The superstructure stands upon the mode of production. That is, the state, politics, culture, conscience (superstructure) are dependent on social basis the mode of production. The contradiction between production relation and productive force lies in the mode of production. The productive force regularly develops. If the production relation does not correspond to the development of productive force, the production relation needs to change to make productive force and production relation compatible to each other.
The owners of mode of production control the superstructure too. To sustain the old mode of production (which is favorable to them), they use superstructure against productive force. That is why the struggle for changing production relation is carried against the superstructure, mainly state and its main component the armed force. That struggle results in change of the old production relation and superstructure and establish new production relation and superstructure. Hence, society is regularly developing. So, we have to search the source of conscience-struggle-thought of superstructure in the basis of society the mode of production and ownership relation of property. This is the general teaching of historical materialism.
Whatever is the mode of production of a society, such in the main is the society itself, its ideas and theories, its political views and institutions. Hence, the clue to the study of the laws of history of society must not be sought in men’s minds, in the views and ideas of society, but in the mode of production practiced by society in any given historical period; it must be sought in the economic life of society. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
Mr. Bari was affiliated to Huq-Toha. Presently, he exists as separate group. He demands that he is trying for the unity of the proletarian revolutionaries. He made a statement. On that our some comments are as follows: The British colonialists overthrew the Muslim Feudal and captured state power of Indo-Pak and established control over the political and cultural field. Thus, they captured the superstructure of the society of Indo-Pak. The British, by overthrowing the Muslims, established control over the mode of production of Indo-Pak.
The British colonialists kept the religion-based inequality in mode of production and superstructure, and by depending on lackeys of one religion, carried religious repression over people of other religion. The aim was to create sectarian mentality and riot, keep people in disunity and make easier the system of exploitation and domination over them. It is known as ‘Divide and Rule’ line of the British reactionaries. To end the religion-based inequality and repression in mode of production and to establish proper right, the people affiliated to Muslim religion carried struggle in superstructure.
As a result, idea and struggle against the religious suppression emerged in superstructure. As there was no proletarian leadership, the Indo-Pak bureaucratic bourgeoisie and feudalists took leadership of the struggle against religious suppression. They, by not carrying people against the main reason behind the religious suppression the British colonialism and its lackeys, carried them to sectarianism, riot etc. As a result, riot emerged and non-antagonistic religious contradiction took antagonistic form among the people.
Had the proletariat led the Indo-Pak independence struggle, the struggle would be carried against the religious repressor reactionaries (British colonialism and its lackey reactionary feudal and bureaucratic capitalists) and unified Indo-Pak would be formed; in that case, self-determination would be provided for language-based national development. Therefore, the reason behind the emergence of the Two Nation Theory (the theory that Hindus and Muslims are two nations on the basis of religion) in superstructure and idea lies in religion-based inequality and repression in mode of production. We should not remain satisfied by imposing the fault on reactionaries for the division of Indo-Pak on the basis of Two Nation Theory because reactionaries will always do the reactionary activities.
The failure of the political party of proletariat of Indo-Pak is also responsible. They failed to carry national democratic revolution via armed struggle and take leadership of revolution. The Bengali-Bihari clash in East Bengal occurred because of the same reason. The non-Bengalis got the prominence in the mode of production of East Bengal as the superstructure of the East Bengal and Pakistan was in their hands. The people of East Bengal struggled in superstructure to create compatible condition for them in mode of production. As there was no proletarian class leadership in that struggle of people, the bourgeoisie captured the leadership and misguided it.
Consequently, language based Bengali-Bihari riot took place, the non-antagonistic language based contradiction among people took antagonistic form; many people lost their lives, properties were destroyed and the international reactionaries gained. Therefore, the reason of Bengali-Bihari conflict lies in the mode of production. That is, it will be metaphysical error to say that the reason behind sectarianism, Two Nation Theory, Bengali Bihari riot is conspiracy-clique-outside reason; that basis laid in the difference, inequality and repression in mode of production. If there is no inequality or oppression in mode of production, the religious, national or lingual difference does not create any inequality in state and politics of superstructure.
