgeois left-revolutionism of the youthful rank- and-file for hit-and-run struggle against the Congress government as a part of the international pressure-tactics of Stalinism, in the game of Soviet power-rivalry with the Anglo-American bloc. It was principally because of this that the "active participation" 'of students and lower strata of the petty-bourgeoisie "in the militant political actions taking place under the leadership of the CPJ" did not fail to receive due kudos from Soviet propagandists like Balabushevich till the other day. The news of the pro-Soviet Resolution of Firozabad Peace Rally was guarantee enough that the "mass political actions" undertaken by the CPI was proceeding on "truly correct" and "revolutionary" lines and that the programme of the party "expressed the aspirations and hopes of Indian people"!2
1. This was the leading strain of the entire political stand of the CPI from 1948 to 1950, beginning from the Calcutta Thesis right up to Polit-Bureau dissertations on 'People's Democracy' (Dec. 1948-January 1949) and 'Strategy and Tactics' (June-July, 1949). Everybody, including the Ranadivite Polit-Bureau itself' is now up in arms against Ranadive's definition of People's Democratic Revolution as "the democratic revolution which is more than ever interlaced with the Socialist revolution in each country and the world" and of its tasks in terms of "the completion of the tasks of democratic revolution and the simultaneous building up of Socialism." This is now being condemned as a Trotskyist and ultra-left formulation. But nobody dared to contradict Ranadive in 1948 and early 1949 when he cited the views of Zhdanov and the veteran Kusinen (New Times), September 1948, in support of his definition.
Stalinist People's Democracy has in fact so many different and mutually contradictory definitions that it is dangerous to stick to any one of these for long without being charged with some sort of left or right deviation. The Soviet publicist Sokolov defined the achievements of People's Democracy in terms of the completion of the tasks of bourgeois democratic revolution, and demarcated them sharply from the socialist revolution or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Eugene Varga, and then Kusinen again, defined it as an intermediate transition stage between capitalism and Socialism. Kuzmihov, editor of the CPSU theoretical organ, the Bolshevik quoted Lenin to deny that there could be any such intermediate stage. Zhdanov defined it as a 'new type' of state which carries through "progressive democratic reforms such as bourgeois-democracy is no longer capable of effecting," but which simultaneously "paves the way for entry on to the path of Socialist development." After the revolt of Tito and his allegations against CPSU and the Cominform about obstructing the programme of Socialist industrialiation in Yugoslavia, Dimitrov of Bulgaria, Beirut and Hilary Minc of Poland, and others however came out with a new definition of People's Democracy as a "specific variegated form of Socialist revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" achieved "without the employment of largescale violence and anti-capitalist civil war under the guidance and direct help from the Soviet Union." Contrasted with this stand the original formulation of People's Democratic revolution by Mao Tse-Tung of China as "an anti-imperialist and anti feudal revolution only" and which was definitely not an anti-capitalist or Socialist revolution. In China atleast, he seems to think "capitalism will have to be allowed to continue for a longtime to come." The Cominform leadership now seems to approve the Mao-version of People's Democracy for India also, and for Asian countries in general. The Ranadive formulation stood midway between those of Mao and Dimitrov Beirut People's Democracy is either Socialism or no-Socialism. As a true Stalinist dialectician Ranadive refused to accept this hard and fast either-or definition and regarded it safer to follow undisputed authorities like Zhdanov and Kusinen in linking up Socialism with People's Democracy as a sequel, as something evolving out of it inevitably. Only in this way he could sell People's Democracy to Marxist Public opinion and to his rank-and-file. He forgot perhaps that different authorities and different definitions of the same phenomenon are kept reserved in the Stalinist pantry to suit different political objectives in different contexts. The Zhdanov-Kusinen-Ranadive thesis of People's Democracy now has lost its usefulness so far India is concerned after having served its purpose for the last two years. Ranadive has now to make kow-tows before Mao. Unfortunately for him that does not save him. He must also beat his breast, tear hairs from his head and brand himself as a 'left-opportunist' & 'Trotskyist' for the crime of having echoed Zhdanov & Kusinen and linking up Socialism with People's Democracy. It is now being asserted that Ranadive "revised Zhdanov's formulation about new-democracy" and did not distinguish between People's Democracy in an advanced capitalist country and People's Democracy in a colonial country" (Draft Resolution for Central Committee May, 1950). But it is conveniently forgotten that Zhdanov's definition specifically related to East-European new-democratic republics, which with the exception of Czechoslavakia other countries have always been classified as countries of a very back ward capitalist development and as satellite or dependent states underforeign imperialist hegemony. Yet Ranadive dared not identify itwith Socialism Dimitrov-Beirut-Mine fashion! One can only wonder 'whom to follow in this maze of self-contradictions'! And then, what is meant by People's Democracy in advanced capitalist countries precisely? Does it mean that the objective of Socialist revolution does not hold good for advanced capitalist countries even? As a matter of fact that is the view of the international Stalinist movement under the influence of the theories of "Socialism in a single country" and "Peaceful co-existence of Socialism and Capitalism side by side."
2. It is significant that somehow or other this particular document of the Randive period—the PB. Report "On the Fight against War Danger" has escaped adverse self-critical comments in CPI circles. One hardly needs wonder why. Its basic content somethow provides the sheet-anchor of Stalinist strategy in India.