Where Is the Critical Analysis?

1917 October Revolution Revisited


[The following five articles were written originally in Telugu in the context of centenary celebrations of 1917 October Revolution]

The working class revolution started in Russia a hundred years ago in 1917. The workers' party that led the revolution already existed before the revolution. This revolution is called 'the Russian October revolution'. The names of the party kept changing after this, and in 1952 the party's name was finalised to be 'The Communist Party of the Soviet Union'.

The party, however, was dissolved on the 29th of August 1991! After this, the party was also banned!

The Indian communist parties are quite meticulous in calculating that the Russian revolution occurred in 1917 and it completed hundred years by 2017. While doing the arithmetic all these years, and having waited until the 'hundredth' year, the Indian communist parties have filled their newspapers, now in 2017, with rich tributes.

The papers of the Indian communist parties adorned the red flag of Russia under the unbearably heavy weight of many a crown—with the descriptions that the sky sparkled red with the reflections of the flag, that the flag waved in the zenith with great enthusiasm, that the flag illuminated all the directions and so on and so forth, with all the skills of linguistic elegance, all the might of eulogising acumen, and all the excessive revolutionary acclaim! The Indian communist parties that considered the act of acclaiming as their obligation filled these numerous articles with rich praise with boundless fervour.

Among all these innumerable articles, not even a single word was written in any one of them, even in a corner, regarding the dissolution of the Russian communist party. Should not the papers that showered such rich praises on the beginning of the revolution, have an obligation to inform the people of 'the dissolution' of the same party? Ought these parties to maintain silence on historical events?

Why was the Soviet communist party dissolved? Why did the shining and sparkling of the red flag extinguish? Why were the party and the red flag subjected to such horrific humiliation? Did the party commit severe offenses? Was the party a victim of its doings? Questions of this kind were not to be found in any of these articles! There is no mention of ban of the party anywhere!

Indeed, it is not possible to appraise in a few articles all the events that occurred. Nevertheless, I read all the articles eulogising 'hundred years' with great attention with a hope of learning even a single word regarding the condition of the party and its dissolution. I found nothing on these issues in any of these articles. There was nothing.

If it was the communist party that was in the governance in the Soviet Union, then, who banned that party? Did the party find the governance difficult? Did the party ban itself?—I did not find any such explanations; except in one or two articles a passing statement that 'the capitalist system conspired in Russia'! Will the capitalist system bring about 'a revolution' instead of conspiring? Will the capitalist system join hands with the Soviets and bring about the revolutions of the subsequent stages? Don't the writers, who showered the revolutionary articles, know that the capitalist system represents a system of exploitation of the human beings for a profit forcing the workers into labour, day and night on every single day in shifts? What will the exploiting system do against Socialism if not conspiring? While the capitalist system was hatching to conspire, what did the communist party do? What did the working masses do? Did they side with the conspiracy and support it? Did the Russian communist party join hands with the conspirators and abolished itself? There was no information in the articles of the Indian communist parties. The Indian essayists thought it would suffice to say that 'the capitalist system conspired'!

The wonderful initial acts of the revolutionary order such as the formation of a communist party, its rule and the abolition of the legal rights over private property, all have happened in Russia for the first time in the world! Although the revolution of the Paris Commune happened before the Russian revolution, it was not an outcome of a proper theoretical knowledge. Therefore, the Paris Commune ended soon. The Russian revolution did not happen like that. Then why did the Russian revolution meet the same fate? Where, in which books, can we find an explanation?...

Since the time of hearing of the dissolution of the communist party in Russia, I have rummaged many books to learn more on this subject; except for a few scanty statements that 'Stalin did this, Khrushchev did that,' I did not find anything more up to the period of Gorbachev.

The feudal culture has been very strong among the Indian communist parties. The parties have not attempted to rid themselves of this degrading culture. For these parties, there must be an auspicious and sacred moment to perform any ritual. These sacred rituals take an 'altered forms' though. A pompous celebration of the birth and death anniversaries is also a revolutionary activity for the Indian communist parties. Some of these revolutionaries had celebrated their 60th birthday ceremonies. Now, they have inundated the Russian revolution in praises stating that the Russian revolution will complete hundred years. These praises did not begin when the revolution completed 96 or 98 years; they waited patiently until 99 years were over. They have waited till it completed 100 years.

The communist parties do not have anything to learn from Marxism. The fingers on a single hand will be excessive to count the people like Lenin who learnt from Marxism! A party labeling itself as a communist party will learn from the landlords and the capitalists. Thus wrong doings constitute its practice. Outwardly such organisations chant slogans of revolution.

Some leaders of the communist parties believe in Vastu, horoscope, palmistry, prophecy, spirits, ghosts, and the like; consider these superstitions as great sciences, and ask others to follow suit. This is what the members of some Communist parties say. Thus, when we find such people so readily under the garb of revolutionaries who do not go anywhere near Marxism, and who do not shed the feudal ideology and the practice; I was haunted for a long time by the suspicion that perhaps in the Russian communist party also such things may have transpired.

In the past, I was aware that the many works of Charles Bettelheim can provide at least some information relating to the revolutions of Russia and China…..Now, after seeing that the numerous articles of the Indian communist parties are only abounding in showering praises on the centenary celebrations, but are devoid of any critical analysis regarding the disappearance of the October revolution, my attention turned toward the works of Bettelheim.

(Some excerpts from my Foreword to the book 'Why did 1917 October Revolution vanish? What happened in Soviet Russia'. Originally appeared in Andhra Jyothy, dated September 2, 2017.)

Not Marx, it is his critics who muddled up!
In an article entitled 'A revolutionary experiment that raised hopes' (Andhra Jyothy, dated April 28, 2018, writer: Unudurthi Sudhakar), there were many inappropriate comments on the new society which referred to Marx and on 'human nature'. As a student of Marx, the following is my response to those comments.

1)    Regarding Marx who realised 'exploitation of labour 'with extraordinary talent and explained it to the rest of the world, the comment the critic made that Marx 'muddled up when it comes to finding a solution' is an utterly irresponsible one! 'Marx innocently believed and made others believe' that when the working class assumes power, an exploitation-free and ideal state will form—is another remark!

