Official Website of Communist Party of India, Marxist - Leninist (ML) Redstar - Books
Imperialism in the Neocolonial Phase - Dr P J James

An in-depth study on the Political Economy of Neo-Colonial Phase of Imperialism Today

The book was released by Com KN Ramachandran to Com Klause, CC Member of MLPD, Germany on 26th February 2015, at Com Charu Majumdar Hall (Gandhi Bhavan) in Lucknow during 10th Party Congress of CPI (ML) Red Star. The Book is published by Massline Publication, Kottayam. The book is available @ Rs 600. Please contact: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. / This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Booklet on Demonetisation

Booklet on Demonetization – Issued by CPI (ML) Red Star

Dear comrades,

Following the imposition of demonetization on the people, the Modi government has launched a dis-information propaganda offensive to confuse and maim the people. So, CPI (ML) Red Star is issueing a booklet on it explaining and exposing its anti-people content as well as to support masses to prepare nation-wide resistance to demonetisation. 

 

Booklet on Demonetization in English

Booklet on Demonetization in Malayalam

Booklet on Demonetization in Tamil

It isa matter of great pleasure that an updated second edition of the book “Imperialism in the neo-colonial phase" by com. P.J. James is published now during the Tenth Congress of the Party. It was first brought out in November, 2011, during the Ninth Congress at Bhubaneswar with the objective of explaining the ideological- political stand taken by the CPI(ML) Red Star on the transformation of imperialist plunder from colonial to neo-colonial phase in the post-Second World War period. Since then, during the last three years, widespread discussions have taken place on this important question, both inside and outside the Party in India, and at the international level. As a result, with other forces also contributing to its discussion and further development, more and more sections of the Marxist-Leninist forces are adopting this stand, both within India and internationally. An international seminar on this question, organized during the Second Conference of the International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations (ICOR) during April, 2014, helped further develop discussions on this question within the international communist movement. This introduction has been prepared based mainly on the paper by presented by the party at this international seminar.

In order to make a concrete analysis of the genesis of the neo-colonial phase in India and the reasons for the delay in understanding this important aspect in the Indian context by the communist movement, one must begin with an over view of the experience of the nine decades of the communist movement in India. It was the 1917 October Revolution in Russia which brought the first salvos of Marxism-Leninism to the then British colony, India. From 1920 onwards communist groups were formed within and outside the country, leading later to the formation of the Communist party of India (CPI). By 1930s the CPI had succeeded in building the party and different class and mass organizations in various parts of the country. Many anti- feudal struggles of the peasantry and working class struggles for better wages and living conditions were waged. This growth of the communist party and the working class movement created conditions for its taking the lead in putting forward the slogan of Purna Swaraj (full independence) even before the independence movement led by the congress party. But the weakness of the communist movement lied in- a) its failure to recognize the comprador character of the big bourgeoisie, which was developing in collaboration with the colonial masters and b) subservience of Congress and Muslim League leaderships to this class and the feudal landlords. It did not recognize the importance of establishing the leadership of the working class in the independence struggle for the completion of the task of leading the democratic revolution to victory. As a result, in effect it became a tail of the Congress and Muslim League during this period. During the Second World War when the objective conditions for leading the independence struggle forward became excellent, due its decision to back the tactical alliance formed by Soviet Union with Britain, US and France in the war against fascist alliance led by Nazi Germany, the CPI supported the colonial power, a mistake that alienated it from the raging independence struggle. Even in the post Second World War situation, when the socialist forces had scored significant victories around the world, when the struggles of the working class, the peasantry and other oppressed sections had intensified and when even the Naval force of the colonial raj had revolted, the CPI leadership did not rectify its mistakes and try to lead the people's democratic revolution (PDR) forward. This compromising position of the CPI made it easier for the British colonialists to communally divide the country into India and Pakistan and to hand over power to Congress and Muslim League leaderships.

Though the Second Congress of the Party held in 1948 denounced this right deviation and elected a new leadership, it took a left adventurist line, calling for urban insurrections to capture power without any subjective preparations. It also failed to make a concrete analysis of the Indian situation and put forward a party program and path of revolution accordingly. As a result, soon it was crushed. As the party faced disintegration, with the help of the leadership of the Soviet Communist Party a new program and strategic line for completion of the PDR was adopted by the 1951 Special Conference. Though this line in the main conformed to the Indian situation, the new leadership refused to put it in to practice and started sliding to rightist positions again. When revisionists usurped power in Soviet Union during the 20th Congress of the CPSU and put forward the right opportunist line of peacefully competing and co-existing with imperialism and of peaceful transition to socialism, in line with it, the CPI leadership toed this line. Analyzing the big bourgeoisie and the Congress leadership as predominantly national bourgeois in character, it called for National Democratic Revolution in collaboration with them. In effect, rejecting other forms of struggle it started taking the path of parliamentarism. This was indeed a line of liquidation, a basic deviation from the revolutionary path.

It was in this situation that the inner party struggle against the rightist leadership began to intensify, as a result of which the party split in 1964 leading to the formation of the CPI (Marxist). It rejected the NDR line of the CPI leadership and called for the completion of the PDR under the working class leadership. But it refused to break away from the Soviet revisionist line and to analyze the predominantly comprador character of the big bourgeoisie leading the Indian state. In its analysis the big bourgeoisie had a dual character- of both collaborating and competing with imperialism. But it refused to define the main character of the big bourgeoisie in the present situation, and in effect pursued a line of collaboration with it. Thus CPI (M) took a centrist line in practice, surrendering to Soviet revisionism and parliamentary cretinism like the CPI leadership.

Communist Revolutionaries within the CPI(M) waged a bitter struggle against this neo-revisionist line, leading to the 1967 Naxalbari Peasant Uprising and the founding of the CPI(Marxist-Leninist) in 1969 which took the line of supporting the struggle waged by the CPC under the leadership of Mao against the Soviet revisionist line. These developments enthused the rank and file of the CPI (Marxist) as well as the youth and students to join the communist revolutionaries immensely, who rallied to overthrow the reactionary Indian state and to complete the PDR under the guidance of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung thought.

But the leadership of the CPI (ML) too failed to make a concrete analysis of the emerging situation in the country and develop its program and path accordingly. It mechanically pursued the sectarian line initiated by the Lin Biao group, which came to leadership of the CPC in its 9th Congress of 1969, with the publication of "Long Live the Victory of People's War" in 1966. Upholding "Chinese Path as Our Path", the CPI (ML) and those communist revolutionaries who did not join it, analyzed India as being semi-colonial and semi-feudal in character similar to pre-revolutionary China, and adopted protracted people's war as their path of revolution. It rejected the Bolshevik style of party and class/ mass organization building and adopted the 'line of annihilation of class enemies' as a step towards initiating the armed struggle. This sectarian line soon alienated the party from the left masses. Brutal enemy suppression led to severe setbacks and its disintegration by 1972.

Following this, when the efforts to re-organize the movement were initiated, most of the splintered groups abandoned the 'armed struggle as the only form of struggle' path, and took up overground activities among the masses. Some of them started trade union work and initiated other class/ mass organizations also. But some other groups persisted in upholding the 'only armed struggle' line, whether they actually practiced it or not. Moreover, these tactical differences notwithstanding, all of them continued to uphold the 'semi-colonial, semi-feudal, people's war' line in their documents. None of them was ready to take up a study of the changes which had taken place in the concrete conditions in the country after the transfer of power, vesting formal independence. All of them, in the main, refused to accept that any major changes were taking place in the concrete situation. So, in spite of many massive spontaneous people's upsurges taking place in many parts of the country in mid-1970s against the central and state governments, most of these Marxist-Leninist groups refused to participate in them neither did they try to come to their leadership. When the Congress regime declared internal emergency in 1975 to suppress the people's movements getting strengthened against it and took away even whatever democratic rights were existing, they could not correctly evaluate its impact on the people and the need to organize movements to protect people's democratic rights. The reaction of the people to the imposition of emergency leading to the massive defeat of Congress in the 1977 general elections was contrary to what they had evaluated, as most of them were still sticking to the old analysis and path of revolution. They could not correctly evaluate the usurpation of power in China by the capitalist roaders soon after the death of Mao also. Though many of them were compelled to accept this after few years, almost all of them continued to uphold the class collaborationist 'Theory of Three Worlds' put forward by the capitalist roaders in China as the general line of the international communist movement (ICM).

Following the withdrawal of the emergency when the newly emerged rich peasant- capitalist class led agricultural movements broke out in many regions for more input- subsidies and for remunerative prices for agricultural outputs, comparing this class to the rich peasantry of China during the period of the revolutionary struggle, these Marxist-Leninist organizations mechanically supported them. In spite of such important international and national developments during the 1970s, they were still sticking to the strategic line put forward in the documents of the first or eighth Congress of the CPI(ML) in 1970, confining their reorganization efforts to certain aspects of tactics, like rejecting the 'line of annihilation of class enemies' etc. Whatever studies they took up were by and large confined to the setbacks suffered by the Marxist-Leninist movement in India alone. As a result, they could not take up a comprehensive analysis of the changes taking place at international level and based on it within the country. They could not get out of the stagnation they were facing by developing the program and the strategic line according to the concrete conditions, rectifying the old mistakes.

It was in this context that certain sections of the Marxist-Leninists started new investigations in different parts of the country. It was as a part of these efforts that the Central Reorganization Committee of the CPI (ML) [CRC-CPI(ML)], formed in 1979, took up that task of evaluation of the developments in the national situation during the post-Second World War decades, and the reasons for the setbacks suffered by the communist movement within the country. The Marxist approach called for a painstaking, thorough analysis of the concrete conditions in the society in order to formulate a concrete program for its revolutionary re-structuring. But the communist movement in India had repeatedly failed in this, as briefly mentioned above. The analysis of Indian society undertaken by them in general was always proved defective. The approach pursued almost from the beginning was to start from some generalizations, and not from the concrete analysis of concrete conditions. The discussions mainly focused on whether to adopt the Russian model or Chinese one, or a combination of both, as the basis for analyzing the Indian situation. There was never any effort to use the powerful tools of Marxist analysis to dissect the Indian society.

The communist revolu-tionaries too were no exception to this erroneous approach. Whatever studies they took up were partial and limited to some small pockets. The Beijing Review of June 1967, while lauding the Naxalbari struggle in its editorial, Spring thunder over Indian horizon, had stated, based on the assertions in Lin Biao's book, "Long Live the Victory of People's War",that all the countries which were formerly under colonial, semi-colonial domination (like India) had become semi-colonial, semi-feudal in a way similar to pre-revolutionary China, and their path of revolution should be 'people's war', after the transfer of power or formal independence. All Marxist-Leninists, whether they were in CPI (ML) groups or other communist revolutionary groups, irrespective of other differences, very soon had reached the understanding that Indian situation was, in the main, similar to that of pre-revolutionary China. The discussions and debates for arriving at such a conclusion were mainly conducted at a logical level and not on the basis of any concrete steps to analyze Indian society. The Naxalbari struggle itself was later evaluated mechanically along the lines of the Hunan Report of Mao. The heritage of this mechanical approach towards the concrete analysis of Indian situation weighed down upon the long history of the Indian communist movement was so heavily that the communist revolutionaries could not make a break from the past. In this matter, they did not get much help from the International Communist Movement either, as pointed out above.

