CPI (M) members: We're heading off track

[FSL]

Over 25 percent members inactive, lack ideology: CPI-M


Calcutta News.Net
Monday 25th January, 2010 (IANS)
At least 25 percent members of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) are inactive and have deviated from communist ideology and the party's class character, a central committee member said here Monday.

'A considerable number of party members are not of appropriate quality and the party should remain alert about them,' Bijon Dhar, also the secretary of the CPI-M's Tripura state committee, told reporters.

The left leader was talking to journalists after a two-day state-level conference, where CPI-M general secretary Prakash Karat, politburo member and Tripura Chief Minister Manik Sarkar and other top party leaders explained the details of the 'rectification plan' to strengthen party units at all levels.

Over 225 front and middle-ranking party leaders in Tripura participated in the conference, a first of its kind organised by the CPI-M, after its debacle in last year's Lok Sabha elections in left-strongholds West Bengal and Kerala.

The Tripura state committee of the CPI-M prepared a detailed document on the loopholes of party members and a road map to strengthen the party organisation and presented it before the conference.

Dhar said: 'Tendencies at parliamentarianism, which means frustration among party members whenever denied nomination for elections, over-dependence on elected bodies for providing relief to the people, aversion to mass movement, refusal to act upon the principle of democratic centralism, and departure from progressive ideology and scientific approach are some of the major deviations.'

The CPI-M leader dismissed the idea of the Left Front losing the elections in West Bengal in 2011 and in Tripura in 2013 as 'too simplistic'.

'We know how the people respond to particular situations and conditions. These are only self-cheating,' he added.

The conference also discussed 'unethical and dishonest acts, a self-centric mentality and craving for sensual pleasures' of a section of party members.

'The CPI-M would launch a massive campaign against the misdeeds of party men, increase the political consciousness of members and improve relations among party activists and people,' Dhar added.

The conference also identified administrative loopholes in implementation of government decisions and schemes and over-dependence on the bureaucracy.

'The process of the rectification campaign at the political, ideological and organisational level is to remove the wrong trends and shortcomings so that the party emerges more unified and strengthened,' says the conference document.

It updates the party's 1996 rectification campaign report and is based on the experience of the party in the past 14 years.

More than 148 party leaders were killed in Maoist attacks in West Bengal, Bihar and Chhattisgarh, while CPM supporters were attacked by political rivals in Andhra Pradesh in the past one year, Dhar said.

http://www.calcuttanews.net/story/593088


This was a result of a state conference of delegates and reflects their general opinion, not just one decent man speaking out or some populist putting the blame on others. It will be good news if CPI (M) reinvents itself in a way that allows it to help the cause of the workers instead of adding more obstacles.

[red cat]

Over 25 percent members inactive, lack ideology: CPI-M


Calcutta News.Net
Monday 25th January, 2010 (IANS)
At least 25 percent members of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) are inactive and have deviated from communist ideology and the party's class character, a central committee member said here Monday.

'A considerable number of party members are not of appropriate quality and the party should remain alert about them,' Bijon Dhar, also the secretary of the CPI-M's Tripura state committee, told reporters.

The left leader was talking to journalists after a two-day state-level conference, where CPI-M general secretary Prakash Karat, politburo member and Tripura Chief Minister Manik Sarkar and other top party leaders explained the details of the 'rectification plan' to strengthen party units at all levels.

Over 225 front and middle-ranking party leaders in Tripura participated in the conference, a first of its kind organised by the CPI-M, after its debacle in last year's Lok Sabha elections in left-strongholds West Bengal and Kerala.

The Tripura state committee of the CPI-M prepared a detailed document on the loopholes of party members and a road map to strengthen the party organisation and presented it before the conference.

Dhar said: 'Tendencies at parliamentarianism, which means frustration among party members whenever denied nomination for elections, over-dependence on elected bodies for providing relief to the people, aversion to mass movement, refusal to act upon the principle of democratic centralism, and departure from progressive ideology and scientific approach are some of the major deviations.'

The CPI-M leader dismissed the idea of the Left Front losing the elections in West Bengal in 2011 and in Tripura in 2013 as 'too simplistic'.

'We know how the people respond to particular situations and conditions. These are only self-cheating,' he added.

The conference also discussed 'unethical and dishonest acts, a self-centric mentality and craving for sensual pleasures' of a section of party members.

