Question is not on Kavita Krishnan, but on CPI (ML)

Seema Azad

(Writer, Social activist)

Both ideologically and physically, only Marxism can defeat fascism, which is a desperate system of preserving the profiteering system. That is why fascism attacks it the most. Due to the pressure of this attack, many times there is a panic among the people who consider themselves Marxists, and there are attacks on Marxism by those also who are considered part of the circle.

CPI(ML) (Liberation) politburo member Kavita Krishnan quit the party last month, attacking Stalin and the Socialist regime. It was not the exit of a politburo member of a Left party from her party which was surprising rather it was, following the practice of Kanhaiya Kumar, exit of a politburo member attacking the principles of Socialism and Marxism. But what was more surprising was that the CPI(ML) silenced Kavita Krishnan on her misleading attacking questions and bid her farewell on her resignation. ML said in its statement, "Since Kavita Krishnan has to reflect on some important issues, which are not possible while in the party, her resignation is accepted". Not only this, but ML also worked to reprimand those who answer Kavita Krishnan's questions and trolls together by placing them in the same category. And last of all - it is not at all surprising that a lot of old, passive 'Marxists' praised Kavita Krishnan and ML for the fact that they have 'shown decency' in parting ways. To remain silent on important questions is not decency, but agreement on the questions raised. Answering the questions without targeting the person does not disturb decency, opening one’s mouth in defense of Marxism does not violate decency, but rather defends the scientific philosophy that has disturbed the rulers of the whole world. Due to this amazing 'decency', question should not be raised on Kavita Krishnan, who left the ideology, but on CPI(ML) Liberation. Also, because the questions raised by Kavita Krishnan are related to her political and ideological understanding given by ML. Due to this deceptive understanding, even those questions which were not questions at all. It is important to talk about these deceptive questions.

In interviews being given after her resignation, Kavita Krishnan is questioning the 'Socialist system' by calling the current capitalist regime of Russia and China socialist. Even the confusion of the parties and people who continued to consider the Soviet Union a socialist country after Mao Zedong's 'Great Debate' was also shattered after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 90's, but do not know why Kavita Krishnan and ML continue to consider Russia a Socialist country even today. (She said this in all her interviews) She also criticized socialism by considering present-day China to be 'Socialist China'. In an interview conducted by Ashok Kumar Pandey, when she was asked, "Is she talking about pre-Mao China or post-Mao?" Then she said that 'for this, I have to read the history of China ... But some farmers were writing about local problems not to their local workers, but directly to Mao.’’

To dismiss with so much authority what has not been read and known properly - this is not to speak on the problems during Socialism, but a campaign against Socialism. But it is noteworthy that it is not only a demonstration of her personal views but also a demonstration of the ideas of her party CPI(ML), which told her that even today Russia and China are Socialist states. To even call Russia-China of present as Socialist is to stand against socialism. The economy and politics of both places have become capitalist-imperialist, and this has happened not today, but decades ago, on which many economists' have written countless articles. In fact, not only Liberation, the CPM-CPI, which has left the path of revolution, are only walking on the path of government change through the electoral path by calling these countries Socialist. The path that these parties have been following for the last several decades, it suits them to call all the capitalist democratic governments of Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela as Socialist. Kavita Krishnan is also advocating capitalist democracy rather than Socialism because of this political education. In fact, Kavita Krishnan is a little ahead of her party that she now understands that the 'Socialism' of these countries is not right. But they are rejecting 'Socialism' by referring to them, maintaining their old thinking.

In this process of rejecting Socialism, she reached the levels of Kanhaiya Kumar and all the capitalist liberals from where they start opposing socialism. She has compared Hitler to Stalin, calling him a cruel dictator. This is a major attack not just on Soviet socialism, but on Marxism. To equate Stalin with Hitler is to equate the ethno-racial-religious dictatorship of profiteering capitalist rulers to the class dictatorship of the exploited. To compare the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which is necessary for the creation of a Socialist society, with the dictatorship of the profiteering ruler stems from not understanding the science of Marxism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not what the dictatorship of capitalist masters is, which takes away land from peasants, machines from labourers, their forests from tribals and their equal rights from women, scientific consciousness from citizens. The dictatorship of the proletariat means taking away capital from the Adanis, which they have made private, snatching additional land from the landlords, driving the brokers of imperialism out of the forest, and taking down the babas, clerics, priests, hypocrites who spread illogicality, unscientific attitude from their honorable asanas and make them work, making Manuvadis, who consider women and children as their property, to work under women – can this 'dictatorship' make any toiling or hard-working citizen, idea or institution feel bad? If so, it should at least not call itself a Marxist. This is the philosophy of equality, and such 'dictatorship' will be necessary to bring equality in society. One can’t keep calling himself a Marxist and denying this, it is not possible to do both together. The ruling class is not going to give up the temptation of private property so easily, so the philosophy of the exploiting class is not going to end easily. In order to end this, the dictatorship of the proletariat i.e. the exploited is necessary on a handful of profiteers and rulers, so that they can be ousted from power. This is called revolution, which is never peaceful. This is the law of social science. After Lenin's death, Stalin, who came from the proletariat, implemented the economy and social system of the exploited classes to eliminate the politics and economy of the exploiting classes. That is why capitalist countries, exploiting classes and flippant intellectuals defamed him. And now former politburo member of ML has also become a part of this campaign, while ML is wearing a 'decent' silence on it. Treating these two dictatorships (dictatorship of the exploited and dictatorship of the profiteers) as equal is more of a process of describing Hitler as high than demeaning the revolutionary Stalin. Opposing fascism, she has actually sat in the lap of fascists.

