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

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

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.

The Tragic Regression of Anand Teltumbde – From ‘Mahad: The Making of First Dalit Revolt’ to ‘Bridging the Unholy Rift’

This ‘Introduction’ named ‘Bridging the Unholy Rift’ is not only full of factual and logical mistakes but also shows that Teltumbde understands the least about Marxism. He distorts facts about Ambedkar’s attitude towards communist philosophy, his attitude towards Indian communists (howsoever ideologically weak they were!) and makes a shame-faced attempt to make Ambedkar a sympathizer of Marxist philosophy. Anyone who has read Ambedkar knows that such a claim would be nothing less than a travesty of facts, a mockery of history. This attempt leads Teltumbde, first, to make a liberal appropriation of Marx, Engels and the entire Marxist philosophy and then show the vicinity of pragmatist liberalism of Ambedkar to Marxism as a science of revolution. Such wilful distortion of Marxism was not expected from Teltumbde. Also, he has revealed his “understanding” of Marx’s Capital as well as his stand towards the use of parliament and establishment of socialism, not to speak of Lenin’s theory of Imperialism and the strategy and general tactics proposed by Lenin in the imperialist stage. In the present essay I will attempt to show these serious shortcomings of this ‘Introduction’ written by Anand Teltumbde, mostly in chronological order.

Marxist Theories of Imperialism from Marx to Present Times: A Contemporary Critical Reassessment

Since all the theories of imperialism that emerged after the Second World War claim to be Marxist or at least heavily influenced by Marxism and build upon the writings of Marx and Lenin, it would be imperative to recapitulate the basic tenets of the Classical Marxist theories of imperialism. Such an endeavor, of course, can only start with Marx's fragmentary observations about expansion of capitalism on global scale, causes of this expansion, its influence on the advanced capitalist countries as well as on the backward countries that became colonies.

Marx’s Capital : 150 Years and Beyond – Old and New Controversies: A Critical Reappraisal

some people question the validity of the analysis offered in Capital from an infantile and deductive perspective: if Capital is valid, why did not revolutions take place? Well, Marx never believed in the ‘inevitability of socialism’; he believed that recurrent crises will keep occuring as long as capitalism survives because crises are immanent to capital and these crises will become deeper and more serious in the long term; every crisis will create the dual potential, the progressive one and the reactionary one. Whether the progressive potential is realized or not, is not a question that can be decided automatically. Revolutions are conscious political acts of the working class under the institutionalized leadership of the vanguard. Marx understood this fact clearly and that is why, while being optimistic about the prospects of revolution and the revolutionary organization of proletariat (‘optimist of will’), clearly reminded that revolutions are not inevitable and the crises of capitalism and resultant class struggle can lead to a destruction of the warring classes, or to a state of barbarism (‘pessimist of intellect’). Rosa Luxemburg put it eloquently: “either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism.” Her prognosis proved correct when failures of revolutions in Europe led to the rise of Fascism and Nazism, that showed glimpse of barbarism to the world watching in horror; the punishment for letting the moment of Socialism pass, to quote Daniel Guerin.