'The CPI-M would launch a massive campaign against the misdeeds of party men, increase the political consciousness of members and improve relations among party activists and people,' Dhar added.

The conference also identified administrative loopholes in implementation of government decisions and schemes and over-dependence on the bureaucracy.

'The process of the rectification campaign at the political, ideological and organisational level is to remove the wrong trends and shortcomings so that the party emerges more unified and strengthened,' says the conference document.

It updates the party's 1996 rectification campaign report and is based on the experience of the party in the past 14 years.

More than 148 party leaders were killed in Maoist attacks in West Bengal, Bihar and Chhattisgarh, while CPM supporters were attacked by political rivals in Andhra Pradesh in the past one year, Dhar said.

http://www.calcuttanews.net/story/593088


This was a result of a state conference of delegates and reflects their general opinion, not just one decent man speaking out or some populist putting the blame on others. It will be good news if CPI (M) reinvents itself in a way that allows it to help the cause of the workers instead of adding more obstacles.

Over 25 percent could mean 100 percent as well, right? :lol:

Though such is the condition of the party which had been created to divert communists from revolutionary struggle, I would say that in general the Indian masses are displaying enormous affinity to communist ideology and distinguishing correctly between Marxism and revisionism. Singhur, Nandigram and Lalgarh are all former CPI(M) strongholds.

[FSL]

Over 25 percent could mean 100 percent as well, right? :lol:

Though such is the condition of the party which had been created to divert communists from revolutionary struggle, I would say that in general the Indian masses are displaying enormous affinity to communist ideology and distinguishing correctly between Marxism and revisionism. Singhur, Nandigram and Lalgarh are all former CPI(M) strongholds.

"Party created to divert communists from revolutionary struggle"? Maybe that's going a bit too far?
Marxism doesn't leave out the chance of a parliamentarian struggle if the conditions allow it. It also doesn't focus solely on that, thinking that a strong, revolutionary worker's movement is unnecessary and that reforms can bring a radical change. CPI (M) has put off many of its working class core by falling prey to the second trap but I'd guess Maoist guerillas are also putting off a number of workers for focusing on the need of a violent uprising when at the present time the Indian bourgeois state permits legal action of communists.

Both parties can use a better line, people in India are in need of a change and yes, many seem to be adopting the right stance when it comes to what a real change means.

[red cat]

"Party created to divert communists from revolutionary struggle"? Maybe that's going a bit too far?

The Indian parliamentary communist parties have a long tradition of suppressing and back-stabbing mass movements.

In India, it is not clearly known when the original communist party was formed. Official sources can vary from 1920 to 1925, while some say that the original founding members were trained none other than Lenin and the CC was formed in Moscow in 1921. This CC is said to have been captured by the British government soon after its members entered India.

The next CC was built by the instruction of the British imperialists, and its members were mainly staunch Gandhian. This party now claimed authority over the class struggle of the proletariat and misdirected it towards Gandhism. So it was allowed to function legally. But the Indian proletariat was not so easily to be diverted. Many enthusiastic communists had by now participated in the CPI.

So at one point of time, class struggle began to erupt at many parts of India, and escalated to direct confrontation between the ruling class and the oppressed masses.

In 1946, the navy had a rebellion which askes for leadership from the CPI. Even after the false declaration of independence was given in 1947, soon after a peasant struggle broke out in Bengal (the Tebhaga movement of 1948) and a full-fledged PPW started in Telenghana in 1949. But all these movements were misguided by the top leadership of the CPI.

The Telenghana movement, which had liberated no less than 3200 villages in the Telenghana region of Andhra Pradesh, fell for the Trotskyite line concocted by the Randivey clique. Later, when the movement was struggling to revive itself, these traitors (who later called Mao a revisionist) resorted to the lie that "Stalin had asked for a peaceful solution in Telenghana", and saw over the massacre of thousands of communists and revolutionary masses.

Due to such an amount of ongoin class struggle, at one point the government had to outlaw the CPI, and legalized it only after it had extinguished the last sparks of the fire of revolution.

Throughout this period, what the Indian communists failed to realize that a revolution was not possible until communists broke with the revisionist leadership. This thesis was being prepared by Charu Majumder on one hand, and Kanai Chatterjee on the other. Sensing the deep pit they were going to fall in, the revisionists quickly arranged for a mock ideological debate and the CPI(M) was formed. The vast majority of revolutionary communists joined CPI(M). During this split in the CPI, it was revealed that a team from this party had visited the USSR and had been duly criticized for their inaction. Later they had managed to conceal the documents on the action-programme that the Comintern had given them.

