TEXT-II : National and Colonial Questions in The Comintern

13

Excerpts from

Resolution Of The Fifth Plenum Adopted On 6 April, 1925

In India the reports of the delegates show that the movement is now in the process of transition, finding new forms and tactics to correspond with the real basic revolutionary nationalism in India. The old Gandhi movement of nonviolence and noncooperation has col lapsed and was followed by the Swaraj Party with its policy of parliamentary obstruction. This party has come to the point of collapse and is now tending to decompose into small centre groups between the big bourgeois parties on the one side and the revolutionary mass movement on the other. The masses of India are discontented with swarajist programme of self- government. They are demanding separation from the British government.

The commission proposes the following policy for India : “The commission is of the opinion that it is now necessary for the communists to continue work in the National Congress and in the left wing of the Swaraj Party. All nationalist organisations should be formed into a mass revolutionary party and an all-India anti-imperialist bloc. The slogan of the people’s party having for the main points in its programme separation from the empire, a democratic republic, universal suffrage and the abolition of feudalism — slogans put forward and popularised by the Indian communists — is correct.”

In its resolution, the commission instructs Indian communists to direct their efforts towards securing the leadership over the masses of the peasantry and to facilitate and encourage the organisation and amalgamation of trade unions and to take over the leadership of all their struggles.

Source:
Bolshevising the Communist International — a report on the Fifth Plenum published by Communist Party of Great Britain, (Lon-don,1925); pp 135-36

14

Excerpts from

Political Tasks Of The University Of The Peoples Of The East[1]

Somewhat different is the situation of affairs in a country like Hindustan. Here we find not only that the native bourgeoisie is severed into a revolutionary fraction and a compromising or reformist fraction, but, in addition, that on all important issues the reformist fraction has already rallied to the side of imperialism. This section of the native bourgeoisie dreads revolution more than it hates imperialism, it is more concerned about its money-bags than about the interests of the fatherland; it is the wealthiest and most influential class in the national community, and it has wholeheartedly thrown in its lot with the irreconcilable enemies of the revolution, has made common cause with the imperialists against the workers and peasants of its native land. The revolution cannot be victorious unless this alliance is broken. If we are to break it, we must concentrate our attack upon the reformist section of the native bourgeoisie, must expose its treachery, must withdraw the toiling masses from its influence, and must systematically prepare the way for the leadership of the proletariat. In other words, the proletariat of such lands as Hindustan must be trained to become the leader in the movement for national emancipation, whilst the bourgeoisie and its spokesmen must gradually be dislodged from the leadership. The aim therefore, must be to create a revolutionary, anti-imperialist coalition, and to ensure that, within this coalition, the role of leader shall be played by the proletariat. The coalition may (there are alternative possibilities) take the form of a single, united party of workers and peasants voicing a joint programme. But the advanced communist elements will need to insist upon the independence of the communist party in such lands, for the proletariat cannot be prepared for its last as leader, nor can the proletarian leadership be realised, by any other than the communist party. Yet the communist party may, nay must openly cooperate with the revolutionary section of the native bourgeoisie, if it is to succeed in isolating the compromising and reformis section, and in rallying the masses of the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie to the fight against imperialism.

To sum up. The immediate tasks confronting the revolutionary movement in colonial and vassal lands where capitalism is well developed are as follows:

(1) To win over the best elements among the workers to the cause of communism and to form independent communist parties.

(2) To set up a nationalist and revolutionary coalition of workers, peasants and revolutionary intellectuals, as a counterpoise to the coalition of the great bourgeoisie with the imperialists.

(3) To guarantee that the leadership of the revolutionary coalition shall be in the hands of the proletariat.

(4) To free the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie from the influence of the reformist native bourgeoisie.

(5) To secure the linking up of the national-liberationist movement with the proletarian movement of advanced countries.

Note :
1. This is the title of a lengthy speech delivered by Stalin at the University of the Peoples of the East (Moscow) on 18 May, 1925.

Source: Leninism by Joseph Stalin, Vol. 1; Modern Books (London, 1928); pp 279-80.

Extracts From Documents of The Sixth Congress

15

Excerpts from

The Revolutionary Movement In The Colonies

Report of Comrade Kuusinen

I. Preliminary remarks

Dear Comrades, I do not want you to consider my report on the subject of today’s session, the revolutionary movement in the colonies and semi-colonies, as a coherent report on the whole subject, but only as a supplement and concrete illustration of what is said on this subject in the draft theses. As you know, I do not possess the necessary knowledge to deal with the whole subject. Moreover, I have endeavoured to explain to you in the draft theses some parts, especially the tactical parts, even in greater detail than it will be necessary in the final theses, in order to make my main argument clear to you. But I think that one should — and I consider it my duty — endeavour also in my report to give this a more concrete form, or at least to illustrate it. …

II. India — the classical colonial country

I assume that many comrades in our parties and perhaps even a good many comrades here at our Congress are not much better informed about Indian conditions than I was a few weeks ago when the executive instructed me to report on this question. Therefore I will give with your permission, a few general facts concerning conditions in India, with the help of which I hope to bring India a little nearer to our parties. Relatively much has already been said about China. China has been popularised. But very little is known about India.

What is India? Is it a rich or a poor country? A petty-bourgeois German writer who visited India lately, Bernhard Kellermann, has said that India is a beggar. This is a wrong description, but a far more wrong description is that of the imperialists who say that India is a wealthy and well-developed country. Somewhere in Capital Marx reproduced a saying by a bourgeois economist that land is rich where the people is poor. In this sense India is truly rich. … One gets a lopsided picture if one takes only the absolute figures about Indian export: what India has achieved in regard to various branches of production, that India occupies first place in the world in the production of rice and jute, second place in the production of cane-sugar, tea and cotton, and third place in the production of wheat, or if one hears about the truly rapid rate of the industrial development in India during the last decade. All this can give a semblance of truth to the assertion that India is one of the greatest industrial countries in the world. Everyone knows, for instance, that the International Labour Office of the League of Nations has “recognized” India as one of the 8 leading industrial countries of the world.

But this is not in keeping with the actual situation. If one was to carry this logic a little further, one would come to utterly absurd conclusions. The yearly military expenditure in India, including indirect military expenditure, is twice as high as that of imperialist Japan. India exports even capital to other countries. On the strength of this one might assert with a certain amount of justification that India is on the way to becoming an imperialist country. This is approximately how the situation is represented in the official reports of the British imperialists. … This is of course only an imperialist lie. …

The industrial development of India and the British colonial policy

… As I have already said, the industrial development of India has progressed rapidly in the last 20 years. But if even several communist comrades have been induced, on the strength of this fact, to assume that British policy is following an entirely new course in regard to the industrial development in India, I must say that they have gone too far. A semblance of this was possible in the boom years 1921-23. Actually, no change has taken place in the course of the British colonial policy. Some of these comrades went even to the length of holding out the prospect of a decolonisation of India by British imperialism. This was a dangerous term. The comrades who have represented and partly still represent this — in my opinion — false theory are comrades who otherwise deal very seriously with the problems of our movement — comrades Palme Dutt, Roy and Rathbone. A certain relic of this wrong conception made its appearance even in comrade Rajani’s speech in the discussion on the first item of the agenda. I consider it my duty to elucidate this question. If it were really true that British imperialism has adopted the course of the industrialisation of India which leads to its decolonisation, we would have to revise our entire conception of the character of the imperialist colonial policy. I think that facts show that this is not the case.

The decolonisation theory

I will give you a few quotations from the works of these comrades. Comrade Palme Dutt writes as follows in his book Modem India :

“In the 19th century India was the most important outlet for the British manufacturers. In the 20th century India became rapidly industrialised under the control of British capital; by means of a colossal and irresponsible bureaucratic apparatus and owing to a semi-slave position of the workers, this capital has more profitable investment possibilities than at home.”

Another quotation:

“The industrialisation of India under British control — at present India is recognised officially as one of the eight leading industrial countries of the world — means that as the situation gets worse in Britain, British capital exercises its power over the cheap labour power in India and establishes here enterprises which, by their competition are to reduce wages in Britain.”

