Tehrik Publications, 383/4 Fatehpuri ColonyRohtak-124001

(Haryana)India+919729961518, +919416358044

REVISITING A DREAM IN
COMMUNIST MOVEMENT

2016

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

REVISITING
THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT
Revisiting the dream that went sour is always a
rewarding exercise in self correction to remain on
course but painful one. Ours is a realistic dream for a
beautiful future but a bit difficult to translate and so
reminds the practitioners repeatedly to visit. We went
dreamers in early life following a tradition of believing
the worthy teachers. Teachers too may themselves be
dreamers like us, but leader-teacher is a dangerous
category to rely. And we were in the hands of this evil
genius and followed it uncritically without much
experience at the beginning; though we remain always
grateful to such people for the introduction to a worthy
task in life, indeed.
World Communist movement was once the universal
hope. Liberation from servitude of capital had become
the war cry. But its leaders failed the peoples badly in
mid stream. Problem persists and noose tightened
frighteningly. Taking the animal by horns is the only
alternative. The spirit of the movement has to be
resurrected; with renewed vigour. Past should not
deter the merit of the case, despite what leaders did.

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

The society is bigger than leaders who have a place in

museums for children to look at periodically. It is our
life and we must live.
In answer to the times, communist philosophy came up
with the idea to replace capitalist relations, social strife
and inflicted misery. It concretised the aspirations of
working people for a new society on principles of
equity, justice and peace. Twentieth century saw a
grand experiment undertaken on principles so
enunciated first by Marx-Engels and later elaborated
by Lenin. Peoples reposed faith. That experiment,
however, flopped by default and declared as closed,
reverting to old relations. The communist movement in
fact was the dominating philosophy and influenced
liberation struggles of the peoples to come out of
colonial exploitation and misery. But the debacle in its
collapse by 1991 attracted much attention on its cause.
The philosophy of liberation and the vision for a new
bright future is still the cause for much debate,
deliberation and action.
When the experiments in USSR and China floundered
criticism both from friends and foes was carping; none
however made us wiser to move ahead. Haggards have
positions pre-determined, people need to look fresh.
A Self-Critique
Twentieth century saw not only the beginning and collapse
of a grand project in redefining social relations led by mainly
USSR and China though reasons for rise and fall

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

of both are not the same. The experiment was to translate

principles of theory while communist movement is
intended to create ground for social change to occur in
different countries. The experiment was conducted by s
leadership through a state, which had declared itself as
declared itself as dictatorship of proletariat with all
essential elements of armed organ of ruling elites.
The movement was conducted by leaders and ranks of
communists believing their leaders.
The failure of this experiment was universal, since the
leading light symbolised by USSR and China floundered. The
collapse of the experiment brought forward many
conceptions and formulations on its theory put up by the
leadership as basics that failed to materialise. The ebb in
communist movement set in first due to wrong faith in the
concept of authority, symbolised during the period of
experiment
by
USSR
or
China
as
also
simultaneously by a substantial change in correlation of
forces due to shift in composition of working
populations in these countries of experiment.
For both, leadership of communist parties betrayed the
trust that failed miserably to uphold vitality in philosophy.
The loss to experiment and communist movement is great.
In fact, reliance on a communist party as instrument of
communist movement as also of the experiment, proved a
belief. Consequently, movement remained infected with
debilitating faults in conception and practice. Mass of the
people stood disarmed ideologically, socially, culturally
and organisationally in front of brutal enemies in state and
the capital.

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

Ailments and skewed principles

An objective critique of the communist movement is called
for to know what went wrong and why in its journey that
had aroused high hopes and whether it can still has the
capacity
to deliver or needs better alternative model
instead. Since it was communist ideology which had
imbibed the liberation movement to free society from
an utterly decaying capitalist mode, it may be rewarding to
find out if there existed any deficiency in its outlook
somewhere or whether the hope itself was misplaced. Let
us make a statement in the very beginning that failings
of communist movement are much deeper and agonising;
with some aspects which only insiders can perceive
to requisite extent, if obduracy is kept aside, rhetoric left
aside and necessity to learn from practice is overwhelming. Let us as humble communist practitioners
intervene, investigate and search answers to such sticky
questions in all sincerity, shedding bias and preconceived
notions of all hues.
We propose to do what is required in the circumstance with
utter honesty of purpose and with whatever little
knowledge of social relations we have gained through
the struggle. For us, no organisational interests to uphold
principles and safeguard formulations are supreme. We are
insiders; as part of the communist movement we
have many sad experiences. Many questions of theory and
practice do trouble us. We found that not only leaders/
teachers at various levels, ranks too have gone stale in
matters of theory and practice.

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

First Grade Blunder:

State as Instrument of Progress
The fatal blunder leadership after Marx committed, more so
during period of building socialism, was to sidetrack first principal contradiction between people at the
state. It was a major blunder in theory. When this contra
diction was put under carpet, people suffered from a
blurred vision. In such a situation when state comes into
conflict with the ruled, which it generallydoes, people tend t
o bear it. The state gets a lease oflife from such blurred visio
n in mistaken belief that its action is for common good
action is for common good, when it is not. The ruled in such
a situation tend to take oppression as inevitable. The first
instinct to resist goes unattended. Moreover, the
state structure in countries, which claimed that they were
building socialism, did not reflect in any field that it was
transitory in nature, preparing seriously to wither away. The
situation of believing in state as a benevolent
institution proved fatal in Soviet Union. It can happen only
when citizens are made blind on question of state and its
character. In USSR the people were made to believe
that Soviet state is peoples state which it can never.
The
nature of state is always unfriendly to the ruled and citizens
in USSR were never its masters. It cannot be. No alternative
was devised in its place.
With Marxist faith in the strength and creativity of masses,
level of reliance on state structure to build
socialism by Lenin is inexplicable. It sapped energy of
the
masses. Lenin was for a ruthless state machine during the
transitory i.e. socialism. Among the four major

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

contradictions that he enunciated to focus primary

attention of the movement during this era of imperialism
and proletarian revolution this firs
principle
contradiction of present day society curiously did not find
any place in his scheme of logic. The effort to build
socialism paid price for it.
It is worth remembering that state power in Russia as elsewhere did never pass into hands of the masses so
enjoined in a coined slogan for revolution i.e. All Power to
Soviets. In the name of Soviets, again state power remained
centred into hands of a small number of leaders, normally
selected on choice by other leaders in the ruling
communist party or trade unions where coteries worked.
True, it was in the name of workers, soldiers and peasants!
Yet, it was a replica of representative democracy and
a sure travesty of the slogan.
Perhaps, like all rulers in history, leadership in Soviet Union
too disbelieved in the efficacy of peoples power or just
feared mass energy it was bound to release. In any
case, communist party acted against Marxist postulate.
On hindsight, it may be said that over-looking of this
primary contradiction in society certainly was one of Lenins
most devastating disservice to the science of socialism as a
tactician. He placed much of his heart on service of a state
structure to deliver during this phase of the socialist
construction without any tangible check on its fangs. Lenins
postulate on so-called socialist state as peoples state
blinded reason against ruthless state oppression not
always justifiable, especially when it was incumbent first
to persuade some sections of society, especially peasants

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

on economic measures it was taking. The whole

democratic process remained thwarted, people remained
disarmed ideologically and organisationally against might of
the powerful state.
Likewise, Chinese leadership later put its heart on its own
capacity to handle state power, while releasing initially
market forces in its economy. Such an extraordinary belief
in its own capacity, a subjective factor, to handle state
power to mould an objective law of economic operation
was something foolish to believe. It in effect helped in
restoring capitalism with state help and revolution stood
betrayed.