However, the revolutionary elements in the CPI(M) noticed that the party was still confining its struggle within electoral methods, and actually this supposedly pro-Mao party forbade Maoist slogans in its conferences.

In 1967, the CPI(M) came to power for the first time in 1967, taking part in the United Front government in West Bengal. At the same time, the famous Naxalbari insurrections took place in Darjeeling district of West Bengal. The CPC identified this as the genuine communist movement of India and declared all parliamentary "communist" parties as revisionists. Not losing a mooment to react, the CPI(M) declared that "time was not yet ripe for a violent action", expelled the whole Darjeeling dictrict committee, and sent police forces to suppress the insurrections in the most violent manner. Jyoti Basu was then the Minister of Police of West Bengal and is said to have ordered the massacre of the peasants in Naxalbari personally. This was followed by the begining of an era of massacre of communist cadres in all cities and villages, ordered by the ruling INC and overseen by reactionary CPI(M) cadres who could easily identify their former comrades.

Within the next few years, the entire communist portion of the CPI(M) (including some State Committees) broke with it and proceeded to begin what is now undoubtedly the largest communist movement in the world. What remained as the CPI(M) was a group of hardcore revolutionry phrase-mongering reactionaries.




Marxism doesn't leave out the chance of a parliamentarian struggle if the conditions allow it. It also doesn't focus solely on that, thinking that a strong, revolutionary worker's movement is unnecessary and that reforms can bring a radical change. CPI (M) has put off many of its working class core by falling prey to the second trap but I'd guess Maoist guerillas are also putting off a number of workers for focusing on the need of a violent uprising when at the present time the Indian bourgeois state permits legal action of communists.After the CPI(M) again came to power in West Bengal, Kerala and later in Tripura, it has continuously involved in the suppression of mass movements and the murder of worker and peasant-leaders.

The much criticized SEZ Bill of India, which has resulted in absolute exploitation of workers with no labor rights, is formally opposed by the CPI(M), but it openly pushes for the setting up for these Special Economic Zones wherever it comes to power.

What better reward can there be for these lackeys of imperialism than to offer them seats in the parliament and hailing them as true communists?



Both parties can use a better line, people in India are in need of a change and yes, many seem to be adopting the right stance when it comes to what a real change means.No reactionary regime follows the democratic slogans it preaches. In India, even before the Maoist party was banned officially, the cadres who were identified were murdered routinely. Today, even owning a copy of Marx's "Capital"(needless to say, few non-celebrity members of CPI(M) have ever heard of the book) can provide enough grounds for identifying one in India as a Maoist

The CPI(Maoist) has correctly identified the MLM line of "going to the parliament only when the oppressed masses require the CP to do so" and has primarily concentrated on armed struggle to bring about the liberation of slaves, peasants and the working class.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually that's a very good example of petty-bourgeoisie opportunism. It's not a matter India or CPI(M) only, but rather worldwide. The CPSU began to weaken when Khrushchev converted the "workers party" into a "peoples party". During the WWII, CPSU had to do massive compromise in the ideological front and petty-bourgeoisie section had gained open field to enter and conquer the party. Slowly, this petty-bourgeoisie overrun the proletariat, which had been already weakened by massive bloodshed and sacrifice in WWII and then the petty-bourgeoisie section promoted the revisionist, opportunist line in the CPSU.
Same thing happened in CPI(M_, when in 1977 Late Jyoti Basu, Harkishen Singh Surajit and some other Politburo members demanded the to change CPI(M) from a "revolutionary workers party" to a "revolutionary peoples party".
We, those who want to stay in revolutionary line should be very aware of this fact. Very often, we forgot that workers very rarely constitute the larger part of the "people", most of the most of most of the countries today are petty-bourgeoisie in proper Marxist terminology. We have make the things in a very dialectic and cautious manner. We have to win the petty-bourgeoisie section over the workers ideology and fight hard at the same time to prevent any kind of infiltration of petty-bourgeoisie ideology into the party.

