Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Socialist Unity Centre of India; 1st anti-revisionists 1948

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 805
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 28 Jan 2019, 00:39
I 1st learned about the Socialist Unity Centre of India when they participated in a conference a decade ago which both FRSO and WWP participated in from the US. I mostly knew them as a hardline M-L anti-revisionist Stalin and Mao party.

In learning more about SUC, what I find interesting is that it appears they were the 1st party to be founded along the lines of anti-revisionism. Loyalty to Stalin, but objections to existing CPs as right-deviationist social democrats. The EROL archive has some examples of these tendencies from the Anglo US world; but none of them coalesced into parties. They were largely lone dissidents.

They were something of a "loyal opposition" to the world communist movement of 1945-1953; enthusiastically supporting Stalin and the USSR; but criticizing the actual praxis of world CPs. The SUC is also considered a "Maoist" party and they uphold Mao. Although its interesting to examine a third world Maoist party that was founded in 1948; before Mao had even taken power in China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist ... (Communist)

http://www.sucicommunist.org/brief-introduction/

His 1948 work Self-Criticism of the Communist Camp, includes some of his criticisms of the world CPs

https://www.marxists.org/archive/shibda ... /09/15.htm

Quote:
It has been proved that despite its long association with the communist camp and carrying on with the tradition of many historic revolutionary battles to its credit, the Communist League of Yugoslavia under the leadership of Marshal Tito has failed to grasp properly the fundamental tenets of Marxism. So, the record of sufferings and sacrifices in the past alone is no guarantee of correctness in conducting communist movements at present; the approach, the standpoint and the programme have got to be judged on the anvil of experimented truth and fundamental teachings of Marxism constantly, and as far as possible, on every practical issue. This point has found clear expression in the following words of Comrade Stalin : 'Without practice, theory is sterile and without theory, practice is blind''. Although the call of the present Cominform leadership to consolidate organizational solidarity has evoked quite a wide response within the parties on the one hand, side by side, signs of newer cracks and rifts in the firm solidarity forged through many heroic struggles are coming to light. Mention may be made in this connection of the differences between Togliatti and the Leftwing communist workers inside the Communist Party of Italy, the removal of Gomulka from the post of Secretary of the Polish Workers' Party because of his identity of viewpoint with Tito and the charge of the Communist Party of Macedonia against Bulgaria that the latter is not following the teachings of Lenin and Stalin in the matter of the right of nations to self-determination. Besides, it cannot be denied that serious questions have already cropped up as to the political behaviour of those parties in India known as communists who, at least, verbally, admit their allegiance to the international communist leadership.

Over and above the causes just mentioned that are at the root of the serious confusion prevailing in the international communist movement today, it is necessary to take note of another aspect. That is, what should be the relation between the Soviet foreign policy directed from the state level and the task of the CPSU to accelerate the international proletarian revolution ? Are they mutually conducive or is one divorced from the other ?

On this question there exists a good deal of confusion amongst the communists. Some hold that the Soviet foreign policy directed from the state level and the Soviet policy of accelerating the international revolutionary proletarian movement are distinctly separate having no relation between the two, while there are others who hold that the two are not only not separate but are one and the same.

The first is influenced by Trotskyism and the second is a well-known theory in the communist circle. But in fact, as the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and the task of the CPSU to accelerate the international proletarian revolution are not divorced from each other, so also it will be equally wrong to conceive these two as one and the same because that will create a serious hurdle for having a correct appraisal of the revolutionary significance of the role and policy adopted by the Soviet Union. They are mutually conducive and are interdependent — one influencing the other. In formulating and applying the Soviet foreign policy, the leaders of the CPSU are to keep an eye mainly on two points. First, they are to examine and explore the possibility as to how the international proletarian revolutionary movement can be further helped and strengthened everywhere, whether indirectly and, if possible, in some cases, directly. Second, to protect the Soviet socialist state from the intrigues, interference and onslaughts by the world imperialism-capitalism, the forces of international reaction, and keep uninterrupted the march of socialism. These are the two pillars on which the Soviet foreign policy rests. Hence, it would be dangerous to conclude that any political or diplomatic move at state level, from time to time, prompted by the necessity of the Soviet foreign policy is the policy of the international proletarian revolution. But this type of misconceptions and mistaken views are creating newer and newer confusions in the communist camp today.


While western anti-revisionists tip toed around directly criticizing Stalin's USSR; Ghosh openly stated that the aims of the international revolution were not always aligned with USSR foreign policy

Quote:
As the Trotskyites have distorted the implication of the Soviet foreign policy and the important role of the Soviet Union in accelerating the international proletarian revolutionary movement, so also the different communist parties affiliated to the Third International of the past and the Cominform at present, have committed grave errors by taking a commonplace and simplified view of the Soviet foreign policy which is basically consistent with Leninism. And because of this, they have failed to comprehend the objective contradiction that exists between the Soviet foreign policy and the task of revolution in different countries. These parties are confusing the question of Soviet foreign policy with the question of revolution in different countries and, as a result, in the face of newer and newer complexities and problems, they are continually committing one mistake after another.

We would appeal to all communists, of the world, especially to those in India who are known as communists, to take this criticism of ours as a piece of self-criticism and not as a criticism by opponents. What we are trying to particularly pinpoint before the communists is that sheer blind faith in the Soviet or Cominform leadership will only weaken it. We have at our disposal the store-house of the experiences of the world proletarian revolutionary movement, we possess the Marxian science of dialectics — these provide us with the means by which we must test the leadership — be it the Soviet or the Cominform. It must not be forgotten for a moment that the individual initiatives of each and every communist party form the rock-bottom foundation of dynamism and effectiveness of international communist organizations. The practice of lending continuous blind support to the leadership, with eyes shut, makes it impossible to have an objective appraisal of the world situation and adopt a correct programme. The history of the disrupters like Tito and others proves to the hilt our analysis that the process of thinking and the process of movement in the international communist movement have not been free from error. Any attempt to cover up this truth is nothing short of self-deception and the movement must have to bear largely the responsibility for the present confusion and crisis. So, it is incumbent on every communist worker to judge dispassionately and to be conscious of the past history, present trend and tendencies and future course of communist movement. Disruption in the communist movement has not died out with the burial of Trotskyism ; if sufficient vigil is not constantly exercised, newer rifts in the communist camp cannot, in the context of the present extremely complex political situation, be ruled out.
Kamran Heiss
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.