About Us

India Spaced Out

Posted by ajohnstone at 12:09 am Labels: India, poverty, space programme

The Mars Orbiter Mission (MOM) makes India one of four (the US, the EU and Russia being the other three) that have ventured to our closest planetary neighbour. Nationalism drive such escapades, not the quest for knowledge and understanding. The space race between the US and the Soviet Union for example, was not undertaken for the sake of knowledge.



Karl Marx's Declaration of Principles

A hundred and twenty four years ago in May 1880, four men met in the study of Marx's house in North London: Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Paul Lafargue (who was still then living in London) and Jules Guesde, who had specially come over from France.
Guesde (pronounced "Ged") had played a key role in persuading a conference of French political and trace union organizations in Marseilles in October 1879 to adopt "the collective ownership of the soil, sub-soil, instruments of production, raw materials" as the aim of "the Federation of the Party of Socialist Workers of France". He was now in London to get Marx"s help in drawing up a declaration of principles of this new party.
Marx dictated to Lafargue, who acted as secretary of the meeting, the following preamble to a list of immediate demands prepared by Guesde for the elections of 1881. Engels, in his letter to Edward Bernstein on October 25, 1881, wrote about the preamble, "A masterpiece of cogent reasoning, calculated to explain things to the masses in a few words."



“The highest form of the state, the democratic republic, which under our modern conditions of society is more and more becoming an inevitable necessity, and is the form of state in which alone the last decisive struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie can be fought out - the democratic republic officially knows nothing any more of property distinctions. In it wealth exercises its power indirectly, but all the more surely. …




The World Socialist Party (India) maintains that it is a revolutionary party, committed to class struggle as the means of achieving its ends. That does not mean, however, that we mean violence or civil war. As the Socialist Party of Great Britain notes in their pamphlet Socialist Principles Explained:



"The unfaltering presentation of Marxian Socialism does not then make rapid strides anywhere and least of all amongst the rural communities. Yet experience has infallibly shown that this is the only possible road to victory. Compromise may bring a big following, a deluded following, which, once having but superficially realized the nature of the deception, will turn and rend its erstwhile gods in an agony of reaction. History has shown, all too clearly, the fatal character of any such procedure. The Socialist Party cannot afford to ignore the great mass of agrarian workers, neither dare we swerve to the right or left in delivering our message. A PSEUDO-SOCIALISM IS ANTI-SOCIALISM." - Alf Budden, The Slave of the Farm, being letters from Alf Budden to a fellow farm slave and comrade in revolt, Calgary, Alta. August, 1914

The Bolshevik coup d’état in Russia: 1917—1921

Select and revised edition of an article written between February and May 1990 and published in the journal Introducing Communist Review, Calcutta, May 1990, the article was written by Binay Sarkar, Editor during a period when the Lal Pataka group was becoming aware about Bolshevism to be an utter distortion of Marxism. And for that matter, the group was severing relations with the left-communist milieu entirely, and with the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party (the CWO, UK and the PC Int. (BC), Italy particularly). Since mid-eighties the Socialist Party of Great Britain came into contact with Lal Pataka through their journal the Socialist Standard and correspondence regularly. The group then reorganized themselves as the Marxist Internationalist Correspondence Circle towards further international opening. Thereafter in association with the Socialist Party of Great Britain the group finally turned themselves into the World Socialist Party (India) in March 1-3, 1995.


Lenin, theorist of nationalism

Lenin's very notion that "imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism" supposes that one nation exploits another, so requiring a "national liberation" movement for the subject nation, which leads the working class of two different countries into a game of slaughtering each other. But the working class has no nation, only a world to win.

We know that, historically, unless a particular class monopolises the means of production and distribution and forces the rest of the people to sell their labour power, no capitalist production is possible. Private property is monopoly. Coupled with the division of labour it is the basis of commodity production as of exchange, money, the market, etc.

But to Lenin monopoly was not this class monopoly but the mere concentration and centralisation of capital. According to Marx, the very existence of capitalist society involves both monopoly (in this sense) and competition, which nullifies Lenin's supposition that such monopoly is only a feature of "imperialism":


Class, not nation: a world to win

Nationalism, integrationist or separatist, in spite of and against one another, breeds patriotism that feeds on contempt for and hostility towards people in others, whereunder fratricidal strives are inevitable. Instances abound around. But these strives, in essence, are expressions of the dynamic of a system that feeds on profit.

"Independence", "My country", "Sovereignty", "Self-sufficiency", "Indigenous growth", "Prosperity", "Peace" et al pertain to the ideology of nationalism that forestalls class-consciousness.

This ideology speaks in terms of "common bonds" - race, religion, language, economic interests - to define the nation-state. But such homogeneity is conspicuously absent in almost all the 195 countries1 on our planet. And all nations are class-divided.



The concept of “people” comprises the entire population (citizens including their young) of a country or nation bringing about its exploiting and exploited classes – the ruling and the ruled – altogether on the same line of organization and action – a class-collaborationist confusion. As a matter of fact it conceals classes, blurs class consciousness, obliterates class relations – antagonisms and struggles, and hides class exploitation and class oppression. A "people" does not, and cannot, exploit or oppress another "people" anyway.



[Reply to: wwo@brain.net.pk Re: WWO Pay Tribute to Women Of the World]

In the present class divided society women too are divided into classes, which is why you are recognizing yourselves properly as working women, as I understand. Working women belong in the working class who own or control little but their only means for survival - their labour power, i.e., their ability to work (unskilled or skilled) - to be sold as a commodity in the labour market (capitalist employment) for a subsistence called wage or salary.



Women / Feminism

Sexism is a word that has entered our vocabulary only fairly recently although the concept to which it refers has been around a lot longer. It means discrimination against women for reasons of gender alone. What it means in practice can best be illustrated by an outline of what many women in recent years have seen as the female role in contemporary society.


Seven Questions and Answers

WSP India's manifesto seems to be ready since March 1995. What is the progress in the last 17 years?

Ans: During the last seventeen years the party has numerically decreased from 17 to 7 (and some supporters) owing to mainly religion factor. Our party doesn’t allow its members to actively participate in religious rites. Anyway, I do appreciate your concern about our numbers, perhaps!





"consciousness can sometimes appear further advanced than the contemporary empirical conditions, so that in the struggles of a later epoch one can refer to earlier theoreticians as authorities." – Marx and Engels, The German Ideology, Marx Engels Collected Works, Vol. 5, Progress Publishers, Moscow 1976, p. 83. Also see: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem engages in revolutionizing themselves and things, in creating something that had never yet existed, precisely in such periods of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from them names, battle cries and costumes in order to present the new scene of world history in this time-honored disguise and this borrowed language.” – Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Marx Engels Selected Works, Vol. 1, Progress Publishers, Moscow1969, p. 398, Also see: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm


Organize without leaders!

It is for sheep someone is required to lead them, not for Man. Modern men are not sheep; it is the corrupted and rotten politics of today, which makes them that way. See the provocative picture of British Parliament House with sheep outside.
Caption: -



The case for turning universal suffrage into the instrument of emancipation

read pamphlet >> |