‘The Great Betrayal of the ideal of Communism by Stalin, Mao and their Political Heirs’

Kobad Ghandy

Sumanta Bannerjee article in the Autumn issue of Frontier (Vol 57, No. 15-18, Oct 5-Nov 2, 2024) entitled The Great Betrayal of the ideal of Communism by Stalin, Mao and their Political Heirs unfortunately criticises one and all (no self-criticism) while presenting no alternative. It is nothing but a recipe for disillusionment, as surely the very purpose of criticism should have been to evolve a better project? With just a few years of practice nearly a half century back he goes so far as to slander (there is little attempt at analysis) leaders like Stalin and Mao merely through negation of the individuals. His one obsession is the lack of democracy, which may be true, but it has to be seen within the overall framework of the class struggle against a neo-fascist ruling class. Besides such individualistic intellectuals are themselves far from being democratic, normally extremely intolerant of any who dare differ with them.

He concludes his comment saying: “In these challenging circumstances, the Stalinist-Maoist camp of the Left has to get rid of its lingering nostalgic loyalty to Stalin and Mao, a tendency which quite often encour­ages it to support the misdeeds of the present political heirs of those two states (this is outright false). The future of the Left move­ment lies not in the resuscitation of the Stalinist-Maoist legacy, but in its rejection (and of dialectical materialism I suppose). It has to be replaced by a new innovative Leftist set of strategy and tactics to meet the country-spe­cific requirements of the Indian people and voice their demands-to be framed not according to the advice from abroad (like Stalin’s in the 1950s during the Telangana struggle, or Mao’s in the 1960s during the Naxalbari peasant uprising), but that will arise from the experiences of daily struggles at the ground level. It is by this only that we can overcome the betrayal that we suffered at the hands of Stalin, Mao and their political heirs”.

He gives no inkling of what has to replace the old with this new innovative Leftist set of strategy and tactics. The imperialists have consistently attacked revolutionary leaders like Stalin, Mao, etc. They are never honest in assessing the shades of grey in such revolutionaries. Mao was probably more accurate in his assessment of Stalin giving a 70:30 ratio to good and bad. There have been no towering revolutionaries to do an assessment of Mao though much has been written by western philosophers with quite a level of accuracy. Anyhow one need not break one’s head into going into the fine details of how much a person is correct or not, but to take what is positive from one and all for our own analysis of the concrete situation not only in India but also in the varied states which have seen different levels of development–like in the southern states as there is probably more capitalist develop-ments, while states like UP, Bihar and the rest of the Hindi belt would be mired in greater feudal backwardness. But SB does not seek to delve deeper…

Such critiques therefore tend to be irresponsible and meaningless. They contribute little to trying and understanding what is the situation on the ground and on that basis what needs to be done. Besides why does he confine himself to such ‘leaders’ instead of dwelling on the needs of the actual movement? The future of the left movement, in fact, lies neither in such abstract formulae but in actual analysis of the concrete situation at the ground level and working out a revolutionary practice on that basis, that can counter state repression. This will require deep analysis, where, one aspect of such a study could be the history of other revolutions that achieved success.

What has the likes of SB achieved in their lives that they can so flippantly condemn gigantic revolutions (no doubt, with all their flaws) like those in Russia and China? At least those like William Hinton have elaborated on the causes and reasons for the reversals, but not Indian SBs who merely issue fatwas from the pulpit without any in- depth presentation. No painful analysis, no detailed lessons of what to draw from the experience–both negative and positive–and not even attempt to find out a more effective path for change.

What purpose does such criticism serve except to create a negative atmosphere and pessimism. If he was honest, after his failed revolutionary practice of a few years way back in the 1970s he would have experimented with a revolutionary practice in accordance to his thinking. But no! Living an utter bourgeois life far away from practice, he sits in splendid isolation and tells one and all what is right and what is wrong with revolution. He needs to first analyse where he went wrong and the reason for his inactivity for the last 3 to 4 decades.

Such pomposity could be only found in India, due to the Brahminical intellectual ‘superiority’ asserted by many an upper caste ‘communist’. In fact, many of these upper caste communists in India do not even recognise caste as a specific form of oppression in India (conveniently) – when any sensitive person, let alone a Marxist, would have considered this an important aspect of oppression in India, given the level of its cruelty and inhumanity. Fortunately, on this count SB has been one has taken a position, but he even does not link intellectual arrogance to Brahminical superiority.

SB must appreciate that class struggle or socialist construction is not as simplistic as made out by him in the article. Sitting in splendid isolation one can continue to criticise, but what is more important is a concrete alternative. There are so many classes and, in India, castes at play which have to be considered while effecting a strategy. From tribals at one extreme (which are outside the caste hierarchy) to the untouchables, to the OBC and then the three main upper castes who dominate most aspects of this country.

The crucial thing which needs to be addressed is how then does one face the brutality of the rulers? There is no attempt at even trying to analyse this. Is his silence on this key question a mere oversight or is it wanton capitulation to the powers that be? Surely a person of SB intellectual calibre cannot be oblivious to this reality? The present system is destroying every aspect of society – people, human relations, environment, everything. But not a word on this or how to fight it, from SB. Surely the critique of any policy should not be in the abstract but in countering policies that are fighting against these forms of oppression (in his eyes incorrectly).

True there have been many shortcomings in the Indian communist movement, but SB throws out the baby with the bathwater. The important thing is to try for a creative alternative if he views the present polices as incorrect. His critique is not only dishonest but also ahistorical.

Back to Home Page

Frontier
Vol 57, No. 20, Nov 10 - 16, 2024