So, no problem arises. China, Korea and North Vietnam are proof that. Mr. Bari saw the source of Two Nation Theory and sectarianism in idea-conspiracy-clique. But the fact that the source of idea is matter and the basis of conspiracy-clique is the inequality, oppression and class division of the society of the mode of production is denied by him. Thus, he rejected historical materialism and became historic idealist by making analysis of history by metaphysical outlook. The program of proletariat regarding eliminating sectarianism is to end religious repression and inequality in superstructure and social base and establish religious equality and equal right. * Religion is an organ of superstructure. The cause of its emergence is the backward production system.
Religious difference can end by the complete end of religion. It is possible by creation of scientific mode of production and scientific superstructure. It is possible only in higher stage of socialism when scientific mode of production and superstructure will develop. It needs time to change the idea of human being. This is why despite the change of mode of production, the religious idea will exist in superstructure till the preliminary stage of socialism. This is why there is religious right in socialist society too.
In developed capitalist Europe too, still there is religion and religious clash; in north Ireland, struggle of religious and against religious suppression is going on. It proves that religious repression is carried by the bourgeoisie mode of production too. So if there is inequality and repression in mode of production and superstructure and as reactionaries exist to make use of that difference, so the religious difference based antagonism can emerge. So, religious sectarianism can be eliminated only by ending all the religious suppressions and overthrow of reactionaries. From that we see, the theory “Without establishing united Bengal, it is not possible to eliminate religious sectarianism from East Bengal; it is necessary to form united Bengal to eliminate sectarianism” is wrong.
To eliminate sectarianism, the proletariat needs to seize power of East Bengal by overthrowing the reactionaries.
Will sectarianism and religious suppression exist after the seizure of power of East Bengal led by her Proletarian class?
That is, will sectarianism and religious suppression exist after the seizure of power of India led by her proletarian class? He/she who has a little Marxist knowledge, will say that in such condition, there will be no religious suppression in East Bengal or India. Regardless of separated or unified condition of Two Bengal, the fundamental reason of sectarianism is the fact that the class proletariat is not in power. So, the statement “By keeping separated existence of Two Bengal, it is an absurd idea to eliminate sectarianism from any region” is wrong.
If Mr. Bari had taken a look, he could see that Muslim people of Philippines are carrying armed struggle against religious suppression. So, armed struggle, separation and riot because of religious suppression are very natural incidence. So, will it be just to accuse people as in absence of a communist party, they joined Pakistan due to religious suppression? The proletariat of East Bengal will carry socialist revolution after completing national democratic revolution through seizure of power of East Bengal. Even if two Bengal do not unite, revolution will incessantly be carried (unstoppably). The proof of that is North Vietnam and North Korea.
Despite not having unification, they incessantly carried revolution and established socialism. Therefore, “The unification of two Bengal is necessary for national democratic revolution and socialist revolution” is not a correct statement.
The statement “Communists of two Bengal needs to unite and form a single communist party” is also wrong. Firstly: Forming a separate communist party by the West Bengal communists will be non-proletarian bourgeoisie nationalist act. This is because according to Marxist outlook, there can be only one communist party inside the Indian territorial boundary. The proletarians of East Bengal should form a single party by taking the proletarians living in the territorial boundary of East Bengal; they should make fraternal assistance with the proletarian parties of India, Burma etc. countries but should not join them. The meaning of joining will be to make losses to national democratic and socialist revolution of East Bengal. Only in communist society, there will be no state boundary. Only then, there will be no need to form separate party; classes and parties will cease to exist.
So, at present, the proposal of forming united Bengal party is proposal of making harm to national democratic revolution of East Bengal. By thinking so, the communists of South Vietnam is working in South Vietnam by forming separate party (People’s Revolutionary Party of South Vietnam), though they took the program of re-unification of motherland. The whole Bengal was a province of the British. Before that, she was under domination of Mughal and Pathan too during their rule. During the Mughal or British rule, Bengal was not any separate state or country.
Before the British occupation, the whole India was a separate state. On the other side, Japan occupied Korea (presently South Korea is controlled by the US) and France occupied Vietnam (presently some parts of South Vietnam are under US control); those countries had separate state existence. Naturally, people of Vietnam and Korea wanted liberation of motherland, and at present, they are fighting for the re-unification of divided motherland. So, if we compare the example of Vietnam and Korea, not only united Bengal but he demand of unification of the whole Indo-Pak is logical. During the British rule, motherland referred to the whole Indo-Pak. So, the re-unification of motherland means the demand of unification of the whole Indo-Pak subcontinent.