In an interview, she opens herself up even more by saying that 'this problem is not of the person but of theory.' This also shows how confused they themselves are. They are still calling themselves Marxists and communists, while rejecting the dictatorship of the proletariat which is part of Marxism. To apply this principle, they are attacking Stalin, then immediately calling it a problem of the principle, not the problem of the person. In the same interview, when Ashok Kumar Pandey asked Krishnan that 'Marx himself had talked about the dictatorship of the proletariat', she said, "I am a student of literature. In fact, this is a rhetoric point. That is, Marx said this for calling attention, not his solid opinion.”

This answer clearly suggests that Kavita Krishnan is running away from Marxism and trying to adapt it to her confused views. And in the process, they are getting more confused. She will soon wash her hands off Marxism, possibly ashamed to do so right now. Earlier, Kanhaiya Kumar has joined the Congress camp raising the slogan of 'Stalin Murdabad', maybe she will also turn to a similar party or form a new party of people leaving Marxism. Jailed 'Leftist' Umar Khalid is also very excited about Kavita Krishnan making Stalin sit with Hitler. Krishnan herself has given this information excitedly on his Facebook wall.

Rejecting the Marxist theory of Socialism and dictatorship of the proletariat, she compares it to fascism, where 'one religion, one idea, one party, and one individual dominates.' Like Kavita Krishnan, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who built the 'Prachanda Path' in Nepal, also mooted the idea of 'multi-party democracy' to end the monarchy. That is, the Maoists of Nepal, after so many years of hard work, gained power after a guerrilla war for 10 years and as soon as they came to power, they invited the party of the exploiting classes along with the proletariat to participate in power. India's Maoist party dismissed this 'prachanda path' as class collaborationist, revisionism and treachery with revolution, while the ML of India justified this line and shared power with the Maoists there. The result is that such a spectacular, successful revolution fell flat as soon as it gained power. It was because of the dictatorship of the proletariat that the proletarian and new-democratic revolutions of Russia, China, could last a few years, and gave the world a spectacular glimpse of it, as soon as the line of class collaborationist was adopted in both places, the Socialist system returned in the opposite direction. Russia's President Putin, who has been in power for years, is no less than a dictator. But they have arrived in this place not because of socialism, but because of capitalist restoration.

It is also important to clarify that defending Socialism does not mean that there have been no shortcomings in it wherever it has been implemented so far. Socialism has also been attacked by its shortcomings from within. Stalin is evaluated by Mao himself during the Great Debate and says, "Stalin was 70 percent right, 30 percent wrong." Another famous name is Alexandra Kollontai, who always had differences with Lenin-Stalin. She differed with Lenin-Stalin, especially on advancing women in the party and leadership, with separate emphasis on women's committees and movements, even socialist values in men-woman relations. But their differences were never against socialism or against Marxism. At that time, she was always conscious of saving the only socialist society, which the whole world was watching, and which the capitalists and Hitler's fascism were planning to demolish. In whichever country Socialism would be brought to reality, for the liberation of women, they will have to go through the ideas of Kollontai because most of his ideas enrich socialism. Kavita Krishnan should not be compared to Kollontai; it is just to show the difference between the idea that enriches Socialism and the idea that demolishes Socialism. Kavita Krishnan's confused opposition is to Socialism, the proposals she is raising are confusing questions opposed to Marxism. Therefore, this confused opposition of theirs should be considered as an external attack, not an internal debate.

In today's era of fascism, when fascism has become the ideology of not one party but all electoral parties, when it does not seem to go away through the elections and it is in front of us with its most violent actions, only Marxist revolution is the answer. At such a time, it can be understood what it means to describe socialism as a fascist, totalitarian, dictatorial system of governance. But it is not the case with Kavita Krishnan or Kanhaiya Kumar alone, but also of their parties, who did not even defend their ideology on such occasions.