[red cat]

Actually that's a very good example of petty-bourgeoisie opportunism. It's not a matter India or CPI(M) only, but rather worldwide. The CPSU began to weaken when Khrushchev converted the "workers party" into a "peoples party". During the WWII, CPSU had to do massive compromise in the ideological front and petty-bourgeoisie section had gained open field to enter and conquer the party. Slowly, this petty-bourgeoisie overrun the proletariat, which had been already weakened by massive bloodshed and sacrifice in WWII and then the petty-bourgeoisie section promoted the revisionist, opportunist line in the CPSU.
Same thing happened in CPI(M_, when in 1977 Late Jyoti Basu, Harkishen Singh Surajit and some other Politburo members demanded the to change CPI(M) from a "revolutionary workers party" to a "revolutionary peoples party".
We, those who want to stay in revolutionary line should be very aware of this fact. Very often, we forgot that workers very rarely constitute the larger part of the "people", most of the most of most of the countries today are petty-bourgeoisie in proper Marxist terminology. We have make the things in a very dialectic and cautious manner. We have to win the petty-bourgeoisie section over the workers ideology and fight hard at the same time to prevent any kind of infiltration of petty-bourgeoisie ideology into the party.

In both the cases, the party leadership was already revisionist when they started taking in bourgeois elements in the CP in the name of making it a people's party.

As far as I know, in case of capitalist countries, due to competition from capitalist giants, only a very small part of the petite bourgeoisie, if any, can retain its position. The vast majority is converted into the proletariat. So, in a capitalist or a socialist country, the broad masses are the proletariat. Khruschov's policy was not revisionist because the masses were non-proletarian, but because it aided the entry of bourgeois and petit-bourgeois elements into the party, who were classwise unexploited, and a very small portion of the population and hence not a part of what we call the broad masses.

[FSL]

In both the cases, the party leadership was already revisionist when they started taking in bourgeois elements in the CP in the name of making it a people's party.

As far as I know, in case of capitalist countries, due to competition from capitalist giants, only a very small part of the petite bourgeoisie, if any, can retain its position. The vast majority is converted into the proletariat. So, in a capitalist or a socialist country, the broad masses are the proletariat. Khruschov's policy was not revisionist because the masses were non-proletarian, but because it aided the entry of bourgeois and petit-bourgeois elements into the party, who were classwise unexploited, and a very small portion of the population and hence not a part of what we call the broad masses.


There were no bourgeois or petty bourgeois elements in the soviet union in the 40s or 50s (maybe an extremely small number of independent producers). What you're saying has now happened in the CPC where businessmen were welcomed as if they were workers.



Within the next few years, the entire communist portion of the CPI(M) (including some State Committees) broke with it and proceeded to begin what is now undoubtedly the largest communist movement in the world. What remained as the CPI(M) was a group of hardcore revolutionry phrase-mongering reactionaries.


That is a bit too black and white.




The CPI(Maoist) has correctly identified the MLM line of "going to the parliament only when the oppressed masses require the CP to do so" and has primarily concentrated on armed struggle to bring about the liberation of slaves, peasants and the working class.


And that is wrong. Since when does the vanguard act to please the masses? It should do in all cases whatever furthers the cause of revolution, even participate in parliament. The Bolshevicks opposing Duma participation in 1907 is an example of "hardcore revolutionry phrase-mongering reactionaries".



Generally, this seems to be in line with thinking that the Soviet Union turned from socialist to a social-imperialist menace overnight and without a revolutionary overthrow of the workers' state. Obviously, there are reactionary elements in CPI (M). Obviously, had they taken over the party completely it would be liquidated, dropping off even the slightest, subtlest reference on revolutionary politics.
Not being able to appraise accurately the relative strength and character of the opposing factions can only lead to faulty conclusions.

[red cat]

There were no bourgeois or petty bourgeois elements in the soviet union in the 40s or 50s (maybe an extremely small number of independent producers). What you're saying has now happened in the CPC where businessmen were welcomed as if they were workers. What you are stating means that USSR would have reached a condition from where counter-revolution was not possible. However, since that wasn't the case, we will have to assume the contrary. And the ones welcomed to the party need not have been businessmen as such. Could be friends or relatives of revisionist elements as well. The goal was to capture already nationalized industries through a bureaucracy.




That is a bit too black and white. That is how it was.