During the British rule, people of whole Indo-Pak fought against British. The proof of that is struggle of 1857 [The Great Mutiny — Sarbaharapath], Anushilon, Jugantor [ Anushilon and Jugantor were revolutionary terrorist armed groups that fought against British,; many of the members of those two groups later joined the ranks of communists—Sarbaharapath] and Surya Sen [ Leader of Anushilon, heroically carried armed struggle against the British and was martyred by them; despite being terrorist and not communist, they are widely honored by the people—Sarbaharapath]; even Subhas Bose [ A nationalist leader of India who took the path of armed struggle against the British during the Second World War and eventually joined Japanese Imperialists — Sarbaharapath] also did not fight for the independent Bengal. So, by referring the term unification of motherland to unification of united Bengal by not referring it to the unification of Indo-Pak is wrong. It is also manifestation of narrow nationalism.
Mr. Bari said, “Influenced by Two Nation Theory, almost all the nations of India, got sectarianly divided in Hindu and Muslim”. So, why to make program of smashing Two Nation Theory only to plan only for forming united nation for Bengalis? The theory will be compatible to the providing of program of the unification of all the divided nations of the whole Indo-Pak and forming unified Indo-Pak by ending divided Indo-Pak (presently divided into two) on the basis of Two Nation Theory. In place of that, only thinking of Bengali nation is manifestation of narrow nationalism that “as I am Bengali, so, I think of Bengali’ which is against internationalism. Moreover, a solution will be treated as Marxist theory only when it is applicable to similar problems.
As the “theory of ending Two Nation Theory” of Mr. Bari is not applicable to other nations, it is not Marxism. To say such theory that if we say unification of East Bengal with Hindu majority West Bengal, so we shall be able to drag Hindu people of East Bengal to our party, will mean undermining the patriotism of Hindu people and thinking them as sectarian minded. The program of proletariat for Hindu and other religious minority people should be ending religious suppression and inequality in all fields and establishing religious equality. They should be united on that basis only. But dragging them to our favor by saying of united Bengal will only mean making theory for opportunism.
This is opportunism in theory. Those comrades have opposed nationalism (Establishing of national right of East Bengal in the past. Presently, they seek united Bengal. Thus, from anti-nationalism, they became ultra-nationalist. It is the evidence of transformation of petit bourgeoisie to right or left in politics. So, they are still petit bourgeoisie in determining political line. They did the same thing regarding annihilation and Charu Majumder. They committed excessive annihilation in the past; at present, they do not want to carry annihilation at all. They chanted long live Charu Majumder excessively; presently they chant smash Charu Majumder excessively.
Mr. Bari raised the question,“Is it correct to say that present stage of revolution of our country is bourgeoisie democratic?” The meaning of raising that question is, not understanding the fact that the character of revolution of East Bengal is bourgeoisie democratic. The seed of the statement regarding United Bengal lies in this not understanding. Nation is formed in the course of development of bourgeoisie mode of production. Nation is not formed in feudal era. Language based nation is formed in bourgeoisie mode of production to make production and exchange of commodity easier. As development of that bourgeoisie mode of production is hindered, so the bourgeoisie democratic revolution is carried. There are two aims of bourgeoisie democratic revolution:
To overthrow foreign exploiters by national revolution, and overthrow feudalism—the basis of foreign exploitation by democratic revolution. This is why it is familiar as national democratic revolution. The objective of this revolution is to establish the prominence of bourgeoisie mode of production. Long before in Europe, language based nations and national based states were formed (in most cases) in course of bourgeoisie democratic revolution. The bourgeoisie mode of production did not develop in Indo-Pak sub-continent, Asia, Africa and Latin America due to exploitation, appropriation and control by the imperialists and colonialists.
So, language based nations and nation based states could not be formed. This is why in those areas, national democratic revolution has to be carried and completed — for multi- national areas, program of providing national self-determination (to provide opportunity so national development can freely continue), program for ending religious-lingual repression to solve the religious and lingual contradiction and program should be taken to establish religious and lingual equality. These are the features of bourgeoisie democratic revolution.