Governance:
Dictatorship of Proletariat
To handle state a concept in theory came for dictatorship of
proletariat. Lenin gave emphasis on it and made it
a litmus test of fidelity
on
revolutionary
practice.
The formulation, however, proved futile. The dictatorship
of proletariat completely failed in eliminating the
bourgeoisie as a class in USSR during almost 74 years of its
uncouth operation, reflecting more as dictatorship than
democratic.
The concept hides behind two wrongs and seeks to justify
its necessity with regulation by the party of
proletariat to invoke confidence in an instrument of
repression. It is a wrong theory to justify existence of state
as an instrument of governance and building socialism
which this formulation seeks to do.

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

Firstly, to reaffirm confidence in state is good for rulers but

fatally bad for the ruled. Secondly, to invest in state the
role of benefactor through sponsoring development
projects with public money is not only bad politics since it
provides legitimacy for another channel to benefit capitalist
class on public expense. It will open another venue
to rob Peter and pay Pal. Thirdly, on both counts this
justification is being utilised by all parties of right to a
highly centralised state as sacrosanct, necessary and
sacrosanct, necessary and inevitable for maintaining law
and order in society and promoting progress, while the
beneficiaries remain capitalist class.
The concept relating to dictatorship of proletariat is a myth
deliberately created to hide behind it the uncouth
exercise of unaccounted authority on a fallacious premise
of proletariat class being revolutionary. It merely legitimises
rule of communist party in its name replacing selfgovernance by the people.
Party Replaced People
The second most important blunder in theory, concerned
about the question of organisation. Lenin as leader/teacher
of revolutionary politics advocated need for a political party
as an instrument for conducting communist movement.
Ideologically speaking, Marx had propounded a concept of
peoples power, workingmen as moving force of history.
Self-emancipation of proletarian looses all meanings. He
had developed an abiding faith in their capacity to
work for social change of a new type with attributes like
creativity and initiative in abundance due to their working
conditions. It got a beating from the concept of political

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

10

party as driving force for social change instead, for

universal application.
Lenin did it first; later magnified manifold by others in line
taking a cue from Marxs utterance on Paris Commune and
perfecting the logic to turn it upside down. It proved a big
shift from the teacher on a vital question of principle
that muddled the exercise to a point of no return. A
political organisation tasked with handling question of
state power replaced people as driving force of revolution
for social change, thus reducing it to mere capture of
state power; a master-stroke to decompose the
concept of socialist revolution indeed.
When the task is assigned to it for capturing state power for
a different class through revolution, as was ordained by
Lenin, willingly or unwillingly it is admitted that state as an
institution to rule over masses remains intact under
changed dispensation and political party will act its tool to
oppress the ruled on dotted line. The communist party
became the party of rule over the people.
The role of masses was thus transferred to a party of
the
elites as self-proclaimed representative of proletariat in the
of class approach. In consequence, Theory
stands changed and the Practice boiled down to outright
elitism where party acts as something superior to the
working people themselves. Where was the necessity to
form a political party and name it communist in conducting
the movement? None, is the answer in short. Taking into
account the Taking into account the difference between
organisation and political party as two formal forms, it
was wrong to go for a political party.

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

11

Despite features of choice added by Lenin to it, a political

party, after coming into being, has its own dynamics
unfolded with its internal mechanism of structure,
mores
and disciplinary code of a formal type instrument. Imbued
with an object of capturing or sharing the state power,
political party in operation is bound to affect its
internal
harmony and create bickering for hegemony giving rise to
self interest of various natures, killing ultimately the
endowed aim from outside of reordering social relations on
communitarian basis. This is what happened in USSR, China,
Vietnam, India, France and Germany to name a few.
See another disturbing feature within these parties: it was
observed
that
with
change of leadership in a ruling
communist party in USSR or China, especially after the
demise of Stalin and Mao respectively, shift in
ideological positions often occurred simultaneously that
started baffling cadres everywhere, while leadership of
communist parties elsewhere followed change in policy
as meekly and obediently. So the formulations changed as
easily with change in command! What sort of objectivity in
such a game? There were no signs of any critical appraisal of
discarded positions and/or freshly undertaken. Blindness
reigned supreme; turning such a leadership staled in
approach and practice.
The noticeable stink inside these parties grew
universally
and at speed, though many aspects of this bad
breath drew serious attention only after tragic collapse of
Soviet experiment by 1991 and China earlier. It made us
collate things afresh in proper sequence thereafter. The
state power where it ruled or power-game played for
capturing state apparatus corrupted in intellect, cultural

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

12

and morals while Individual interests laced their way of life

with impunity. Communists, hardly?
Production Made Primary
For industrial spree, less said the better. Raising production,
ipso facto, is not progress. It cannot be. Production
must have an object to sub-serve; material
goods
that
satisfy social needs with harmony and peace. To chase
production and the productivity in themselves for capital
accumulation i.e. maximising profits breeds essentially
a
rich field ruling for constant tension and conflict.
This cannot serve social needs and hence not worth to serve
the object of growth.
Non-socialist mode of production
The leadership in socialist countries, including Lenin and
Stalin and Mao deliberately opted to build socialism by
capitalist means. It proved a bigger tragedy of sorts. Not
only that, to achieve higher level of production unnecessary
faith was placed on industrial mode of production in
unchaste haste by copying Adam Smith and Ricardo, who
were high priests of unabashed capitalism and
individual enterprise; ignoring the aspect of stability to
society that industrialisation cannot provide, where speed is
the essence. It forgot deliberately that so far development
in capitalist mode was dependent on internal as well as
external expropriation and deprivation of commons in
addition to surplus value as a matter of principle. Denying
private right to property does not change the character of
capital that expropriates to generate more capital.
It surprises that how such a leadership could introduce, so
easily and without any dissenting voice about a production

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

13

system in the country that in effect bred individualism to no

end, as it was bound to do. It is fairly known that uncouth
individualism as a philosophy of life is product of industrial commercial revolution and that Marxists do contest it on
logical grounds. The self-perpetuating, self-seeking and
crafty leadership on the other hand sought to fight this
individuality to attain uniformity instead, where it lost
control over both. There were allegations galore that the
dignity of man was suppressed, at times ruthlessly, in the
name of fighting individualism to the extent of justifying
even physical violence.
Many times the individuality was mixed up with
individualism. Times testified that this proved a tragedy of
proportions with no redeeming features.
Basically, this European model of development had
emerged and flourished on large-scale internal and
external expropriation. It could not be otherwise in
Soviet Union, as also in other so-called socialist
countries, though direct external expropriation in their case
was not possible. After collapse many complained about the
internal expropriation in USSR. Naturally, these
countries
had to bear resultant effects of this model in spite of the
fact that means of production were in command of
state, with a powerful leadership and a vast political army
of cadres to direct and control.
Building socialism through economic principles of capitalism
on pretentious grounds led the experiment to wilderness.
Still communist leadership world over clung to it and has
not learnt anything from collapse of Soviet game-plan.