My reply: Things will go astray only when people fail to understand correctly and adequately what Marx taught regarding 'property' and 'exploitation of labour'; this is what had happened in some countries. This was the folly of the revolutionaries of those countries, not that of Marx, the theoretician. Marx did not say that transforming the private property into public property would amount to abolition of exploitation. The failure to realise what Marx said about changes needed 'to counter exploitation of labour' is the limitation of the working class. It is the folly of the working class not to get rid of 'muck of all ages'! If attempts are made along the Marx's path, all the changes which Marx suggested will take place.

2)    'Marx could not imagine how unbearable could be the conduct of the people who tasted power,' another remark!

My reply: Marx and Engels were the people first to explain that the tasting of power transpires through 'property' and 'exploitation of labour'! It was these very two human beings who rejected 'the taste of power' and advocated its destruction! There are some statements in the works of Marx and Engels which suggest that they were aware of such possibility. Consider the following: "In every revolution there intrude, at the side of its true agents, men of different stamp.." (Marx in 'The Civil War in France'). "Revolution is a supreme political act and those who want revolution must also want the means of achieving it, that is, political action, which prepares the ground for revolution and provides the workers with the revolutionary training without which they are sure to become the dupes….. the next morning after the battle." (Engels' speech delivered at the London conference of the International Working Men's Association, septermber 21, 1871.)

3)    'Poor Marx—he formulated that the state interference will progressively disappear in the communist system.' Another sarcastic dig at Marx!

My reply: When Marx spoke of communism', he meant only when it is 'communism'. Only when the society is free from 'exploitation of labour' and 'class differences'! Only when the society is an egalitarian society where all the human beings perform labour! How can there be 'state power' in such a society? Will there be State power in a society where intellectuals like Sudhakar too will have to perform manual labour in addition to intellectual labour? The critic has not understood what Marx and Engels discussed.

4)    What is the meaning underlying the critic's description regarding 'the developed countries'? The developed countries are those that resort to more intense labour exploitation and make 'huge profits'! The reason why there are no working class revolutions in those countries is that the intellectuals such as the critic do not turn their heads from their fat salaries. Because the communist parties that must educate the poor working masses too failed to study the works of Marx and Engels and grasp the contents adequately. What did Marx and Engels categorically declare at the conference of the International Working-men's Association in 1872? "In its struggle against the collective power of the possessing classes the proletariat can act as a class only by constituting itself a distinct political party, opposed to all the old parties formed by the possessing classes. This constitution of the proletariat into a political party is indispensable to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and of its ultimate goal: the abolition of classes". It is evident that such a communist perspective was yet lacking among the working masses. What happened in Russia and China were only the initial steps of the workers' revolution. If a revolution fails to advance, there must be an underlying cause. The opponents of the revolution too will join revolutions in the disguise of revolutionaries and create hurdles. Marx and Engels cautioned regarding this danger as well. Today they are not present among us; the communist leaders must realise it. And, the workers must realise the presence of reactionary elements within the leadership. If we fail to grasp this fact today, the workers of future generations will understand this tomorrow. A good change will not stop after a step or two.

5)    'The communists will fight for the power first; once in power, they will exercise authority'—This is another comment of the critic!

My reply: The critic could see only the authoritarian tendencies but not what the actual theory teaches. There are, and will be, people who behave like bourgeois pretending to be communists. If the entire party consists of such elements, such an outfit will not wage struggles and make sacrifices for a revolution. When one turns a deaf ear to what the theory says, comments such as these will prevail.

6)    This critic adds further that 'the Marxist theory and the communist practice are different.'

My reply: If the Marxist theory is different, then, why all this criticism against Marx? Why comment that Marx's understanding is faulty? Marx and Engels taught us many appropriate things with utmost clarity! 'Theory becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses,' said Marx (and Engels). The fact that the theory has not gripped the masses imply that the communist parties have not yet taken the theory to the people and that the theory has not yet reached the people. Engels adds further on this issue—"Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake…" (Introduction to Marx's 'Class Struggles in France'). If the people fail to realise what and why something must be done, how can that be done? Can this be done with only four or five people? Moreover, when there will be one or two opposed to the task!

7)    'Even to draw an outline of the society that Marx imagined, the changes in the economic foundation alone will not be sufficient; democracy and changes in the human nature should also happen', argues the critic.

My reply: The critic doesn't seem to have understood that according to Marx, change in 'economic foundation' includes a complete transformation of exploitative nature of the production relations and division of labour. Will democracy not exist after abolition of classes and formation of equal division of labour? Will not the human nature of the exploiting system change? This critic considers that the democracy of the exploiting state is same as that of the egalitarian society. In a society where men and women realise that performing a few manual labours and a few intellectual labours as their responsibility, that realisation itself will be the new human nature. Why did a 'king' in the era of monarchy acquire the 'nature of a king'? Why did a 'landlord' acquire the 'nature of a landlord'? If the landlord starts performing labour on the land, after some time, how will his 'human nature' transform?

        The critic, who commented that Marx muddled up, is the one who muddled up himself. He muddled up not in one but a hundred ways!

(Andhra Jyothy, dated November 2, 2017)

The same question again, but where is the answer?
Why did the October revolution of 1917 vanish? There are many eulogies regarding the revolution, but where is the analysis? That is the question. Our communist parties held centenary celebrations of the October revolution during October and November 2017 to the best of the abilities of their cadres. They described the October revolution as 'great' and even the exploiting classes cannot challenge that claim. They pronounced that the October revolution laid a path for the destruction of exploitation and oppression. This would have indeed happened, had the revolution sustained and continued as in the beginning.

The communist parties, however, did not enlighten us on the socialist changes that have occurred along the revolutionary path. Have we found a reason as to why the working class people remained silent when the communist party was dissolved and the red flag was lowered? What were the attempts made in the Soviet Union to bring about Socialist changes in the production relations?

.Here, in our communist newspapers, leave alone a debate, there has been not even a mention as to why and when the October revolution disappeared. All the reports and writings in these newspapers regarding the centenary celebrations of the revolution sounded like the obituary speeches of the departed elders. The manner in which the communist parties conducted the revolutionary anniversary meetings reminds one of the feudal and traditional annual mourning ceremonies of the diseased! In a 'revolutionary meeting', we will find at least ten communist priests seated from one corner of the stage to the other; some times in two rows! The charm for a place on the dais; they cannot be happy with a seat below! The revolutionaries on the dais, one after the other, will dump revolutionary phrases. The audience will anyway fail to understand the sacred chants emanating from the dais. Won't there be many questions if they understood? Won't they demand to discuss the causes underlying the collapse of the revolution?