(Retranslated from the German)

In his theses at the II Congress, comrade Roy represented utterly different views. In these theses, which had been perused by Lenin, comrade Roy wrote at that time :

“Foreign imperialism which has been forced on the Eastern peoples has no doubt impeded their social and economic development and has deprived them of the possibility of reaching the stage of development which has been reached in Europe and America. Owing to the imperialist policy which endeavours to retard industrial development in the colonies the native proletariat has, in fact, begun only lately to exist.”

But comrade Roy holds different views now. In the draft resolution of October 1927 on the Indian question, comrade Roy makes the following statement:

“The new imperialist policy implies a gradual ‘decolonisation’ of India which, must be allowed to take its course so that India might develop from a ‘Dependency’ into a ‘Dominion’. The Indian bourgeoisie, instead of being kept down as a powerful rival, will be conceded participation in the economic development of the country under the hegemony of imperialism. From a backward agrarian colonial possession India will become a modern industrial country — ‘a member of the British Commonwealth of free nations’. India is in a state of ‘decolonisation’ in as far as the policy forced on the British imperialism through the capitalist post-war crisis has done away with the obsolete forms and methods of colonial exploitation in favour of new forms and new methods.”

The description in comrade Roy’s draft resolution goes on in the same strain. But I must point out to the comrades that comrade Roy has probably an inkling of the consequences of this theory. He says:

“This change in the economic sphere has also political consequences. The inevitable process of gradual decolonisation is fraught with the embryo of the dissolution of the empire. In fact, the new policy adopted for the consolidation of the empire, a policy which wants to ward off the danger of an immediate collapse, shows that the foundations of the empire have been shaken. Imperialism is a powerful demonstration of capitalist prosperity. In the present period of capitalist decline its basis is undermined.”

Thus comrade Roy sees that the decolonisation policy of British imperialism would lead to the weakening and dissolution of the British empire. But he nevertheless believes that British imperialism is determined to pursue this policy. I will give you now a quotation from comrade Rathbone’s article “The Industrialisation of India” where he uses a new argument:

“… In the war period British finance capital recognised the mistake which was made by preventing the industrial development of the colonies, for the latter were unable to supply the mother country with munitions during the war. … This was one of the main reasons for the industrialisation of the colonies.”

(All quotations retranslated from the German)

Now comrades, it is certainly very nice for the mother country if its colonies supply it during the war with munitions for war purposes. But if British imperialism should industrialise India for the purpose of getting munitions from it during the war, the danger will certainly arise that during the coming war these colonies might use these munitions first of all for the acceleration of their decolonisation. Engineering works, even if they be big, such as Tata in India, can be after all restricted in every possible way and controlled by British imperialism so as to prevent it becoming a danger. A few railway workshops, etc., can also be controlled, but comrades, the existence of a few such enterprises does not yet mean the industrialisation of India. Industrialisation means the transformation of an agrarian into an industrial country, it means general, thorough, industrial development, above all development of the production of means of production, of the engineering industry. This is not a question if any industrial development has taken place in India — this has certainly been the case — it is rather a question if it is the policy of British imperialism to industrialise India.

What do the facts show ?

It is true that after the war British imperialism has made a few more or less important economic concessions in favour of the industrial development in India. The most important among them were the 15 per cent protective tariffs for the cotton industry. But what is the explanation of these concessions? … Mutinies in the army, a big peasant insurrection in the Punjab, development of the national movement of the bourgeoisie, for the first time, unification of the Moslem League with the Indian National Congress. Then there was also Japanese competition on the Indian market and partly also the competition of the United States, — both endeavoured to make use of the war period for the consolidation of their position on the Indian market. There was also the Khilafat movement, the Gandhi movement, etc. All this combined placed the British government before the alternative : either to lose India as a colony or to make certain concessions for the pacification of the Indian bourgeoisie and to take measures for protection against foreign competition. The necessity to do this dictated at that time to the British imperialism the economic concessions (raising the protective tariffs for the textile industry to 15 per cent) and also the constitutional reform of 1919. The objective consequence of the facilities for industrial production in India was an acceleration of industrial development. These concessions were in themselves small enough … But even these small concessions are being gradually reduced all along the line…

… In the last years preceding the war the export of British capital to India amounted approximately to 13-16 million pound sterling per annum; then as I already said, the export of capital was very small in the first years after the war; in 1921-23 it rose to 25-30 and even 36 million pound sterling per annum; i.e., a fifth or a quarter of the entire export of British capital to India. After that the export of British [capital] to India fell again to 2 and subsequently to 3 million, and in the last year (1927) it amounted only to 0.8 million pound sterling — a very small sum. … If one takes the trouble to investigate for what purposes the capital exported from Great Britain to India in the exceptional years, 1921-23, was invested one sees that most of it was certainly not invested for productive purposes, and by no means for industry. Of the whole amount (94,400,000 pound sterling) 70,000,000 pound sterling went to government loans. One can say that 10 per cent at the utmost of the British export capital was invested in India in industry during and after the war …

If one considers the growth of capital, of the foreign joint stock companies (mainly British) in India, in the period between 1913-24, one must say that it was very considerable (452 million pound sterling, i.e., an almost treble increase), but most of these investments of capital went not to industry, but above all to banks, insurance and trading companies (405 million pound sterling). On the other hand, a much greater share of the increased capital of joint stock companies registered in India, in which probably more Indian than British capital is invested, went to industry : out of 1900 million rupees over one thousand million.

After the war native capital has gained ground in India in various spheres where prior to the war British capital had almost a monopoly (the jute industry and tea plantations). … It is but natural that British imperialism is not inclined to be a passive spectator of this trend of development. Thus we witness lately various counter-measures on its part against the industrialisation tendencies of India. I draw your attention for instance to the currency policy of the British government, to the artificial rise of the rate of the rupee to 1/6 d. (instead of 1/4 d.), which in practice means a premium of 12.5 per cent for import. This means in fact that the existing protective tariffs lose a great deal of their value. …

Comrades, I of course do not mean to assert that we are face to face with a complete throttling of industrial development in India by the British imperialists. Even if it wanted to try this, it would not be possible. The industrial development of India will continue, although probably very slowly. But the further it gets the more it comes into conflict with the most important colonial interests of British imperialism. …

The question of the extension of the internal market

Comrade Roy says that the Indian bourgeoisie will be granted “participation” in the economic power together with the British imperialists. There is no doubt that efforts are made towards a compromise between them. … Various agreements between them are quite possible in certain spheres, but they will be provisional and partial. Such an agreement has been, for instance, effected between the Lancashire and Bombay cotton manufacturers : the latter are to produce only the coarser and the former only the finer qualities.

But is this kind of thing possible all along the line? Certainly not. Comrades, it would be perhaps possible only in one case: if the internal market in India were to extend at a rapid rate. In such a case exploitation by the Indian bourgeoisie and also by British imperialism could for a time develop in India parallel and to a certain extent without friction. … But facts show that the internal Indian market is not extending …

Potentially, the Indian peasantry constitutes a powerful factor of the internal market, but in reality its purchasing capacity is infinitesimal owing to the three-fold exploitation under which it is groaning. By British imperialism and its tax collectors, by the landlords and by trade and usurious capital. As pointed out by comrade Bukharin when dealing with the first item on the agenda, industry in India is unable to absorb the mass of the pauperised peasants, and instead of proletarianisation we witness there an ever-increasing process of pauperisation in the rural district …

Why does the Indian bourgeoisie raise a hue and cry ?

It is no wonder that in the face of this situation the Indian bourgeoisie is sounding the alarm. Pressure from below makes the bourgeoisie indulge in oppositional gestures. … The hue and cry of the Indian bourgeoisie is a sign that something serious and important is maturing behind it.