When a concrete study of the Indian situation was undertaken by organizations like the CRC, it became increasingly clear that whatever similarity the newly emerging Indian situation had with the pre-revolutionary Chinese situation was only superficial. By equating the two, the vast changes that had taken place under the neo-colonial phase of imperialism, which had emerged after World War II, were neglected. That is why the emergence of agricultural bourgeois class or kulaks replacing the feudal landlords as the major force to be reckoned within the agrarian sector in ever increasing areas under green revolution or as a result of land reforms like tactics introduced from above to defuse people's struggles on the one hand and to create conditions for penetration of finance capital and market forces on the other, remained unrecognized. The understanding of the Marxist-Leninists that, before World War II in the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the imperialists had used the feudal forces as their social props for domination and exploitation was in the main correct. This imperialist-feudal alliance was correctly understood as the obstacle for the natural development of capitalist productive forces. The basic mistake that happened during the post-WW II period was due to a lack of examination into whether the same method of imperialist exploitation existed in this period also; they adopted the same analytical tools as before to evaluate the Indian society.

The CPC in its comment "Apologists of Neo-Colonialism", published along with the "Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement" in 196,3 had stated that the forms of imperialist plunder had undergone vast changes during the post-WW II years. But it was not subjected by it to a thorough evaluation and development from the Marxist standpoint afterwards. As the sectarian line came into dominance in the CPC, soon any such attempts became was impossible. As a result, the general understanding still prevalent in the CPC and in the ICM with regard to imperialism was that its basic nature has not undergone any changes. It is true that the basic laws of motion of imperialism as explained by Lenin, in the main, continued to be the same; but these basic laws had assumed new forms during the post-Second World War years. Only a concrete analysis of these new forms of imperialist penetration could give a clear picture of the social formations in the countries under neo-colonial domination.

The emergence of multinational corporations (MNCs) as a major force at the global level and the consequent internationalization of capital, the emergence of international financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank, internationalization of trade through GATT which later led to formation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) etc. are specific features of the neo-colonial period. Instead of direct domination by imperialist powers, indirect domination through finance capital, market forces, technology transfer and military superiority were pursued. In place of one imperialist power directly colonizing and dominating a particular country, many imperialist powers started simultaneously plundering a neo-colonially dominated country. Because of this new political and economic situation, imperialist rivalry itself is becoming manifest in many newer forms, different from those of the pre-WW II period, when the two world wars themselves had taken place mainly for territorial re-division of the world. The immediate challenge before the Marxist-Leninists was to evaluate how these new factors at the international level were manifesting within the dynamics of the Indian social formation.

1950s onward the US imperialist think tanks and agencies like the Ford, Rockfeller Foundations started advocating 'land reforms from above' including land ceiling acts, and these began to be implemented in various parts of India. The green revolution experimented in India in a big way began to change the existing feudal relations. But, the argument of the Marxist-Leninists in the face these trends was that such developments were taking place only in isolated areas. They refused to recognize that it was increasingly becoming a dominant trend and soon these changes were bound to spread to more and more areas. As no macro-studies at all India level was taken up and because they refused to learn from many such studies coming out from governmental and non-governmental sources. Following Naxalbari, when fierce agrarian struggles broke out in different pockets, along with their brutal suppression the ruling classes started accelerating these reform-measures. In spite of resistance from local ruling classes in some cases during the early period, the central government went on intensifying attempts to implement such measures in all states. As a result, in various states important changes in the feudal class relations began to take place in varying degrees. The emergence of a new class in rural India, the capitalist farmers or kulaks as a major force, was the result of these changes. Still many among the Marxist-Leninists persisted in arguing falsely that all these changes are partial, or limited to some areas, and presented incorrect quantitative analysis of the situation at all India level to substantiate their erroneous views.

Another argument usually put forward was that in spite of these partial and limited changes in the feudal relations, neither the development of capitalist productive forces in agriculture nor the capitalist accumulation of agricultural surplus was taking place in any significant way. It is indeed true, that such a development was taking place only at a very slow pace in the beginning. And so this trend was utilized to argue that, as the capitalist development is not taking place through its normal course, the basic class relations in the countryside are still semi-feudal. The immediate inference drawn from this was that these semi-feudal relations are the real obstacles to the development of the productive forces.

Such an inference was contrary to facts as the feudal relations were breaking down or getting weaker and weaker at an increasing rate in ever larger areas. Any scientific analysis would have shown that such weak and shattering feudal relations could not prevent the development of capitalist productive forces. For example, even in areas where the feudal relations had broken down to a great extent, and where they were not at all a significant force, the capitalist productive forces were developing only slowly or its growth remained retarded. This pointed towards the existence of some powerful force other than feudalism which was playing a determining role in retarding the development of productive forces. For example, a preliminary study of Kerala's economy where the feudal relations had totally broken down, showed that in spite of the existence of almost all pre-conditions for capitalist development, the rate of development of productive forces was very slow, even in comparison with many other states. The studies showed that the overall neo-colonial control of Kerala economy by the imperialists and Indian monopolies through total control of the market of both raw materials and finished products is the reason for this stagnation. It is also true that there are many conditions particular to Kerala which have contributed to this state of affairs (like the predominance of cash crops, the development of peasant movements forcing changes in feudal relations, etc.). But, it will be erroneous to argue that the neo-colonial dominance over Kerala economy is due to these particular conditions. Neo-colonialism is a universal phenomenon and it is not confined to Kerala alone. It has only assumed particular forms due to the peculiarities of Kerala situation. In other areas of India, it may be taking other, different forms. Only a concrete analysis of the economies of different areas or states can show how this neo-colonial domination is getting manifested in these areas.

When similar studies were conducted in states like Maharashtra and Gujarat, areas considered to be industrially most developed ones, unlike Kerala, where raw materials were coming in large quantities, especially to the industrial belt around Mumbai, to be processed and sent back to different parts of the country, the industrialization was only comparatively better than other areas like Kerala. In general the development in these areas is also very slow or retarded when compared with the normal capitalist development recorded in the imperialist countries or in the former socialist countries where the feudal and imperialist fetters had been broken. And a concrete analysis of the overall economy in these areas too is leading to the recognition of the problem of neo-colonial domination. This does not however mean that the neo-colonial domination is completely obstructing the development of productive forces. According to the needs of their market expansion MNCs and other international financial agencies are promoting the development of industrial infrastructure and productive force to the extent they want, especially in certain selected sectors. Even this limited expansion is creating circumstances favourable to the development of small-scale auxiliary industries to the extent allowed by a market controlled by the monopolies. With this development of capitalist relations under the increasing inflow of international finance capital and increasing integration with the international market forces, the consumerist tendencies were also intensifying along with the fast growth of a service sector.

All these developments clearly showed that if colonial forces used feudal relations as a social base for imperialist domination, under the neo-colonial phase it is no longer so and they are transformed very fast to integrate every sector of production and market to the international system. As a result, the reality of the emerging new Indian situation was totally dissimilar to what was earlier evaluated. Along with this, the nature of state in neo-colonial situation is a complex subject that needed deeper analysis. In channelizing the finance capital flowing from outside and the domestic finance capital, the state plays a very important role. The neo-colonial domination is effectively implemented mainly through influencing and controlling the state machinery by the various imperialist powers. As different imperialist powers are competing with each other for the control of the market and natural resources in the neo-colonially dominated countries, the manoeuvrability of the state administration in such countries increases. All these factors called for more serious studies. The above observations point out the weaknesses in the approach pursued so far to mechanically prove that Indian state and society is semi-colonial and semi-feudal, and the path of revolution is people's war as in pre-revolutionary China.

The 1970s had created a challenging situation for the Marxist-Leninist movement. All the erstwhile communist parties had degenerated to parliamentary cretinism and to apologists of ruling class policies, toeing the Soviet revisionist line. The Marxist-Leninist movement which had emerged, struggling against this right opportunist deviation, had suffered severe setbacks, disintegrating to many groups in the course of pursuing a left adventurist line. Soon after Mao's death the capitalist roaders had succeeded in usurping power in China also, in spite of the almost blind belief upheld by the Marxist-Leninists that CPC which had gone through the Cultural Revolution could not degenerate in the manner the Soviet Union had degenerated earlier. Within the country new class forces had emerged compelling a concrete analysis of the emerging socio-political-economic situation. In spite of these momentous developments and the severe setbacks suffered by the communist movement internationally and within the country, almost all the Marxist-Leninist groups refused to take up serious studies to seek the reasons for these. Those who constituted the CRC- CPI (ML) in 1979 had themselves been victims of left deviation in the past. This made them also incapable for some time of taking up concrete analysis of the developments within the country after the disintegration of the CPI (ML) in early 1970s. When massive people's upsurges took place against the reactionary Congress government in power at centre and when the Indira Gandhi government imposed emergency rule in order to suppress them, taking away even existing democratic rights, they could not take up a revolutionary stand and mobilize the masses against these in a big way. These negative experiences compelled sections like the CRC to break away from dogmatic positions and to "seek truth from facts" by making a concrete analysis of the post-1947 situation as explained above. And, when it reached certain conclusions on the developments within the country during this period, these helped it to see the reasons for the reverses suffered by the international communist movement also in a new light.

In the course of the inner party struggle against the revisionist deviation of the CPI and against the neo-revisionist degeneration of the CPI(Marxist) leadership, the Communist Revolutionaries and later the CPI(ML) had already evaluated the degeneration of the Soviet Union to open revisionist positions following the usurpation of power by the Krushchevite forces who had advocated a liquidationist strategic line of peaceful competition and peaceful competition with the imperialist camp and peaceful transition to socialism. The basic orientation of this revisionist line was that imperialism has weakened during post-WW II period, creating conditions for peaceful transition. All the parties including those leading the socialist countries except China and Albania, and the CPI and CPI(Marxist) leadership in India had followed this line and had degenerated to the position of apologists of the policies pursued by the US led imperialist camp and the comprador classes in power in the 'de-colonized' countries.

It was in course of struggling against this Soviet revisionist deviation that the CPC had put forward the Proposal Concerning the general Line of the ICM along with the Nine Comments including the Apologists of Neo-Colonialism explaining various aspects mentioned in the Proposal, which gave a revolutionary strategic orientation to the movement. In continuation to this, the socialist roaders in China led by Mao had intensified the struggle against the rightist trend within CPC. The Cultural Revolution was launched to throw them out from positions of power. This Proposal had put forward the Leninist slogans: Workers of all countries unite, and Workers of the world unite with the oppressed people and oppressed nations emphatically. This had created expectations that the CPC under Mao's leadership shall take initiative to re-organize the Communist International which had been dissolved in 1943. But, no such initiative took place. On the contrary, very soon the line put forward in the Proposal was in effect rejected and the Ninth Congress of the CPC in 1969 defined that the world had entered a new era, an era when imperialism was facing total collapse and socialism was headed for worldwide victory. In an article written in 1964, Chou Enlai rejected the necessity for reorganizing the International. Soon the writing by Lin Biao, "Long Live the Victory of the People's War", was published as a basic document of the CPC which analyzed all the former colonial, semi-colonial, dependent countries where the transfer of power to comprador classes took place under the 'de-colonization' advocated by the US led imperialist camp, as semi-colonial, semi-feudal similar to pre-revolutionary China and the path of protracted people's war as their path of revolution. As no international platform for the Marxist-Leninist parties was formed in the course of the struggle against Soviet revisionism, no multilateral discussions on these developments could take place among the Marxist-Leninist parties which had emerged in the course of struggle against Soviet revisionist line. All of them started following the CPC and Mao as their international authority and started mechanically pursuing whatever was coming out of China as their line. The fact that the assertions in the Lin Biao's book went against the evaluation by the Proposal, and against the analysis of the post-WW II world situation in the Apologists of Neo-Colonialism, were not taken in to cognizance by these ML parties/ groups. In this context, the first significant evaluation of the CRC-CPI (ML) was that Lin Biao's book went against the earlier positions of the CPC. The CRC evaluated that Lin represented the left sectarian line which had come into dominance in the CPC leading it to the erroneous evaluation of the new era as that of total collapse of imperialism and worldwide victory of socialism and Mao Tse Tung Thought as the Marxism-Leninism of this era. ( It is not difficult to see that the concept of Maoism upheld by the Maoist parties later derived from these sectarian positions). It also evaluated that like the right opportunist line of Soviet revisionists, the left adventurist line of Lin also emanated from an erroneous evaluation of the post-WWII world situation, including the evaluation that the imperialist camp had weakened during this period, which was contrary to facts.

