The post Leader of the Oppressed People, Comrade Sheikh Bude! appeared first on CPI(ML) Red Star.

(Courtesy: Countercurrents.org)

The post Depoliticised CPI (M)’s Transition to a Political Tool of RSS in Kerala – P J James appeared first on CPI(ML) Red Star.

3.2 The development of productive forces during the Vedic period led to the gradual emergence of classes in the form of Varnas, and class division took the form called varna division. Thus, varna struggle emerged as the form of class struggle in ancient India. In the later vedic period, the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas emerged as the ruling classes in the vast landmass of the country. As opposed to this ruling section, another combination made up of Vaisyas and Shudras also emerged at that time. According to the concrete situation prevailing then, this later combination was composed of the real producers and the toiling masses of the country. The state system firmly founded in this class division that emerged during the later Vedic period replacing the Sabha and Samiti, erstwhile political organization of the Aryans, continued for around five hundred years.

3.3 The end of this period that coincided with the fall of Mauryan rule was marked by the advent of Manuvadi or Manu-ist State. Thus the new ruling system paved the way for institutionalization of the varna division and its transformation into the Caste system. Manusmriti, the ideology of the Manuvadi state considered all women as Shudras. This fierce patriarchal ruling system that emerged in ancient India continues even today without any change in its essence. As a result, caste struggle and gender struggle have been developing as two integral aspects of Indian class struggle from the very beginning.

The present day caste system has its origins in the varna system. Therefore we like to call the caste system the varna-caste system. In the varna system all people were divided into four varnas. Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. Brahmins and Kshatriyas were the ruling class of the society. Kshatriyas were assigned the task of ruling and fighting. Thus, the ruling class was formed out of them. But it was not possible to rule by the Kshatriyas alone. This was the main reason for the establishment of the  varna system, which created the division between people, required a divine sanction. Therefore the smriti-shruti nexus was developed. Smriti means the law or the code. And Shruti means the Vedas. The political reflection of this nexus  was the formation of Brahmin-Kshatriya combination as the ruling classes. So, very naturally the Brahmin-Kshatriya alliance emerged as the ruling class. On the other hand, productive work is entrusted to the Vaishya and Shudra communities. They were involved in the production and distribution of means of subsistence. But they did not get their share of the surplus of the society, especially the Shudras. Some of the Vaishyas were engaged in business activities. Although they often gained wealth, they had no political power and social status was lower than that of the Brahmins and Kshatriyas. The vast majority of Vaishyas were engaged in agriculture. Their political and social powerlessness was compounded by the pain of not getting a share of the surplus. And Shudras had no rights. They only produced but received in return only that with which he could reproduce the next day’s labor power. Thus, the class struggle of ancient India emerged through the Brahmin-Kshatriya alliance on the one hand and the Vaishya-Shudra alliance on the other. Class division in ancient India emerged through the varna division.

One of the biggest limitations of Indian Marxists is that they have rarely attempted to understand the course of development of Indian society. For them, the study of social development is mainly to study the history of European society, not Indian society. A few Marxist philosophers and sociologists have done this study in isolation, but it has not gained much importance in the practice of Communist parties. As a result, the findings of Marxist sociologists and philosophers were not useful in determining the strategy and tactics of the Indian revolution. As a result the Marxism that the Communist Parties practiced and tried to apply was not based on a concrete analysis of concrete situations. As a result, many have hesitated to come to the clear conclusion that caste is actually class in India. However, it should not be difficult to understand that when it is said about Shudras that they will work but will not have the right to accumulate wealth, it is nothing more but a special form of social surplus accumulation.

When discussing the varna-caste system, one thing must be understood that the history of the origin of class, the origin of class struggle and the origin of the state in India is connected with this system. So, this discussion is not just a fad, or a tactical discussion of how to popularize the Communist Party among the Dalit sections of society. This discussion is in fact a real exploration of class, class struggle and state system in India on which the ability to determine the right strategy and tactics depends.