There is an economic crisis at present almost in all the spheres of production in India, and by no means for lack of capital, for there is an abundance of capital in India. With the help of the British imperialists, the Indian capitalists endeavour to get rid of their superabundance of capital. They buy up state bonds and shares (but much more bonds than shares of industrial companies), they deposit their money in savings banks, they export capital to Brazil as recommended by the British chancellor of the exchequer in India, they purchase enormous quantities of gold and silver as treasure, etc. Why is not most of this Indian capital invested in industry ? Because the British colonial system is an enormous obstacle to the industrialisation of India. For this reason most of the engineering works established after the war have gone into liquidation in the last few years. …

National reformism

That the national bourgeoisie is raising a hue and cry is quite true. But it is important to understand the political character of the Indian bourgeoisie, its national reformist policy. …

Of course, in this connection one must not forget that the objective conditions of the national-revolutionary movement do not depend on the subjective will of the bourgeoisie. The national bourgeoisie is, of course, also aiming at unlimited rule; it wants, so to speak, to achieve power like a thief. However its opposition has in the present epoch a certain objective importance for the unchaining of the mass movement. More important still is a correct understanding of the importance which bourgeois leadership still has in India owing to the national-reformist deterioration of the mass movement. For the time being its importance is far greater in India than in China. One cannot simply deny the fact that the national-reformist parties have the greatest influence over the masses in India, not so much among the workers but certainly among the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry. To undermine this influence, to overcome it, to get away the masses from the national reformists and the treacherous bourgeois opposition, such is our most important immediate task. …

Through what forces will the real liberation of India be achieved ?

The liberation of India is a mission for which history has destined the Indian proletariat and peasantry. The Communist Party of India is to play the leading role in this struggle, and its foremost task in the preparation of this liberation struggle is — to disperse any illusion in regard to decolonisation through imperialism, to expose and combat any illusions of this kind spread by the responsivists, Swarajists and others before the eyes of the masses. In this manner it will be able to do justice to its present task. ..

Immediate tasks of the communist movement in India

In my draft theses I pointed out the special difficulties of Party construction in India. The Labour and Peasant Parties which exist there are not parties which can constitute the basis of our communist parties. Lenin’s theses at the Second Congress contain the following important direction:

“It is essential to carry on an energetic struggle against any attempt to give a communist label to the not really communist revolutionary liberation movement in the backward countries.”

This danger of giving a communist label to parties which are in reality not communist parties at all, would exist if we wanted to replace in India the construction of an independent communist party by any labour and peasant parties. Modestly and yet perseveringly, must we begin in India with work in trade unions and during strikes, with the education of Party workers. …

The Indian workers have not yet been able to do such a simple thing as establishing a labour newspaper. One should really have their labour organs in three to four vernaculars. All that Lenin has said about the importance of a revolutionary newspaper as collective agitator, propagandist and organiser, applies particularly to such countries as India.

Source: Inprecor, 4 October, 1928

16

Excerpts from

The Theses On The Revolutionary Movement In Colonial And Semi-Colonial Countries

I. Introduction

1. The sixth congress of the Communist International declares that the theses on the national and colonial question drawn up by Lenin and adopted at the second congress still have full validity, and should serve as a guiding line for the further work of the communist parties. Since the time of the second congress the significance of the colonies and semi-colonies, as factors of crisis in the imperialist world system, has become much more topical. …

2. … The insurrection in Shanghai in April 1927 raised the question of the hegemony of the proletariat in the national-revolutionary movement, and finally pushed the native bourgeoisie into the camp of reaction, provoking the counter-revolutionary coup d’etat of Chiang Kai-shek.

The independent activity of the workers in the struggle for power, and above all the growth of the peasant movement, into agrarian revolution, also impelled the Wuhan Government, which had been established under the leadership of the petty-bourgeois wing of the Kuomintang, to go over to the camp of counter-revolution. The revolutionary wave, however, was already beginning to ebb. … Its last powerful onslaught was the insurrection of the heroic Canton proletariat which under the slogan of Soviets attempted to link up the agrarian revolution with the overthrow of the Kuomintang and the establishment of the dictatorship of the workers and peasants.

3. In India, the policy of British imperialism, which retarded the development of native industry, evoked great dissatisfaction among the Indian bourgeoisie. Their class consolidation, replacing the former division into religious sects and castes … confronted British imperialism with a national united front. Fear of the revolutionary movement during the war compelled British imperialism to make concessions to the native bourgeoisie, as shown, in the economic sphere, in higher duties on imported goods, and, in the political sphere, in insignificant parliamentary reforms introduced in 1919.

Nevertheless a strong ferment, expressed in a series of revolutionary outbreaks against British imperialism, was produced among the Indian masses as a result of the ruinous consequences of the imperialist war (famine and epidemics, 1918), the catastrophic deterioration of the position of wide sections of the working population, the influence of the Russian October revolution and of a series of insurrections in other colonial countries (as for example the struggle of the Turkish people for independence).

This first great anti-imperialist movement in India (1919-22) ended with the betrayal by the Indian bourgeoisie of the cause of national revolution. The chief reason for this was the fear of the growing wave of peasant risings, and of the strikes against native employers.

The collapse of the national-revolutionary movement and the gradual decline of bourgeois nationalism enabled British imperialism once more to revert to its policy of hindering India’s industrial development. Recent British measures in India show that the objective contradiction between British colonial monopoly and the tendencies towards independent Indian economic development are becoming more accentuated from year to year and are leading to a new deep revolutionary crisis. …

II. The characteristic features of colonial economy and of imperialist colonial policy

9. The recent history of the colonies can only be understood if it is looked upon as an organic part of the development of capitalist world economy as a whole. …

10. It is necessary to distinguish between those colonies which have served the capitalist countries as colonising regions for their surplus population, and which in this way have become extensions of the capitalist system (Australia, Canada, etc.), and those which are exploited by the imperialists primarily as markets for their commodities, as sources of raw material, and as spheres for capital investment. …

Colonies of the first type became Dominions, that is, members of the given imperialist system with equal or nearly equal rights …

11. … In its function as colonial exploiter, the ruling imperialism is related to the colonial country primarily as a parasite, sucking the blood from its economic organisms. The fact that this parasite, in comparison to its victim, represents a highly developed civilization makes it a so much more powerful and dangerous exploiter, but this does not alter the parasitic character of its functions.

Capitalist exploitation in every imperialist country has proceeded by developing productive forces. The specific colonial forms of capitalist exploitation, however, whether operated by the British, French, or any other bourgeoisie, in the final analysis hinder the development of the productive forces of the colonies. The only construction undertaken (railways, harbours, etc.) is what is indispensable for military control of the country, for guaranteeing the uninterrupted operation of the taxation machine, and for the commercial needs of the imperialist country. …

12. Since, however, colonial exploitation presupposes some encouragement of colonial production, this is directed on such lines and promoted only in such a degree as correspond to the interests of the metropolis, and, in particular, to the interests of the preservation of its colonial monopoly. Part of the peasantry, for example, may be encouraged to turn from grain cultivation to the production of cotton, sugar, or rubber (Sudan, Cuba, Java, Egypt), but this is done in such a way that it not only does not promote the independent economic development of the colonial country, but, on the contrary, reinforces its dependence on the imperialist metropolis. …

Real industrialisation of the colonial country, in particular the building up of a flourishing engineering industry which would promote the independent development of its productive forces, is not encouraged but, on the contrary, is hindered by the metropolis. This is the essence of its function of colonial enslavement: the colonial country is compelled to sacrifice the interests of its independent development and to play the part of an economic (agrarian raw material) appendage to foreign capitalism. …

13. Since the overwhelming mass of the colonial population is connected with the land and lives in the countryside, the plundering character of the exploitation of the peasantry by imperialism and its allies (the class of landowners, merchants, and money-lenders) acquires special significance. Because of imperialist intervention (imposition of taxes, import of industrial products from the metropolis, etc.), the drawing of the village into a money and commodity economy is accompanied by the pauperisation of the peasantry, the destruction of village handicraft industry, etc., and proceeds much more rapidly than was the case in the leading capitalist countries. On the other hand, the retarded industrial development puts narrow limits to the process of proletarianisation.

This enormous disproportion between the rapid rate of destruction of the old forms of economy and the slow development of the new has given rise in China, India, Indonesia, Egypt, etc., to an extreme ‘land hunger’, to agrarian overpopulation, rack-renting, and extreme fragmentation of the land cultivated by the peasantry. …

The pitiful attempts to introduce agrarian reforms without damaging the colonial regime are intended to facilitate the gradual conversion of the semi-feudal landowner into a capitalist landlord, and in certain cases to create a thin stratum of kulak peasants. In practice, this only leads to greater pauperisation of the overwhelming majority of the peasants, which in its turn paralyses the development of the home market. It is on the basis of these contradictory economic processes that the most important social forces of the colonial movements are developing.