While defining direct colony, Mr. Bari said, “When any imperialism brings any backward country under the control of its military force, collude with the feudal and lackey bourgeoisie or through puppet government, controls the administrative power, then, the country is called colony of the imperialism.” Mr. Bari said in another place, “The Indian force captured East Bengal and Indian slavery imposed on East Bengal. Sheikh Mujiv, with its party, by forming puppet government is controlling everything.” There is no difference of the activities of the Indian expansionists with the previously explained definition of colony. Even by not being imperialist, the Indian Expansionists are doing the same. Recently, they did the same in Sikkim. So, according to the very definition of Mr. Bari, East Bengal is a colony of India, though India is not an imperialist country but an expansionist one. But why Mr. Bari is not saying East Bengal a colony of India but an annexed state? Knowingly he does not want to recognize the fact that despite not being imperialist, any country may establish a colony (Though his statement recognizes that) because in that case, he will have to recognize the position of the Proletarian Party. So, he made it absurd by saying annexed state.
The Proletarian party of East Bengal recognizes the exploitation and appropriation by the US and the Soviet in East Bengal and mentioned the contradiction of people of East Bengal with US and Soviet as fundamental. In its declaration, clearly the Proletarian Party of East Bengal mentioned that the following contradictions are `responsible for the social development of East Bengal:
1. National contradiction of the people of East Bengal versus Indian Expansionism
2. National contradiction of the people of East Bengal versus the Soviet Social Imperialism
3. National contradiction of the people of East Bengal versus the US led Imperialism.
4. The contradiction of US led imperialism and its lackeys versus the Soviet Social Imperialism, Indian Expansionism and their lackeys
5. The contradiction of East Bengal feudalism versus Peasantry
6. The contradiction of East Bengal bourgeoisie versus working class
Even then, if someone says that the Proletarian Party of East Bengal does not oppose US and Soviet exploitation, appropriation or control or does not recognize their competition, will be distortion of truth.
Everyone recognize that the Bangladesh puppet government protects the interest of the Indian Expansionism. They are protecting the interest of the Indian Expansionism, the Soviet Social Imperialism, the US-led Imperialism, the Bureaucratic Capitalism and the Feudalism. The representatives of not the national bourgeoisie, the petit bourgeoisie or other patriots, but the Bureaucratic Capitalism and the Feudalism of East Bengal are governing the Bangladesh government. Therefore, the Bangladesh puppet government is protecting the interest of Six Mountains. As the Bangladesh puppet government is protecting the interest of the Indian Expansionism, so it serves the interest of the Indian feudalism too. As Bangladesh puppet government is the representative of the Six Mountains, so it has been separated from the patriotic classes of East Bengal. That is correct statement.
When US Imperialism will be ally of East Bengal revolution, then, friendship relation will be established with it other than overthrowing it. Still they are not our ally, they want to seize and control Bangladesh from their own interest. So, at present, there is no reason to not overthrowing it. So, the position of the Proletarian Party of East Bengal of overthrowing it is correct.
Mr. Bari said in his conclusion, “They (proletarian revolutionaries of East Bengal) should reject all forms of narrowness, one-sidedness and dogmatism and be open-minded and exchange views with each other with aspiration for unity… … … Again I say, communists of East Bengal need unity to make revolution of East Bengal a success… … …” The statement of Mr. Bari regarding unity corresponds to the plan submitted by the Proletarian Party of East Bengal for the unity of the proletarian revolutionaries. So, if Mr. Bari emphasizes on his word, according to his promise, he should take unity activities with the Proletarian Party of East Bengal. We hope, Mr. Bari will take unity activities and leave his existence as group. It is a bad habit to exist as group. It may give rise to factionalism, leader-ism, split-ism and fortress mentality and those may strengthen.
The machineries of production by which valued materials (foods, clothes, shoes, houses and medical products etc.) are produced and people who by their experience and efficiency of labor run those machineries and produce usable goods, collectively form productive force of society (People and Machineries). The most dynamic part of productive force is people.
Relation of Production: The relation of production is the relation that is established between man and man in the course of production. The relation of production may be exploitative or without exploitation. From slave society to bourgeoisie society, production relation is exploitative while the socialist and communist societies are without exploitation.
Basis of Society
The productive force and relation of production makes the mode of production. This is the basis of society.
Superstructure of Society
State, politics and culture etc.