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

14

Another query; how long commodity production will last in

a socialist structure and how best to offset its
effect in social relations? How this dialectics will play out in
practice when, practically both the socialist and capitalist
nation-states exist and national jingoism is worked
up, off and on by rulers to seek mass support for such faulty
and wrong actions, while beating rivals on false scores?
There is no doubt that in course of their rule Soviet, Chinese
or the Vietnamese leadership, among others fell,
prey to this jingoism in name of theory, where ranks in their
respective organisations went mute followers.
Failures Examined Inadequately
With collapse of socialist camp, many reasons were
advanced for mass consumption by failed leadership
according to respective perceptions. None however looked
into salient formulations of theory and practice that failed
to deliver, lest it demolish their own credibility to lead.
Many of them turned coats as per flow of winds to
safeguard their careers. Communists, not the least!
For example: There was no adequate explanation from any
quarter what was the source of huge wealth found
with hordes of leaders, including high ranking officers in Red
Army, in these countries of communist faith, if individualism
had
not
ruled
social
life
and
misuse
of
authority did not occur there underneath.
To find such conduct in cultural degradation of individuals
amounts to mere clever diversion and skirting the issue. It
does not explain cause of the disease that made possible
for such a vide spread theft by one category of people or
the other, when there was no legal right to hold private

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

15

property in USSR. The rot to rob public property during

a period after collapse of USSR raises a question on the level
of socialist consciousness generated during over seven
decades of the proletarian dictatorship there. If
proletarian dictatorship survives on fear alone how it may
be rated as different from bourgeois dictatorship then?

Enigma: Individualism
One cannot ignore the growth of individualism in the womb
of socialist society of their make in USSR, despite
dictatorship of proletariat working for seven decades in that
country with no right of private property.
It was a sheer riddle to find individualism raging to that
degree in Soviet Union. China also could not escape same
tragedy and so in Vietnam. There is no riddle however in it.
The dependence on industrial mode produce less scope of
plenty to offset wants of people and more of individualism
from its womb, despite ideological offensive for a
socialist philosophy to have its sway. The said socialist
experiment did produce enough individualism which had
provided the single most solid ground for capitalist relations
to take over but could not produce plenty of soaps in these
countries. A tragedy of sorts, no doubt it is.
Individualism which found congenial ground to prosper was
most effective factor that killed the new experiment and led
to the collapse of entire Soviet camp. But leadership
was at its best to avoid investigating it.
In effect, leadership successfully took recourse to such pep
talks that helped in putting off both substantive issues from
radar. What it did at its creative best resulted in
engaging communist/socialist cadres in peripheral issues of

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

16

insignificance It beautifully saved the capitalist mode from

searching glare and its ugly character remained out of
reach for any serious challenge. Responsibility for this
post-collapse ideological surrender deliberately to capitalist
machinations or lies with the careerist leadership of these
communist parties. The ranks remained mere followers.
On question of organisation we may talk a bit more. It was
Lenin again, who by making party a pre-condition to
revolution, created a fetish of it that blunted the
creative
thinking among them a difficult proposition by leaders while
ranks in the communist movement turned sterile with fatal
consequences.
Lenin and Question of Organisation
It needs to be investigated and studied as to how certain
myths in communist movement itself were built around
questions of organisation. It is important to realise how in
course of time difference between an organisation and a
political party was obliterated, deliberately.
True, importance of a formal type of organisation was once
stressed by Marx when he analysed failure of the Paris
Commune and started making efforts along with his many
compatriots to fill gap by organising the First International
Workingmen Association.
Later, it was Lenin as a master strategist and tactician in a
tearing hurry to capture state power who had laid his own
course and gave shape to an under- ground organisation
for overthrow of Czarist autocracy when he was confronting
a plethora of problems working with various types of people
in revolutionary movement of Russia. In course of this
struggle, he developed a whole philosophy of organisation

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

17

pertaining to the interest of working class and termed it

as an organisation of a new type to stress its distinct
feature from older genre.
It is known that bourgeoisie as a ruling class felt threatened
of its own kin in democracy at a stage of development all
because it had released mass energy of colossal degree. To
obviate the danger, it laboured in converting it into
representative form instead and groomed it into a political
party to control and regulate the jinn, ensuring its own life
safe from insetting turmoil.
It is known in political theory that ruling bourgeoisie is safe
with representative democracy, while the working masses
need participative democracy where they can utilise mass
energy and creativity for social governance. History was
ignored in hurry.
After crafting the insidious institution in a political party of
representative character, Lenin proceeded fast to create
cardinal principles of organisation for the communist party.
He had termed one as democratic centralism with a single
centre of authority, a paid membership, and a band of
professional revolutionaries forming its core, putting it
an integrated whole. It reflected the spirit in organisation.
Another fundamental postulate he laboriously elaborated
as dictatorship of the proletariat.
To concretise the form of socialist revolution, another
postulate was advanced that made capturing of state
power a pre-condition to socialist construction by over
throwing the old order from state power. Thus, the whole
revolution was thus turned into a dog fight for state power
and then holding it tight in image of revolution.

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

18

Since the Soviet communist party monopolised power after

revolution in 1917, on behalf of workers, soldiers and
peasants as single representative of proletariat, both the
postulates i.e. democratic centralism and dictatorship of the
proletariat pertaining to different categories happened to
merge together and became rooted in the system. The third
element of party being a vanguard of proletariat completed
the juggernaut that turned the ruling leadership absolute in
authority to subdue people in the name of revolution.
This proved fatal in the long run for society as well as for a
set up devised to give it a fresh shape.
Lenin was not to live beyond January 1924. His successors
translated his postulates in a difficult situation with zeal and
vigour, more weight to Lenins words afterwards than the
spirit, perhaps to bolster position of leading group against
others in struggle for supremacy within ruling junta. It led to
feuds, coups, violence and disintegration of structure.
What Lenin himself said about the organisational principles,
let us turn to Congress of Third Communist International
that had adopted a resolution on organisation in 1921?
Lenin could appear for a brief period in the Fourth Congress
next year and denounced this resolution of this
International in unequivocal terms. This is what Lenin
Lenin in his report to Congress on November 13, 1922 said
about it:
At the Third Congress, in 1921, we adopted a resolution on
organisational structure of the communist parties and on
the methods and content of their activities. The resolution
is an excellent one, but it is almost entirely Russian, that
is to say, everything in it is based on Russian conditions.

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

19

This is its good point, but it is also its failing. It is its failing
because I am sure that no foreigner can read it. I have read
it again before saying this. In the first place, it is too long,
containing fifty or more points. Foreigners are not
usually able to read such things.
Secondly, even if they read it, they will not understand it
because it is too Russian. Not because it is written in
Russian- it has been excellently translated into all the
languages - but because it is thoroughly imbued with
Russian spirit. And thirdly, if by way of exception some does
understand it, he cannot carry it out. This is its third defect.
I have talked with a few of the foreigner delegates and
hopes to discuss matters in detail with a large number of
them from different countries during the Congress, though I
shall not take part in its proceedings, for unfortunately it is
impossible for me to do that.
I have the impression that we made a big mistake with
this resolution, namely that we blocked our own road to
further success. As I have said already, the resolution is
excellently drafted; I am prepared to subscribe to every one
of its fifty or more points. But we have not learnt how to
present our Russian experience to foreigners. All that was
said in resolution has remained a dead letter. If we do not
realise this, we shall be unable this, we shall be unable to
move ahead.
I think that after five years of the Russian revolution
the most important thing for all of us, Russian and foreign
comrades alike, is to sit down and study. We have only now
obtained the opportunity to do so. I do not know how long
this opportunity will last. I do not know how long the