In their prolonged speeches, the speakers will lift every leader to the sky. This is the reason why everyone becomes popular as a revolutionary leader—for this reason alone! Because the speakers do no distinguish different leaders in terms of their actions. They use the same bourgeois technique to make the audience believe that every leader is a great gem! The speakers themselves cannot see the flaws, how severe they may be, in the conduct of the leaders, therefore, they cannot enlighten the audience. When it becomes unavoidable, if they have to divulge a misdeed of a leader to the people, they will act so skilfully, smoothly, obediently and uncritically, as if that was only a small mistake as tiny as the head of an ant, uttering only a word or two, and then, blending good and bad all in one.

If anyone is seriously critical of the misdeeds of a leader, the speakers will accuse the critics as 'renegades with a mask of Marxism' and attempt to create the same negative opinion among the audience. This is why our communists can never have any questions. They also insist that the audience too should not think of any questions.

When there are a few dozens or a hundred members in the Central Committee and the Politbureau of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, how can a single member occupy the position of the General Secretary of the party for 30 years until death? This question has no place in the minds of our communists. If that lord were alive for 20 years more, won't that chair belong to this lord? In the greed for power, haven't the communists surpassed the monarchs?

How can the communist leaders encourage the cult of personality, like the leaders of the exploiting class, to dupe the people? Why our communist leaders cannot see this question at least?

When the communist leaders who actively participated in the October revolution were arrested secretly, sham trials were conducted, and these leaders were executed immediately, did any of our communist parties question regarding such a serious matter? Did they ask what the offenses of these leaders were?

To teach rich farmers a lesson, they should be drawn into the farm labour. Why exile them to distant places by the 'death trains'? Our leaders fail to see even a simple question such as this.

It is true that the 'first step' of the socialist revolution begins with the abolition of the private ownership over the means of production. Can such a measure, however, amount to the disappearance of the 'classes'? When the old Masters are removed who would be the new masters of the means of production? Wasn't it the State (government) itself? Until such a time that the exploitative production relations are transformed, the exploiters are brought into manual labours, and the 'wage' system is removed, until such a time, can the initial changes be equated with the disappearance of the classes and the emergence of equality? If a leader, right at the very beginning, pronounces that the classes have disappeared, can he be considered as a communist? Can he be the leader of the entire communist party? Can his whims and fancies form the communist state?

Leave alone the period soon after the revolution, even during 70 years thereafter, has there been a single communist change in Soviet Russia? Tell about it. Did they teach 'Capital', the embodiment of a theory that showed the path of abolishing exploitation of labour, to the students in the schools and colleges? Have they imparted this knowledge to the workers at least if not to the students?

The communists recite and repeat the expressions 'criticism and self-criticism' like the parrots. They, however, will not criticise those who commit blunders in their own groups and will not bother to make self-criticism when necessary. They write exaggerated accounts of revolutionary activities and believe that these acts are a revolution.

Have you noticed the statements published in some communist newspapers on the centenary celebrations of the revolution? 'The centenary celebrations of October revolution were conducted with great inspiration,' reported one newspaper; '…conducted successfully,' reported another paper!

Have you heard of a proverb regarding 'corpse decoration' (shavaalan-karana)? A corpse should not be ill-treated by dragging it in the filth, but should one decorate a corpse in various ways?

It has been many years since there has been no trace of the revolution. There is not an iota of the influence of the October revolution on the working classes of Russia or here in India. When the leaders glorify the revolution in the meetings using fancy terms like 'inspiring' and 'successful,' does this mean that the working class embraced the spirit of revolution?

Is the outcome a cause of intense agony or inspiration when a hard-earned revolution passes away within few years along with Lenin?

What do they mean by saying 'the meeting was successful'? Does it mean that many people attended the meeting? Did anyone from the audience ask, 'why did the October revolution vanish?' If any one asks, they utter the name 'Khrushchev'. Well the question is, 'has anyone asked? That is the question!

'The inspiration of the October revolution is eternal (ajaraamaram=..that has no ageing),' they say! This revolutionary inspiration retracted within ten years. Does this not mean that the revolution ended with Lenin and that the top leadership of the party did everything to prevent the revolution from waking up again? Of course, the bourgeois 'class struggle' went on well in Russia. The top leadership tried to carry on Capitalism in the name of Socialism.

Marx observed that during the course of revolution, opponents also enter into revolution. Will a revolution prosper by shouting slogans 'Long Live Revolution! Long Live!', while setting fire below the feet of the revolution? As the chants of the word 'Om' vanish in the thin air, will the chant of 'revolution' live long while the working class is in a slumber? Why the one that should live longer vanish?

'We must not only study the October revolution but also learn lessons from it. These lessons must be used for the future struggles,' says a report in a party newspaper! These are sensible words indeed. However, when this should be said, after a hundred years? When they see the month of October in the calendar, they will start shouting—'Long Live October revolution'. Learning lessons now? They did this a long time ago. When Khrushchev exposed the personality cult of his own Guru Stalin, did they not draw the lesson that Khrushchev destroyed the great socialism which Stalin established firmly? They have been repeating the same lesson again and again. They have converted their parties into Stalinist, not Marxist. After drawing such a great lesson, how can they draw another new lesson? The only new lesson they could draw is to accuse those people who attempt to draw lessons as betrayers of Marxism.

Even though the October revolution removed the Czars, landlords, and capitalists as individuals, did the top leadership of the communist party not entrenched itself by killing the critics in the party?

'Stalin chased away the fascist Hitler,' they say. One fascist will defeat another fascist, one bourgeois nation will defeat another bourgeois nation, and one king will defeat another king. That is what war is about; one wins, and another loses. The driving force is the people, not a leader, regardless of how 'great' a leader may be, a win or a defeat is not due to the leader alone.

"He lacked the necessary vigilance on the eve of the anti-fascist war', said Mao referring to Stalin. It means the victory was due to the vigilance of people even though the leader, whom our folks are praising as a great leader, was not vigilant. Mao also observed that "Stalin erroneously exaggerated his own role and counterposed his individual authority to the collective leadership….." (Stalin's place in History) Have our folks not read this?

'In the Stalin era, for 50 years, a third of the world population experienced wonderful results,' they boast! After 50 years, did the people who experienced the wonderful results decide that 'the wonders are enough'? Was this the reason why they brought back capitalism? Were they bored with the wonders and comforts of 50 years?
'The modern revisionism raised its head only after the death of the great teacher comrade Stalin,' they say! Have the teachings and practices of the great teacher blown to the wind soon after his demise?