It is true that India is a huge country. Its variety is also infinite. Class, class struggle and the state did not originate in the same way everywhere in India. The history of different parts of this vast country is different. But to the extent that the Aryans became the rulers of the entire territory, their system was mirrored in other parts of India. The Aryans entered India from the northwest and established their dominance over a large part of northern India. In this sense they were victorious. The region under their dominion is called Aryavarta. It was in Aryavarta that the first varna division arose and this system gradually came to dominate other parts of India as well. There are different opinions about when exactly the varna system was introduced in Deccan or Eastern India. But on the whole it can be considered that from the time of the Satavahana Empire in the Deccan and at the time of Gupta Empire in Eastern India caste-based classification began to be introduced little by little.

The varna system went through constant changes during the thousand years from the later Vedic period to the Gupta period. A comparison between Kautilya’s “Arthasastra” and Manu Samhita reveals many changes. “Arthasastra” also stood on the varna system. But it was not considered a rigid system at that time. Manu changed the varna system into an irreversible system. He did this with divine sanction, with the sanction of the Vedas. As a result, in Manu’s system, Brahman was declared to be the real owner of all things on this earth. And Shudras had no rights. Manu Samhita became the new social order. Meanwhile, the non-Aryans defeated by the Aryans began to be considered as “Avarnas”, who had no caste. This is because they came from outside of the Aryan society. But mixing occurs between Shudras and Avarnas. A large part of the Vaishyas who had become agriculturists due to downward social mobility were mixed with it. Thus, over time, a large stratum of laboring people was created in India who were called “low caste people”, or Dalits, sometimes called Namashudras. Their land ownership was little. Although they have land in many parts of India, it is the worst barren land. Landless peasants, agricultural labourers, and urban slum dwellers, workers in unorganized industries, coolikamins, scavengers or mutts, etc., are actually the vast majority of these so-called lower classes, or Dalits.

Different strata have already been formed among them. It was decided by the system of Manu that Dalits would do manual labour. But in post-Manu India gradually stratification between Shudras and Avarnas began to emerge. A caste began to develop based on one’s profession. One of them was thought to be above or below the other. This created a large number of subdivisions, or castes, so Ambedkar said that the caste system is graded inequality. It is difficult to say exactly at what point in Indian history the ancient varna system was transformed into the varna-caste system of today. But it seems to have something to do with the economic prosperity of the Gupta period. Of course, it would be a mistake to think that this stratification is only at the bottom of society. Among the rulers, some are always considered high and others low, and there is constant conflict about this. In many mythological stories we find many conflicts between Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Among the Brahmins also the division of elite Brahmins and low-class Brahmins is found. The difference between the ruler and the ruled in this case is that the rulers were able to maintain their unity against the ruled despite a thousand conflicts among themselves. But the ruled could not do that. By breaking themselves into innumerable fragments and creating disunity, they have always favored the ruler.

No matter how many stratifications there are among the so-called lower castes, to the Brahmin-Kshatriyas they have only one identity, Dalit. That is, the disenfranchised class. In the European hierarchy, there were no official restrictions on working people’s ascension to the upper classes. But Indian Hierarchy has this restriction. In Manu’s system it was clearly stated that Shudras could not accumulate wealth even if they had ability. This is the characteristic of the varna-caste system.

Shaktena api hi shudrena na karyah

Dhanasanchayah shudrah hi dhanamasadya Brahmanan eba Badhate.

i.e. even if able, the sudras should not accumulate wealth. Accumulation of wealth by the sudras makes the brahmin’s suffer.

This is the essence of the day to day caste oppression in India even today. The prosperity or social progress of the so-called lower caste inevitably brings about the attack of the so-called upper caste on him.

Thus, it can be understood that the caste system still persists today after 77 years of ‘independence’ through the medieval and colonial period under British rule. In between, this system must have gone through many changes. But there was no fundamental change. A major reason for this is the creation of a disenfranchised working class through this system, which has allowed capital to make exorbitant profits. During the reign of the Sultans and Mughal dynasties, the central emperors never touched the social fabric of India. As a result, there was no difficulty in the survival of the caste system. The British also did not attack this system directly. They must have made some reforms. But it was not enough to uproot India’s caste system.

