What can Engels Teach the Neo-Narodnik “Communists” and the Nationalist “Marxists” Today?

Friedrich Engels, a great teacher of the proletariat and bosom friend of Karl Marx, was born on November 28, 1820. Along with Marx, he developed the theories of dialectical and historical materialism as well as of scientific socialism. Marx and Engels together led the world proletariat movement until the death of Marx in 1883 and after that Engels continued the task until 1895. Besides establishing the universal principles of Marxism, Engels also carried out research works in the fields of history, ideology, anthropology and natural sciences in the light of these principles, which are undoubtedly essential and indispensable readings even today for the students of these fields.

In the context of the present situation of our country, Engels’ several works are worth reading, but the one I can particularly think of is ‘The Peasant Question in France and Germany’. Many Narodnik and Nationalist Communists of our country who are occupied with representing the interests and demands of kulaks, rich farmers, upper-middle peasantry should especially read this small but extremely important work. This work made a significant contribution to the Marxist thought on the agrarian and peasant question and later became the basis of Lenin’s understanding on this question.

Marxist Thought on the Relationship between Practice and Theory: A Contemporary Reassessment and Refutation of Certain Incorrect Interpretations

The basic proposition of Materialism is that matter is primary and consciousness is secondary and that consciousness is a quality of matter itself which cannot exist independently of matter. This means that there can be no existence of consciousness independent of the matter; in other words, there can be no consciousness whose source is not the material reality/material world. Pre-Marx Materialism stops exactly here for which Marx criticized Ludwig Feuerbach and put forth his famous utterance: “Philosophers have so far interpreted the world in various ways, the point, however, is to change it.” Marx pointed out that Feuerbach’s Materialism is contemplative. Feuerbach sees man as a species-being, not as a social being. He does not consider that human beings can take conscious actions and such actions can create the possibility of change. Marx explained that since he only interprets and does not raise the question of change, precisely because of this reason his explanation or interpretation, too, is not accurate. Marx explained that consciousness is definitely the property of a particular form of matter and that it does not have an independent existence, but when any thought or consciousness penetrates and takes its roots in the broader cross-section of masses, it also becomes a material force, which can also change the material reality. However, this process does not occur according to anyone’s subjective wishes, but on the basis of the objective laws of transformation of the material world and are subject to these laws of motion. In fact, the true measure of the correctness or incorrectness of consciousness/knowledge is based on the condition as to what extent it develops an accurate and moving/dynamic understanding of these laws. Marx and Engels point out that to control the forces of nature does not mean that one can do anything with nature as per ones wishes and desires; this means that when one understands and appreciates the laws of nature (necessity) then this necessity translates into freedom. In other words, the appreciation of necessity itself is freedom. In the same way, change in society also cannot happen according to one’s wishes or desires. Its laws of motion have to be understood and based on that correct understanding the task of transforming society can be accomplished through conscious actions. Here, too, the question of freedom is related to the appreciation of necessity. This correct understanding is built through social practice, i.e. productive practice, class struggle, and scientific experimentation.

Fragmentary Critical Notes Towards a Preliminary Investigation of Althusser’s Concept of Ideology

For Lenin, ideologies have a class character depending upon the real class interests of the classes engaged in political and economic struggle. The proletarian ideology is a scientific ideology because the interests of the proletariat lies with revealing the reality, obliterating the fetishistic character of the social relations in the bourgeois society and exposing petty secret of capitalist exploitation. Its interests coincide with truth, equality and justice. On the other hand, the bourgeois ideology stems from the interests of bourgeoisie in struggle with the proletariat to maintain its domination and exploitative system. Therefore, bourgeois ideology has a fetishistic character, even if individual members of the bourgeoisie are as unaware of this fetishistic character as individual members of the working class who have not internalized the dialectical materialist world-view and methodology and the science of historical materialism. Therefore, for Lenin, ideologies could be proletarian or bourgeois.