'After Stalin's death, Khrushchev removed the followers of Lenin and Stalin on a large scale.'—This is what had happened according to our folks. Elimination and assassinations are debited to Khrushchev's account! I am not asking to praise Khrushchev; but don't praise Khrushchev's Guru either.

Comrades! Open your eyes! Else the bourgeois will laugh at you; they will be fearless of you. Do not consider every person in the garb of leader 'love-worthy', be critical!

[Andhra Jyothy, December 30, 2017)

My aim is at the feudal and capitalist tendencies of the communist parties!
I read the critique of V. Srinivasa Rao in Prajashakti titled 'Ranganayakamma, who do you aim at?' (31 December 2017). He, however, did not mention the book which was the cause of the questioning regarding my target. To make the readers understand the context, I need to give some information. The four volumes of Charles Bettelheim, a French Marxist economist, on the 'class struggles' in Soviet Russia appeared between 1974 and 1982. The English translations of the volumes appeared later. Bettelheim used many sources to prepare his volumes: the documents of the Russian communist party, inquiries, census reports, the reports of the communist party Congresses, the works of the Russian and foreign historians and economists written on Russia, and to a large extent the works of Lenin.

When I read the articles that appeared in the communist newspapers on the occasion of the hundredth anniversary of the October revolution, there was no explanation anywhere in these writings as to why the revolution disappeared. In November of 2017, the hundredth anniversary of the October revolution came to an end, and the related reports appeared in the communist newspapers. Even in these reports, there was no mention of the disappearance of the October revolution. After reading these reports, on 30 December in Andhra Jyothi, I wrote an article 'The same question again, but where is the answer?' The critique of Srinivasa Rao was in response to this article. The newspaper Prajashakti (of CPI-M) is not available in Hyderabad. I read the copy of the article sent by a friend as an attachment to an email.

Now my response:
1)    Srinivasa Rao alleges that the CPI(M) party passed a resolution in its Party Congress of 1992 regarding the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union but I 'intentionally' ignored this resolution and posed the questions pretending as if I was not aware of it.

I am aware of the resolution which was in eight parts and contained 138 points. In this resolution, there was no mention to the classes that existed after the October revolution, or the nature of the interests of these classes, or the form the class struggles assumed between the classes—there were no such expressions or explanation related to these issues in the resolution. Instead, note what kind of references were made in the resolution regarding the Soviet Union,
1)    Khrushchev opened the doors to revisionism in 1956 (Point 28 in Part 2).
2)    We condemned Khrushchev's revisionism in 1968 in the Burdwan plenum (Point 6 in Part 1).
3)    Since 1987, we did not approve many theories proposed by the Soviet communist party (Point 7 in Part 1).
In this resolution or other articles published by CPI(M) on the Soviet Union, is there a class analysis anywhere other than the formulations that Khrushchev and Gorbachev were responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union?

2)    Srinivasa Rao charges that it was Khrushchev, not CPI(M), who claimed the disappearance of the classes in the Soviet Union and that I attributed this to all the communist parties.

Nowhere did I make a statement, neither in my article nor in the introduction to the works of Bettelheim that any party including CPI(M) declared of the disappearance of the classes in the Soviet Union. I only highlighted the statements of Stalin and Trotsky regarding classes. Stalin declared very early that the exploiting classes disappeared and the working class was present. I criticised Stalin's statement regarding the disappearance of the classes in his report of 25 November 1936; but did not refer to the CPI(M). Nevertheless, considering the resolution that Srinivasa Rao mentioned, there is a basis to understand that the CPI(M) holds the same perspective. In Point 3 of Part 2 of the resolution, the CPI(M) declared that 'The socialist society was formed in 1917 and abolished the class exploitation.' What is the meaning underlying the statement 'abolished the class exploitation'? Is this statement not an attestation by CPI(M) to the disappearance of the classes in the Soviet Union?

3)    Stalin served as General Secretary of the communist party of the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1953, until his death. I questioned the Indian communist parties for not being critical of this. Srinivasa Rao did not answer my criticism on Stalin. He instead mentioned things like this did not happen in India, that CPI(M) reformed its rules, and that CPI(M) implemented a condition that no one can continue in a party position for more than nine years. I did not raise any of these issues.

How could Stalin occupy the position of General Secretary for so many years (31 years)? Did not the party have any other leaders? How could the other members bear an emperor who was disinclined to relinquish the throne? The CPI(M) cadres did not raise any of these questions either at that time or now. I will, therefore, pose a few questions now to the CPI(M).

Was it appropriate that Jyoti Basu continued as the Chief Minister of West Bengal from 1977 to 2000, continuously for 23 years? Was there no other Marxist in the party? Sundarayya served as General Secretary for 14 years (1964—1978), Nambudripad for 14 years (1978—1992), Harikishan Singh for 13 years (1992—2005), and Prakash Karanth for 10 years (2005—2015)—why should it be so? Are there no other leaders? Should not the other leaders also get an opportunity?

When did you change your rules (party constitution)? Forty-eight years after the party was formed (1964—2012)! The point is that in Russia Stalin occupied the position of general secretary until his death. If this point occurred to your party, you wouldn't have waited 48 years to reform your rules. You say that the party imposed a 'strict' condition. Is it so 'difficult' to pass on a responsible position to another person?

4)    You criticised my comment that the communists recite the terms 'criticism and self-criticism' like parrots without practising. You opined that I must have arrived at this conclusion without reading the reports of the communist parties.

Having read the works of Bettelheim, I knew how 'criticism and self-criticism' happened in the communist parties of Russia and China. I wrote an article titled 'The Hermitic practices in the Chinese communist party' as a long footnote added to the Telugu version of Charles Bettelheim's book 'China since Mao'. You opined that I might not have read the reports of CPI(M) conferences held in 2015 at Vishakhapatnam and Kolkata.

There are 61 resolutions in the report of the Vishakhapatnam conference. In all of these resolutions and the 217 resolutions of the Kolkata conference, the analysis revolves only around your shortcomings of the electoral politics of the bourgeois state. All only a smooth talk, not even a single word of hard criticism: 'Routinism', 'stereotyped functioning', 'lost contact with the masses', 'we have failed', 'the inability of the Politburo and the Central Committee'—all soft talk like this! What is all this jargon about?—Alas! We could not secure more seats in the bourgeois parliament! Isn't it? Is there a Marxist perspective in any of this?