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

20

capitalist powers will give us the opportunity to study

in peace. But we must take advantage of every moment of
respite from fighting, from war, to study and to study from
scratch. The whole party and all strata of the population of
Russia prove this by their thirst for knowledge. This
striving to learn shows that our most important task today
is to study and study hard. Our foreign comrades too must
study. I do not mean that they have to learn to read and
write and to understand, as we still have to do.
There is a dispute as to whether this concerns proletarian or
bourgeois culture. I shall leave the question open. But one
thing is certain: we have to begin by learning to read and
write and to understand what they read. Foreigners do not
need that. They need something more advanced: first of all,
among other things they must learn to understand what we
have written about organisational structure of communist
parties and what the foreign comrades have signed without
reading and understanding. This must be their first task. The
resolution must be carried out. It cannot be carried out over
night; that is absolutely impossible. The resolution is too
Russian, it reflects Russian experience. That is why it is
quite unintelligible to foreigners and they cannot be
content with hanging it in a corner like an icon and praying
to it. Nothing will be achieved that way. They must
assimilate part of the Russian experience. Just how that will
be done, I do not know what we are studying in the
general sense. They however, must study in the special
sense, in order that they really understand the organisation,
structure, the method and content of revolutionary work. If
they do that, I am sure the prospects of the world
revolution will not be good, but excellent.

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

21

Teaching Ignored
That did not happen. In all likelihood, Russian compatriots
did not heed the advice of their teacher to study and avoid
help in drafting resolutions for the world wide movement
based on Russian spirit; apparently foreigners also shirked
study in a special way as suggested by the leader to the
disadvantage of both.
This resolution is popularly known as Leninist principles of
party organisation in communist parlance. The leadership
that succeeded him later, perhaps, found much meaning in
his comment that resolution is excellent one and must be
carried out, casting aside his study that by adopting
this resolution we made a big mistake.
Despite the admission of mistake by the teacher, followers
after him continued treading the easy path faithfully and
are continuing till now. Lenin though was forthright in his
remarks on this Russian resolution by Third International
and much concerned about averting tragedy it implied.
Still, it could not be averted.
The tragedy however unfolded when this resolution by the
International with Russian spirit continued to remain a
touch stone of organisational fidelity with formations world
over. The Russian spirit permeates almost in all such
formulations for universal application till the collapse of the
experiment in Russia itself. No other variation was allowed
to enter domain. Not much is known how this happened to
materialise despite warning from the teacher of its ills.
These principles of organisation from Lenin are not merely
dependent on a particular resolution from CPSU or third

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

22

international which he himself repudiated. How it occurred

then? History is the best answer. Let us study.
Myths around organisation
Principle of Democratic Centralism
The Bolshevik party under leadership of Lenin successfully
captured
state
power
in
Russia
through
Socialist Revolution of 1917. The era of imperialism and
proletarian revolution inaugurated by this revolution was
dominated
by
few
concepts
developed
and
practised by communist parties chiselled as instruments of
change to over throw capitalism and build socialism,
guided mainly by Lenin. One was the principle of democratic
centralism. It gained currency and became central to any
communist organisation.
Lenin distinguished his understanding of proletarian
democracy as superior to the one prevalent bourgeois
democracy, but underlined it with emphasis on
centralism as its distinguishing trait. Proletarian democracy
emphatically was relegated to a partial role only for the
proletarians to enjoy. Since bourgeoisie as a class was to be
eliminated as per scheme for proletarian revolution to
succeed, it was denied any right under this new form of
democracy. In between there remained
other sections of
society, like family farmers who also were by implication
kept out of its purview, though for some period
these were designated as friends of the proletarians to be
treated differently from enemy class.
Democracy Rests on Individual entity
Lenin worked zealously to distinguish between proletarian
democracies from old bourgeoisie democracy; he could not

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

23

or did not conveniently foresee danger in its basic

ingredient in individualism. Democracy takes individual
as its primary object of concern, all because of its
class origin in industrial capital. Basically, the concept of
democracy was brought in to serve bourgeois class with
individual rights made sacrosanct. Socialist thought
cannot afford to borrow such a concept that goes contrary
to its basic principles as it did. No better alternative in
consonance with its principles of social cohesion under
socialist thought was conceived to replace individualist
approach. Tragedy occurred.
Similarly tragedy occurred also on representative form of
democracy that had reduced the whole concept to a sham.
Happily representative form of democracy was embraced,
with nor regret. All power to soviets had remained
ineffective to the last with highly centralised party at the
top with no effective check from below.
All rulers in human history fear the energies of active mass
of the people most. Soviet rulers fared no better.
Neither Chinese, nor the Vietnamese after revolution fared
different. The same is true of other so-called socialist
countries. With such concentration of authority in hands of
a centralised leadership, the initiative and activism of rank
and file in a communist party is extinguished like-wise.
In such a condition, initiative of people is a far cry to expect.
People will remain lifeless mass where leaders rule.
In
democracy, as a matter of principle, people are supreme.
Representative democracy ostensibly, was brought in by
bourgeoisie to manage its unwieldy massenergy! But in prac
tice it was designed to sideline powerof people and in its pla

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

24

ce representative was placedabove people to rule them ba

sically with help of armedmachinery. Lenin fell for it, knowin
gly or unknowingly.
As a result, democracy was extinguished in Soviet
Union;
what remained was a absurd dictatorship over the people,
fully armed, arrogant, unaccounted, manipulative and
unrepentant. In realm of political organisation, the damage
was much more pernicious. Alienation of people from the
ruling party and the state there occurred.
Here in bourgeois democracy, the representative
virtually replaces its
principle
master, its creator- the
people, while the institution of political party faithfully
discharges its duty assigned to it by history and paralyses
the peoples power to contain effects of democracy on the
dotted line. The story in Soviet Union was no different.
The very idea of a party from Lenin as being the vanguard is
untenable. To assume representative character of a class
having varied and at times conflicting interests even within
the industrial proletariat by a party is a fallacy deliberately
created. The worst sufferers were the working people
world over for no fault of theirs. They paid price in believing
a wrong concept, uncritically. It was a dangerous path full of
sludge that led it surely to ruin.
In wielding state power, representative vanguard in
the
shape of a communist party placing itself even above
the
class with no check from its parent source proved a farce
of high magnitude in the name of proletarian democracy as
the capitalist class did in case of its own democracy. There
was no clear cut break down past to chart a new course.