14. … The export of capital to the colonies accelerates the development of capitalist relations there. The part which is invested in production does to some extent accelerate industrial development; but this is not done in ways which promote independence; the intention is rather to strengthen the dependence of the colonial economy on the finance-capital of the imperialist country. …

15. The entire economic policy of imperialism towards the colonies is determined by its anxiety to preserve and increase their dependence, to intensify their exploitation and, as far as possible, to impede their independent development. Only under the pressure of special circumstances may the bourgeoisie of the imperialist States find themselves compelled to encourage the development of large-scale industry in the colonies. …

All the twaddle of the imperialists and their lackeys about the policy of decolonisation being pursued by the imperialist powers, about encouraging the ‘free development of the colonies’ is nothing but an imperialist lie. It is of the utmost importance for communists in the imperialist and the colonial countries to expose these lies.

III. On communist strategy and tactics in China, India, and similar colonial countries

16. As in all colonies and semi-colonies, so also in China and India the development of productive forces and the socialisation of labour stand at a comparatively low level. This circumstance, together with foreign domination and the presence of strong survivals of feudalism and pre-capitalist relations, determine the character of the next stage of the revolution in these countries. The revolutionary movement there is at the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, i.e., the stage when the pre-requisites for proletarian dictatorship and socialist revolution are being prepared. Corresponding to this, the general basic tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in the colonies and semi-colonies may be laid down as follows :

(a) A shifting in the relationship of forces in favour of the proletariat; emancipation of the country from the yoke of imperialism (nationalisation of foreign concessions, railways, banks, etc.) and the establishment of national unity where this has not yet been attained; overthrow of the power of the exploiting classes at whose back imperialism stands; organisation of Soviets of workers and peasants and of a Red Army; establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry; consolidation of the hegemony of the proletariat;

(b) The carrying through of the agrarian revolution; freeing the peasants from all pre-capitalist and colonial forms of exploitation and bondage; nationalisation of the land; radical measures for alleviating the position of the peasantry with the object of establishing the closest possible economic and political union between town and country;

(c) Parallel with the further development of industry, transport, etc., and with the corresponding growth of the proletariat, the extension of trade unions, strengthening of the communist party and its conquest of a solid leading position among the working masses, the eight-hour working day. …

18. The national bourgeoisie in these colonial countries do not adopt a uniform attitude to imperialism. One part, more especially the commercial bourgeoisie, directly serves the interests of imperialist capital (the so-called compradore bourgeoisie). In general, they maintain, more or less consistently, an anti-national, imperialist point of view, directed against the whole nationalist movement, as do the feudal allies of imperialism and the more highly paid native officials. The other parts of the native bourgeoisie, especially those representing the interests of native industry, support the national movement; this tendency, vacillating and inclined to compromise, may be called national reformism. …

In order to strengthen its position in relation to imperialism, bourgeois nationalism in these colonies tries to win the support of the petty-bourgeoisie, of the peasantry, and in part also of the working class. Since it has little prospect of success among the workers (once they have become politically awake), it becomes the more important for it to obtain support from the peasantry.

Here precisely is the weakest point of the colonial bourgeoisie. The unbearable exploitation of the colonial peasantry can only be ended by the agrarian revolution. The bourgeoisie of China, India, and Egypt are by their immediate interests so closely bound up with landlordism, usury capital, and the exploitation of the peasant masses in general, that they oppose not only the agrarian revolution but also every decisive agrarian reform. They fear, and not without reason, that even the open formulation of the agrarian question will stimulate and accelerate the revolutionary ferment in the peasant masses. Thus, the reformist bourgeoisie cannot bring themslves to approach practically this urgent question. …

19. An incorrect appraisal of the national-reformist tendency of the bourgeoisie in these colonial countries may give rise to serious errors in the strategy and tactics of the communist parties concerned. …

20. The petty-bourgeoisie in the colonial and semi-colonial countries play a very important role. They consist of various strata, which in different stages of the national-revolutionary movement play very diverse roles. …

The petty-bourgeois intelligentsia, the students, and others are very frequently the most determined representatives not only of the specific interests of the petty-bourgeoisie, but also of the general objective interests of the entire national bourgeoisie. … In general, they cannot represent peasant interests, for the social strata from which they come are connected with landlordism. The advance of the revolutionary wave may drive them into the labour movement, into which they carry their hesitating and irresolute petty-bourgeois ideology. Only a few of them in the course of the struggle are able to break with their own class and rise to an understanding of the tasks of the class struggle of the proletariat, and to become active defenders of proletarian interests. Frequently the petty-bourgeois intellectuals give to their ideology a socialist or even communist colour. In the struggle against imperialism they have played, and in such countries as India and Egypt still play, a revolutionary role. The mass movement may draw them in, but may also push them into the camp of extreme reaction, or encourage the spread of Utopian reactionary tendencies in their ranks. …

The peasantry, as well as the proletariat and as its ally, is a driving force of the revolution. …

The process of class differentiation among the peasants in the colonies and semi-colonies where feudal and pre-capitalist survivals are widespread proceeds at a comparatively slow rate. Nevertheless, market relationships in these countries have developed to such a degree that the peasants are no longer a homogeneous mass as to their class. In the villages of China and India, particularly in certain parts of these countries, it is already possible to find exploiting elements, originally peasants, who exploit the peasants and village labourers through usury, trade, employment of hired labour, the sale or leasing of land, the lending of cattle or agricultural implements, etc., etc. …

21. … The greater part of the colonial proletariat comes from the pauperised village, with which the worker retains his connection even when engaged in industry. In the majority of colonies (with the exception of some large industrial towns such as Shanghai, Bombay, Calcutta, etc.) we find, as a general rule, only the first generation of a proletariat engaged in large-scale production. The rest is made up of ruined artisans driven from the decaying handicrafts, which are widespread even in the most advanced colonies. The ruined artisan, the small property-owner, carries with him into the working class the narrow craft sentiments and ideology through which national-reformist influence can penetrate the colonial labour movement. …

22. … At first the interests of the struggle for their class rule compel the most important bourgeois parties in India and Egypt (Swarajists, Wafdists) to demonstrate their opposition to the ruling imperialist-feudal bloc. Although this opposition is not revolutionary, but reformist and opportunist, this does not mean that it has no special significance. The national bourgeoisie are not significant as a force in the struggle against imperialism. Nevertheless, this bourgeois-reformist opposition has a real and specific significance for the development of the revolutionary movement — and this in both a negative and a positive sense — in so far as it has any mass influence at all.

What is important about it is that it obstructs and retards the development of the revolutionary movement, in so far as it secures a following among the working masses and holds them back from the revolutionary struggle. On the other hand, bourgeois opposition to the ruling imperialist-feudal bloc, even if it does not go very far, can accelerate the political awakening of the broad working masses; open conflicts between the national-reformist bourgeoisie and imperialism, although of little significance in themselves, may, under certain conditions, indirectly serve as the starting-point of great revolutionary mass actions.

It is true the reformist bourgeoisie try to check any such outcome to their oppositional activities, and in one way or another to prevent it in advance. But wherever the objective conditions exist for a deep political crisis, the activities of the national-reformist opposition, even their insignificant conflicts with imperialism which have virtually no connection with revolution, may acquire serious importance.

Communists must learn how to utilise each and every conflict, to expand such conflicts and to broaden their significance, to link them with the agitation for revolutionary slogans, to spread the news of these conflicts among the masses, to arouse these masses to independent, open manifestations in support of their own demands, etc.