And that is wrong. Since when does the vanguard act to please the masses? It should do in all cases whatever furthers the cause of revolution, even participate in parliament. The Bolshevicks opposing Duma participation in 1907 is an example of "hardcore revolutionry phrase-mongering reactionaries". Actually what I meant to say was "whatever serves the best interest of the masses". But on this context, let me mention, that it is also the duty of the vanguard party to educate the masses, and if necessary, to subordinate its decision to that of the masses. Otherwise how do the masses identify the vanguard party? The vanguard party must not act as a protecter from above, but rather like an organizer from below.



Generally, this seems to be in line with thinking that the Soviet Union turned from socialist to a social-imperialist menace overnight and without a revolutionary overthrow of the workers' state. Obviously, there are reactionary elements in CPI (M). Obviously, had they taken over the party completely it would be liquidated, dropping off even the slightest, subtlest reference on revolutionary politics. Not being able to appraise accurately the relative strength and character of the opposing factions can only lead to faulty conclusions.

The capturing of the party by revisionists was a lengthy process. They had been making attemps right from the very first days of the formation of the party. The 50's just marked the end of this process and the revisionists then concentrated in reversing the socialist policies.

The CPI(M) is now fully a party of bourgeois roaders. That does not necessarily mean that they will abandon revolutionary words. That is a way of keeping the masses from forming a class-party of their own. This is why the British imperialists had built a CC of the CPI at the first place!

[cyu]

"Party created to divert communists from revolutionary struggle"? Maybe that's going a bit too far?

Sometimes they are, only to have them run away from their original intent as "true believers" who join take it beyond what the founders were hoping for. On the other hand, sometimes they created for truly revolutionary purposes, but are then infiltrated / co-opted by the ruling class. If I were a pro-capitalist strategist in charge of dismantling a revolution, even if I couldn't get an actual agent of mine into the party ranks, I could still give "positive" publicity to one of the more timid, moderate, or ineffectual members of the party, in order to push them to the top and neutralize the party. The guy doesn't even have to know he is only being used. All you have to do is focus more media attention on the guy you want to promote - maybe even give him some fake, but easily defended criticism in order to boost his popularity among the people.


Marxism doesn't leave out the chance of a parliamentarian struggle if the conditions allow it.

Despite my label as an anarchist, I'm not totally opposed to the occasional participation in electioneering either. However, if the head of the party has been co-opted, then their calls for "democratic centralism" would go right into the hands of the capitalist class. Since single individuals can be easily bribed, blackmailed, threatened, or misinformed, that's probably when I don't support "democratic centralism" at all, but rather decentralized democracy / anarchism.

[pranabjyoti]

@ Comrade red cat,
Sorry, I beg to differ with you in this regard. If we follow Marxist terminologies properly, then we can see that a labor is a person "who sells his power to work" and a petty-bourgeoisie is a person, who him/herself sells some commodity or service (itself a commodity). Just working doesn't make a person a labor. As for example, a worker in a oil field is highly paid, but still he is a worker but a free rickshaw puller isn't a worker, because he is selling his service to his customers, not his labor.
Most of us often forgot the above fact and thought that just working is enough to make someone a worker. But, that's not at least a proper Marxist terminology. Independent sellers and service providers (shopkeepers, cart-pullers, rickshaw pullers) are petty-bourgeoisie as per proper Marxist terminology. And even, most importantly, the peasants, who have their own land or can take lease of others land are petty-bourgeoisie too. THEY ARE POOR NOT FOR THE REASON THAT THEY ARE EXPLOITED BY SOME BOURGEOISIE. THEY ARE POOR BECAUSE THE PRODUCTIVITY OF THEIR MEANS AND TOOLS OF PRODUCTION IS VERY LOW. In contrary, a person, who is working in a oil company can be termed as rich in comparison to them, but still he/she is a worker. He/she earns better because his means and equipments of production is modern and highly productive. But still, the oil field worker is exploited. But, due to his comparative better earning, that exploitation is often overlooked.
In India, I can at least say that most of the people here are not connected to any industry, but rather independent producer or service providers. Most of the people here are mainly peasants holding a very small piece of land and at the same level, there are independent service providers like shopkeepers, rickshaw pullers etc. When with my everyday encounter with them, I know how effected they are with the petty-bourgeoisie vices.