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

25

Centralism is antithetic to the concept of communism

which cannot be justified on logic of consonance during its
transitory stage of socialism, if this stage is not defined
something hostile to a stateless stage of communism based
on self-management of civic affairs by its citizens in
communitarian settings. The transitory stage of socialism
must be designed to prepare for switching over to this
stateless communism. The transitory stage must not go wild
to a contrary setting. Future of mankind resides in noncentralised and self-regulatory polity, after bearing a highly
inhuman stage of centralised one that was crafted to serve
interests of minority over the majority for expropriation.
Highly centralised state machinery under socialist stage cannot graduate to discharge this duty to prepare the ground
for a non-centralised and self-managed communist society
propounded by Marx and Engels.
The characteristic of a centralised polity under capitalism to
cater interests of industrial-commercial-financial complex is
much nearer to its nature. The tragedy however was severe
when it struck roots in erstwhile Soviet Union as an
industrialised state that once professed socialism.
There was another folly. The Lenins principle of democratic
centralism contrived for a communist party was applied to
all social economic formations like Trade Unions and
Peasant organisations. That had stifled the whole
whole social life with no safety valve to breath safe.
Dictatorship of Proletariat
Presuming that the proletariat (industrial labour), as the
most potently revolutionary class under capitalism, is the
harbinger of social change from capitalist relations to social

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

26

relations in society, the theory was crafted that a state will

usher in a revolutionary bliss under its leadership and
socialism being a transitory stage where forcefully driven
out of state power, the capitalist class necessarily has to be
kept suppressed, so it will remain an armed dictatorship of
the proletariat. Logic went like this.
After capturing state power in November 1917, the new
state was called as Union of Soviet Socialist Republics USSR)
and termed as to be a dictatorship of Proletariat, while
simultaneously it was announced to be a new form of
democracy which is better than bourgeois democracy.
How it faired in USSR during its rule for 74 years? Briefly,
there was nothing democratic in it to brag about. It was as
representatives-based sham of a democracy in essence.
Bourgeois democracy, also a representative-based system,
is a fraud in the name of democracy that serves capitalist
development. The Soviet democracy too did nothing better
than development of capitalist accumulation as in all
capitalist countries do in the rest of the world.
Soviet Union was thus another tragedy of sorts. It produced
a lot of capital which world hailed as a remarkable
achievement in development and termed it as another
super-power. But, so what is there exceptional to the
workingmen/women for celebration about this status of a
super-power? Labour-power as source of this expropriation
remained at the mercy of state power and was a subject of
repression, if ever it defied the law of exploitation, as in
other capitalist countries.
There emerged another feature of the dictatorship of
proletariat in USSR: The proletariat class stood equated with

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

27

communist party and the party was equated with its Polit
Bureau while it was equated with the supreme leader, when
dictatorship permeated al-through its spines! Democracy at
all stages remained formal; subject to the wishes of the
powerful. At top of the hierarchy both in the ruling party
and the government, including its legislative bodies power
remained vested with the successful manipulator-in-chief.
With cosmetic variance, it was nothing superior to what
capitalist democracies offer, in essence. Barring expert
propagandists, this ultimately threw up a full crop of
intellectual dwarfs from amongst the new generation of
communists in USSR and consequently in the whole of the
movement during its period of experiment. Then, what is
there to celebrate about this concept of proletarian
dictatorship? It remained dictatorship, pure and simple. As
a concept, it could not have been otherwise.
In centralised structure the proletarian dictatorship
bred clearly a pyramid like Brahmanical hierarchy in
operation with inbred arbitrariness. It created a class
division within organisation, leading to antagonism breading
suspicion and confusion of worst kind and encouraged
isolation from the masses, with octopus like bureaucracy at
the top. The impregnable wall between leaders and the led
became a reality worse than one between citizens and their
elected representatives in parliamentary political frame. If
Leon Trotsky had labelled such structures as bureaucratic
socialism during his tiff with Stalin for supremacy, the fact
that bureaucracy had over-powered the experiment with
iron grip does not loose relevance for study.

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

28

Second, if defining the democratic centralism was good

enough, yet nowhere in world had it flowered as postulated
that defines its universal failure. One cannot find a single
case of a communist party where this principle worked as
defined. It proved at best a beautiful mirage to talk about,
yet crafty enough for the leadership to introduce a system
of subduing ranks and the masses for its arbitrary rule and
conduct; a refined method in self justification of high
handedness in practice.
Having a central object in capturing state power for social
change or bringing high speed development, having huge
privileges tagged along, all communist parties everywhere
turned mere cesspool of intrigues and worst manipulations.
It left two main possibilities open for explanations: one,
individual interests predominated within leadership of
parties craving for privileges of power attached with such
organism as armed state; second, possibly an infantile
infatuation for utilising armed power of state establishment
must have turned too nasty with leaders to play truant with
Lenins own postulate about state. In both cases,
however, communist philosophy remained the real victim.
Clearly, the organisational principles based on democratic
centralism did provide an easy route for leadership to
hammer party along their group interests in name of class
while making cheating easy in the name of revolution
by sheer regimentation. This did prove fatal to the very
experiment.
Principle of Vanguard Party
Fourthly, it is presumed that self-proclaimed vanguard party
of the proletariat represents the whole class and acts on its

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

29

behalf; even without providing its legitimacy reasonably

ever, to claim claim mystic support of a amorphous class for
its arbitrary conduct. It is a deliberate myth created with
hard labour perhaps to ride roughshod over society with
least accountability. This myth of vanguard party helped to
create arrogance in cadres and leaders leading to
alienation of worst kind.
Fifth, a class of parasitic professionals in politics is
created with inflated arrogance of their infallibility, superior
knowledge and a false sense of sacrifice to rule, with all
evil influences to rub society at wrong ends. It hardly helps
to create a better man, capable to take over a
communist society to higher form of self-management.
Sixth, operation of these so-called principles in organisation
leaves virtually its General Secretary of the party at best a
sole arbiter of social good with no reasonable and reliable
check what so ever. The whole centralised party structure
unfailingly creates an emasculated band of professional
politicians, who are supposed to exercise another myth in
criticism and self-criticism of their leaders to checkmate
possible distortions. It never worked anywhere what it is
supposed to deliver so far.
The system groomed by Lenin to Stalin as also Beria,
Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin in Soviet Union
and Mao to Deng in China, while in Vietnam from Ho
Chi Minh to much little pygmies in other countries
thereafter as arbiters of social good with generations to
suffer in the end. It is like playing lottery drakes with future
of society that no serious activist would like to arbiter.

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

30

Seven, if once communist party is accepted as

repository of working class interest par excellence, adage
that best available is elected to posts in leadership then
stands endowed with highest of wisdom that go to make
aristocracy give rise to at the top and followers meek
enough to accept it perennially in intellectual and also
organisational sense. In such circumstances, intellectual
dwarfism observed of late in communist movement world
over is not surprising a development. Discipline in such
dispensation is used to smooth away rough edges but to
curtail perceived threats to leadership, even by violent
methods at times, so common in communist movement.
Eighth, accusation that leadership in a communist party is
self-perpetuating cannot be brushed aside lightly with such
absurd postulates in organisation.
Ninth, level of alienation people felt in Soviet Union
from
such a leadership, as also of reluctance seen among working
masses to join ranks of communist parties was quite visible
during last few years of its rule.
The concept of authority provides much needed grist to the
principle of democratic centralism. The concept ofauthority
in a communist party needs be scrutinised afresh, totally
rejecting iniquitous grades and privileges. The communist
parties universally now have lost credibility for following
wrong concepts and manipulative practice face a situation
where these survive merely on the concept of authority in
political field just as state does in matters of governance.
The unfortunate aspect is that by hammering this concept
of authority as sacrosanct by communist leadership for
long, the people by now stand conditioned to its necessity