5)    Referring to my criticism of the 'personality cult', Srinivasa Rao declares that: 'CPI(M) distanced itself clearly from the personality cults of Stalin and Mao.' However, the praises they showered on Stalin in the resolution of 1992 are a testimony to their reluctance to distance themselves from the personality cult.

The point 30 in part 2 of the statement reads as follows: 'While being severely critical of certain gross violations of inner party democracy and socialist legality, the May 1990 CC resolution had stated: "The CPI(M) rejected the approach which, in the name of correcting the personality cult, is negating the history of socialism. The uncontestable contribution of Joseph Stalin in defence of Leninism, against Trotskyism and other ideological deviations, the building of Socialism in the USSR, the victory over fascism and the reconstruction of the war-ravaged Soviet Union, enabling it to acquire enough strength to check imperialist aggressive moves, are inseparable from the history of socialism."

What is the meaning of this point in the resolution? Compared to the contributions of Stalin, his personality cult is an utterly insignificant matter! CPI(M) did not declare that those who are fully immersed in the exploiting culture only promote personality cult. They failed to declare that Stalin immersed himself completely in the exploiting culture and self-glory. How can a party such as this claim to have distanced itself from such a culture? 'What is this mania of personality cult?' They did not raise this question against Stalin.

Lenin offered critical advice during the last days of his life that Stalin, in view of his rudeness, should not be made the General Secretary of the party at the upcoming conference. What value did Stalin accord to this advice? Here was a person who hid Lenin's advice from being known to the conference thereby protecting his position. Could a person such as this be the champion of Lenin's ideology? Having expelled from the country, Trotsky escaped to a foreign land—is orchestrating the assassination of such a person the way to fight his ideology? In fact, both Stalin and Trotsky held the same erroneous notions regarding socialism. Both considered that the Statisation of the means of production was socialism, that there did not exist classes in Russia, and that the development of the productive forces is primary—This is what Bettelheim showed from the works of both Stalin and Trotsky. What is unique for Stalin was the art of assassinating anyone who opposed him: immediately and instantaneously!

Stalin, who toasted for the health of the Fuhrer, placed trust in Hitler until the last minute without making war preparations and caused the death of millions of Russians. Stalin, the General Secretary of the party, also grabbed the position of Prime Minister as if one position was not enough. The credit for protecting the nation in the war should be given to the people of the Soviet Union and the soldiers among them, but not to the person who raised a toast to Hitler!

'Stalin lacked the necessary vigilance on the eve of anti-fascist war,' said Mao who followed Stalin in certain issues. Did you not hear or read about this?

My answers to the five specific points raised by Srinivasa Rao would suffice; if not suffice, one may refer to the introduction I wrote to Bettelheim's volumes.

After these five points, Srinivasa Rao wanted to ask me 'a few more' questions. The following is my response to the additional questions:
*      'When there has been a vicious attack on the communists, did she write anything condemning these attacks?' Asks Srinivasa Rao.

The primary task I set for myself is to propagate Marx's 'Capital', the fundamental work of scientific communism, in as many forms as possible. I oppose the bourgeois who oppose communism and the communists who do not heed that theory. And, regarding the vicious attacks on the communists? If the communists are opposed to the bourgeois state and if there is a 'vicious attack' against them, I will certainly condemn such attacks.

*      'Do you agree with the propaganda of the opponents of the communists that the October revolution was not a revolution and that Lenin imposed a dictatorship?' Another question.

The basic intention of writing an introduction to Bettelheim's volumes was to affirm that the October revolution was a revolution. Additionally, to caution that the communists ought to examine why this revolution failed instead of being content by showering praises on the revolution! I, however, agree with the understanding that it was the bourgeois class within the Russian communist party that destroyed the revolution and imposed the dictatorship; and Stalin and leaders around him were the political representatives of that class.

*      'To blame a path without showing the right path is escapism and unscientific,' Srinivasa Rao declares!

In their critique of political economy, Marx and Engels already showed the right path. From their works we will come to know that the working class must overthrow the bourgeoisie; compell all the hitherto idle classes to perform labour, that the attempts be made to resolve the contradictions between manual labour and intellectual labour. Our responsibility is to follow their writings. What we ought not do is to hang the portraits of Marx and Engels ritualistically on the walls of the party offices, commemorating their anniversaries every year or every hundred years, and deceiving ourselves claiming that we are following the path of Marxism.

*      'To ridicule the communist parties and belittling the leadership.' This charge is a very old allegation against me! Nothing new.

When the wife in my novel 'Sweet Home' addresses her husband as 'you' (singular), some people alleged that Ranganayakamma makes fun of men. They charged that I ridiculed Rama in 'Ramayana Vishavriksham' (Ramayana, the poisonous tree). When I criticised Mao for his 'personality cult' by putting a question, 'Cult of Individual: Is it necessary for Revolution?' they said that I ridiculed Mao. When I criticised Ambedkar for opposing communism and playing an active role in drafting the bourgeois constitution, they said that I ridiculed Ambedkar.

Now that the communists are heedless of the reasons causing the failure of the October revolution and only shower praises on the revolution, if I compare this farce with the rituals of a death anniversary, is the analogy not a question? Not criticism? Is to question ridicule? And, derision? If necessary, ridiculing must be done. It is criticism. Can we stay mute spectators witnessing communists espousing bourgeois practices? It would be a ridiculous situation if the communists cease to be communists and behaving like feudal-bourgeois. It is the contradiction between the words and deeds that will be subjected to ridicule.

*      Srinivasa Rao gave me a sermon. I would have accepted it if it were worthy to learn. I had learnt it from Marx a long time ago. Srinivasa Rao taught me to defend socialism, instead of condemning it; to promote trust in socialism, and to describe how it looks like!

Ever since I understood that socialism alone is the solution, I was emphacising the same and never condemned socialism. If not for this reason, why would I spend so many years in writing 'an introduction of Marx's Capital' and other related works instead of working on my stories and novels? If not for this reason, how could I declare that "If we do not know Marxism, we will remain as we were born"? Perhaps, Srinivasa Rao, the member of the CPI(M) Central Committee Secretariat, never stepped into their party bookshop. If he did, he would have certainly found my books there. One thing is true. I said that 'socialism alone is the solution'.But I did not say that his party is the path to socialism.