[red cat]

@ Comrade red cat,
Sorry, I beg to differ with you in this regard. If we follow Marxist terminologies properly, then we can see that a labor is a person "who sells his power to work" and a petty-bourgeoisie is a person, who him/herself sells some commodity or service (itself a commodity). Just working doesn't make a person a labor. As for example, a worker in a oil field is highly paid, but still he is a worker but a free rickshaw puller isn't a worker, because he is selling his service to his customers, not his labor.
Most of us often forgot the above fact and thought that just working is enough to make someone a worker. But, that's not at least a proper Marxist terminology. Independent sellers and service providers (shopkeepers, cart-pullers, rickshaw pullers) are petty-bourgeoisie as per proper Marxist terminology. And even, most importantly, the peasants, who have their own land or can take lease of others land are petty-bourgeoisie too. THEY ARE POOR NOT FOR THE REASON THAT THEY ARE EXPLOITED BY SOME BOURGEOISIE. THEY ARE POOR BECAUSE THE PRODUCTIVITY OF THEIR MEANS AND TOOLS OF PRODUCTION IS VERY LOW. In contrary, a person, who is working in a oil company can be termed as rich in comparison to them, but still he/she is a worker. He/she earns better because his means and equipments of production is modern and highly productive. But still, the oil field worker is exploited. But, due to his comparative better earning, that exploitation is often overlooked.
In India, I can at least say that most of the people here are not connected to any industry, but rather independent producer or service providers. Most of the people here are mainly peasants holding a very small piece of land and at the same level, there are independent service providers like shopkeepers, rickshaw pullers etc. When with my everyday encounter with them, I know how effected they are with the petty-bourgeoisie vices.

But even applying the strict Marxist definitions, isn't most of the population in a capitalist country proletarian? I do not disagree with you so far as India and other semi-feudal semi-colonial countries are concerned. I am talking about capitalist countries only.

[pranabjyoti]

But even applying the strict Marxist definitions, isn't most of the population in a capitalist country proletarian? I do not disagree with you so far as India and other semi-feudal semi-colonial countries are concerned. I am talking about capitalist countries only.
So far, I haven't even visited a totally capitalist country and some information, that I have gathered from some sources, I can say that you are very close for capitalist countries. WalMart and other store chains like that give a good blow to independent shop keepers and independent peasant almost non-existent there. But still, in my opinion, as long as the third world impoverished countries exist and capitalists have full right to shift their capital to those countries, possibility of a revolution is thin.

[red cat]

So far, I haven't even visited a totally capitalist country and some information, that I have gathered from some sources, I can say that you are very close for capitalist countries. WalMart and other store chains like that give a good blow to independent shop keepers and independent peasant almost non-existent there. But still, in my opinion, as long as the third world impoverished countries exist and capitalists have full right to shift their capital to those countries, possibility of a revolution is thin.
True. That is because due to the super-profit extracted from third-world countries, not only can the imperialists afford a comparatively higher standard of living for the proletariat in their countries, but they can also create a labor aristocracy which effectively misdirects and neutralizes the revolutionary potential of the proletariat.

[pranabjyoti]

True. That is because due to the super-profit extracted from third-world countries, not only can the imperialists afford a comparatively higher standard of living for the proletariat in their countries, but they can also create a labor aristocracy which effectively misdirects and neutralizes the revolutionary potential of the proletariat.
They earn super profit and a higher standard of living not just by exploiting third world, but also with their better machinery and systems i.e. with their more productive means of production. Then also can create the feeling of aristocracy in their labors by comparing them with the poverty stricken third world people. Therefore, the existence of third world is NECESSARY for them to make their own labors timid and stop them from any kind of revolutionary activity.

[red cat]

They earn super profit and a higher standard of living not just by exploiting third world, but also with their better machinery and systems i.e. with their more productive means of production.

In general what we mean by super profit with respect to a country is a profit that would not even be partially achieved with the machinery currently in use in that country alone. So essentially we compare it with profit generated by a hypothetical technologically advanced capitalist country which is not imperialist. After the success of the revolutions in the third world, the imperialist countries of today will attain this state as they will lose their colonies. But since their capital will already be very huge due to the super profits, they will need to extract something equivalent to it from their own proletariat. This will ignite socialist revolutions in these countries.


Then also can create the feeling of aristocracy in their labors by comparing them with the poverty stricken third world people. Therefore, the existence of third world is NECESSARY for them to make their own labors timid and stop them from any kind of revolutionary activity.They can do all this, but they necessarily need a labor aristocracy to create pseudo-communist parties to vent out the revolutionary zeal of the proletariat. The whole working class of a country cannot turn "timid" until a large portion of it is politically misdirected by the labor aristocracy.