23. The correct tactics in the struggle against such parties as the Swarajists and Wafdists during this stage consist in the successful exposure of their real national-reformist character. These parties have more than once betrayed the national-liberation struggle, but they have not yet finally passed over, like the Kuomintang, to the counter-revolutionary camp. There is no doubt that they will do this later on, but at present they are particularly dangerous precisely because their real physiognomy has not yet been exposed in the eyes of the masses. … If the communists do not succeed at this stage in shaking the faith of the masses in the bourgeois national-reformist leadership of the national movement, then in the next advance of the revolutionary wave this leadership will represent an enormous danger for the revolution. … It is necessary to expose the half-heartedness and vacillation of these leaders in the national struggle, their bargainings and attempts to reach a compromise with British imperialism, their previous capitulations and counter-revolutionary advances, their reactionary resistance to the class demands of the proletariat and peasantry, their empty nationalist phraseology, their dissemination of harmful illusions about the peaceful decolonisation of the country and their sabotage of the application of revolutionary methods in the national struggle for liberation.

The formation of any kind of bloc between the communist party and the national-reformist opposition must be rejected; this does not exclude temporary agreements and the co-ordination of activities in particular anti-imperialist actions, provided that the activities of the bourgeois opposition can be utilised to develop the mass movement, and that these agreements do not in any way restrict communist freedom of agitation among the masses and their organisations. Of course, in this work the communists must at the same time carry on the most relentless ideological and political struggle against bourgeois nationalism and against the slightest signs of its influence inside the labour movement. …

24. An incorrect understanding of the basic character of the party of the big national bourgeoisie gives rise to the danger of an incorrect appraisal of the character and role of the petty-bourgeois parties. The development of these parties, as a general rule, follows a course from the national-revolutionary to the national-reformist position. Even such movements as Sun Yatsenism in China, Gandhism in India, Sarekat Islam in Indonesia, were originally in their ideology radical petty-bourgeois movements which, however, were later converted by service to the big bourgeoisie into bourgeois national-reformist movements. Since then, in India, Egypt, and Indonesia, a radical wing has again arisen among the petty-bourgeois groups (e.g., the Republican Party, Watanists, Sarekat Rakjat), which stand for a more or less consistent national-revolutionary point of view. In such a country as India, the rise of some such radical petty-bourgeois parties and groups is possible. …

It is absolutely essential that the communist parties in these countries should from the very outset demarcate themselves in the most clear-cut fashion both politically and organisationally, from all petty-bourgeois groups and parties. In so far as the needs of the revolutionary struggle demand it, temporary co-operation is permissible, and in certain circumstances even a temporary alliance between the communist party and the national-revolutionary movement, provided that the latter is a genuine revolutionary movement, that it genuinely struggles against the ruling power, and that its representatives do not hamper the communists in their work of revolutionary education among the peasants and the working masses. In all such co-operation, however, it is essential to take the most careful precautions against its degenerating into a fusion of the communist movement with the petty-bourgeois-revolutionary movement. …

IV. The immediate tasks of the communists

28. … The communist parties in the colonial and semi-colonial countries must make every effort to create a cadre of party functionaries from the ranks of the working class itself, utilising intellectuals in the party as directors and lecturers for propagandist circles and legal and illegal party schools, to train the advanced workers as agitators, propagandists, organisers, and leaders permeated by the spirit of Leninism. The communist parties in the colonial countries must also become genuinely communist parties in their social composition. While drawing into their ranks the best elements of the revolutionary intelligentsia, becoming steeled in the daily struggle and in great revolutionary battles, the communist parties must give their chief attention to strengthening the party organisation in the factories and mines, among transport workers, and among the semi-slaves in the plantations. …

29. … Communists must conduct revolutionary propaganda in reactionary trade unions’ with mass working-class membership. In those countries where circumstance dictate the need to establish separate revolutionary trade unions (because the reactionary trade union leadership hinders the organisation of the unorganised workers, acts in opposition to the most elementary demands of trade union democracy, and converts the trade unions into strike-breaking organisations), the leadership of the RILU must be consulted. Special attention need to be given to the intrigues of the Amsterdam International in the colonial countries (China, India, North Africa) and to the exposure of its reactionary character before the masses. …

30. Where peasant organisations exist — regardless of their character, as long as they are real mass organisations — the communist party must take steps to penetrate into these organisations. One of the most urgent tasks of the party is to present the agrarian question correctly to the working class, explaining the importance and decisive role of the agrarian revolution, and making members of the party familiar with methods of agitation, propaganda, and organisational work among the peasantry. … Communists must everywhere attempt to give a revolutionary character to the existing peasant movement. They must also organise new revolutionary peasant unions and peasant committees, and maintain regular contact with them. …

Special workers’ and peasants’ parties, however revolutionary their character may be at particular periods, may all too easily change into ordinary petty-bourgeois parties; hence it is not advisable to organise such parties. The communist party should never build its organisation on the basis of a fusion of two classes; as little should it make use of this basis, characteristic of petty-bourgeois groups, in its task of organising other parties. …

34. The basic tasks of the Indian communists consist in the struggle against British imperialism for the emancipation of the country, the destruction of all survivals of feudalism, the agrarian revolution, and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry in the form of a Soviet republic. These tasks can be successfully carried out only if a powerful communist party is created, able to place itself at the head of the broad masses of the working class, the peasantry, and all the toilers, and to lead them in armed insurrection against the feudal-imperialist bloc. …

The union of all communist groups and individual communists -scattered throughout the country into a single, independent and centralised party is the first task of Indian communists. While rejecting the principle of building the party on a two-class basis, communists must utilise the connections of the existing workers’ and peasants’ parties with the- labouring masses to strengthen their own party, bearing in mind that the hegemony of the proletariat cannot be realised without the existence of a consolidated steadfast communist party, armed with the theory of Marxism. …

The communists must unmask the national-reformism of the Indian National Congress and, in opposition to all the talk of the Swarajists, Gandhists, etc., about passive resistance, advance the irreconcilable slogan of armed struggle for the emancipation of the country and the expulsion of the imperialists.

In relation to the peasantry and peasant organisations the Indian communists are faced first and foremost with the task of informing the peasant masses about the general demands of the party on the agrarian question, for which purpose the party must work out an agrarian programme of action. Through workers connected with the village, as well as directly, the communists must stimulate the struggle of the peasantry for partial demands, and in the process of the struggle organise peasant unions. It is essential to make sure that the newly created peasant organisations do not fall under the influence of exploiting strata in the village. …

It must be remembered that in no circumstances can communists relinquish their right to open criticism of the opportunist and reformist tactics of the leadership of those mass organisations in which they work.

Source:

Communist International 1919-1943 Documents, Vol. II, Edited by Jane Degras, Oxford University Press (London, 1936), pp 526-48.

17

The Industrial Development Of India Deepens Its Contradictions With British Imperialism

Concluding Speech of Comrade Kuusinen

While trade capital is fast developing in a colony, the counter-forces against the subjugating imperialism are still very weak. The tendency toward economic independence obtains a greater force only where native industry is developing. The effort toward independence grows parallel with the industrial development of the country. However, this process of industrialisation in these countries goes on against great difficulties, because the pressure of the imperialist colonial monopoly resists the tendencies toward industrialisation. In spite of this, in such great colonial countries as India, the industrial development forges ahead, even if it proceeds with very great difficulty, and at a very retarded pace. I am not at all asserting that British imperialism is in a position to stop this advance. No. On the contrary, I conclude from the fact that this development makes headway despite everything, the deepening of the revolutionary contradictions between imperialist England and India. This is the question put in the draft theses. As against this, the formulation of comrade Bennett and others, “industrialisation of the colonies under the control of imperialism”, is an impossibility. This is somewhat similar as if we would say “the growth of independence of the labour movement under the control of the bourgeoisie.” These are two conceptions that cannot be brought into agreement. First of all, the development of the heavy industry and the machine industry in the colonies is being checked by imperialist monopoly. I requested a few comrades to draw up a list, on the basis of the official government reports, of all the legislative measures that have been taken in regard to India after the world war and which have any significance, so that we can see quite concretely how English imperialism hinders or promotes the industrialisation of India.

This list gives us the following picture :

A. Measures favouring the industrial development of India.

1. The 3 per cent assessment on the cotton consumption of the Indian textile mills was abolished (as a result of a textile workers’ strike).

