Jump to navigation. Congress candidate Arvinder Singh Lovely on Wednesday released a poll manifesto for East Delhi constituency and promised launching a toll-free number to "directly connect" with the citizens to enable them raise their issues and concerns with him. Asserting that he is reaching out to people in every single part of the constituency, the Congress candidate said his fight was against twitteratis, who he claimed, are not aware of ground issues of the people in the constituency.
I know problems of this constituency inside out and people know me as well," he said, adding if elected, he would launch a toll-free number to seek suggestions and know problems of people so that they can be solved. Arvinder Singh Lovely exuded confidence that he would sail through in the poll battle as "people strongly want change". Despite the deputy chief minister representing an East Delhi segment, the woes of the area have only increased," Lovely alleged. Arvinder Singh Lovely claimed the development in East Delhi was carried out during the year Congress rule under the leadership of Sheila Dikshit and "after that, all development works have been stalled".
The Congress candidate said pollution was a big issue in East Delhi, and Anand Vihar and areas near Ghazipur landfill site are the worst affected where people struggle to breath. In his manifesto, Lovely promised to work on ensuring clean water for every household in east Delhi, employment for youth, 33 per cent reservation for women in government jobs, initiating measures to check pollution, increasing budget for health and education and 'pucca' houses for the poor among others.
Arvinder Singh Lovely said that he has put in details 25 main issues that require immediate attention, including replacing the old iron bridge across the Yamuna river, which has outlived its utility. Lovely said that the Congress government had begun work on a new bridge parallel to the Iron Bridge, but after the AAP came to power in Delhi, the work on the bridge did not progress. The revolution of did not turn into a socialist revolution as the Manifesto had calculated, but opened up to Germany the possibility of a vast future capitalist ascension.
The Paris Commune proved that the proletariat, without having a tempered revolutionary party at its head cannot wrest power from the bourgeoisie. Meanwhile, the prolonged period of capitalist prosperity that ensued brought about not the education of the revolutionary vanguard, but rather the bourgeois degeneration of the labour aristocracy, which became in turn the chief brake on the proletarian revolution. In the nature of things, the authors of the Manifesto could not possibly have foreseen this " dialectic. For the Manifesto, capitalism was - the kingdom of free competition. While referring to the growing concentration of capital, the Manifesto did not draw the necessary conclusion in regard to monopoly, which has become the dominant capitalist form in our epoch and the most important precondition for socialist economy.
Only afterwards, in Capital, did Marx establish the tendency towards the transformation of free competition into monopoly. It was Lenin who gave a scientific characterisation of monopoly capitalism in his " Imperialism. Basing themselves on the example of "industrial revolution" in England, the authors of the Manifesto pictured far too unilaterally the process of liquidation of the intermediate classes, as a wholesale proletarianisation of crafts, petty trades, and peasantry. In point of fact, the elemental forces of competition have far from completed this simultaneously progressive and barbarous work.
Capitalism has ruined the petty bourgeoisie at a much faster rate than it has proletarianised it. Furthermore, the bourgeois state has long directed its conscious policy toward the artificial maintenance of petty-bourgeois strata.
At the opposite pole, the growth of technology and the rationalisation of large-scale industry engenders chronic unemployment and obstructs the proletarianisation of the petty bourgeoisie. Concurrently, the development of capitalism has accelerated in the extreme the growth of legions of technicians, administrators, commercial employees, in short, the so-called "new middle class.
However, the artificial preservation of antiquated petty-bourgeois strata in no way mitigates the social contradictions, but, on the contrary, invests them with a special malignancy, and together with the permanent army of the unemployed constitutes the most malevolent expression of the decay of capitalism. Calculated for a revolutionary epoch the Manifesto contains end of Chapter II ten demands, corresponding to the period of direct transition from capitalism to socialism. In their preface of , Marx and Engels declared these demands to be in part antiquated and, in any case, only of secondary importance.
The reformists seized upon this evaluation to interpret it in the sense that transitional revolutionary demands had forever ceded their place to the Social Democratic "minimum programme," which, as is well known, does not transcend the limits of bourgeois democracy. As a matter of fact, the authors of the Manifesto indicated quite precisely the main correction of their transitional programme, namely, "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes. Marx later counterpoised to the capitalist state, the state of the type of the Commune.
This " type " subsequently assumed the much more graphic shape of soviets. There cannot be a revolutionary programme today without soviets and without workers control. As for the rest, the ten demands of the Manifesto, which appeared " archaic " in an epoch of peaceful parliamentary activity, have today regained completely their true significance.