It is well known today that Marx-Engels in his early life overestimated the revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie. It is reflected in several of their early writings. Since the Indian Marxists studied only selected writings of Marx, they indiscriminately relied on the writings of Marx-Engels, assuming that the pace of capitalist development would inevitably erase varna-caste divisions and mold all workers into one single strata. Marx and Engels later corrected their early overestimation of the bourgeoisie, but their Indian disciples remained in the same old error. As a result, they belittled the struggle against the varna-caste system, neglected the Dalit struggle, considered the varna-caste system to be only a super-structural problem, and considered Ambedkar’s actions as divisive within the working class when he tried to unite the Dalits and called for the seizure of political power. They considered Ambedkar and his organization as a competitor rather than an ally.

After 1940, there were four anti-British political forces in India during the final period of the freedom struggle. Communist Party, Congress, Muslim League and Scheduled Castes Federation (SCF) led by Ambedkar. Gandhi’s relationship with Ambedkar was very bad. Ambedkar did not find Gandhi trustworthy. He had the same attitude about the Congress party. Meanwhile, the Communists were trying to unite these four powers against the British. But Gandhi did not take easily the non-participation of the Communists in the Quit India Movement of 1942. However, the Communist Party led by PC Joshi wanted a united front of these four forces under the leadership of Gandhi. Ambedkar’s assessment of the Congress was that the Congress was a party of Hindu landlords and capitalists. They are fighting against the British not for freedom, but to replace the British. Ambedkar commented in several writings at the time that if anyone did the real freedom struggle, it was the Dalits. Thus, Ambedkar was not at all ready to accept Gandhi’s leadership. And the communists were not willing to take over the leadership of the freedom struggle. As a result, a section of communists began to propagate that Ambedkar was against the freedom struggle and was a British agent. This worsened the already sour relationship between the Dalit movement and the Communist movement. But if there was an alliance between the Communist Party and the Dalit Federation at that time, it goes without saying that the appearance of the freedom struggle would have been different.

After 1947, three quarters of a century has passed since the system of reservation for the so-called lower classes was introduced in the Constitution. In between, both the Dalit movement and the Communist movement went through various changes. Ambedkar started the caste annihilation movement. But now a class of so-called pro-Ambedkar leadership is only interested in maintaining the reservation benefits. For them, not the abolition of the varna-caste system, but the perpetuation of this system has become desirable. We call them New Ambedkarists, who have deviated from Ambedkar’s path in real terms. On the other hand, the communist movement also broke down. Today, this movement is generally polarized into two camps: revisionists and revolutionaries. Revolutionary communists today must build a bridge of unity with the Dalit movement for the sake of the Indian revolution. This is not a tactical aspect of revolution, but a strategic aspect. It is a question of defining enemies and allies. Also, we have to understand that it is not a matter of grandeur for the Indian working class to build up the struggle to eradicate the varna-caste system or to support it wherever it is already going on, but it is the working class’ own struggle. A large part of the people of the Dalit section of India are still part of the working class. The uprooting of the varna-caste system meant not only a change in the superstructure of society, but also a change in the relations of production. In short, the abolition of varna-caste divisions means ultimately the abolition of class itself. Therefore, class struggle is bound to be incomplete in the context of India without a program of varna-caste annihilation. Keeping this perspective in mind, the strategies and tactics of communist revolutionaries should be formulated.

The post Annihilation of Caste is Tantamount to Annihilation of Capitalism and the Victory of Socialism in Indian Perspective – Sankar appeared first on CPI(ML) Red Star.

The post -Comrade Kolla Venkayya, a prominent leader of the Communist movement and freedom fighter, 26th death anniversary.— appeared first on CPI(ML) Red Star.