*      Lastly, Srinivasa Rao very generously gave me an opportunity. 'At least now let us hope that Ranganayakamma would aim her arrows at the communal and fascist forces.' Though he gave me the opportunity, given the title of his critique, he was quite suspicious about me! He asked—'Ranganayakamma, who do you aim at?'

My aim is at the party capitalism and the communist parties which defend it.

If it is a question of aiming at communal fascist forces, I started it the very next day after I learnt about Marxism. The first testimony of this was Ramayana Vishavriksham (Ramayana, the poisonous tree)! This was the critique aimed at the epic of worship of RSS and BJP whom you (Srinivasa rao) referred. When the English translation of this work appeared and the communal elements burned my effigy in Gujarat in 2003, where were you and your party cadres of Gujarat, who preach that we ought to support struggling forces. During the tenure of Vajpayee, Krishnam Raju, a BJP MP, demanded action against Ramayana Vishavriksham, and the then minister of the state Home, Chennamaneni Vidyasagar Rao, assured to get the report from the State Government. What did the Members of Parliament of your party do when all this was happening? Why did they not raise their voice? Lastly, do my books on Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Vedas, aim at the communal forces or the communists?
(Prajashakti, dated January 5, 2018)

Stop self-praising! Stop blaming others!
In Prajashakti (of January 9, 2018), I read the critique titled 'Ranganaya-kamma, your arrow missed the target, change the aim.'

The answers to many questions posed in this article are already available in my rebuttal published previously in Andhra Jyothi and Prajashakti. The answers to some other questions raised here are available in the introduction I wrote to the works of Charles Bettelheim on the class struggles in the Soviet Union. I, therefore, will restrict my response only to a few points here.

This is not an armed class struggle, only a debate between communists. Therefore, leave the arrows out of this debate! Talk the language of socialist theory!

1)    Srinivasa Rao levelled charges against me—charges more severe than those of 'the Great Moscow Trials' of the 1930s, that I 'teach the Marxist lessons sitting in an arm-chair', that I 'pounce' on the communists, that mine is a 'dogmatic' attitude and a 'vulgar' interpretation, that I am obsessed with cutting the critics to pieces, that I lack the honesty to admit that slandering is unethical, and so on and so forth. As a great stroke of 'luck', Srinivasa Rao is not yet the General Secretary of the CPI(M) and a party having a General Secretary such as this hasn't yet come to power in the country. Therefore, I have survived. Trying to provide an answer to your predetermined allegations is futile, I, therefore, leave this task to the readers.

2)    Srinivasa Rao wonders why I took so many years to question the silence of the communists regarding the attacks on my book Ramayana Vishavriksham. Srini-vasa Rao offered friendly advice and wished that 'Ranganayakamma would at least now aim her arrows at the fascist and communal forces.' This friendly advice was the reason why I had to ask this question after so many years. He inferred that I have not aimed at the communal forces and I should do so 'at least' now!

3)    'What are you doing today?'—This is the question Srinivasa Rao putting to me. Are the anti-communal writings of yesterday not useful today? Should I procure a certificate of qualification from you as a proof of fighting the communalists by writing afresh on the current events? The communalists who you criticize also demand every day that the Muslims of this country should prove their patriotism and nationality; you demand me exactly the same way! On the one hand giving me a certificate that I wrote many progressive books, on the other hand, Srinivasa Rao wonders 'What is the role she is playing today? This is the question.' I am writing today as before! Your comrades in 'Prajashakti Book House' will give you the details of my contemporary works.

4)    'Who is this Bettelheim?' Srinivasa Rao posed a question to himself. He accused Bettelheim as someone belonging to the trend called 'New Left' but claims to be a follower of Marxism'. 'His theory is that the students and the youth must lead the rebellion,' Srinivasa Rao pronounced a great untruth. (Are you aware that people call your party 'a neo-revisionist party'. Would you agree with it?) Does a person who wrote on 'the Class Struggles in the USSR' would abandon class and support the notion of 'the leadership of the students and the youth'? Show us a single piece of evidence in support of your allegation! 'Bettelheim had established contacts with the French Trotskyists'—an insinuation that Bettelheim was a Trotskyist! Srinivasa Rao is perhaps not aware that in his 'Class struggles', Bettelheim explained with textual evidence that both Stalin and Trotsky bore the same erroneous understanding of the concepts of 'socialism and classes! Bettelheim did not have any parliamentary political alliances as your party did with the Congress Party, the Telugu Desam Party or the other bourgeois parties in the Parliament and the state Assemblies which Lenin described as 'talking shops'. The same Wikipedia from where you gathered the information on the French-Trotskyist connections of Bettelheim, also declares that the French connections were only in the backdrop of Germany's occupation of France during the World War II. These were the days when Stalin who you worship made a 'no war pact' with Germany and the days when the French Communist Party remained subservient to the Nazis to please Stalin, their 'Boss' of the Communist International. The French Trotskyists opposed Germany at a time when French Communist Party was obedient to Germany. A contact with such a group should be considered as anti-fascist! Did you not see the statement in the same Wikipedia that 'Bettelheim did not ever abandon the Marxist philosophy'?
*      Srinivasa Rao says that Bettelheim worked as an advisor to the Prime Ministers of India as well as other countries. If he were an 'uncompromised Marxist' why would these political leaders have him as an advisor? questions Srinivasa Rao. Bettelheim did not work as an advisor to the bourgeoisie. Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India, asked Mahalanobis, the then director of the Indian Statistical Institute, and Pitambar Pant, a Statistician as well as the secretary to the Prime Minister, to take the advice of foreign experts with different perspectives in formulating the Five Year Plans. Mahalanobis and Pant invited many experts with different perspectives from Soviet Union, America and other countries and held talks with them. The leftist intellectuals such as Paul Baran and Gunnar Myrdal were among the invited experts. Charles Bettelheim was also one among them. An evidence to show that Bettelheim did not compromise is his book 'India Independent', in which he categorically stated that the Congress Party of India served the interests of the capitalist class. The Congress government banned this book in 1976! What does this prove?
*      'He supported wholly Mao's policies, and the cultural revolution' another complaint against Bettelheim! For anyone who read Bettelheim's works, 'China since Mao' or 'Cultural Revolution and Industrial Organization in China', this allegation turns out to be false. Bettelheim examined Mao's policies and the Cultural Revolution only from the perspective of Production relations, Division of Labour, Distribution relations, Classes, Class interests, and Class struggles.
*      'In 1956, Bettelheim extended his support to Khrushchev's propaganda targeting Stalin,' yet another allegation from Srinivasa Rao! Bettelheim only used the confidential information revealed by Khrushchev a one -time stooge of Stalin who served as a member of the Central Committee during Stalin's rule. Bettelheim, however, neither adopted nor supported the policies of Khrushchev.