2. The tariffs of the lower qualities of textile products were raised from 11 per cent to 16 per cent (England does not import textile goods of low quality to India, so this measure was directed against the fast growing Japanese import).

B. Measures to hinder the industrial development of the country.

1. In the year of 1920 : A law on the Imperial bank by which the bank is forbidden to give credit to industrial undertakings.

2. In the year of 1922 : railway construction plans with a capital expenditure of 1500 million rupees. The Indian bourgeoisie demands the orders for the Indian metallurgical industries. The orders were given to an English concern, since the English offer was pretty near 50 per cent cheaper.

3. In the year of 1923 : orders for 3132 railway cars given to England.

4. In the years of 1926-27 :

a) the export duty fixed at 12 percent in the year of 1919, on leather and skins (for the purpose of creating a leather industry) has been reduced to 3 per cent (thus raw material will be exported).

b) The rupee exchange has been set at 1.6, even though all the industries were against it and demanded an exchange at 1.4.

c) Instead of increasing the tariff duty on iron and steel, as demanded by the Indian bourgeoisie, preferential tariffs were fixed for British iron and steel goods.

d) The increase in the coal tariff demanded by the Indian bourgeoisie was rejected in order that the South African coal industry should be protected and promoted (South Africa imports to India).

e) Capital is being exported from India to Brazil and the minister of finance approves of it.

f) More order given away to England.

g) Duties on automobiles tyres were lowered.

h) The Royal commission on agriculture carries on its work in a sense that Indian capital (and the wealth after mobilisation) be directed to agriculture.

Here we see two rather insignificant measures regarding which one could say that by them the industrialisation of India has been promoted; all of the remaining measures aim directly at retarding the process of industrialisation. I have stated already in my report, what the temporary circumstances were that forced the English government, during the war and in the first years following the war, to grant the respective concessions.

Comrade Losovsky took exception to the expression used in the draft theses which describes the colonies as the “agrarian hinterland” of imperialism, and instead proposed the expression of “raw material hinterland”. I cannot see, in this, an important difference. We, of course, do not mean by the expression “agrarian” agriculture alone, but use it in its wider sense, as Marx also used it, by the inclusion of primary production.

Source: Inprecor, 21 November 1928

18

Excerpts from

Theses Of The Agitprop Of The ECCI

I. Historic significance of the Sixth Congress

The Sixth Congress met at the time of the opening of a new period. Behind it lies the period of a certain peaceful co-habitation of the imperialist powers; that of a certain peaceful co-habitation of the capitalist world and the USSR; that of some partial struggles between labour and capital in the imperialist countries; that of the first wave of colonial revolutions. Before it lies the new period, the period of sharp and bitter imperialist antagonisms, that of the imminent war danger between the imperialist giants : America and England; the period of particularly acute tension in the struggle between capitalism and the USSR; that of the completion of preparations for a war against the USSR; the period of the maturing of decisive class battles in a number of the leading countries (Germany, etc.); that of the rapid fusion of reformism with fascism; that of the decisive clash between reformism and communism over the leadership of the majority of the working class; the period of the deepening of the antagonism between the colonies and imperialism and the maturing of a new and still mightier wave of colonial revolutions. …

IV. The colonial question

… 25. Since the time of the Second Congress, when in the Theses of Comrade Lenin the fundamental and strategical directions were given upon the colonial question, there have occurred considerable changes and a tremendous fund of experiences has been accumulated.

First of all, during these years the proletariat has entered upon the arena of the class struggle in the colonies, having become in a number of colonial countries the fundamental revolutionary force which is leading considerable elements of the peasantry in the revolutionary struggle.

Secondly, during these years a number of colonial insurrections and movements have occurred, e.g., the agrarian riots in India, the insurrection in Indonesia, the national wars in Morocco, Syria, Nicaragua, etc.

Thirdly, during these years the great Chinese revolution has developed which has aroused tens of millions of workers and peasants to the struggle and has bestirred all the oppressed peoples.

Fourthly, during these years the “South American” problem has matured, the national revolutionary movement has begun in the semi-colonial countries of South America.
26. The Second Congress gave a general analysis of the colonial question. The Sixth Congress has supplemented it by a study of the tactical problems in regard to the individual colonial countries and groups. …

Summing up the results of recent years and surveying the present situation, the Congress observed that Lenin’s prediction about the unfoldment of the colonial revolutions has been fully borne out.

In China (where the first wave of the revolution aroused the proletariat and the peasantry of a number of provinces to take part in the struggle) although the bloc of the imperialists, the feudal elements and the bourgeoisie has been temporarily triumphant, there are still isolated fights going on even today. The general situation may be characterised as “the period of the preparation of the mass forces for a new rise of the revolution” (Para 27, The Political Theses).

In India we see the revival of the national-revolutionary movement, a revival which bids fair to develop eventually into a veritable workers’ and peasants’ revolution.
27. Both in China and in India there can be observed two tendencies as regards solving the colonial and agrarian question : the bourgeoisie considers it to be its historic task to create a bourgeois state by means of reform and compromise with imperialism and the feudal elements (at the same time, as properly pointed out by the representative of the Indian Communist Party, Comrade Sikander, it is not averse to “utilising the workers and peasants as cannon-fodder”). …

28. The Congress has given a clear-cut analysis of the role of imperialism in the colonies. In connection with the discussion upon this question number of comrades in their speeches criticised the assertion that India and other colonial countries constitute a “world village”, that the colonial countries constitute a sort of “agrarian appendage” of the imperialist industrial countries. The comrades who criticised these views pointed out that, for instance, in India there is industrialisation going on, albeit under the control of British imperialism, and that imperialism has the tendency to shift the centre of production to the colonies.

The logical development of such assertions is to lead up to the theory of “decolonization”. But to recognise the “decolonization” and industrialisation of the colonies would essentially mean to give up Lenin’s thesis concerning the nature of colonial exploitation. To be sure, there is a certain industrial development going on in the colonies. But this industrial development does not yet signify industrialisation. The industrialisation of a country means the development of the production of the means of production (machinery, etc.) in that country, whereas imperialism allows in the colonies only the development of small manufacturing industries engaged in the conversion of agricultural produce. It deliberately hinders the development of the production of the means of production … it checks progress by the whole of Its policy of supporting the survivals of feudalism in the village and by the innumerable taxes which ruin the already impoverished peasantry.

The road of independence and self-reliance for the colonies leads across the revolution of the workers and peasants which establishes the democratic dictatorship — the layer of industrialisation and the non-capitalist development of the country, and by the further merging of the democratic into the socialist revolution. Industrialisation of the present colonies is possible only along the path of their non-capitalist development.

29. The second big problem confronting the Congress was the question of the attitude towards the bourgeoisie. It was necessary to sum up the lessons of the Chinese revolution and to map out the tactics of the communist party in the forthcoming Indian revolution. In the political theses the basic advices were given to the Indian comrades. What are the peculiar features of the class struggle in India, particularly the struggle for hegemony between the Indian bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the national-revolutionary movement, which distinguishes India, for instance, from the China of prior to 1927? These peculiar features may be described as follows : the Indian bourgeoisie as a class is no doubt mere consolidated economically and politically, and more mature than was the Chinese bourgeoisie; whereas the proletariat, although more numerous than in China, is politically still under the influence of bourgeois nationalism.

A section of the Indian bourgeoisie — and the most influential one — has already taken to the path of compromise with British imperialism; another section (the Swarajists), as pointed out in the Political Theses of the Congress, is “substantially looking for an understanding with imperialism at the expense of the toilers”. All the tendencies of the Indian bourgeoisie have already betrayed the agrarian revolution of the peasantry in the past, and in the future they are only likely to play a counter-revolutionary role.

“The combination of the communist elements and groups into a strong communist party, the combination of the proletarian masses in the trade unions, the systematic struggle within the latter with a view to the complete exposure and expulsion of the social-treacherous leaders from all the tradeunion organisations is the most indispensable task of the working class in India, and the indispensable condition for the revolutionary mass struggle for the independence of India” (Para 28 of the Political Theses). Such is the first task of the Indian Communist Party. The struggle for the proletarian hegemony in the national struggle against imperialism and the remnants of feudalism, such is the second task of the Indian Communist Party as the vanguard of the proletariat, because “only under the leadership of the proletariat will the bloc of the workers, peasants and the revolutionary portion of the intelligentsia be in a position to smash the bloc of the imperialists, landlords and the compromising bourgeoisie, to unfold the agrarian revolution and to break through the imperialist front itt India.” (Para 28 of the Political Theses.)