The post-World War-II period had witnessed many epochal changes. If Soviet Union had existed as the only socialist country till then, following the War, including China and east European countries, altogether 13 countries with one-third of world population were in socialist transition period. In many other countries, especially in colonial/semi-colonial countries, the communist movement had become very strong and the national liberation movement was gaining strength. The advance of the socialist camp looked irresistible. At the same time, weakening of other imperialist forces during the WW II led to US imperialism taking over the leadership of the imperialist camp. Along with the setbacks suffered by the older imperialist countries the old colonial policy also faced debacle and the direct colonial rule was almost brought to an end by transferring power to the comprador bourgeois leadership in the colonies. In reality many of these changes were getting matured behind the scene for a long time. These economic-political transfor-mations were getting speeded up during the war situation, and as a result of it, became dominant after the war. These changes can be put in general in the following way.

International monopolies which had started taking shape much earlier, which were later called TNCs or MNCs, reorganized production and marketing based on a global plan, and became main pillars of the world economic dominance in the post-War period. This intensified the internationalization of capital to new, unprecedented dimensions. Starting with the nuclear hegemony gained with the dropping of nuclear bombs over Japan and maintaining it by advancing nuclear technology, capabilities for inter-continental warfare and rocketry, modern war equipments, and allied information technology, space technology, and corresponding military tactics, the hegemony maintained by US imperialism in the military field became more pronounced. Along with these, numerous economic, political and military agreements and alliances and strategic military bases also were spread all over the world. Bretten Wood Agreement and based on it the World Bank, IMF like international finance agencies were initiated. United Nations, GATT like economic political institutions and their various appendages were also initiated.

It is this economic, political and military background given shape to by these changes brought out by the imperialist system, the imperialist powers became capable of establishing neo-colonial domination in the post-World War-II period all over the world by de-colonizing even distant colonies and semi colonies. US imperialism gained the leadership and initiative in this new economic, military and political order. One of the factors which provided a boost for this is that the imperialists could transform to a certain extent the scientific gains obtained from the beginning of this century in theoretical physics, quantum mechanics, genetic sciences etc. to technological gains. Mainly with the strength of its domination over petroleum energy sector, for many decades the US imperialism had already started overtaking British imperialism. Besides, from the beginning of this century it had gained experience in implementing indirect domination in the Latin American countries. Starting with the monopolies in the petroleum field, from the beginning of this century itself 'Multi National Corporations' (MNCs) had started becoming powerful in the economic life of US. As the colonies were under total domination of the other imperialist powers, from early days of last century US had started raising its voice against policies like protectionism mainly pursued by Britain. All these factors which were coming up one after another, complementary to each other, for a long period led to the transformation of colonial plunder to neo-colonial forms in the conditions following World War-II. It provided a new dimension for the domination of the world by imperialist powers beyond geographical annexations.

During this period, in the absence of any comprehensive analysis about the transformation of imperialist plunder to a new phase in continuation to and as a development of the studies made by Lenin in his great work: Imperialism, the highest Stage of Capitalism, and the development of the proletarian world outlook in accordance with it, gave rise to numerous partial, reformist, non-class and unilateral theories on imperialism. The influence of such theories, the weakening of the colonial powers including Britain, and the decolonization process led to the interpretation of neo-colonialism as a weaker and merely economic form of imperialism by some trends. The withdrawal of Britain and other colonial powers from the colonies giving them formal independence was interpreted as gaining of national independence. These interpretations later became one of the main theoretical foundations for revisionism in the mid-fifties. Actually, in his studies on imperialism, Lenin himself had mentioned about this new 'colonial forms' without giving scope for any misunderstanding: "Since we are speaking of colonial policy in the epoch of capitalist imperialism, it must be observed that finance capital and its foreign policy, which is the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of transitional forms of state dependence. Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies and themselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, politically, are formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, are typical of this epoch. We have already referred to one form of dependence, the semi-colony. An example of another is provided by Argentina" (Selected works, Vol. 1, p-734). Following this evaluation Lenin makes it also clear that this is applicable to the whole of South America. While explaining these features, Lenin was only showing the complexities in analyzing the division of the countries under colonial phase in to colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries.

Mainly two factors speeded up the decolonization process during the post- WWII decades. On the one hand, the intensification of globalization of capital beyond the earlier dominance over the oceans by Pax- Britannica to the nuclear, aerospace domination by Pax- Americana, numerous inter-continental military bases of US, its treaties with Western Europe and Japan for encircling Soviet Union and many other treaties which were arrived at with the reactionary governments in the already de-colonized countries, all of which were favourable factors which created a background for speeding up of de-colonization. On the other hand, over and above the movements with autonomy slogans coming up in the colonies under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, the situation created by the progress of the independent activities of the proletariat in these countries under the leadership of the communist parties united under the Communist International and the united activities developing under its leadership which intensified the national liberation movements around the world also played an important and decisive role in forcing the imperialist camp for speeding up the process of de-colonization. As many powerful tendencies negating these aspects of history are existing today, it is important to specifically point out these factors. Besides, the existence of a powerful socialist bloc during this period had influenced the policies and activities of imperialist bourgeoisie at global level. During this period, the bourgeoisie was also compelled to experiment many of the progressive policies from the Soviet experience under their own control in the form of Keynisian economics.

Instead of leaving everything to the hegemony of the market as the capitalist advocates always demand, in some sectors the planned economic activities under the control of the state to realize the development of crisis free capital were partially adopted under the control of bourgeois economy. This led to the growth of giant military economy on the one hand, and many welfare activities on the other hand in the capitalist imperialist countries. It also led to the enlargement of nationalization and state capitalist forms. The experience after1960s have proved that all these partial experiments have only led to increasing the depth and spread of the imperialist crisis. In his preface to the French and German Editions of "Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism", Lenin wrote on imperialism that "private property based on the labour of the small proprietor, free competition, democracy, all the catchwords with which the capitalists and their props deceive the workers and peasants are things of distant past. Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression, and of financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of "advanced" countries. And this "booty" is shared between two or three powerful world plunderers armed to the teeth (America, Great Britain, Japan) who are drawing the whole world into their war over the division of their booty" (SW, p-178).

Regarding the formulations like "ultra imperialism" conjured up by Kautsky to whitewash the real class content of imperialism, as well as about the weaknesses of his economic and political critique of imperialism, Lenin explained that they are permeated through and through with a spirit, absolutely irreconcilable with Marxism, of obscuring and glossing over the fundamental contradictions of imperialism and with a striving to preserve at all costs the crumbling unity with opportunism in the European working class movement. Exposing opportunists like Kautsky, Lenin explained the five basic features of imperialism as follows : (1) The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high state that it has created monopolies, which play a decisive role in economic life, (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of the 'finance capital' of a financial oligarchy, (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance, (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. (ibid, p-232)

Lenin has explained that the transformation of capitalism to its highest stage, imperialism, is integrally linked to the tremendous 'boom' in colonial conquests. Struggle for territorial re-division of the world became extraordinarily sharp. That is, the coming into being of imperialism, at this phase was connected with the intensification of the struggle for the partitioning of world territorially and for direct colonial rule over the area under their control, wherever possible. Because "the more capitalism is developed the more strongly the shortage of raw materials is felt, the more intense the competition and the hunt for source of raw materials throughout the whole world, the more desperate the struggle for the acquisition of the colonies". Lenin continued: the "colonial possession alone gives the monopolies complete guarantee against all contingencies in the struggle against competitions" (ibid, p-228). But as this division of the world in to colonial possessions in the main itself faced growing crisis, the imperialist powers had to seek new forms of plunder.

In the post World War-II years, as explained earlier, imperialist countries were compelled to adopt a policy of de-colonization. Under the leadership of US imperialism a new phase, of neo-colonialism, was inaugurated. 1944 Bretten Wood Agreement inaugurated a whole lot of new institutions for imposing the domination of imperialist capital and market control. Though the understanding about neo-colonialism had still called for further studies and development, its basic features were summed up by the CPC in its Great Debate documents. It called Krushchovite revisionists who became accomplices of the imperialist camp as "apologists of neo-colonialism" also. But, many organizations who call themselves Marxist-Leninist explain neo-colonialism in the words of these very same apologists and so have committed grave mistakes. They call only those handful of countries where neo-colonialism has taken the form of rule by US puppets as neo-colonies. Others are called semi-colonies by them. As Lenin and Mao repeatedly explained, semi-colony was a country in a transitional stage or middle stage during the colonial phase. These semi-colonies like China with some parts of it even under direct imperialist occupation are basically different from the present Asian-African-Latin American countries which are under plunder of imperialist capital and MNCs or under imperialist plunder in new forms.

As in the colonies/semi-colonies during the colonial phase, in the neo-colonies or countries under neo-colonial domination under present neo-colonial phase, basic features of the People's Democratic Revolution remain, in the main, the same. The PDR can win victory only by overthrowing the rule of imperialism, comprador bureaucratic bourgeois classes and the landlord classes with the orientation of building up a People's Democratic state under the leadership of the proletariat with worker-peasant alliance as its basis. It also calls for developing the agrarian revolutionary program according to present situation.

Instead of correctly evaluating this post World War-II situation which was favourable to world socialist movement and giving impetus to the anti-imperialist movement, erroneous conclusions about these developments were put forward leading to the weakening of the dominant sections within the world communist movement and the consequent weakening of the subjective forces of revolution. During this period Krushchevite revisionism underestimated the strength of the imperialist camp and over estimated the strength of the socialist forces. It was concluded that in the new situation the forces of socialism have dominance and decisive strength. It was argued that with the help of socialist countries, especially Soviet Union, peaceful transformation to socialism is possible all over the world. It was also decreed that in the new situation of domination of socialism, capitalist restoration in the socialist countries is impossible. It was also evaluated that in the new situation, the bourgeoisie running the state in the de-colonized countries is not only the leading force of national liberation, but it is a class prepared and capable of leading these countries to socialism in co-operation with Soviet Union! It described the de-colonization process as achievement of national independence, and almost neglected the threat posed by neo-colonialism promoted under the leadership of US imperialism. Soviet studies and books saw neo-colonialism only as a weaker form of imperialism. It was by fighting against this modern revisionism, that the CPC and PLA had led the Great Debate in the 1960s following the path of Third International.