5)    'There are no Stalinist parties anywhere, but if you label us as one, we feel proud,' declares Srinivasa Rao. The Stalinists can only display arrogance, not the wisdom to heed others' points of view. Didn't Lenin describe Stalin as follows—"Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General." (Lenin Collected Works, Volume-36).

6)    Srinivasa Rao wonders why unlike Marx who began his revolutionary life with the proletarian practice, I teach Marxist lessons sitting in a arm-chair. My response: My chair appears to be a favorite of all! Their attention is on my chair! Over the past 40 years, I have been writing the Marxist lessons sitting not in a arm-chair but a cane chair. The readers will learn Marxism depending on whether or not they understand and like my lessons. If not, they will throw away the lessons. What is meant by proletarian practice? After reading 'Capital' and having realised that one must work in a Communist Party, I chose a party of my liking. From 1973 to 1979, for six years, we played an active role in the organisations affiliated to this party along with our children while contributing the larger share of our meager income to the party.

A representative of the party made an appearance one day. 'We heard that you are writing something on 'Capital'. The party asks you not to continue. Party will commission someone else on this job, not you,' he said.
I was taken back, 'I will give you a draft. Read it and correct the draft if there are errors,' I said.
'No, party says no.' He repeated.

'Look here. I am not a member of your party. Don't make your party like that of the Jesus Christ's path! Leave now.'

He left. A big leader of the party declared that 'To insist on studying Capital is a petty bourgeois mentality.' We were quite averse to such attitudes but tolerated. Having experienced some more such tendencies, we left the party. We have been following all the parties but have not become interested in any one of them. We are involved in studying Marxism. I considered Marx as my guide. Neither your party nor the undivided Communist Party translated 'Capital' or introduced it in Telugu over the past 50 years. I, therefore, began to work on it and introduced part one of volume one of 'Capital' (Commodities and Money) in 1978.

Marx was preoccupied with the working on 'Capital' until his last days. "I should have really regarded myself as impractical if I had pegged out without completely finishing my book, at least in the manuscript form," he wrote to his friend Sig Fred Mayer on 30 April 1867.

He remarked many times that his work on 'Capital' was getting delayed due to day to day practical work of the 'International', that it was time for him to "withdraw from the General Council" and "Capital must be completed sooner or later". (The correspondence with Danielson who translated 'Capital' into Russian in 1871 and 1872; and with Caesar, a Belgian working class leader.)

If writing 'Capital' was a proletarian practice, is writing an introduction to it not a practice? I do not believe that to be a member of some Stalinist party such as yours alone should be considered as the proletarian practice.

7)    'Why did you not condemn the vicious anti-communist propaganda?' asks Srinivasa Rao. I condemn all 'vicious attacks' on the communists who oppose the bourgeois state, not on those communists who take an oath on the bourgeois constitution and enter the parliament.

8)    Another allegation: 'While the communists are preoccupied with the funeral rites of the revolution, I was busy with offering pindam (offering a ball of cooked rice to the departed ancestors). Indeed, if 'the word 'pindam' has the meaning of 'criticism', I will carry on that task.

9)    As I inserted the word 'association' in brackets while referring to 'Party', Srinivasa Rao commented that I do not know the difference between an association and a party. In their writings, Marx and Engels used all the terms such as the Communist League, the International Workingmen's Association, the International Workingmen's Organization, and the Communist Party as synonyms. They even used the shorter versions of these entities such as the League, Association, Organization, and Party! 'Political Party' or 'Political Organization' both mean the same thing. But Srinivasa Rao says, 'The working class will have many organizations. However, these organizations do not play the role of a political party. My point is, though the workers' association learns politics from the party, how can it have the class perspective unless the workers' association too have the political role? The leaders of the Party believe that they themselves, not the workers, should occupy the position of the leader posts of the workers' associations. This is what they call 'the political role'. This is the reason why the workers are alienated from politics. The workers have only the perspective of the 'wages', and not of the 'class'.

10) 'There will be many ups and downs, rights and wrongs while running a party,' argues Srinivasa Rao. One may lose the direction at times. In that case, why be intolerant towards those who point out these mistakes? Accept your mistakes! 'He accuses me that despite the continuous internal struggles in the party, I am attacking the communists! Where is the internal struggle other than self-praising and blaming others? Had you understood the notion of self-criticism, you would have treated those who criticize your wrongs as friends.

11) Another criticism against me is that I did not answer the question regarding an alternative to achieve socialism. 'It is unscientific to evade from showing the real path,' you (Srinivasa Rao) commented in your first article. I answered this allegation in my first rebuttal. Have a look at it once again. Must I or anyone else need to show the path? Marx and Engels did this already. Should we not learn from them?

12) You are asking me this, 'Did Marx ever say that the revolutions are possible only when the people understand Marxism and realize that personality cult leads to the collapse of the revolutions?' Indeed, they did. Consider the following statements of Marx and Engels in different but relevant contexts: "In particular, it will be the duty of the leaders to gain an ever clearer insight into all theoretical questions, to free themselves more and more from the influence of traditional phrases inherited from the old world outlook and constantly to keep in mind that socialism, since it has become a science, demands that it be pursued as a science, that is, that it be studied. The task will be to spread with increased zeal among the masses of workers the ever more lucid understanding thus acquired and to knit together ever more strongly the organization both of the party and of the trade unions." (Engels in 'The Peasant War in Germany'. Supplement to the preface of 1870 for the 3rd edition of 1875).

What did Engels say here? That socialism is a science, and that we must spread this science among the working people! This also means that only when the people understand Marxism, the revolutions can be achieved and sustained!

See the following further: "The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for, body and soul…….In order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required…"—Engels (In his Introduction to 'The Class Struggles in France' written by Marx, 1894).