Hence it is clear — and this was pointed out by comrade Stalin, already in 1925, in his address on the political tasks of the Communist University of the Toilers of the East — that in order to smash this bloc it will be necessary “to concentrate our fire against the compromising national bourgeoisie, expose its treachery and emancipate the toiling masses from under its influence.” (cf. Questions of Leninism, p 265.) Such is the general tactical line of the Indian Communist Party. .

Source: Inprecor, 16 November 1928.

19

Excerpts from

On The Indian Question In The Sixth World Congress

– M N Roy

The polemic against the so-called theory of “de-colonisation” casts a shadow of unreality over the otherwise high class discussion of the Indian question in the Sixth World Congress. Therefore it is necessary to begin with a few remarks about this theory: more correctly, about the scare-crow of this so-called theory.

I do not propose to answer the polemics of comrade Kuusinen and others. It will not be possible to correct the inaccuracies of facts cited in comrade Kuusinen’s report within the limits of an article. If necessary I will be prepared to do so in a future occasion. For the present it is sufficient to observe that comrade Kuusinen was not well advised as regards facts. It is not the picture of the India of 1928, but of a quarter of a century ago that he drew before the congress. This he was bound to do because of his admitted “lack of the necessary knowledge of the entire subject” … The very passages quoted by comrade Kuusinen to condemn me as an apologist of imperialism, prove that I do not hold the opinion that British imperialism will lead the Indian people by the hand to freedom. What I pointed out is that owing to the decay of capitalism in the metropolis, imperialism is obliged to find means and methods of exploiting India more intensively, and is thereby creating a situation which weakens its very foundation. Comrade Kuusinen asks: if it is so, why is British imperialism doing such a thing? This is a very simple way of looking at the situation. It is trying to understand the operation of capitalism (in its highest stage of imperialism) separated from its inner contradictions. In the light of such simple logic Marx also becomes ridiculous by virtue of having said that capitalism creates its own grave-digger in the form of the proletariat. If capitalist mode of production lays down the conditions for socialism why did the bourgeoisie introduce it in society? These apparent contradictions are explained by Marxian dialectics. To have a correct appreciation of the situation it is necessary to distinguish between the subjective and objective forces operating upon it. British imperialism does not wish to lose an iota of its power in India. This is the subjective factor which has very great significance; but it alone is not decisive. The objective factor, that is, what, in the given situation, is possible for the British bourgeoisie to do to maintain their domination in India and the effects of what they do, react upon the subjective force. …

As is evident from the very passages quoted by comrade Kuusinen, I used the term “de-colonisation” (within inverted commas, because it is not my creation) in the sense that imperialist power is undermined in India creating conditions for its successful revolutionary overthrow. India is a colony of the classical type. She will never cease to be a colony until the British power is overthrown by revolutionary means. No compromise (however far-reaching) between the Indian bourgeoisie and the British imperialists will give real freedom to the Indian people. These are all truism. But it is also true that India of today is not the India of a quarter of a century ago. … To recognise the fact that, simultaneously in spite of and with the satiation of imperialism, India now travels on a path of economic development closed to her previously, is not a violation of Marxist and Leninist conception of the nature of imperialism. On the contrary, such developments are not foreign to this nature. Indeed Lenin did presage such developments in the colonies towards the latest stages of imperialist domination. In showing the ever-growing parasitic character of imperialism he approvingly quoted the following from Schulze-Gaevernit’s book : “Europe will shift the burden of physical toil first agricultural and mining, then of heavy industry — on the black races and will remain itself at leisure in the occupation of bondholder, thus paving the way for the economic and later, the political emancipation of the coloured races.” (Imperialism) …

Obviously, the crux of the question is the internal condition of British capitalism. This was hardly touched in the discussion of the Indian question in the Congress. Colonial politics suitable to the interests of British capitalism before the war, cannot meet the situation in which British capitalism finds itself as result of the war. Modern empires are built on capital exported from the metropolis. Britain’s ability to export capital depends primarily on the conditions of her industries at home. Therefore, an analysis of the economic situation in Britain should be the starting point of a serious discussion of the Indian question.

Capital is exported from a country when it is “over developed”, that is, when all the accumulated surplus cannot be invested there at sufficient profit. Investment in countries where capital is scarce, price of land relatively small, wages are low and raw materials are cheap, brings higher profits (Lenin, Imperialism). How is the position of Britain today as regards export of capital ? …

… Britain produces much less than she could produce. This forced limitation of production has been caused by shrinkage of market as result of the war and growth of industries in other countries. Since the conclusion of the war the total volume of British exports has never exceeded 80 per cent of the pre-war level. In contrast to this the British export trade expanded uninterruptedly during the period between 1880 and 1913. And it was in this period of trade prosperity that the empire was built up and consolidated. An expanding export of manufactured goods (and by far the largest portion of Britain’s export has always been manufactured goods) was the main channel for the export of capital which, in its turn, founded and cemented the empire. Therefore, a decline of the export trade is bound to affect the solidity of the empire, unless some other means were found to counteract the weakness resulting there from. … The point here at issue is that changed conditions in the metropolis render the continuation of the old methods of colonial exploitation disadvantageous, and force upon the imperialist bourgeoisie a new policy irrespective of what they would rather prefer. On the question of the ultimate consequence of this policy, my contention is and has been that the new policy will create conditions which will facilitate the disruption of the empire. To deduce from this clearly Marxist contention that I am of the opinion that the British bourgeoisie will willingly “de-colonise” India is simply absurd. What I said … is that what undermines imperialist monopoly and absolutism, inevitably operates as a “de-colonising” force as far as India is concerned. …

Although the determining factor is the dynamics of the situation, and it has been proved that the dynamics of the situation tend unmistakably and unwaveringly towards industrialisation, the case might be still further strengthened by giving some facts about the actual growth of the leading industries. Figures about the growth of the production of iron and steel, the basis of modern industry, have already been given. Interpreted in relative terms those figures indicate that the production of pig-iron increased by 163 per cent between 1922 (when the protection was introduced) and 1926 in contrast with the growth of 67 per cent during the years 1913 to 1922 — the period of excessive war-production; and steel production in the latter period grew by 200 per cent as compared to 170 per cent in the preceding period. In the end of 1926 the British board of trade journal foresaw continued increase in the production of steel in India and observed that the consumption of the steel produced would require erection of new industrial plant. So, the beginning of the production of the means of production in India is in view. In 1927, the rate of protection to the iron and steel industry was again increased, obviously to accelerate the process of its growth. In addition to the considerably increased production in the country, structural steel imported in 1928 was 64 per cent more than in 1913. The value of the modern means of production (machinery, mill-works, railway-plants, electric-prime-movers, etc.), as distinct from the means of transportation, as railway materials, in 1924 was four times as much as in 1913; after a slight downward curb in the following year, it regained the level in 1926 and exceeded it in the last year.

Further, the iron-ore extracted in 1926 was three times as much as in 1919, and most of them were subjected to manufacturing process inside the country. Indian mills now produce finished cloth more than double of what they did in 1913. India’s export of finished textile materials increased simultaneously with the decrease in half-manufactured goods, namely yarns. This shows that the cotton industry has grown not only in expansion, but, what is much more important, in its internal composition. It is no longer an auxiliary to the industrial system in the imperialist metropolis supplying semi-finished raw materials. It has become an independent productive factor, self-sufficient and competitive. Manufacture of tin-plates is not a basic industry. But its growth in India graphically illustrates the trend of new economic policy of imperialism. The production of this industry has increased more than four times since 1923 when it received the shelter of the tariff wall. A further increase of not quite a 100 percent, and the level of present consumption in the country will be reached. Now, the manufacture of tin-plate requires very highly skilled labour, which is not available in India. Nevertheless, by the adoption of the American method of mass production, as against the old British system of production with skilled labour, the industry in India has developed with amazing rapidity. The disparity in the wage-cost in Britain and India is so great that the Indian industry is expected to enter the world market with a very high competitive power even without protection after three years. The protection to this industry in India was granted in the teeth of strenuous opposition from the Welsh Tin-Plate Manufacture’s Association which controls the industry throughout Great Britain. But the influence of the British Petroleum Trust was decisive. The tin-plate industry in India now serves as the connecting link between the British Petroleum Trust and the Indian iron and steel producers, Tata and Co.