In the 'Apologists of neo-colonialism' of 1963, after stating that "the leaders of the CPSU frequently spread the view that colonialism has disappeared from the present day world", the CPC stated: "The facts are clear. After the World War-II the imperialist have certainly not given up colonialism, but have merely adopted a new form, neo-colonialism. An important characteristic of such neo-colonialism is that the imperialists have been forced to change their old style of direct colonial rule and exploitation by relying on the agents they have selected and trained. The imperialists headed by the United States enslave or control the colonial countries and countries which have already declared their independence by organising military blocs, setting up military bases, establishing "federation" or "communities" and fostering puppet regimes. Moreover they use the United Nations as an important tool for interfering in the internal affairs of such countries and for subjecting them to military, economic and cultural aggression". Again after a paragraph it stated: "this neo-colonialism is a more pernicious and sinister form of colonialism" (The Great Debate, p-148).

That the ideological political line determines everything is a basic Marxist- Leninist teaching. It is applicable for both- the working class and its party, the communist party. The bourgeoisie recognized this fact long back and is always alert to the task of developing its ideological, political, economic and socio-cultural line to face all challenges against its hegemonic policies and practice. It is prepared to go to any extent to defend itself. Side by side, knowing this fact very well, it is always alert and prepared to disarm its opponents ideologically and politically, besides developing its preparedness to crush the opponents in the most pernicious and heinous ways. History has repeatedly proved that the revolutionary forces have advanced only when they could develop their ideological-political line according to concrete situation and expose and defeat the counter revolutionary enemy offensive.

The importance of correct evaluation of the transformation of imperialist system from its colonial phase to neocolonial one beginning from the post-WW years becomes a cardinal question in this context. The severe setbacks confronting the ICM can be traced mainly to this serious shortcoming as it is repeatedly proved. As the life and death struggle between the imperialist system and socialist forces which is the fundamental contradiction which determines the future of the humankind is intensifying day by day taking myriad forms, any weakness in recognizing the new initiatives by the enemy can lead to mortal defeats as history has repeatedly proved. The theoretical approach to neo-colonialism was explained in the document: On Character of the Indian State adopted by the 2009 All India Special Conference. What is attempted through this study is to put forward an empirical analysis to show how the imperialist system has undergone a qualitative change when it transformed its colonial forms of plunder explained by Lenin in his epochal work: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism to its present neo-colonial phase.

Lenin's analysis that "finance capital is such a decisive, you might say, force in all economic and all international relations, that it is capable of subjecting, and actually does subject, to itself even states enjoying the fullest political independence" is brought in to full play in the neo-colonial phase. Though the laws of motion of imperialism continue to remain basically the same throughout the imperialist epoch, it is important to distinguish the qualitative changes that are taking place during this long epoch which will continue till the imperialist system is overthrown or till decisive victory is won by the socialist forces in all fields. With the almost disappearance of territorial division as one of the basic characteristics, though wars, barbarous aggressive wars, continue to rage in all regions, any inter imperialist wars have not taken place during the last six decades or more. At the same time what is happening is that competition for enhancing export of capital, enhancing trade, for patent rights, for technological and military supremacy etc are intensifying,

After stagflation reaching serious proportions by 1970s and the imperialist forces launching the globalization-liberalization-privatization regime and going for neoliberal policies from 1980s to overcome it, the integration of the large number of former colonial, semi-colonial, dependent countries which came under neo-colonial domination to the imperial global system is further intensified. The internationalization of production has also further intensified. Due to availability of cheap labour and raw materials the countries under neo-colonial domination have become dumping ground for finance capital. Operations of IMF-WB-WTO and MNCs along with corporate houses have intensified. Through these moves the super accumulation of profits are taking place. It is increasingly benefitting the imperialist centres and the elite classes in the neo-colonial countries. The modern centres of capitalist intensive industries, consumer products, service centres, IT centres etc exhibit growth trends in the countries under neo-colonization, especially in countries like India. As a result, some super rich sections also have emerged in these countries. But these centres and growth in GDP is taking place without any organic link with the vast masses who are pushed down to increasing miseries and devastation.

In the agricultural sector, as already pointed out, the relations of production are undergoing significant changes under neo-colonial domination. The poor peasant-landless peasant-agricultural workers are increasingly alienated from the land and agriculture under corporatization of agriculture promoted by MNCs and native corporate forces. Refusing to recognize this reality many sections of the CRs are still adhering to semi-feudal analysis of the agrarian sector preventing the development of the program for agrarian revolution according to present realities.

It is hoped that the analytical method pursued in this study, updated taking in to consideration the fast changes taking place at all levels and substantiated by the statistical data shall help the Marxist- Leninist forces and all those who take positions against the imperialist system and aspire for a socialist future to make scientific analysis of the present international and national situation, when the imperialist system is dominating the whole world through neo-colonial methods. Such a scientific understanding shall create conditions for recognizing the correctness of the Program andthe Path of Revolution put forward by the CPI(ML) Red Star taking cognizance of these new changes.

The vast changes that have taken place calls for an exhaustive study of the operations and laws of motion of the imperialist system during the last century after the studies made by Lenin in his epochal work, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In the context of the ever mounting attacks on Marxist philosophy and practice by numerous alien trends which are in effect serving the imperialists and their lackeys, such studies are cardinal for the development of the Marxist-Leninist forces. The present study taken up by com. P.J. James on the specific issues concerning imperialism in its neo-colonial phase shall encourage such studies. This study explaining the theoretical formulations put forward by the party through its various documents from the time of its 1982 First All India Conference, mainly the documents adopted by the 2009 All India Special Conference, we hope, shall encourage in depth discussions to refute the dogmatic concepts upheld almost like religious faith by large number of organizations even after momentous changes have taken place at global level and in each country during the seven decades after the Second World War under neo-colonization.

A debate on the stage and path of revolution under the mode of production and class analysis in the present situation, which we prefer to call the neo-colonial phase of imperialism, has to be vigorously taken up through discussions based on the questions put forward and the answers given in this study among all revolutionary classes and sections. The scope of these discussions can be enlarged based on all available data from various sources. In this way conditions for an energetic and healthy ideological debate has to be created. Such a debate shall help to further develop the studies made in this book and to bring out more studies on imperialism and proletarian revolution in the present concrete situation. We appeal to all Marxist-Leninist sections, to all progressive and democratic forces to come forward with their critics and suggestions so that this vital discussion can be carried forward. It shall provide the scientific basis for evolving the Program and Path of Revolution in the present neo-colonial phase of imperialist era according to conditions in each country. Such an effort shall contribute towards creating conditions for developing the strategic line of the International Communist Movement also, facilitating the worldwide struggle for overthrowing the rule of imperialism and its lackeys and for the worldwide victory of socialist forces. It is hoped that this second edition of Imperialism in its neo-colonial phase shall encourage more vigorous response than the first edition received.

The book was released by Com KN Ramachandran to Com Klause, CC Member of MLPD, Germany on 26th February 2015, at Com Charu Majumdar Hall (Gandhi Bhavan) in Lucknow during 10th Party Congress of CPI (ML) Red Star. The Book is published by Massline Publication, Kottayam. The book is available @ Rs 600. Please contact: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. / This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.onial phase" by com. P.J. James is published now during the Tenth Congress of the Party. It was first brought out in November, 2011, during the Ninth Congress at Bhubaneswar with the objective of explaining the ideological- political stand taken by the CPI(ML) Red Star on the transformation of imperialist plunder from colonial to neo-colonial phase in the post-Second World War period. Since then, during the last three years, widespread discussions have taken place on this important question, both inside and outside the Party in India, and at the international level. As a result, with other forces also contributing to its discussion and further development, more and more sections of the Marxist-Leninist forces are adopting this stand, both within India and internationally. An international seminar on this question, organized during the Second Conference of the International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations (ICOR) during April, 2014, helped further develop discussions on this question within the international communist movement. This introduction has been prepared based mainly on the paper by presented by the party at this international seminar.

In order to make a concrete analysis of the genesis of the neo-colonial phase in India and the reasons for the delay in understanding this important aspect in the Indian context by the communist movement, one must begin with an over view of the experience of the nine decades of the communist movement in India. It was the 1917 October Revolution in Russia which brought the first salvos of Marxism-Leninism to the then British colony, India. From 1920 onwards communist groups were formed within and outside the country, leading later to the formation of the Communist party of India (CPI). By 1930s the CPI had succeeded in building the party and different class and mass organizations in various parts of the country. Many anti- feudal struggles of the peasantry and working class struggles for better wages and living conditions were waged. This growth of the communist party and the working class movement created conditions for its taking the lead in putting forward the slogan of Purna Swaraj (full independence) even before the independence movement led by the congress party. But the weakness of the communist movement lied in- a) its failure to recognize the comprador character of the big bourgeoisie, which was developing in collaboration with the colonial masters and b) subservience of Congress and Muslim League leaderships to this class and the feudal landlords. It did not recognize the importance of establishing the leadership of the working class in the independence struggle for the completion of the task of leading the democratic revolution to victory. As a result, in effect it became a tail of the Congress and Muslim League during this period. During the Second World War when the objective conditions for leading the independence struggle forward became excellent, due its decision to back the tactical alliance formed by Soviet Union with Britain, US and France in the war against fascist alliance led by Nazi Germany, the CPI supported the colonial power, a mistake that alienated it from the raging independence struggle. Even in the post Second World War situation, when the socialist forces had scored significant victories around the world, when the struggles of the working class, the peasantry and other oppressed sections had intensified and when even the Naval force of the colonial raj had revolted, the CPI leadership did not rectify its mistakes and try to lead the people's democratic revolution (PDR) forward. This compromising position of the CPI made it easier for the British colonialists to communally divide the country into India and Pakistan and to hand over power to Congress and Muslim League leaderships.

Though the Second Congress of the Party held in 1948 denounced this right deviation and elected a new leadership, it took a left adventurist line, calling for urban insurrections to capture power without any subjective preparations. It also failed to make a concrete analysis of the Indian situation and put forward a party program and path of revolution accordingly. As a result, soon it was crushed. As the party faced disintegration, with the help of the leadership of the Soviet Communist Party a new program and strategic line for completion of the PDR was adopted by the 1951 Special Conference. Though this line in the main conformed to the Indian situation, the new leadership refused to put it in to practice and started sliding to rightist positions again. When revisionists usurped power in Soviet Union during the 20th Congress of the CPSU and put forward the right opportunist line of peacefully competing and co-existing with imperialism and of peaceful transition to socialism, in line with it, the CPI leadership toed this line. Analyzing the big bourgeoisie and the Congress leadership as predominantly national bourgeois in character, it called for National Democratic Revolution in collaboration with them. In effect, rejecting other forms of struggle it started taking the path of parliamentarism. This was indeed a line of liquidation, a basic deviation from the revolutionary path.

It was in this situation that the inner party struggle against the rightist leadership began to intensify, as a result of which the party split in 1964 leading to the formation of the CPI (Marxist). It rejected the NDR line of the CPI leadership and called for the completion of the PDR under the working class leadership. But it refused to break away from the Soviet revisionist line and to analyze the predominantly comprador character of the big bourgeoisie leading the Indian state. In its analysis the big bourgeoisie had a dual character- of both collaborating and competing with imperialism. But it refused to define the main character of the big bourgeoisie in the present situation, and in effect pursued a line of collaboration with it. Thus CPI (M) took a centrist line in practice, surrendering to Soviet revisionism and parliamentary cretinism like the CPI leadership.