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

31

when the very concept of non-centralised polity of selfmanagement stands debunked as useless. It is tragic legacy
from them which even the future has to contend.
Indian Experience:
Case of genuine communist party!
How leadership translates such formulations? The example
to illustrate must come from a self-proclaimed and selfconfessed genuine one, though other non-genuine like
CPI, CPI (M), CPI (ML) are almost similar in content. The case
of a genuine among them will help to provide better
insight into the morass these gentlemen are stuck and took
theory and communist movement as their hand maid with
impunity, despite honest ranks in them.
The so-called real communist party in India prides that
basing on the principle of democratic centralism, the
party, like human organism, has to be necessarily a single
organic whole of monolithic character, developing a
collective leadership, concretely personified in its highest
organ of command and its democratic functioning on the
basis of centralism, ideological and organisational, the
former leading to the latter to take shape.
It asks its members to develop one process of thinking,
uniformity of thinking, oneness in approach and singleness
of purpose on matters covering all aspects of life. At
another level, party tells its members that the process
involves subordination of the individual to the organisation,
of the minority to the majority, of the lower to the central
committee of the party.
These are few gems of wisdom from this group. Explaining
it to pliant ranks that this is proletarian democracy that

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

32

emanates from a proletarian class outlook, reflecting a

proletarian way, that is collective way of life. Party asks for
subordination to be conscious, voluntary and happy.
This party teaches that interest of the party is interest of
the toiling people in general and the working class in
particular should be placed above all other interests. Party
discipline should be observed unfailingly and decisions of
the leading bodies carried out strictly and happily
identifying himself/herself with the interest of the party,
the class and the revolution.
Yes, identifying oneself with interest of party, class and the
revolution is a unique demand in rhythmical way from
its
leaders for typical uniformity. There is no way for cadres of
party to go except what this party thinks about class
and
revolution and how it defines these categories in its
wisdom. As per this leadership, cause of revolution so
interpreted by it decides the truth; facts may be created
accordingly. It is a demand for complete surrender to the
leadership to leadership of this party, both on intellectual
and organisational grounds on the strength of democratic
centralism propounded by Lenin. It can breed nothing but
dwarfs in the movement ultimately, as it did.
Jargons apart, no one can beat this, perhaps to plead
for
such a hideous Brahmanical hierarchy, creating both caste
and the class division at the same time in a self-confessed
genuine communist party of sorts! There is no doubt that
this feat was achieved under this Leninist principle of
democratic centralism for a party organisation.
The leadership of this genuine communist organisation is
never tired of its claim of original contributions to a higher

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

33

understanding of communist principles in Indian soil, in dire

justification of its existence. The scrutiny, however, of its
past of more than sixty eight years is quite a revealing
chapter in self praise.
Tricky premise
An absurd premise was developed by this only communist
party that a revolutionary organisation has to be modelled
like a human organism. The premise, wittingly or
unwittingly, justifies division of labour between mental
and physical labour, typically a capitalist theory on growth
in economy for better organisation of expatriations of skills
giving rise to hierarchy and maximisation of profits, while in
sociological terms a justification for Brahmanical varnas in
social stratification.
Such a division of labour power pushes artificial division
between cadres and leaders falsifies Marxist understanding
of a just social order, where withering away of such
division is a prerequisite.
Why this principle is inevitable in a communist party? It is
not explained. There is nothing in science to suggest that a
formal organisation that is a communist party can be
equated with natural organism as human being is.
For birth and later for their growth processes both in human
organism and a political formation are totally different
categories and incomparable. To ascribe such features
between two incompatibles is the worst conditioning for
uniform thinking cannot but lead to worst regimentation of
thought in a party, killing creativity and initiative in society
to a level of fascist absurdity.

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

34

Pleading for developing collective leadership concretely

personified through an individual placed at the highest level
in organisation is plainly a minesweeping job for a supreme
leader at top of organisation as an embodiment of wisdom,
generally found only in Brahmanical order taken copiously
from Manuvadi social stratification in India.
On another aspect none can beat this genuine party on its
Marxist wisdom. The leader teaches: if a revolutionary fails
to transform members of his family into revolutionaries
then his relations with them should cease forever. This is
fundamental issue. Again, the revolutionary may feel pain
if his beloved (or wife) is not a comrade. But he knows
countless beloveds will come, relieve him of his torment
and fill his heart with love. And: those who cannot
surrender self, love, affection, tenderness, family, his
everything to party, can never be a communist of first rank.
This is how study in a special way is carried to abnormal
absurdities and theory is made, remade and broken. One
thing certainly can be said that this party falls much too
short on practice, while it is a very sad tale on morals and
conduct. With such principles, party has taken a fascist
character in behaviour and practice with a Brahmanical
hierarchy intact, having no respect to those principles of its
own make, when outright lies are used as normal tricks in
the game at need.
The Practice
Understanding goes that theory and practice must work in
concert with each other; practice has to serve theory and
theory must guide practice to remain in step with it. But it
hardly worked like it in these parties who remained busy in

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

35

playing games of power. Most often leadership exhibits

capabilities in theorising practice for the followers to
remain loyal both in realm of state and political organisation
in USSR, China and others as vanguard of ruling classes is a
good indication how the system faulted.
It is incontestable that communists have
been
valiant
fighters for the social cause. People depended on them for
lead and believed their words. They had earned credibility
over a long period for integrity, selfless dedication to the
cause and fearless sacrifices from innumerable fighters had
become an illuminating history for young to emulate.
However, what peoples in different countries professing
socialism ultimately experienced in the last decade of
twentieth century is a sad story in betrayal by the very
leadership in command. Apart, in countries where capitalist
onslaught continues unabated and communist parties
profess fidelity to workingmen, experiences about
the
leadership were no different. No doubt that some where
something went terribly wrong.
It is noticed that while concretising many important aspects
of theory in search of easy and rapid short cuts to build
socialism, the communist leadership faulted seriously. On
practice the blunders are of no less magnitude. For the first,
let us cite a few examples.
The split in world communist movement and emergence of
its two hostile blocks, one led by the big brother Soviet
Union and the other by China, was a first serious blow to its
image of international solidarity and comradeship.
Narrow national interests worked to over-shadow principles
instead. Hegemony got currency. The prestige earned by

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

36

Soviet Union, as a consistent harbinger of peace in the

world and supporter of independence struggles in colonial
countries as also a victorious giant in the war against
fascism stood badly shaken. It emerged as a
narrow nationalist state in search of hegemony, while China
contented on the same plane.
It is an irony of sorts that the Chinese leadership have not
only shed off international communist movement, but
turned inward for nationalist objectives alone, whereas
earlier it had claimed leadership of the international
communist movement as a genuine upholder of principles
in contest to CPSU! Almost similar was the case with
Vietnamese leadership, who were later found lining up their
young girls for presenting roses in search of dollars to the
same visiting Americans on their shore.
Here an important question arises: despite claim of internationalist solidarity as an abiding principle in communist
movement what is the place for fidelity to national causes
and how both can meet simultaneously?
One unmistakable fact emerged that political class came out
as nothing different from its historical parentage in the long
run. The last ruling patriarch of USSR, Mikhail
Gorbachev, along with his much ambitious wife celebrated
fulfilment of their life dream and the Soviet Camp was
declared dead by 1991. The ruling parties in countries of
Soviet camp stood disbanded without tears. Poland paved
the way earlier on whims of Pope claiming affinity with
Polish nationality. Its trade union by the name of Solidarity
proved the disgracing force.