The Social Democratic "minimum programme," on the other hand, has become hopelessly antiquated. Basing its expectation that "the German bourgeois revolution The error in this prognosis was not only in the date. The revolution of revealed within a few months that precisely under more advanced conditions, none of the bourgeois classes is capable of bringing the revolution to its termination: the big and middle bourgeoisie is far too closely linked with the landowners and fettered by the fear of the masses; the petty bourgeoisie is far too divided and in its top leadership far too dependent on the big bourgeoisie.
As evidenced by the entire subsequent course of development in Europe and Asia, the bourgeois revolution, taken by itself, can no more in general be consummated. A complete purge of feudal rubbish from society is conceivable only on the condition that the proletariat, freed from the influence of bourgeois parties, can take its stand at the head of the peasantry and establish its revolutionary dictatorship.
By this token, the bourgeois revolution becomes interlaced with the first stage of the socialist revolution, subsequently to dissolve in the latter. The national revolution therewith becomes a link of the world revolution. The transformation of the economic foundation and of all social relations assumes a permanent uninterrupted character.
For revolutionary parties in backward countries of Asia, Latin America, and Africa, a clear understanding of the organic connection between the democratic revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat - and thereby, the international socialist revolution - is a life-and-death question. While depicting how capitalism draws into its vortex backward and barbarous countries, the Manifesto contains no reference to the struggle of colonial and semi-colonial countries for independence. To the extent that Marx and Engels considered the social revolution "in the leading civilised countries at least," to be a matter of the next few years, the colonial question was resolved automatically for them, not in consequence of an independent movement of oppressed nationalities but in consequence of the victory of the proletariat in the metropolitan centres of capitalism.
The questions of revolutionary strategy in colonial and semi-colonial countries are therefore not touched upon at all by the Manifesto.
Yet these questions demand an independent solution. For example, it is quite self-evident that while the "national fatherland" has become the most baneful historical brake in advanced capitalist countries, it still remains a relatively progressive factor in backward countries compelled to struggle for an independent existence. The credit for developing revolutionary strategy for oppressed nationalities belongs primarily to Lenin.
The most antiquated section of the Manifesto - with respect not to method but to material - is the criticism of " socialist " literature for the first part of the nineteenth century chapter III and the definition of the position of the Communists in relation to various opposition parties chapter IV. The movements and parties listed in the Manifesto were so drastically swept away either by the revolution of or by the ensuing counter-revolution that one must look up even their names in a historical dictionary.
However, in this section, too, the Manifesto is perhaps closer to us now than it was to the previous generation. In the epoch of the flowering of the Second International, when Marxism seemed to exert an undivided sway, the ideas of pre-Marxist socialism could have been considered as having receded decisively into the past. Things are otherwise today.
The decomposition of the Social Democracy and the Communist International at every step engenders monstrous ideological relapses. Senile thought seems to have become infantile. In search of all-saving formulas the prophets in the epoch of decline discover anew doctrines long since buried by scientific socialism. As touches the question of opposition parties, it is in this domain that the elapsed decades have introduced the most deepgoing changes, not only in the sense that the old parties have long been brushed aside by new ones, but also in the sense that the very character of parties and their mutual relations have radically changed in the conditions of the imperialist epoch.
The Manifesto must therefore be amplified with the most important documents of the first four congresses of the Communist International, the essential literature of Bolshevism, and the decisions of the conferences of the Fourth International. We have already remarked above that according to Marx no social order departs from the scene without first exhausting the potentialities latent in it.
However, even an antiquated social order does not cede its place to a new order without resistance. A change in social regimes presupposes the harshest form of the class struggle, i. If the proletariat, for one reason or another, proves incapable of overthrowing with an audacious blow the outlived bourgeois order, then finance capital in the struggle to maintain its unstable rule can do nothing but turn the petty bourgeoisie ruined and demoralised by it into the pogrom army of fascism.
The bourgeois degeneration of the Social Democracy and the fascist degeneration of the petty bourgeoisie are interlinked as cause and effect. At the present time, the Third International far more wantonly than the Second performs in all countries the work of deceiving and demoralising the toilers.
By massacring the vanguard of the Spanish proletariat, the unbridled hirelings of Moscow not only pave the way for fascism but execute a goodly share of its labours. The protracted crisis of the international revolution, which is turning more and more into a crisis of human culture, is reducible in its essentials to the crisis of revolutionary leadership.
As the heir to the great tradition, of which the Manifesto of the Communist Party forms the most precious link, the Fourth International is educating new cadres for the solution of old tasks. Theory is generalised reality, In an honest attitude to revolutionary theory is expressed the impassioned urge to reconstruct the social reality. That, in the southern part of the Dark Continent, our co-thinkers were the first to translate the Manifesto into the Afrikaans language is another graphic illustration of the fact that Marxist thought lives today only under the banner of the Fourth International.
To it belongs the future. When the centennial of the Communist Manifesto is celebrated, the Fourth International will have become the decisive revolutionary force on our planet.