Communist Revolutionaries within the CPI(M) waged a bitter struggle against this neo-revisionist line, leading to the 1967 Naxalbari Peasant Uprising and the founding of the CPI(Marxist-Leninist) in 1969 which took the line of supporting the struggle waged by the CPC under the leadership of Mao against the Soviet revisionist line. These developments enthused the rank and file of the CPI (Marxist) as well as the youth and students to join the communist revolutionaries immensely, who rallied to overthrow the reactionary Indian state and to complete the PDR under the guidance of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung thought.

But the leadership of the CPI (ML) too failed to make a concrete analysis of the emerging situation in the country and develop its program and path accordingly. It mechanically pursued the sectarian line initiated by the Lin Biao group, which came to leadership of the CPC in its 9th Congress of 1969, with the publication of "Long Live the Victory of People's War" in 1966. Upholding "Chinese Path as Our Path", the CPI (ML) and those communist revolutionaries who did not join it, analyzed India as being semi-colonial and semi-feudal in character similar to pre-revolutionary China, and adopted protracted people's war as their path of revolution. It rejected the Bolshevik style of party and class/ mass organization building and adopted the 'line of annihilation of class enemies' as a step towards initiating the armed struggle. This sectarian line soon alienated the party from the left masses. Brutal enemy suppression led to severe setbacks and its disintegration by 1972.

Following this, when the efforts to re-organize the movement were initiated, most of the splintered groups abandoned the 'armed struggle as the only form of struggle' path, and took up overground activities among the masses. Some of them started trade union work and initiated other class/ mass organizations also. But some other groups persisted in upholding the 'only armed struggle' line, whether they actually practiced it or not. Moreover, these tactical differences notwithstanding, all of them continued to uphold the 'semi-colonial, semi-feudal, people's war' line in their documents. None of them was ready to take up a study of the changes which had taken place in the concrete conditions in the country after the transfer of power, vesting formal independence. All of them, in the main, refused to accept that any major changes were taking place in the concrete situation. So, in spite of many massive spontaneous people's upsurges taking place in many parts of the country in mid-1970s against the central and state governments, most of these Marxist-Leninist groups refused to participate in them neither did they try to come to their leadership. When the Congress regime declared internal emergency in 1975 to suppress the people's movements getting strengthened against it and took away even whatever democratic rights were existing, they could not correctly evaluate its impact on the people and the need to organize movements to protect people's democratic rights. The reaction of the people to the imposition of emergency leading to the massive defeat of Congress in the 1977 general elections was contrary to what they had evaluated, as most of them were still sticking to the old analysis and path of revolution. They could not correctly evaluate the usurpation of power in China by the capitalist roaders soon after the death of Mao also. Though many of them were compelled to accept this after few years, almost all of them continued to uphold the class collaborationist 'Theory of Three Worlds' put forward by the capitalist roaders in China as the general line of the international communist movement (ICM).

Following the withdrawal of the emergency when the newly emerged rich peasant- capitalist class led agricultural movements broke out in many regions for more input- subsidies and for remunerative prices for agricultural outputs, comparing this class to the rich peasantry of China during the period of the revolutionary struggle, these Marxist-Leninist organizations mechanically supported them. In spite of such important international and national developments during the 1970s, they were still sticking to the strategic line put forward in the documents of the first or eighth Congress of the CPI(ML) in 1970, confining their reorganization efforts to certain aspects of tactics, like rejecting the 'line of annihilation of class enemies' etc. Whatever studies they took up were by and large confined to the setbacks suffered by the Marxist-Leninist movement in India alone. As a result, they could not take up a comprehensive analysis of the changes taking place at international level and based on it within the country. They could not get out of the stagnation they were facing by developing the program and the strategic line according to the concrete conditions, rectifying the old mistakes.

It was in this context that certain sections of the Marxist-Leninists started new investigations in different parts of the country. It was as a part of these efforts that the Central Reorganization Committee of the CPI (ML) [CRC-CPI(ML)], formed in 1979, took up that task of evaluation of the developments in the national situation during the post-Second World War decades, and the reasons for the setbacks suffered by the communist movement within the country. The Marxist approach called for a painstaking, thorough analysis of the concrete conditions in the society in order to formulate a concrete program for its revolutionary re-structuring. But the communist movement in India had repeatedly failed in this, as briefly mentioned above. The analysis of Indian society undertaken by them in general was always proved defective. The approach pursued almost from the beginning was to start from some generalizations, and not from the concrete analysis of concrete conditions. The discussions mainly focused on whether to adopt the Russian model or Chinese one, or a combination of both, as the basis for analyzing the Indian situation. There was never any effort to use the powerful tools of Marxist analysis to dissect the Indian society.

The communist revolu-tionaries too were no exception to this erroneous approach. Whatever studies they took up were partial and limited to some small pockets. The Beijing Review of June 1967, while lauding the Naxalbari struggle in its editorial, Spring thunder over Indian horizon, had stated, based on the assertions in Lin Biao's book, "Long Live the Victory of People's War",that all the countries which were formerly under colonial, semi-colonial domination (like India) had become semi-colonial, semi-feudal in a way similar to pre-revolutionary China, and their path of revolution should be 'people's war', after the transfer of power or formal independence. All Marxist-Leninists, whether they were in CPI (ML) groups or other communist revolutionary groups, irrespective of other differences, very soon had reached the understanding that Indian situation was, in the main, similar to that of pre-revolutionary China. The discussions and debates for arriving at such a conclusion were mainly conducted at a logical level and not on the basis of any concrete steps to analyze Indian society. The Naxalbari struggle itself was later evaluated mechanically along the lines of the Hunan Report of Mao. The heritage of this mechanical approach towards the concrete analysis of Indian situation weighed down upon the long history of the Indian communist movement was so heavily that the communist revolutionaries could not make a break from the past. In this matter, they did not get much help from the International Communist Movement either, as pointed out above.

When a concrete study of the Indian situation was undertaken by organizations like the CRC, it became increasingly clear that whatever similarity the newly emerging Indian situation had with the pre-revolutionary Chinese situation was only superficial. By equating the two, the vast changes that had taken place under the neo-colonial phase of imperialism, which had emerged after World War II, were neglected. That is why the emergence of agricultural bourgeois class or kulaks replacing the feudal landlords as the major force to be reckoned within the agrarian sector in ever increasing areas under green revolution or as a result of land reforms like tactics introduced from above to defuse people's struggles on the one hand and to create conditions for penetration of finance capital and market forces on the other, remained unrecognized. The understanding of the Marxist-Leninists that, before World War II in the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the imperialists had used the feudal forces as their social props for domination and exploitation was in the main correct. This imperialist-feudal alliance was correctly understood as the obstacle for the natural development of capitalist productive forces. The basic mistake that happened during the post-WW II period was due to a lack of examination into whether the same method of imperialist exploitation existed in this period also; they adopted the same analytical tools as before to evaluate the Indian society.

The CPC in its comment "Apologists of Neo-Colonialism", published along with the "Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement" in 196,3 had stated that the forms of imperialist plunder had undergone vast changes during the post-WW II years. But it was not subjected by it to a thorough evaluation and development from the Marxist standpoint afterwards. As the sectarian line came into dominance in the CPC, soon any such attempts became was impossible. As a result, the general understanding still prevalent in the CPC and in the ICM with regard to imperialism was that its basic nature has not undergone any changes. It is true that the basic laws of motion of imperialism as explained by Lenin, in the main, continued to be the same; but these basic laws had assumed new forms during the post-Second World War years. Only a concrete analysis of these new forms of imperialist penetration could give a clear picture of the social formations in the countries under neo-colonial domination.

The emergence of multinational corporations (MNCs) as a major force at the global level and the consequent internationalization of capital, the emergence of international financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank, internationalization of trade through GATT which later led to formation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) etc. are specific features of the neo-colonial period. Instead of direct domination by imperialist powers, indirect domination through finance capital, market forces, technology transfer and military superiority were pursued. In place of one imperialist power directly colonizing and dominating a particular country, many imperialist powers started simultaneously plundering a neo-colonially dominated country. Because of this new political and economic situation, imperialist rivalry itself is becoming manifest in many newer forms, different from those of the pre-WW II period, when the two world wars themselves had taken place mainly for territorial re-division of the world. The immediate challenge before the Marxist-Leninists was to evaluate how these new factors at the international level were manifesting within the dynamics of the Indian social formation.

1950s onward the US imperialist think tanks and agencies like the Ford, Rockfeller Foundations started advocating 'land reforms from above' including land ceiling acts, and these began to be implemented in various parts of India. The green revolution experimented in India in a big way began to change the existing feudal relations. But, the argument of the Marxist-Leninists in the face these trends was that such developments were taking place only in isolated areas. They refused to recognize that it was increasingly becoming a dominant trend and soon these changes were bound to spread to more and more areas. As no macro-studies at all India level was taken up and because they refused to learn from many such studies coming out from governmental and non-governmental sources. Following Naxalbari, when fierce agrarian struggles broke out in different pockets, along with their brutal suppression the ruling classes started accelerating these reform-measures. In spite of resistance from local ruling classes in some cases during the early period, the central government went on intensifying attempts to implement such measures in all states. As a result, in various states important changes in the feudal class relations began to take place in varying degrees. The emergence of a new class in rural India, the capitalist farmers or kulaks as a major force, was the result of these changes. Still many among the Marxist-Leninists persisted in arguing falsely that all these changes are partial, or limited to some areas, and presented incorrect quantitative analysis of the situation at all India level to substantiate their erroneous views.

Another argument usually put forward was that in spite of these partial and limited changes in the feudal relations, neither the development of capitalist productive forces in agriculture nor the capitalist accumulation of agricultural surplus was taking place in any significant way. It is indeed true, that such a development was taking place only at a very slow pace in the beginning. And so this trend was utilized to argue that, as the capitalist development is not taking place through its normal course, the basic class relations in the countryside are still semi-feudal. The immediate inference drawn from this was that these semi-feudal relations are the real obstacles to the development of the productive forces.

Such an inference was contrary to facts as the feudal relations were breaking down or getting weaker and weaker at an increasing rate in ever larger areas. Any scientific analysis would have shown that such weak and shattering feudal relations could not prevent the development of capitalist productive forces. For example, even in areas where the feudal relations had broken down to a great extent, and where they were not at all a significant force, the capitalist productive forces were developing only slowly or its growth remained retarded. This pointed towards the existence of some powerful force other than feudalism which was playing a determining role in retarding the development of productive forces. For example, a preliminary study of Kerala's economy where the feudal relations had totally broken down, showed that in spite of the existence of almost all pre-conditions for capitalist development, the rate of development of productive forces was very slow, even in comparison with many other states. The studies showed that the overall neo-colonial control of Kerala economy by the imperialists and Indian monopolies through total control of the market of both raw materials and finished products is the reason for this stagnation. It is also true that there are many conditions particular to Kerala which have contributed to this state of affairs (like the predominance of cash crops, the development of peasant movements forcing changes in feudal relations, etc.). But, it will be erroneous to argue that the neo-colonial dominance over Kerala economy is due to these particular conditions. Neo-colonialism is a universal phenomenon and it is not confined to Kerala alone. It has only assumed particular forms due to the peculiarities of Kerala situation. In other areas of India, it may be taking other, different forms. Only a concrete analysis of the economies of different areas or states can show how this neo-colonial domination is getting manifested in these areas.

