p The first round of discussions have been very useful. The comrades have different experiences working in different conditions. They rightly tried to make their submissions in the light of their experience. As we have made it clear in our paper and in our Party documents, it will not be possible for anybody to claim that all aspects of the situation have been understood and evaluated. In fact, the parties are in the process of evaluating. They have succeeded in coming to some conclusions but as the questions have been posed here, many require to be discussed and debated in such a manner that those that immediately concern us and our movement, are resolved in a way that advances the movement. But one thing that has to be taken into consideration is that the founders of Marxism had visualised, through their writings, that socialism is a stage which comes - socialist revolution they had visualised - after developed capitalism, as a stage which comes after we reach capitalism. And on the basis of this they were visualising the revolutions to take place in the countries of developed capitalism. They had not at that time thought that socialist revolutions will take place in a backward country. It was only after Lenin analysed imperialism and on that basis stated that revolution can break where the chain is the weakest - after that he began working on the revolution in Russia and October Revolution took place. Subsequently also we have seen the socialist revolution has not taken place in the advanced countries-except foroneexception, following the anti- fascist war in Czechoslovakia. But it has generally taken place in the countries that were backward. Has this fact any implication for building socialism or working for it? So this point has to be taken note of. Moreover there was no earlier experience of socialism. It is 307 stated very frankly that it is a stage, a system where exploitation of man by man will be put an end to. But this exploitation cannot be put an end to at once. Historical materialism fully explains how in the earlier society the only thing that Marx came to conclusion was that the class struggle being the motive force of moving the world forward - for revolutions - but at the same time it is nowhere stated that how it will take place - because conditions vary from state to state, country to country and in that respect Lenin has said, it will take various forms. Even Marx and Engels in the writings when they talk of France, when they talkofGermany,Italy they talkof the peasantry and the bulk of the people, how it was very necessary for the working class to rally the peasantry how that will liberate them liberating the working class itself - all those things they were saying. Because they were participants - they were not only evolving the theoretical concepts before us but they were practical participants in the struggle. So every struggle whether in the class war in France, in Germany, they were writing on everything. So in that respect they were trying to understand.

p Similarly, so that is why since there was no model of it, capitalism has the experience of three hundred years - how to develop the productive forces - according to the basic laws of capitalism - but there is no experience for us. That is why it is necessary to understand the complexities of the situation that how in a backward country we had to face with a situation where socialism had to be built and socialist revolution took place. Now when we come to understand this, then we have to see even they who tried - if we study the Lenin’s works in 1921-22-23, you win find how on the basis of experience gained - because he had stated that it is not dogma - it is a guide to action. Then how he was trying to make corrections in the policies that were earlier initiated - how his new economic policy came. And not only that he has stated to the 7th Congress of the Russian Communist Party to go into - then he has stated the question is posed whether we are committing a mistake - do we admit it? Then he answers the question - Yes. Unless self-critically we examine how we are implementing it and what corrections we are to make we will not be able to give tt a proper direction. So he was learning from the experience on ttie basis of that, he had also no hesitation in saying, not only new economic policy and subsequently also -even in the4thcongrewof the communist international - addressing them. Earlier concept 308 which was there, in the 4th congress of the communist international, in his address he had elaborated how the different modes of production, even in agriculture were operating in Russia at that time - how to deal with that is a question - that is why with the NEP a big change had come - they were then facing a very bad situation. Even peasant revolts had started, so that they were faced with a serious situation and they had to work out policy to meet the situation.

In this respect I will say, that here some comments have been made and particularly by 2-3 parties, they will understand -1 don’t want to name, but they will have to answer, they have to understand and explain on the basis of their experience, everything started with revisionism - no doubt revisionism played a big role. Isn’t the question of model came with revisionism. The same model has to be there - why is it that in 1945 itself we were having the postwar period, immediately when the revolutions took place in other countries, they tried to apply the same model, they did not keep in mind the concrete conditions prevailing in their countries and correlation of forces operating then. Why? So they did not give proper thought to the science of Marxism, being a creative science. We learn. We also tried to copy so many things . If here - the correlation of forces, what are they how to operate, how to carry anti-fascist struggle and all that understanding of proper evaluation of our struggle also - we also committed many mistakes. There is nothing wrong to admit the mistakes because only by admitting the mistakes, by self-critically examining you can go forward. So I don’t want to take much time, I am only stating - it would be wrong to come to the conclusion - it is only revisionism which has led this path - then you will not be making corrections in your own policy - then how is it that the present socialist countries after this shock are forced to resort to reforms. The basic premises we have stated here - general agreement is there here that there is nothing wrong with the science of Marxism; it is a creative science to be applied concretely in the concrete conditions prevailing in each country - but at the same time when you say this here the experience goes to show - if it is to be applied concretely, then naturally one model which was applicable to one country would not work. It should be treated as science. Now there are different variations - those who are faced with the some situations, now the Sou A African communists who are faced with the situation - they 309 had a good debate in Iheir Party congress - now they have to come into contact with a situation where they have carried on a big struggle. The world situation has changed; in that situation how to carry forward the struggle for socialism. They cannot immediately say, now our struggle against apartheid is over apartheid - you go where you want to go - we will raise our flag. That will not allow the consolidation of the forces which have helped in and winning over the allies for you. So these things are there - and that is why the comrades who came here, they will be drawing proper lessons. For instance Philippines comrades are faced with a very difficult situation they are fighting bitter struggle - Belgium comrades, comrades from Bangladesh - they have stated that everything was all right upto 1956, if anything has happened after 1956, that has led us to this. This is not a proper historical examination. Then you will not be able to justify what is being done today, the reforms being resorted to by socialist countries. They arose out of the one model which we had selected - which came into existence at a particular time. This is not to underestimate the immense harm done by revisionism. All this we have to go into. Keep it in mind we have to go into all these questions and we have to see that our analysis should be scientific. We should not take it as somebody rightly pointed out , when Marx and Engles were working on certain thesis and they were writing their notes in the process of thinking and taking the direction - if you take it as a sacred - like that of some religious book - that since they have written - we have done all these things. I am saying because we have gone through all the experience of the quotations of the period when situation was different in those countries and applying to your conditions where the situation are quite different. Not only in the world situation, in the internal situation too. That is why, I would like to emphasise this point. I do not want to take much time, already I have surpassed my time, so I would like to discuss these issues very frankly so that we learn from each other’s experience and try to come to appreciate each other’s point of view and start thinking. We will learn from your experience. All of us will have to learn. And the process will be gradual. It concerns the question of ideology. It is not that one seminar can bring all of us together on all issues and that is something that is not related to the science.