Readers are invited to submit letters to The Guardian.
Letters may be e-mailed to guardian@cpa.org.au.
Letters of 300-400 words are preferred.

Letters to the Editor:

Unhealthy provocation

I offer a few comments about the report by Sitaram Yechury 
published in The Guardian on February 18, 2004.

Speaking about socialism, Sitaram Yechury says it is the rule of 
"exploited classes". This is wrong. It is the rule of the working 
class supported by its allies.

He claims that one of the "defects" of socialism was the 
"centralisation of power". This is not a defect but a necessity. 
Under socialism you cannot afford to have more than one centre of 
power. Such a situation would open way for counter-revolution.

He speaks of the "dictatorship of the Party" as being a "defect" 
of socialism. Communist society is built through the dictatorship 
of the proletariat and the Party is the political leadership of 
the proletariat.

There is a dialectical connection between the two aspects. It is 
wrong to separate them as Sitaram Yechury does. To separate them 
would certainly be a defect of socialism. However, the socialist 
system that was built following the 1917 revolution up until 
Stalin's death did not have such a defect.

The revisionist period which followed had the defect of replacing 
the dictatorship of the proletariat with a state of the whole 
people and replacing the Party of the working class with the 
Party of the whole people.

Sitaram Yechury says that "depoliticising the working class" was 
also a "defect".

This was not a defect of socialism but a crime committed by the 
revisionists. But Sitaram Yechury doesn't make reference to this.

He goes on to say that under socialism there was "inadequate 
development of ideological consciousness" but does not make the 
point that this was a feature of the revisionist period and not 
of the period when Stalin was General Secretary of the Party.

Sitaram Yechury claims that the "uneven development of 
capitalism" was responsible for the fact that socialism was 
achieved in Russia but not in the western capitalist countries.

This is not so. The reason was that Lenin and the Bolshevik Party 
prepared the Russian proletariat for socialist revolution whereas 
in the west opportunism was dominant.

Our Indian comrade suggests that, through "political 
decolonisation", capitalism removed the "moral stigma of being an 
oppressor of other nations". I don't think that capitalism has 
ever removed the moral stigma of being an oppressor of other 
nations.

Sitaram Yechury goes on to say Leninism was "Marxism in the era 
of imperialism", but today communists need to "define the 
contours of the socialist revolution".

I think this is misleading. Lenin not only dealt with imperialism 
but he gave us an outline of socialism.

To suggest that Communists have yet to define socialism is to 
reject Lenin's ideas as well as those of Marx.

Towards the end of his statement, our Indian comrade suggests 
that up to now, there in no fully "coherent and comprehensive 
theory for socialist revolution".

Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin gave Communists a coherent and 
comprehensive theory for socialist revolution. To suggest 
otherwise is to open the way for revisionism. And it is 
revisionism on an international scale which is hampering the 
development of Communist theory and practice.

In conclusion, I have met Sitaram Yechury and I was impressed by 
his Marxist-Leninist capacity. I am rather disappointed by his 
contribution published in The Guardian.

He calls his report a "healthy provocation". It is a provocation 
all right but an unhealthy one.

Alan Miller
Adelaide, SA

Is Rick Hendry seriously suggesting (Guardian 24/3/04) 
that Sitram Yechury's speech to the World Social Forum was 
"revisionist nonsense"?

Name calling is never enough. For his assertions to have any 
credibility, Rick must indicate exactly which of Yechury's 
propositions are "revisionist" and which Marxist principles 
Yechury has revised.

Eddie Clynes
Woodford, NSW

Just a short note to share a beautiful remark by Desmond Tutu: 
"When the missionaries came to Africa, they had the Bible and we 
had the land. They said, 'Let us pray'. We closed our eyes. When 
we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land".

Eyes open
Sydney