Indeed, compared with the vast expanse and population of India, the absolute significance of these figures is not very great, India still remains overwhelmingly an agricultural country. The historic significance of these figures is that they indicate the tendency. …

The theory that colonies can serve the interests of imperialism only and exclusively as source of raw-material is the corroboration of Kautsky’s definition of imperialism as the annexation of agricultural territories by advanced capitalist countries, a definition severely criticised by Lenin. So long as mercantilist and industrial capital remains the dominating factor in the metropolis, economic backwardness of the colonies corresponds to the interest of imperialism. But the situation ceases to be so, as a rule, with the rise of finance capital. And as modern imperialism coincides with the rise of finance capital, it is not possible to assert that colonies must necessarily always remain in an industrially backward state as source of raw material production. The growth of the parasitic character of finance capital and the decay of production in the metropolis render industrial development of the colonies not only possible, but necessary for the existence of imperialism. …

The “de-colonising” effect of the new policy touches only the bourgeoisie. The masses of India will remain in the state of colonial slavery even after the process of “de-colonisation” culminates in the grant of dominion status. But parallel to the economic concessions made to Indian capitalism, there has been a transformation in the political position of the Indian bourgeoisie, and still further transformation is going to take place in the near future. It is still an open question how near to their covered dominion status will the Indian bourgeoisie arrive in consequence of the constitutional tug-of-war at present in play. But there is no doubt that the result will be a further advance towards the goal. …

In his report, comrade Kuusinen purposely did not touch the self-governing colonies like Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc. because, in his opinion, they are practically independent capitalist countries. If the self-governing colonies are not to be reckoned as colonies proper, then it is but logical to infer that in proportion as India approaches the status of a self-governing colony, she undergoes a process of “de-colonisation”, in limited sense, as far as the bourgeoisie are concerned. Now let us chronicle some facts illustrating the success [succession? —Ed.] of political right, even some power, to the Indian bourgeoisie since the war. …

So, the immediate perspective of the present situation in India is the grant of further political rights to the bourgeoisie. Only in the light of this perspective, it becomes “inconceivable that the Indian bourgeoisie will play a revolutionary role for any length of time”. A gradual advance of the Indian bourgeoisie from the state of absolute colonial oppression to self-government within the British empire is taking place. Therefore, it is not necessary for them to travel the risky path of revolution. In other words, progressive “de-colonisation” of their economic and political status makes the Indian bourgeoisie averse to revolution, and in the near future, when “de-colonisation” of their class has gone further, it will make them positively counter-revolutionary. Transfer of some political power to the colonial bourgeoisie does not weaken imperialism; because the native bourgeoisie wield this power, not to further develop the struggle against imperialism, but to suppress the revolutionary movement. This has been demonstrated by the experience in other colonial countries.

“De-colonisation” of the Indian bourgeoisie, thus, is not an “illusion”. It is a fact which is the key to the situation. By estimating the situation in the light of this fact can we establish what comrade Kuusinen very correctly said in his report:

“The mission of freeing India has been conferred by history on the Indian workers and peasants.” The worker and peasant masses cannot be mobilised to undertake their historic mission consciously only on the slogan — “the sahib is a robber”.

They must know that the native bourgeoisie are the accomplices of the foreign sahib, and therefore, will never carry on a revolutionary fight for national liberation. “The sahib will never decolonise India” of the workers and peasants; but nor will the Indian bourgeoisie lead the people to national freedom. And this must be courageously told and clearly demonstrated to make the workers and peasants conscious of their historic mission. Comrade Kuusinen or any other comrade will search in vain to detect me ever spreading the illusion among the workers and peasants that “the sahib will decolonize” them. On the contrary what comrade Kuusinen today says about the historic mission of the Indian workers and peasants, I began propagating years ago when not a few leading comrades entertained illusions about the role of the nationalist bourgeoisie.

Finally, I am completely in agreement with comrade Kuusinen’s opinion about the immediate task and organisational problems of the Communist Party of India. This agreement reveals the unreality of the row raised on the theory of “de-colonisation”. A deep divergence in the appreciation of the situation must lead to equally great difference in determining our task in the given situation. The conclusions drawn by comrade Kuusinen can be correct when the situation indicates a transformation in the relation between imperialism and the native bourgeoisie; in other words, when there is a process of “de-colonisation” as far as the bourgeoisie are concerned. Should comrade Kuusinen or any other comrade challenge the correctness of the analysis of the situation as given above, he could not logically draw the conclusions as regards our tasks, as he did. Looking at the matter dispassionately comrade Kuusinen will admit that I have not committed such a crime as he sought to depict in his report.

Source: Meerut Record, p 1007 (6)

Extracts From Documents Of The Seventh Congress

20

From Resolution On Fascism, Working-Class Unity And The Tasks Of The Comintern

V. The Anti-Imperialist People’s Front in the colonial countries

In the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the most important task facing the communists consists in working to establish an anti-imperialist people’s front. For this purpose it is necessary to draw the widest masses into the national liberation movement against growing imperialist exploitation, against cruel enslavement, for the driving out of the imperialists, for the independence of the country; to take an active part in the mass anti-imperialist movements headed by the national reformists and strive to bring about joint action with the national-revolutionary and national-reformist organisations on the basis of a definite anti-imperialist platform. …

In the interests of its own struggle for emancipation, the proletariat of the imperialist countries must give its unstinted support to the liberation struggle of the colonial and semi-colonial peoples against the imperialist pirates.

Source:
Communist International 1919-1943. Documents, edited by Jane Degras, Vol. Ill, p 376

21

From Wang Ming’s Speech

“The Revolutionary Movement in Colonial Countries”

“Our comrades in India have suffered for a long time from ‘left’ sectarian errors : they did not participate in all the mass demonstrations organised by the National Congress. … The Indian communists until very recently were to a considerable extent isolated from the mass of the people, from the mass anti-imperialist struggle … for a long time the small scattered groups of communists could not become a united mass all-India CP. … It was only recently that the all-India CP, which has already taken shape the (reference perhaps is to the setting up of a provisional CC in December 1934), began to rid itself of its sectarian errors and made the first steps towards the creation of an anti-imperialist united front. Nevertheless our young Indian comrades, having taken this road, showed a great lack of understanding of the UF tactics. This may be borne out even by the fact that our Indian comrades in attempting to establish a united anti-imperialist front with the National Congress in December last year put before the latter such demands as ‘the establishment of an Indian workers’ and peasants’ soviet republic’ ‘confiscation of all lands belonging to the zamindars without compensation’ ‘a general strike as the only effective programme of action’, etc. Such demands on the part of our Indian comrades can serve as an example of how not to carry on the tactics of the anti-imperialist united front. True, the Indian communists somewhat corrected their line later on and achieved, on the one hand, the unification of the revolutionary and reformist trade unions and on the other hand an agreement with the so-called congress-socialists for a struggle against the new slavish constitution. …

“Both within and without the National Congress the Indian communists must consolidate all the genuine anti-imperialist forces of the country, broadening and leading the struggle of the masses against the imperialist oppressors.

“The Indian communists must formulate a programme of popular demands which could serve as a platform for a broad anti-imperialist united front … this programme for struggle in the immediate future should include approximately the following demands : (1) against the slavish constitution, (2) for the immediate liberation of all political prisoners, (3) for the abolition of all extraordinary laws etc., (4) against the lowering of wages, the lengthening of working day and discharge of workers, (5) against burdensome taxes, high land rents and against confiscation of peasants’ lands for nonpayment of debts and obligations, and (6) for the establishment of democratic rights.”

Source: Guidelines of the History of the Communist Party of India (CPI Publication), pp 44-45