The post Self-styled Godman’s Absconding Without Being Named in FIR Exposes Fascist Link with Obscurantist Cults !  – P J James appeared first on CPI(ML) Red Star.

The post On New Criminal Laws must be Repealed – Adv. Sabi Joseph appeared first on CPI(ML) Red Star.

The post “Emergency” was a Dark Period for the People. Equating it with Hindutva Fascism Leads to Whitewashing the Latter! – P J Jame appeared first on CPI(ML) Red Star.

The post On NCERT’s Islamophobic “Historical Negationism” – P J James appeared first on CPI(ML) Red Star.

The post Celebrating Dr. Ambedkar’s 134th Birthday in the Hindutva Fascist Context – P J James appeared first on CPI(ML) Red Star.

P J James

The Communist Manifesto was published by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels on 21 February 1848, with the clarion call of “Workers of the World Unite” for overthrowing capitalism, towards the establishment of a classless society led by the workers. The Left sections in India since 2020 have started celebrating it as Red Books Day also. It is a Day of commemoration of Left and Revolutionary books and their authors along with the movements and people’s advancements that they have ushered forward. 21 February is also marked as International Mother Language Day.

Still, 21 February is widely known and celebrated as the Day of publication of Communist Manifesto, considered as the most important political document and monumental text widely read the world over. In essence, Communist Manifesto, written during the turbulent political context of Europe, is an evaluation of capitalism or industrial capitalism that emerged in the context of Industrial Revolution, and a Program and Path for its overthrow and replacement by a classless Communist society under the leadership of the workers, the revolutionary class in capitalist society.

However, consequent on the transformation of industrial capital into more reactionary finance capital by the turn of the 19th century, capitalism gave way to imperialism which necessitated further development of Marxism according to the concrete situation. It was Lenin who took up this task by putting forward the theory and practice of revolution in the changed situation. Thus, October Revolution of 1917 and establishment of Soviet Union led by Communist Party under the leadership of Lenin concretised the further development of Marxism into Marxism-Leninism. Meanwhile, taking into account the objective situation of imperialist-oppressed Afro-Asian-Latin American countries and hence taking the colonial question also into consideration, together with socialist revolution in capitalist countries, Lenin also suggested a transformation of the slogan “Workers of the World Unite” into “Workers and Oppressed Peoples of the World Unite” that was adopted by the Second Congress of the Communist International held in 1920 which further developed the theory of People’s Democratic Revolution in oppressed and dependent countries. Chinese Communist Party led by Mao Zedong who applied the theory and practice of PDR in China could successfully carry out Chinese Revolution in 1949.

Today, the situation is fundamentally different. Developments during the quarter century following Second World War have resulted in the collapse of all erstwhile socialist countries and their integration with imperialism leading to grave ideological, political and organisational setbacks of the International Left. Taking advantage of this failure of the International Communist Movement, imperialism has unleashed neoliberalism and neofascism, with unbridled global mobility of corporate capital and a whole set of postmodern theories as the the material and ideological bases respectively. Today, utilising the latest advancements in technology including AI, corporate-finance capital, through internationalisation of production and capital and horrific speculation, has accomplished a super exploitation of labour and plunder of nature resulting in hitherto unknown levels of wealth appropriation by corporate billionaires at a global level.

At this critical juncture, the working class and oppressed peoples of the world and the revolutionary movement can proceed further only by developing Marxist-Leninist theory and practice according to the concrete situation. A mere stereo-typed understanding or text-book copy of the past cannot resolve the problems confronted by humankind today. The laws of motion of 21st century capital have assumed many qualitative dimensions compared to the last century.

As such, when we commemorate the publishing of Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engles, it should not be done in a mechanical, ritualistic or religious way. Our task should be to grasp the essence of Marxism-Leninism, the dialectical approach, the methodology pursued by Marx, Lenin and Mao according to concrete conditions of today. Only such an approach will make a meaningful commemoration of Communist Manifesto today’s context.

The post 176th Anniversary of Communist Manifesto – P J James appeared first on CPI(ML) Red Star.