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

37

Chinese revolution had started moving to death earlier but

with crafty jargons none protested against from the
communist movement. Those who had supported the
system in USSR from outside the ring were surprised to find
billionaires over night in Moscow, including some
commanders of the Red Army which had adorned the red
star to defend socialist system. The ruling PoliticalBureau was inhabited by Berias, Brezhnevs, Yeltsins and the
by Berias, Brezhnevs, Yeltsins and the like of Gorbachevs,
who could easily find space in an organisation of new type
groomed by none else than Lenin with those high principles
of organisation.
Society in the old socialist camp reversed back with much
vengeance, having a corresponding structure to support.
The reversal brought back all those social relations that
breed strife, greed, manipulations and crime in tail. It was
brought by those who knew all about dark features of
capitalism in the past and the present.
How people of USSR accepted this to happen in a society
that was in turmoil for long in quest of new initiatives for
social justice, is another aspect of the question. How in a
communist organisation of Lenin and Stalin, such persons
could invent a practice of offering gifts to leaders and used
it like a ladder to rise in party hierarchy?
Who will explain as to how Yeltsin the drunkard could
sneak into its Polit-Bureau who later proved to be stooge of
America in lust for state power like none else. It is a sad
commentary on infallibility of organisational principles of
party sanctioned by none other than Lenin and Stalin and
the Third International?

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

38

When a section among fighters for communism, especially

its leaders, turned as rulers in many countries, people found
them wanting on many important counts as usual.
Serious questions were raised on their conduct. Over a long
period of observation and practice has given a chance to
see through what leaders in communist parties preach and
what they do in practice, barring a few honourable
exceptions, whose dedication and honesty of purpose is
unimpeachable. In fact these exceptions are the glittering
stars that attract common mass to the ideology like a
magnet. Even best in bourgeois world could not find place
in the rolls of honour. But these remain exceptions, not the
rule which was the expectation from communists.
The communist movement, however, demands necessarily
attributes of honesty of purpose in thought and practice
pervading all its ranks.
It was found that where ever communist leadership was
engaged in political-games to capture or share
power they were easily resorting to manipulations, mean
methods and shady deals like any other party, not the least
compatible with declared principles it was supposed to
follow. Privileges associated with state power and pelf
attracted these leaders no less than others that created
strong grounds for alienation within ranks.
Take another yardstick. Despite their claim on organisation
of an opposite class to the capital, plight today of
communist or socialist parties of Marxist orientation again
underlines the inherent bourgeois characteristics. These
parties are as faction ridden as any other infested by selfcentred careerists to gain status or grab pelf and power.

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

39

This is but a sure symptom of individualism working within

unabated to serve capitalist growth in society.
Organisational principles apart, communists or socialists
subscribing to Marxism are as corrupt and compromising as
as in parties of any other faith are today, but stand more
regimented and closed. There is hardly anything special to
distinguish these entities, other than rhetoric on ideology
and disciplinary faith.
In their zeal of being part of a vanguard, the leaders easily
slipped into a conceited lot with arrogance unbound. They
took it to themselves that what they say is the
only truth, how they look at things is right and surely logical.
The other opinion was equated with betrayal of
faith; suspicion reigned supreme with manipulators having a
heyday, ultimately shutting out intellectual regeneration.
While polemics with adversaries, even Lenin paved way for
a haughty style that later turned into a hallmark of selfrighteousness and crude behaviour with the opponent,
many times with hollow reasoning. This ultimately belittled
the role of a man and human dignity became the easy
victim. The provision of inner-struggle in a communist
party taken as a dependable mechanism for self-correction
and a sure antidote to miscarriage of just conduct proved a
virtual hoax. Nowhere, in no communist party this
mechanism ever proved effective to check the rot or help
correct a deviation in time.
Rather, there are instances in legion when those taken
in
over the promise of inner-struggle had to pay heavy price
for their impudence in challenging established
leadership of time even where party was not in power. The

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

40

case of ruling parties was despicable in this regard and

brought much bad name. Violence was freely used to settle
issues, branding any voice of dissent as treason against
state, inviting capital punishment at will, provision of
criticism and self-criticism loosing even its face value.
As highest organs of authority of Lenins type within
communist parties, Central Committees or Polit-Bureaus ,
or like Control Commissions that were supposed to
balance arbitrary powers of C.C and PBs, were turned easily
as mere pack of hand-picked loyalists of ruling ones. In
numerous cases, Spineless people entered these institutions
of authority, like Gorbachev, Yeltsin. If democracy was the
word, how it happened then that with a change of
an individual in command effected immediate change in
policy-making bodies too with members having tendencies
for clapping new leader all the time.
In one case Khrushchev got a decision changed in his favour
with active help of an armed band by keeping the entire
Polit bureau hostage, got rid of all inconvenient members of
the Bureau and Central Committee immediately thereafter
taking the country in his boot by capturing
the
total
administrative machinery, along with Red Army. It cannot
be explained, except as a treacherous machination by
people infested with sheer individualism, manifesting in
sheer group politics for retaining or capturing state power
that must be useful to one.
With such conditions in a so-called communist party there is
nothing surprising to find that initiative and activism of
masses stood evaporated in all countries of socialist camp.
Non-ruling communist parties too habitually behave with

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

41

people as if these are doers and people have simply to

repose faith in them!
See another facet. Propaganda is neatly
important
for
dissemination of information and help kindling awareness.
But mastering tricks in mis-information and outright disinformation is a crime against humanity with no justification
whatsoever, more so if it is done utilising extensive state
resources. Ruling parties, including communist parties were
found resorting to such methods unchecked with the
people when they were manipulated to doctored truths.
Stories abound when falsehood was resorted to and truth
suppressed only to buttress a particular set of leaders.
Arrogance of being vanguard have done much damage
when people are taken as mere tools to be treated
and educated by these superior humans as teachers, not
as colleagues in matters knowledge.
Another facade of political parties is illustrated by what they
do in these legislative chambers of present day set up.
They become happy collaborators in manipulating
these
institutions to subdue people. The sad Indian story is an
eloquent testimony. It blunted consciousness of the masses.
The accumulated dirt and moss in communist parties again
was a telling testimony to ill effects of this centralised
polity. It has sapped zeal out and left communist movement
gasping. The masses stood aside and leadership
remained content with their privileges as a class of rulers;
they surpassed even bourgeois rulers in many cases and
corrupted such organisations to bones.
This is said to remind all those practitioners of revolutionary
ideology that there is nothing sacrosanct about any

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

42

postulate or formulation coming from any authority of

faith, whatsoever for today unless it satisfies the test of
objective truth without blinkers of past. It must satisfy test
of today. So far, practice is laden of quotations from this
authority or the other to claim fidelity. This led to sterile
action generally with follies in trail that has done more
harm than clarity.
There is qualitative change of reverse order in the situation
after 1991 that demands creative approach to problems of
today. Exercise must begin with analysisof what went wrong
in Soviet and Chinese experiments and why?
What mars its further growth is skewed understanding on
certain features the communists harboured so far in theory
on many aspects and its practice in the mistaken belief
that what Lenin said about Russian path is the path to
revolution everywhere and revolutionary change thereafter.
One such understanding relates to question of capturing
state power that necessarily involves a question of
armed struggle as means to reach the object.
In this context the question of violence/non-violence came
up for contest. Communists were accused of unalloyed faith
in the philosophy of violence. The Communist circles
universally have contributed no less to confuse the issue by
propagating a saying that violence is the midwife to
revolutionary regeneration of society.
Perhaps, Indian communists at one time perforce had
focused this formulation to combat influence that had
gained currency in a non-question of non-violence vis-vis violence, which Mahatma Gandhi had raised to counter