Against the Idiocy and Inanity of the Trot-Bundists and National Deviationists of ‘Pratibaddha-Lalkaar’ Group

Abhinav Recently, the Trot-Bundists of 'Pratibaddha-Lalkaar' Group organized a seminar in Barnala, Punjab on 'Marxism and National Question'. First of all, to readers who are unaware of this political moniker of “Trot-Bundism”. What is “Trot-Bundism”? It is a reactionary blend of already reactionary political trends of Trotskyism and Bundism. Even though the two trends appear …

Fragmentary Notes on a Few Pertinent Questions of Marxist Political Economy in the Special Context of Certain Ongoing Debates

  Abhinav Communists seek truth from facts, not the other way round. In other words, theory is the scientific generalization of the experience of practice. Of course, in its turn, scientific theory leads practice, takes it to the higher level and in the same process develops itself. Therefore, besides mastering Marxist theory, we communists study …

Ajay Sinha aka Don Quixote de la Patna’s Disastrous Encounter with Marx’s Theory of Ground Rent (and Marx’s Political Economy in General)

The entire bunch of intellectually-challenged individuals gathered around this magazine ‘The Truth’ is no different at all. It is a motley crew of passive radical armchair “intellectuals” with backgrounds of social-democracy of one of the worst and most ridiculous kind (SUCI) and, of course, the “general secretary”, Don Quixote de la Patna, Mr. Ajay Sinha. What is the commonality that binds this coterie together? Unbelievable levels of sheer ignorance, idiocy and stupidity, as we shall see with evidence in what follows.

The Three Farm Ordinances, Present Farmers’ Movement and the Working Class

Majority of the poor, lower-middle and middle peasantry is destined to be ruined under the capitalist system. To give these classes any assurance or promise to save small-scale petty production as well as this entire class is nothing but an act of treachery and betrayal against them and making them tail-end the rich farmers and Kulaks politically. So what should we do amongst them? As Lenin said: we should tell the truth! Telling truth is revolutionary. We should tell them about this inevitable destiny that awaits them in this capitalist society, make them conscious about their main and foremost demand that is the right of employment, and profess that their future lies in the system of socialist farming, that is to say, cooperative, collective or state farming. Only such a system will give them permanent redemption from poverty, starvation, insecurity and uncertainties. Our long term aim is certainly the socialist revolution. In the short term, the fight for the right to employment, the fight for labour rights for farm workers, and freedom from all debts can be our only struggle. Only such a program will take forward the class struggle in the countryside, and will organize the rural proletariat and semi-proletariat class into an independent political force and prepare them for socialist revolution.

The Re-election of Narendra Modi: A Representative Example of How Fascism Functions in the Twenty-first Century

In this essay, we will first evaluate the concrete conditions which led to the victory of Modi-led NDA in the sixteenth Lok Sabha elections. Subsequently, we will analyse the particular characteristics of fascist rise in the Twenty-first century and its difference from its early-Twentieth century avatar, on the basis of the concrete example of Modi's second victory. Finally, we would like to argue that it is not the time to lose heart and sink into the oblivion of desperation and rather prepare for the new phase of struggles with an effective anti-fascist political program that suits to the present times and is able to defeat fascism.

Problems of the Revolutionary Communist Movement in India: The Question of Program and Strategy

There has long been a controversy on the characterization of the Indian social formation and the stage of Indian Revolution. There is a considerable section of Marxist-Leninist parties/organizations/group that hold that India is still a semi-feudal semi-colonial or neo-colonial country. Others contend that India is no more a semi-feudal semi-colonial country; it is a relatively backward capitalist country. The aim of this paper is to make an intervention in this ongoing debate by going to the fundamental theoretical issues and testing the present Indian political situation as well as the socio-economic conditions against the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theoretical fundamentals regarding what a semi-feudal semi-colonial social formation is. The issues at stake here are principally the determination of production relations in Indian agriculture, the nature of Indian bourgeoisie and the extent of capitalist industrial and financial development in India.

Marxism and the Question of Identity

The question of identity has remained a debatable issue among Marxists-Leninists since at least four decades. The question, in effect, pertains to a Marxist understanding of social oppression based on identity. The Identity Politics theorists claim that Marxism ignores or plays down the role of various forms of social oppression and reduces everything to class. Even some Marxists-Leninists had a moment of epiphany following such claims by Identity Politics theorists, Privilege Theorists, and in general by Postmodernists and Post-Marxists in the 1970s and 1980s and accepted that Marxism in its current form is class reductionist and economistic and lacks the ability to understand the question of social oppression.