When similar studies were conducted in states like Maharashtra and Gujarat, areas considered to be industrially most developed ones, unlike Kerala, where raw materials were coming in large quantities, especially to the industrial belt around Mumbai, to be processed and sent back to different parts of the country, the industrialization was only comparatively better than other areas like Kerala. In general the development in these areas is also very slow or retarded when compared with the normal capitalist development recorded in the imperialist countries or in the former socialist countries where the feudal and imperialist fetters had been broken. And a concrete analysis of the overall economy in these areas too is leading to the recognition of the problem of neo-colonial domination. This does not however mean that the neo-colonial domination is completely obstructing the development of productive forces. According to the needs of their market expansion MNCs and other international financial agencies are promoting the development of industrial infrastructure and productive force to the extent they want, especially in certain selected sectors. Even this limited expansion is creating circumstances favourable to the development of small-scale auxiliary industries to the extent allowed by a market controlled by the monopolies. With this development of capitalist relations under the increasing inflow of international finance capital and increasing integration with the international market forces, the consumerist tendencies were also intensifying along with the fast growth of a service sector.

All these developments clearly showed that if colonial forces used feudal relations as a social base for imperialist domination, under the neo-colonial phase it is no longer so and they are transformed very fast to integrate every sector of production and market to the international system. As a result, the reality of the emerging new Indian situation was totally dissimilar to what was earlier evaluated. Along with this, the nature of state in neo-colonial situation is a complex subject that needed deeper analysis. In channelizing the finance capital flowing from outside and the domestic finance capital, the state plays a very important role. The neo-colonial domination is effectively implemented mainly through influencing and controlling the state machinery by the various imperialist powers. As different imperialist powers are competing with each other for the control of the market and natural resources in the neo-colonially dominated countries, the manoeuvrability of the state administration in such countries increases. All these factors called for more serious studies. The above observations point out the weaknesses in the approach pursued so far to mechanically prove that Indian state and society is semi-colonial and semi-feudal, and the path of revolution is people's war as in pre-revolutionary China.

The 1970s had created a challenging situation for the Marxist-Leninist movement. All the erstwhile communist parties had degenerated to parliamentary cretinism and to apologists of ruling class policies, toeing the Soviet revisionist line. The Marxist-Leninist movement which had emerged, struggling against this right opportunist deviation, had suffered severe setbacks, disintegrating to many groups in the course of pursuing a left adventurist line. Soon after Mao's death the capitalist roaders had succeeded in usurping power in China also, in spite of the almost blind belief upheld by the Marxist-Leninists that CPC which had gone through the Cultural Revolution could not degenerate in the manner the Soviet Union had degenerated earlier. Within the country new class forces had emerged compelling a concrete analysis of the emerging socio-political-economic situation. In spite of these momentous developments and the severe setbacks suffered by the communist movement internationally and within the country, almost all the Marxist-Leninist groups refused to take up serious studies to seek the reasons for these. Those who constituted the CRC- CPI (ML) in 1979 had themselves been victims of left deviation in the past. This made them also incapable for some time of taking up concrete analysis of the developments within the country after the disintegration of the CPI (ML) in early 1970s. When massive people's upsurges took place against the reactionary Congress government in power at centre and when the Indira Gandhi government imposed emergency rule in order to suppress them, taking away even existing democratic rights, they could not take up a revolutionary stand and mobilize the masses against these in a big way. These negative experiences compelled sections like the CRC to break away from dogmatic positions and to "seek truth from facts" by making a concrete analysis of the post-1947 situation as explained above. And, when it reached certain conclusions on the developments within the country during this period, these helped it to see the reasons for the reverses suffered by the international communist movement also in a new light.

In the course of the inner party struggle against the revisionist deviation of the CPI and against the neo-revisionist degeneration of the CPI(Marxist) leadership, the Communist Revolutionaries and later the CPI(ML) had already evaluated the degeneration of the Soviet Union to open revisionist positions following the usurpation of power by the Krushchevite forces who had advocated a liquidationist strategic line of peaceful competition and peaceful competition with the imperialist camp and peaceful transition to socialism. The basic orientation of this revisionist line was that imperialism has weakened during post-WW II period, creating conditions for peaceful transition. All the parties including those leading the socialist countries except China and Albania, and the CPI and CPI(Marxist) leadership in India had followed this line and had degenerated to the position of apologists of the policies pursued by the US led imperialist camp and the comprador classes in power in the 'de-colonized' countries.

It was in course of struggling against this Soviet revisionist deviation that the CPC had put forward the Proposal Concerning the general Line of the ICM along with the Nine Comments including the Apologists of Neo-Colonialism explaining various aspects mentioned in the Proposal, which gave a revolutionary strategic orientation to the movement. In continuation to this, the socialist roaders in China led by Mao had intensified the struggle against the rightist trend within CPC. The Cultural Revolution was launched to throw them out from positions of power. This Proposal had put forward the Leninist slogans: Workers of all countries unite, and Workers of the world unite with the oppressed people and oppressed nations emphatically. This had created expectations that the CPC under Mao's leadership shall take initiative to re-organize the Communist International which had been dissolved in 1943. But, no such initiative took place. On the contrary, very soon the line put forward in the Proposal was in effect rejected and the Ninth Congress of the CPC in 1969 defined that the world had entered a new era, an era when imperialism was facing total collapse and socialism was headed for worldwide victory. In an article written in 1964, Chou Enlai rejected the necessity for reorganizing the International. Soon the writing by Lin Biao, "Long Live the Victory of the People's War", was published as a basic document of the CPC which analyzed all the former colonial, semi-colonial, dependent countries where the transfer of power to comprador classes took place under the 'de-colonization' advocated by the US led imperialist camp, as semi-colonial, semi-feudal similar to pre-revolutionary China and the path of protracted people's war as their path of revolution. As no international platform for the Marxist-Leninist parties was formed in the course of the struggle against Soviet revisionism, no multilateral discussions on these developments could take place among the Marxist-Leninist parties which had emerged in the course of struggle against Soviet revisionist line. All of them started following the CPC and Mao as their international authority and started mechanically pursuing whatever was coming out of China as their line. The fact that the assertions in the Lin Biao's book went against the evaluation by the Proposal, and against the analysis of the post-WW II world situation in the Apologists of Neo-Colonialism, were not taken in to cognizance by these ML parties/ groups. In this context, the first significant evaluation of the CRC-CPI (ML) was that Lin Biao's book went against the earlier positions of the CPC. The CRC evaluated that Lin represented the left sectarian line which had come into dominance in the CPC leading it to the erroneous evaluation of the new era as that of total collapse of imperialism and worldwide victory of socialism and Mao Tse Tung Thought as the Marxism-Leninism of this era. ( It is not difficult to see that the concept of Maoism upheld by the Maoist parties later derived from these sectarian positions). It also evaluated that like the right opportunist line of Soviet revisionists, the left adventurist line of Lin also emanated from an erroneous evaluation of the post-WWII world situation, including the evaluation that the imperialist camp had weakened during this period, which was contrary to facts.

The post-World War-II period had witnessed many epochal changes. If Soviet Union had existed as the only socialist country till then, following the War, including China and east European countries, altogether 13 countries with one-third of world population were in socialist transition period. In many other countries, especially in colonial/semi-colonial countries, the communist movement had become very strong and the national liberation movement was gaining strength. The advance of the socialist camp looked irresistible. At the same time, weakening of other imperialist forces during the WW II led to US imperialism taking over the leadership of the imperialist camp. Along with the setbacks suffered by the older imperialist countries the old colonial policy also faced debacle and the direct colonial rule was almost brought to an end by transferring power to the comprador bourgeois leadership in the colonies. In reality many of these changes were getting matured behind the scene for a long time. These economic-political transfor-mations were getting speeded up during the war situation, and as a result of it, became dominant after the war. These changes can be put in general in the following way.

International monopolies which had started taking shape much earlier, which were later called TNCs or MNCs, reorganized production and marketing based on a global plan, and became main pillars of the world economic dominance in the post-War period. This intensified the internationalization of capital to new, unprecedented dimensions. Starting with the nuclear hegemony gained with the dropping of nuclear bombs over Japan and maintaining it by advancing nuclear technology, capabilities for inter-continental warfare and rocketry, modern war equipments, and allied information technology, space technology, and corresponding military tactics, the hegemony maintained by US imperialism in the military field became more pronounced. Along with these, numerous economic, political and military agreements and alliances and strategic military bases also were spread all over the world. Bretten Wood Agreement and based on it the World Bank, IMF like international finance agencies were initiated. United Nations, GATT like economic political institutions and their various appendages were also initiated.

It is this economic, political and military background given shape to by these changes brought out by the imperialist system, the imperialist powers became capable of establishing neo-colonial domination in the post-World War-II period all over the world by de-colonizing even distant colonies and semi colonies. US imperialism gained the leadership and initiative in this new economic, military and political order. One of the factors which provided a boost for this is that the imperialists could transform to a certain extent the scientific gains obtained from the beginning of this century in theoretical physics, quantum mechanics, genetic sciences etc. to technological gains. Mainly with the strength of its domination over petroleum energy sector, for many decades the US imperialism had already started overtaking British imperialism. Besides, from the beginning of this century it had gained experience in implementing indirect domination in the Latin American countries. Starting with the monopolies in the petroleum field, from the beginning of this century itself 'Multi National Corporations' (MNCs) had started becoming powerful in the economic life of US. As the colonies were under total domination of the other imperialist powers, from early days of last century US had started raising its voice against policies like protectionism mainly pursued by Britain. All these factors which were coming up one after another, complementary to each other, for a long period led to the transformation of colonial plunder to neo-colonial forms in the conditions following World War-II. It provided a new dimension for the domination of the world by imperialist powers beyond geographical annexations.

During this period, in the absence of any comprehensive analysis about the transformation of imperialist plunder to a new phase in continuation to and as a development of the studies made by Lenin in his great work: Imperialism, the highest Stage of Capitalism, and the development of the proletarian world outlook in accordance with it, gave rise to numerous partial, reformist, non-class and unilateral theories on imperialism. The influence of such theories, the weakening of the colonial powers including Britain, and the decolonization process led to the interpretation of neo-colonialism as a weaker and merely economic form of imperialism by some trends. The withdrawal of Britain and other colonial powers from the colonies giving them formal independence was interpreted as gaining of national independence. These interpretations later became one of the main theoretical foundations for revisionism in the mid-fifties. Actually, in his studies on imperialism, Lenin himself had mentioned about this new 'colonial forms' without giving scope for any misunderstanding: "Since we are speaking of colonial policy in the epoch of capitalist imperialism, it must be observed that finance capital and its foreign policy, which is the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of transitional forms of state dependence. Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies and themselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, politically, are formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, are typical of this epoch. We have already referred to one form of dependence, the semi-colony. An example of another is provided by Argentina" (Selected works, Vol. 1, p-734). Following this evaluation Lenin makes it also clear that this is applicable to the whole of South America. While explaining these features, Lenin was only showing the complexities in analyzing the division of the countries under colonial phase in to colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries.