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

43

the rising influence of revolutionary politics, quite an

anathema to him in the conflict between labour and capital.
Gandhi was in favour of collaboration between the two,
propounding the concept of trusteeship. In fact, he
was deeply abhorrent to the very idea of initiative from the
people for regeneration of social relations; he wanted their
energy to be used but within a prescribed frame
of his own mark! And as a master tactician, he had
raised
this issue of violence and non-violence to wean away the
masses to his side of thinking.
When Bhagat Singh and his colleagues replied with
much
ease and logically, they were ignored by those who had
developed antipathy to the ideals of these young men in the
struggle for freedom by terming them as urchins. It was a
fatal digression which the movement was asked to pay for
its raw ideological pursuit at the time of great turmoil in
Indian history for independence against brutal British
colonial power.
Unfortunately, there was none to contest the question on
theory after these urchins were removed from the scene
by execution in 1931. The dynamics worked against the
social cause. None in the movement then visualised that the
question will be haunting the peoples movement even
after independence with much more harm than visualised
to the peoples cause.
May be, Indian communists were right in using such idiom
to counter ideological offensive from Mahatma. The
ultimate outfall of the midwife argument did prove
debilitating to the mass movement itself with much serious
ramifications, not seen earlier by the authors. They did not

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

44

convincingly answer Gandhis poser on the end justifies

means banter from them. And it proved a handy tool in his
hands to isolate their politics of revolutionary change from
the common man of average psyche of peace.
In addition, this midwife formulation in the long run posed a
dangerous mind-set to extol violence as a matter of radical
faith in routine, which has nothing to do with revolutionary
practice. Violence in such a milieu tends to take routine
character in dealing any and every dissenting voice with
revolutionary fervour, even within the organisations.
Leadership of revolutionary politics did not counter this to
happen. And the movement had to pay a price for their
ideological failure. Mahatma had not confronted violence in
history by proponents of capital in history to come up by
controlling community resources for private gain.
The justification for violence is to capture the state power
against a ferocious and armed adversary. Basic in logic
first is extolling the virtue of capturing state power; violence
then is justified in trail as a means to gain it for the supreme
object by a handful of enthusiastic cadres. Later, violence
gains importance to retain this state power and
ultimately it turns into a base of this power that goes
against the ruled masses, oppression, and coercive
methods and gets a veneer of legitimacy! Centralised power
then plays havoc in the society. This has its own dynamics
to operate, which goes against the people ultimately.
History is witness to the fact that violence breeds violence.
It consumes human sensibilities. It ultimately devours its
own children of revolution.

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

45

Violence blunts human qualities that are basic to a

communist, if any one swears to be one. In case of basic
change, with faith in strength and creativity of the people at
large, the question of violence is a wrong poser and turns
non-relevant.
Butchers and murderers have different trajectory.Murderer
is different from a butcher. Murderer goes in panic while
the butcher has a plan to achieve. One tends to call names
to butcher and legitimately too. Butchers and hangmen do
their job religiously, with fervour and zeal taking the
object in routine. May be, the butchers are not bad.
Normally, they are not. Still they stink. Murderers too may
have a cause, good or bad. So, one has to be careful about
understanding both.
Violence and non-violence go together, as a matter of
philosophy. One exists with the other. If there is no
violence, non-violence looses relevance; so it cannot claim
the status of a creed as Mahatma tried to assign
it with, like a devoted Jain. Violence cannot be a basis of
legitimate social existence, nor is non-violence its mast to
hang by. For a peaceful and contended life such basic issues
have to be addressed de nova.
In matters of peoples movement the poser of non-violence
vis--vis violence is a non issue and a false alarm. Even in
criminal jurisprudence, violence in self defence
is no violence and is well recognised as legitimate.
In
reverse, violence as the creed is not acceptable in normal
course of social life. Then, why to muddle the issue,
if there is no hidden agenda? Atleast this cannot be a yard-

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

46

stick to accept or reject in an ideology of social change for

good. Much more goes to decide its merits or demerits.
Another poser from Gandhi related to ends and means. He
had charged Indian communists in course of Independence
struggle of following a postulate that ends justify means to
isolate them from common masses, who were generally
weak on philosophical issues involved. The poser in fact had
involved a moral question for those who were engaged in
mass struggles for liberation.
Indian communists failed the test; they were trapped and
lost for want of philosophical clarity on the issue. Gandhi
and after him all his disciples took full advantage
and could put communists on wrong footing.
Simply put, means have to be in consonance with the ends;
as the means do influence an outcome. Since the poser
from Mahatma related to a movement, which involves
participants nurturing certain values and their aspirations
for better life, means do influence their cultural mores too.
Naturally tactics of movement cannot and must not cross
the strategic aims in search of shortcuts. This is basic.
It is observed that leaders many times do commit wrongs in
this regard; search for shortcuts had badly damaged
the
object in consequence. Communist movement in India
had suffered much with such failures too.
Morality and ethics in social relations have their own force.
True, these are not static categories for ever. But to conduct
affairs without having regard for any standard of social
behaviour and transgressing ethical and moral values of
times cannot be justified on any count. Communists are
people who are more than any others have a better sense

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

47

of social values and cannot act otherwise under any false

pretext. They are more sensitive than a common man. If
not, then doubtful if one is a communist of any worth.
False faiths carried their price
The Communist movement of the past has erred to rely on
industrialisation of society and its system of production on
wage labour. Individualism reigned supreme as a necessary
by-product of the mode, revelled by proponents of capital.
It wrought havoc on social relation giving birth to one that
was devastating to human values. The outfall was not worth
cheering about. Lenin and Mao were on common page on
this count. Mahatma Gandhi also was virtually no better, he
reposed faith in capital, small or big that was hardly worth.
Starting from Adam Smith to Ricardo and Marx-Engels are
no guide for the future of society on this count.
On such legacy on their shoulders Indian Communists did
little to study native conditions on their own, though much
knowledge was available at hand. They failed to appraise
Indian social norms and values except on borrowed
Western wisdom, duly propagated by colonisers in their
own interest to pose themselves advanced in relation to
Indian who they dubbed as uncouth. They could not fathom
strength of native economics and culture and paid heavy
price for this folly by loosing support of working masses.
With experiences so gross in deficit, society needs better
treatment and has to build a viable mode of production
afresh, keeping in view that the rising demands are better
met with least dislocation and assuring peace, tranquillity,
free from expropriation of human labour and nature where
social relations find better space under the sun, than

Revisiting a Dream in communist movement

48

hitherto. Let us understand pristine rural India, not the

infected rural India available today with so many ills of an
alien origin. It may provide answers to many of questions
that Indian communists have made a mess.
In terms of social base, individualism, especially of
existentialism variety is not worth consideration. A better
relationship is the need than hitherto. Manufacturing stage
did not bare its fangs, but the stage of industrial growth in
corporate capital has nothing to rejoice about. One should
be careful about the future danger inherent.
Communism is not what dogmas tell. It is not jumlas, clichs
and jargons emanating from one leader or the other,
neither the texts. It is a better sense of social justice without
expropriation of human labour and a way of life that is
more natural to human values to live in peace on equal
footing with others. Fresh formulations and concepts better
than the past, answering the call of times is required to
craft in light of the sad experiences of the past.
It is dream worth having, based on the realities of human
life and its capabilities in rhythm with nature. It is born from
the past blunders humanity was pushed in by the base
desires of few. History is with us. Let us dream and the
dream, which is worth translation for good of humanity and
the nature for a sustainable source.