From: Karachi, Pakistan

The Chief Editor, Tufail Abbas, the Editor, Prof. Riaz Siddiqui and Shaukat Choudhry extend their thanks to the editorial board of ‘Revolutionary Democracy’ for making the last two issues of their journal available to us. I have read thoroughly the article on the ‘decolonisation’ debate, the discussion of Stalin with the creative intellectuals, the poems of the ‘forgotten poet’ and agree with your views. In the current issue of ‘Awami Manshoor’ we have included the translation of the poem ‘Morning’ by Joseph Dzhugashvili. The interview of Stalin with the creative intelligentsia will also be translated and published in our literary journal ‘Jidat’ which comes out from Faisalabad.

We hope that your co-operation would continue and prove a lifeline for us.

Yours Fraternally,

Riaz Siddiqui, Editor,
‘Awami Manshoor’.

From: Mumbai.

It was with great interest that I read the polemics between Proletarian Path and Revolutionary Democracy in the April 2003 issue of your journal. I was a little confused with the assertion in the former journal that ‘this does not mean in the least that the level of the development of the productive forces determines the economic system of society’ until I read the quote in your reply which says that the ‘level of development of the productive forces determines the economic system of society’. But much more than this fundamental clarification which repudiates this erroneous line I greatly liked the step by step approach which dissected the problematic and showed how it has been influenced by ‘decolonisation’ theory. It was sometimes difficult to uphold the Marxist-Leninist understanding when I used to debate with friends as there is very little material available on these questions. By publishing the articles of Serebryakov and Ulyanovsky you have done a very good work. Unfortunately you do not get to read the classic studies done by the Soviet theoreticians, especially those of the 1930s. In fact the whole thesis on the strategy and tactics to be adopted by communists in the colonial and semi-colonial countries was clearly outlined. It goes to the credit of Mao who must have built upon these fundamental insights to correctly decide on the strategy and tactics in a semi-colonial and feudal China. I have one doubt about when you talk about the production of machinery by machinery. This is cynically dismissed by Proletarian Path which says you do not see the emergence of a different type of capitalism in the case of India. My question is: has not technology in India progressed to the extent that it is producing many things such as, for example, tractors, railways, armaments? I find it indeed curious to know that we do not manufacture machine-making machines. I would like to read more about this issue.

Sandeep Bajeli.

Click here to return to the September 2003 index.