Mainly two factors speeded up the decolonization process during the post- WWII decades. On the one hand, the intensification of globalization of capital beyond the earlier dominance over the oceans by Pax- Britannica to the nuclear, aerospace domination by Pax- Americana, numerous inter-continental military bases of US, its treaties with Western Europe and Japan for encircling Soviet Union and many other treaties which were arrived at with the reactionary governments in the already de-colonized countries, all of which were favourable factors which created a background for speeding up of de-colonization. On the other hand, over and above the movements with autonomy slogans coming up in the colonies under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, the situation created by the progress of the independent activities of the proletariat in these countries under the leadership of the communist parties united under the Communist International and the united activities developing under its leadership which intensified the national liberation movements around the world also played an important and decisive role in forcing the imperialist camp for speeding up the process of de-colonization. As many powerful tendencies negating these aspects of history are existing today, it is important to specifically point out these factors. Besides, the existence of a powerful socialist bloc during this period had influenced the policies and activities of imperialist bourgeoisie at global level. During this period, the bourgeoisie was also compelled to experiment many of the progressive policies from the Soviet experience under their own control in the form of Keynisian economics.

Instead of leaving everything to the hegemony of the market as the capitalist advocates always demand, in some sectors the planned economic activities under the control of the state to realize the development of crisis free capital were partially adopted under the control of bourgeois economy. This led to the growth of giant military economy on the one hand, and many welfare activities on the other hand in the capitalist imperialist countries. It also led to the enlargement of nationalization and state capitalist forms. The experience after1960s have proved that all these partial experiments have only led to increasing the depth and spread of the imperialist crisis. In his preface to the French and German Editions of "Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism", Lenin wrote on imperialism that "private property based on the labour of the small proprietor, free competition, democracy, all the catchwords with which the capitalists and their props deceive the workers and peasants are things of distant past. Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression, and of financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of "advanced" countries. And this "booty" is shared between two or three powerful world plunderers armed to the teeth (America, Great Britain, Japan) who are drawing the whole world into their war over the division of their booty" (SW, p-178).

Regarding the formulations like "ultra imperialism" conjured up by Kautsky to whitewash the real class content of imperialism, as well as about the weaknesses of his economic and political critique of imperialism, Lenin explained that they are permeated through and through with a spirit, absolutely irreconcilable with Marxism, of obscuring and glossing over the fundamental contradictions of imperialism and with a striving to preserve at all costs the crumbling unity with opportunism in the European working class movement. Exposing opportunists like Kautsky, Lenin explained the five basic features of imperialism as follows : (1) The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high state that it has created monopolies, which play a decisive role in economic life, (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of the 'finance capital' of a financial oligarchy, (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance, (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. (ibid, p-232)

Lenin has explained that the transformation of capitalism to its highest stage, imperialism, is integrally linked to the tremendous 'boom' in colonial conquests. Struggle for territorial re-division of the world became extraordinarily sharp. That is, the coming into being of imperialism, at this phase was connected with the intensification of the struggle for the partitioning of world territorially and for direct colonial rule over the area under their control, wherever possible. Because "the more capitalism is developed the more strongly the shortage of raw materials is felt, the more intense the competition and the hunt for source of raw materials throughout the whole world, the more desperate the struggle for the acquisition of the colonies". Lenin continued: the "colonial possession alone gives the monopolies complete guarantee against all contingencies in the struggle against competitions" (ibid, p-228). But as this division of the world in to colonial possessions in the main itself faced growing crisis, the imperialist powers had to seek new forms of plunder.

In the post World War-II years, as explained earlier, imperialist countries were compelled to adopt a policy of de-colonization. Under the leadership of US imperialism a new phase, of neo-colonialism, was inaugurated. 1944 Bretten Wood Agreement inaugurated a whole lot of new institutions for imposing the domination of imperialist capital and market control. Though the understanding about neo-colonialism had still called for further studies and development, its basic features were summed up by the CPC in its Great Debate documents. It called Krushchovite revisionists who became accomplices of the imperialist camp as "apologists of neo-colonialism" also. But, many organizations who call themselves Marxist-Leninist explain neo-colonialism in the words of these very same apologists and so have committed grave mistakes. They call only those handful of countries where neo-colonialism has taken the form of rule by US puppets as neo-colonies. Others are called semi-colonies by them. As Lenin and Mao repeatedly explained, semi-colony was a country in a transitional stage or middle stage during the colonial phase. These semi-colonies like China with some parts of it even under direct imperialist occupation are basically different from the present Asian-African-Latin American countries which are under plunder of imperialist capital and MNCs or under imperialist plunder in new forms.

As in the colonies/semi-colonies during the colonial phase, in the neo-colonies or countries under neo-colonial domination under present neo-colonial phase, basic features of the People's Democratic Revolution remain, in the main, the same. The PDR can win victory only by overthrowing the rule of imperialism, comprador bureaucratic bourgeois classes and the landlord classes with the orientation of building up a People's Democratic state under the leadership of the proletariat with worker-peasant alliance as its basis. It also calls for developing the agrarian revolutionary program according to present situation.

Instead of correctly evaluating this post World War-II situation which was favourable to world socialist movement and giving impetus to the anti-imperialist movement, erroneous conclusions about these developments were put forward leading to the weakening of the dominant sections within the world communist movement and the consequent weakening of the subjective forces of revolution. During this period Krushchevite revisionism underestimated the strength of the imperialist camp and over estimated the strength of the socialist forces. It was concluded that in the new situation the forces of socialism have dominance and decisive strength. It was argued that with the help of socialist countries, especially Soviet Union, peaceful transformation to socialism is possible all over the world. It was also decreed that in the new situation of domination of socialism, capitalist restoration in the socialist countries is impossible. It was also evaluated that in the new situation, the bourgeoisie running the state in the de-colonized countries is not only the leading force of national liberation, but it is a class prepared and capable of leading these countries to socialism in co-operation with Soviet Union! It described the de-colonization process as achievement of national independence, and almost neglected the threat posed by neo-colonialism promoted under the leadership of US imperialism. Soviet studies and books saw neo-colonialism only as a weaker form of imperialism. It was by fighting against this modern revisionism, that the CPC and PLA had led the Great Debate in the 1960s following the path of Third International.

In the 'Apologists of neo-colonialism' of 1963, after stating that "the leaders of the CPSU frequently spread the view that colonialism has disappeared from the present day world", the CPC stated: "The facts are clear. After the World War-II the imperialist have certainly not given up colonialism, but have merely adopted a new form, neo-colonialism. An important characteristic of such neo-colonialism is that the imperialists have been forced to change their old style of direct colonial rule and exploitation by relying on the agents they have selected and trained. The imperialists headed by the United States enslave or control the colonial countries and countries which have already declared their independence by organising military blocs, setting up military bases, establishing "federation" or "communities" and fostering puppet regimes. Moreover they use the United Nations as an important tool for interfering in the internal affairs of such countries and for subjecting them to military, economic and cultural aggression". Again after a paragraph it stated: "this neo-colonialism is a more pernicious and sinister form of colonialism" (The Great Debate, p-148).

That the ideological political line determines everything is a basic Marxist- Leninist teaching. It is applicable for both- the working class and its party, the communist party. The bourgeoisie recognized this fact long back and is always alert to the task of developing its ideological, political, economic and socio-cultural line to face all challenges against its hegemonic policies and practice. It is prepared to go to any extent to defend itself. Side by side, knowing this fact very well, it is always alert and prepared to disarm its opponents ideologically and politically, besides developing its preparedness to crush the opponents in the most pernicious and heinous ways. History has repeatedly proved that the revolutionary forces have advanced only when they could develop their ideological-political line according to concrete situation and expose and defeat the counter revolutionary enemy offensive.

The importance of correct evaluation of the transformation of imperialist system from its colonial phase to neocolonial one beginning from the post-WW years becomes a cardinal question in this context. The severe setbacks confronting the ICM can be traced mainly to this serious shortcoming as it is repeatedly proved. As the life and death struggle between the imperialist system and socialist forces which is the fundamental contradiction which determines the future of the humankind is intensifying day by day taking myriad forms, any weakness in recognizing the new initiatives by the enemy can lead to mortal defeats as history has repeatedly proved. The theoretical approach to neo-colonialism was explained in the document: On Character of the Indian State adopted by the 2009 All India Special Conference. What is attempted through this study is to put forward an empirical analysis to show how the imperialist system has undergone a qualitative change when it transformed its colonial forms of plunder explained by Lenin in his epochal work: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism to its present neo-colonial phase.

Lenin's analysis that "finance capital is such a decisive, you might say, force in all economic and all international relations, that it is capable of subjecting, and actually does subject, to itself even states enjoying the fullest political independence" is brought in to full play in the neo-colonial phase. Though the laws of motion of imperialism continue to remain basically the same throughout the imperialist epoch, it is important to distinguish the qualitative changes that are taking place during this long epoch which will continue till the imperialist system is overthrown or till decisive victory is won by the socialist forces in all fields. With the almost disappearance of territorial division as one of the basic characteristics, though wars, barbarous aggressive wars, continue to rage in all regions, any inter imperialist wars have not taken place during the last six decades or more. At the same time what is happening is that competition for enhancing export of capital, enhancing trade, for patent rights, for technological and military supremacy etc are intensifying,

After stagflation reaching serious proportions by 1970s and the imperialist forces launching the globalization-liberalization-privatization regime and going for neoliberal policies from 1980s to overcome it, the integration of the large number of former colonial, semi-colonial, dependent countries which came under neo-colonial domination to the imperial global system is further intensified. The internationalization of production has also further intensified. Due to availability of cheap labour and raw materials the countries under neo-colonial domination have become dumping ground for finance capital. Operations of IMF-WB-WTO and MNCs along with corporate houses have intensified. Through these moves the super accumulation of profits are taking place. It is increasingly benefitting the imperialist centres and the elite classes in the neo-colonial countries. The modern centres of capitalist intensive industries, consumer products, service centres, IT centres etc exhibit growth trends in the countries under neo-colonization, especially in countries like India. As a result, some super rich sections also have emerged in these countries. But these centres and growth in GDP is taking place without any organic link with the vast masses who are pushed down to increasing miseries and devastation.

In the agricultural sector, as already pointed out, the relations of production are undergoing significant changes under neo-colonial domination. The poor peasant-landless peasant-agricultural workers are increasingly alienated from the land and agriculture under corporatization of agriculture promoted by MNCs and native corporate forces. Refusing to recognize this reality many sections of the CRs are still adhering to semi-feudal analysis of the agrarian sector preventing the development of the program for agrarian revolution according to present realities.

It is hoped that the analytical method pursued in this study, updated taking in to consideration the fast changes taking place at all levels and substantiated by the statistical data shall help the Marxist- Leninist forces and all those who take positions against the imperialist system and aspire for a socialist future to make scientific analysis of the present international and national situation, when the imperialist system is dominating the whole world through neo-colonial methods. Such a scientific understanding shall create conditions for recognizing the correctness of the Program andthe Path of Revolution put forward by the CPI(ML) Red Star taking cognizance of these new changes.

The vast changes that have taken place calls for an exhaustive study of the operations and laws of motion of the imperialist system during the last century after the studies made by Lenin in his epochal work, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In the context of the ever mounting attacks on Marxist philosophy and practice by numerous alien trends which are in effect serving the imperialists and their lackeys, such studies are cardinal for the development of the Marxist-Leninist forces. The present study taken up by com. P.J. James on the specific issues concerning imperialism in its neo-colonial phase shall encourage such studies. This study explaining the theoretical formulations put forward by the party through its various documents from the time of its 1982 First All India Conference, mainly the documents adopted by the 2009 All India Special Conference, we hope, shall encourage in depth discussions to refute the dogmatic concepts upheld almost like religious faith by large number of organizations even after momentous changes have taken place at global level and in each country during the seven decades after the Second World War under neo-colonization.