*      Communists ought to know from Marx as to how to oppose personality cult: "Neither of us cares a straw for popularity. A proof of this is, for example, that, because of aversion to any personality cult, I have never permitted the numerous expressions of appreciation from various countries, with which I was pestered during the existence of the International, to reach the realm of publicity, and have never answered them, except occasionally by a rebuke. When Engels and I first joined the secret Communist Society we made it a condition that every thing tending to encourage superstitious belief in authority was to be removed from the rules." (Marx in a letter he wrote to Wilhelm Blass, an editor. Marx and Engels: Selected Correspondence, p. 291, Moscow edition 1975).

It is not an ordinary worker who is asking 'did Marx say this'. A Central Committee Secretariat member of a Party that included the name of Marx in its name! For people like you, who do not know what Marx wrote, to blame me that I understand Marx upside down is nothing but Stalinist arrogance.

13) Srinivasa Rao further accuses that initially I alleged that their party did not raise the question as to why Socialism collapsed and later I found their resolutions about the collapse were inadequate. He concludes that my accusation regarding the lack of questioning was a wrong one, and that I lack the honesty to admit the mistake. First of all, your party did not raise the actual question. In being critical of only Khrushchev and Gorbachev and glorifying Stalin, you confirmed that you did not know what the actual question was. There is no answer to any criticism regarding the acts of Stalin. One person occupying a party position for 30 years? Was there no other Marxist in the party? Have you answered this question?

14) A question from Srinivasa Rao: "How could she, who blamed communists that they are learning from the bourgeoisie, take the Soviet history from the BBC?" I took BBC timeline only and not its analysis. Only dates and events are from the BBC, not its interpretation. All the comments on events like testing the hydrogen bomb are my own.

15) Srinivasa Rao offered strange interpretation of Stalin's statements! According to him, in Russia, an exploitation-free society had been formed! According to him, this, however, does not mean the disappearance of the classes! According to him, I am not aware of the fact that in the new society, the traits of the old system would continue! My question is: In a new society if 'classes' continue to exist after 'classlessness', what do these 'classes' indicate? Does it not mean that there exist a class that performs labour and a class that exploits? Does not 'a society with classes' mean the society of 'masters and labourers'? Does the continuation of the classes mean 'the disappearance of the classes'? To say that the traits of the old society continue in the new society implies the existence of the exploiting class and the labouring class in the new society as well. The form of these classes, however, may have changed. 'The 'continuation of classes' can only mean the 'continuation of exploitation of labour'. In a society what we call 'the old society', individual persons, families, and organisations possess all the legal rights of ownership over the means of production such as the land, factories, mines, transport, etc. If classes exist in a society which claims to be a 'new' society, it only means that the control (domination and decision making power) over the means of production is in the hands of the top leaders of the state machinery and the party. It only means that the exploiting class is in a new guise! Hence, the unequal division of labour of the old society will continue in the so-called 'new' society as well. Inequality will remain as before in the form of unequal division of labour between some people always doing the manual labour and others always doing the intellectual tasks. If all the old relations continue to remain, can the society be new? Can that be classlessness?

16) Given the self-criticism in your resolutions, should I not withdraw my earlier criticism regarding the lack of such self-criticism?—You ask. The delicate self-criticism regarding bourgeois electoral politics is not a self-criticism in my view.

17) 'When the people's movements take the backstage, the electoral politics assumes an important form of struggle', you argue. When the people's movements face a setback, should we strive to invigorate the struggles or join the bourgeois 'talking shops' and wage working class struggles there? Don't you join the parliament and the assemblies after taking an oath on the bourgeois constitution to defend the constitution? Hold a separate debate on elections and the electoral tactics Lenin adopted in the early period.

18) If anyone is doubtful of the "unparalleled role" of Stalin, Srinivasa Rao recommends the book of Anna Louis Strong and the interview of Irina, an ex-Soviet citizen. These works were not based on Marx's critique of the capitalist political economy. These writers did not examine the Soviet Union from the fundamental perspective of the production relations, property relations, division of labour, and distribution relations.

19) 'Publishing books in 2017 on the collapse of socialism?' 'Should we assume that she waited 100 years to offer oblation (the bowl of rice for the departed) ?' asks Srinivasa Rao. I raise the question now since your party has been performing the death anniversary of the revolution now. I, however, deliberated on the matters of the Soviet Union in 1983 in my Telugu book 'What is happening in China?' In 1989 I discussed this issue in my 'question-Answer' column in Andhra Jyothi weekly while answering a question from a reader. Further, in 1993, I discussed this matter in the last part of 'An Introduction to Capital'.

20) Regarding Russia and China, Srinivasa Rao argues that Communist Party of one country does not interfere in the internal matters of the Communist Party of another country'! How strange it is! When the communist party of a country follows the capitalist policies contrary to Socialism, can this be the internal matter of that country? Then, what is the meaning of the axiom—'The workers of the world, unite!' Without a debate on mistakes, how can the workers of the world unite? What, then, is the aim of 'proletarian internationalism'?

21) In response to my question regarding a single person 'continuing in the same position until death', Srinivasa Rao retorts, 'You have been writing for 60 years; what would you say if anyone asks why you did not retire?' And, he continues to dump additional question that he himself considers a 'trash'. He comments that my questioning regarding Stalin continuing as the General Secretary of the party until death also is 'trash'. Does he not know that the act of writing is not 'a position', or 'a responsibility' conferred by someone and that one continuing to write until the end will not bar opportunities of other writers? Marx and Engels continued to write until the last minute of their life. They departed leaving many tasks unfulfilled! Marx did not wait to complete the final parts of Capital. If they lived for some more time, they would have written more! Is it not strange that this member of the Central Committee Secretariat lacks even the minimum common sense and the least logic?

22) 'In her opinion, the real Marxists are fewer than the fingers. Lenin is the first among them. Followed by Bettelheim, and probably she will be the third one,' mocks Srinivasa Rao. I am a student of Marx and Engels. That is all; not number three, seven, seventeen or any other number. However, Stalin cannot be number three or one hundred and three.

23) In the end, Srinivasa Rao issued an order like message that I should invite the forces of struggle. Certainly, I will. However, the activities such as immersing in bourgeois parliamentary politics neck deep and swinging under the influence of the intoxicating ideology of the party bourgeoisie called Stalinism are not the acts of the fighting forces. I will resent, not invite, such forces. ooo

(The editor of Prajasakthi, an organ of CPI-M refused to publish this rejoinder and hence I sent this to some of my reader-friends who posted this in various blogs, websites, face books etc.) (Translation: R Uday Kumar)

Autumn Number 2018
Vol. 51, No.14 - 17, Oct 7 - Nov 3, 2018