A debate on the stage and path of revolution under the mode of production and class analysis in the present situation, which we prefer to call the neo-colonial phase of imperialism, has to be vigorously taken up through discussions based on the questions put forward and the answers given in this study among all revolutionary classes and sections. The scope of these discussions can be enlarged based on all available data from various sources. In this way conditions for an energetic and healthy ideological debate has to be created. Such a debate shall help to further develop the studies made in this book and to bring out more studies on imperialism and proletarian revolution in the present concrete situation. We appeal to all Marxist-Leninist sections, to all progressive and democratic forces to come forward with their critics and suggestions so that this vital discussion can be carried forward. It shall provide the scientific basis for evolving the Program and Path of Revolution in the present neo-colonial phase of imperialist era according to conditions in each country. Such an effort shall contribute towards creating conditions for developing the strategic line of the International Communist Movement also, facilitating the worldwide struggle for overthrowing the rule of imperialism and its lackeys and for the worldwide victory of socialist forces. It is hoped that this second edition of Imperialism in its neo-colonial phase shall encourage more vigorous response than the first edition received.

The book was released by Com KN Ramachandran to Com Klause, CC Member of MLPD, Germany on 26th February 2015, at Com Charu Majumdar Hall (Gandhi Bhavan) in Lucknow during 10th Party Congress of CPI (ML) Red Star. The Book is published by Massline Publication, Kottayam. The book is available @ Rs 600. Please contact: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. / This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

RSS has been critiqued for long for its divisive and fascist ideology. Its role in spreading hatred, communal violence, killings – arson and loot, blasts has been pointed out by critics. However, the attempt of RSS to project itself as a cultural and nationalist organization working for the welfare of majority community, nation and practicing non-violent methods is still believed by many to be the truth. This is despite all the violence that is being instigated in the recent times.

The book by Sudheesh Minni titled ‘Cellars of the Inferno: Confessions of an RSS Pracharak’ breaks any doubts on RSS. Sudheesh was an RSS pracharak, who was inducted to its divisive ideology at a very early age of 5. He participated at different levels – both as a participant in shakhas as well as organizer of shakhas, both at the state level and the national level. He travelled across the country and spent about 25 years of his life with RSS. The initial conviction with RSS ideology later gave way to repentance for the activities carried. The book is a product of his repentance for his role as an RSS pracharak. The book provides an insider view of RSS, its activities, functioning’s, role in divisive activities.

Sudheesh was born in a small village in Kannur district of Kerala. His association with RSS started while he was 5 year old. He used to attend Balagokulam, which used to be organized on weekends. This was

targeted at children. The natural curiosity of children to listen to stories of child Krishna was used as a means to instill hatred. Stories around Shivaji and Rana Pratap were also recited to children. Shivaji was depicted as a protector of Hindus from Muslim invasion. The facts of many Muslims being part of military machinery of Shivaji were never depicted. In the manipulated stories with ideological color, wars were never depicted as rivalries between kings for power and territorial expansion but as a war taking place between two different religions. The happenings of those times such as Mumbai bomb blasts were discussed in Balagokulams and were pointed as activities carried out by Muslims against Hindus.

The evening shakhas used to take place for an hour. Apart from yoga, nigooda (traditional war education), marching – what also used to take place was sports activities like kabaddi and khokho. In Kabaddi, children were instructed that on the other side of the line were enemies of the nation – who were Muslims, Christians and Communists. The children were instructed to touch as many enemies as possible during the game. This was followed by songs where they were made to feel proud of their Hindu identity. Inculcating superstitious thinking was common where in one instance it was pointed that a ‘political enemy would die out of snake bite, through god who would come in the form of a snake’.

The prathamik varg shikhak varg course used to be organized for a week during Christmas vacation. It used to be residential and go on for a week. It starts with morning prayers, followed by stick movement,

discussions, speeches and evening sports. Each event has a strong anti-Muslim, anti Christian and anti Communist component. The content was primarily from Golwalkar’s ‘Bunch of Thoughts’ and ‘We and our Nationhood defined’. The last day was followed by lighting of lamp and a talk calling out the trainees to shoulder the responsibility of ‘protecting Hindus’ who are in danger. With this they were prepared as primary instructors.

RSS has an organized structure. Based on duties, RSS has Khat Pramukh, Mukya Shikhshak, Shikshak, Shaka Karyavaha and Seva Pramukh. At the Mandal level are Mandal karyavaha, Saha karyavaha, Mandal sharirik pramuch, Mandal Boumik pramukh, Mandal Seva pramukh and Mandal sampark pramukh. Apart from this it has Taluk sangh chalak, Zilla pracharak and Zilla vyavastha pramukh. These were based on geography and functions such as sports, social activities and public relations. RSS had no economic agenda. It had its connection with more powerful sections such as large landholders. The concept of land belonging to the tiller was not a principle believed by them. These were seen in incidents where they stood by large landholders and against cultivating landless. This was seen as an arrangement through which they can get some land, monetary and political support for RSS activities.

The creation of rumors was a regular process. Rumors were manufactured to create the image of existence of threat to Hindu religious based activities and the community. An instance of Theyyam festival is pointed out where a rumor was spread of the festival going to be disturbed by the other party. Any suspicion of activities targeted against RSS was acted upon. Sathyan a famous athlete became a victim of such suspicion.

Sudheesh attended his first Sangh shiksha varg in Madurai for 25 days. Daily physical training, stick movement, speeches, discussions and exams were integral. The Shibhir stressed that adoption of Christianity, Islam and Communist ideology had caused the destruction of Indian culture. It was emphasized that to protect Bharat Matha from becoming pieces and protecting its culture, they need to fight. The participants are made to draw map of Akhand Bharat which includes China, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Srilanka. It is emphasized that as sevaks, they should rest in peace only after getting back Akhand Bharat. Elimination of three enemies is projected as a way and means to attain Akhand Bharat. In the second Sangh shiksha varg attended by author, the points discussed also included strategies for Hindu revivalism, anti-Hindu behaviour of Gandhi, critics of hindutva ideology, pilgrimages, old temples, the need to protect hindu temples etc.

The author points that events, which otherwise are not religious have a hidden agenda when undertaken by Pracharaks. He cites his example whereby he tried to reach out to minority institutions to impart Vedic

maths to Hindu students. Once the students enrolled to the course beyond the school, they were slowly inducted with ideas of a Hindu nation. This happens even in Yoga classes run by pracharaks. Other

activities include spiritual activities, yoga, social activities, tuitions, job trainings, coaching institutions for services by Pracharaks. During these events there was subtle introduction to aspects of RSS ideology. He feels that aspects such as Vedic maths and yoga can be taught by completely eliminating it of its religious colour. The pracharaks operated clandestinely.

The author points to the huge network of Sangh parivar. This includes Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad (ABVP) targeting students, Bala Gokulam targeting small children, Yuva Morcha targeting youth, Mahila Morcha targeting youth, Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh targeting workers etc. Other wings included Vignana Bharati (Swadeshi science), Vidya Bharati (Education), Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Hindu Aikya Vedika, Bharatiya Vichaar Kendra, Kshetra Sanrakshan Samithi, Seva Bharati (Social activities), Bhaskar Jyoti, Vanavasi Kalyana Ashram, Ekalavya Institutions and Vivekananda Kendra. It also includes Ayyapa seva samithi, Kannaki, Janmabhoomi, Kesari, Vrattantham, Kurukshetra prakasamm. It also started associations with fisher community. Besides large number of NGOs sponsored by RSS. Each of these works as part of the larger ‘Sangh Parivar’ to carry their agenda of Hindutva.

The author talks of his experience in organizing the shibirs with children in tribal areas. Ideas of Hindutva were introduced in a primitive community ignoring their identity. An anti-Muslim and anti-Christian feelings was also propagated among them. This was in a community who never believed in Hindu identity and that by itself was alien.

Referring to his participation in Naipunya varg (secret summit) of RSS at Nagpur, it also had famous industrialists including Adani attending during inaugural session. To inculcate the idea of Hindutva among sections, separate cells were proposed for Industrialists, Government officials, Hindu priests, Teachers, Doctors, Media and Cultural cell. Each cell was to identify loopholes in identified areas, review once in three months and attack the government in power. Internet was to be used as a means to propagate. The closing ceremony was ended with a speech of retired judge who called for accepting Hindutva as a way of life. It points at the level of penetration of RSS ideology among the elite.

The author observes that RSS owned infrastructure have been reduced to places for corruption, sexual activities and preserving weapons. The need to prepare and buy arms for eliminating enemies is emphasized in Sangh. In the name of fighting back the enemies in Kannur, Karyavahak suggested the usage of Rifles instead of Bombs and swords. The author quotes an instance where he expressed his frustration to another sevak stating that Swayamsevaks are groups which indulge in women harassment, lootings and drinking. All this happens in the name of protecting religion.

Sharing about his visits on RSS mission to Northern parts of the country, he points that Swayamsevaks here also consisted of professionals such as Doctors, Engineers, Scientists, Police officials. Each had a sacred thread. Rich landlords with large landholdings were also part of them. The responsibility for running panchayati or block level shibirs was largely in their hands. Dalits who were landless were exploited. An instance is quoted where a rich landlord (a swayam sevak) was approached by lease farmer requesting for delay in paying due to crop failure. Instead the lease farmer was asked to send his wife and daughters to the landlord. Another instance was seen where demands of a tribal leader to install Ganesh in a temple in a tribal dominant locality was requested from Sangh leaders. This was rejected on the premise that this is reserved only for upper castes. When finally this was installed, the temple was put on fire.

The author points that while sangh mobilizes Dalits for events such as Babri Masjid demolition, the ones who instigated from upper caste continue to be safe. The Dalits who were made to participate became victims. This was equally true of Gujarat. The Sangh mobilizes about crores of rupees in the name of Guru Dakshina. From within Kerala, about Rs. 250 crores is mobilized. Big industrialists, business persons, contractors, government officials also donate the RSS. A huge amount is mobilized from across the country. This is used for creation of communal incidents, planning terror activities, ending peace and harmony among communities.

The author parts away from RSS to join an alternative. He points that corporatization and communalization have come together and posing threats to the security and democratic values and secular fabric of the nation. Hence he emphasizes on the need for alternative. The book by Sudheesh Minni is a necessary reading for those who still have an illusion about the RSS and Sangh Parivar. It also provides an anatomy and the way the parivar functions. Most importantly it helps in breaking the myth of RSS being a mere cultural and social organization working for protection of Hindus. It convinces you that more than protecting one, its activities are centered on propagating the idea of eliminating the other. In the idea of building Hindu identity, its attempt in maintaining caste and class based dominance becomes clear. It is a welcome reading for those working to expose the activities of RSS.

Publisher: Chintha Publications

Author: Sudheesh Minni

Pages: 122
Page 1 of 2

The Communist movement in India has a history of almost a century after the salvos of October Revolution in Russia brought Marxism-Leninism to the people of India who were engaged in the national liberation struggle against the British colonialists. It is a complex and chequered history.

We use cookies to improve our website. Cookies used for the essential operation of this site have already been set. For more information visit our Cookie policy. I accept cookies from this site. Agree