The globally integrated production and the world economy as a whole, run through the participation and co-

operation of the entire human race, is demonstrative of the fact that the production has become completely
socialised. In stark contrast to the socialised production, the consumption still remains private. [The main
problem is not that consumption is private, but that property of the means of production is. This is stated
correctly at another point of the text, though.]

The colonial bourgeoisie is too dependent upon imperialism, too terrified of the working class, and its
resources too narrow to mount a revolutionary struggle to realize the tasks that in the seventeenth, eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries were historically associated with the rise of the bourgeoisie—the breaking up of the
landed estates, national unification, the establishment of democracy, etc. Rather, it invariably sides with
imperialism and reaction so as to safeguard its own class privileges. [These tasks have partially been realized
in a significant part of the capitalist periphery, albeit in an incomplete manner, and not through revolutionary
means. Land can be bought and sold, but still remains concentrated in the hands of former pre-capitalist
landowners’ families for most part; bourgeois democracy exists in some countries, but is highly unstable and
a façade for brutal exploitation, democratic rights are constantly disrespected; military imperialist occupation
has been removed from most colonies, but questions of national oppression remain, such as the subordination
of national states to imperialist powers and imperialist capital, frequent imperialist wars and invasions,
continuation of the oppression of stateless nationalities (Kurdistan, Catalonia) etc. Permanent Revolution is
definitely still an essential method to understand the social formation of countries of belated capitalist
development, but the completion of the tasks of democratic-bourgeois revolution has different characteristics
if compared to Trotsky’s time. Even clearer than before, these democratic tasks can only be solved by the
establishment of a workers’ state]

The popular enthusiasm for the bourgeois Congress(I) led UPA coalition government, that re-entered the
power corridor after devastating misrule of the hindu fascist BJP led coalition of NDA, has rapidly
dissipated. [I did not understand this passage upon first reading. I need to research more about the recent
transitions of governments in India.]

We must understand what Stalinism was and why it arose, the key revisions of Marxism with which it is
associated (including socialism in one country, the two-stage theory of revolution, social fascism, popular
frontism, and peaceful co-existence with world bourgeoisie), point to the key strategic experiences of the
world working class that demonstrate the counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism, lay bare its destructive
impact on the South Asian revolution, and indict the Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies for ultimately serving
as the mechanism through which capitalism has been restored in the former USSR and the People's Republic
of China. [Potential difference about China. While it is obvious that capitalist relations have been restored to
an extent in the country, bourgeois counter-revolution has not succeeded yet. There is no indication of
recognizing this qualitative difference in the document.]

[Some questions are left unanswered, most notably: an explanation and balance sheet of the second Chinese
revolution and the establishment of deformed workers’ states in post WWII (including Cuba); a position on
the resistance to the Pabloite degeneration in the Trotskyist movement, specially the International Committee
and other groups after the degeneration of the IC, such as the RT/Spartacist League, IBT etc.]

In India and China, the national movements, of the first half of the twentieth century posed the progressive
task of unifying disparate peoples in a common struggle against imperialism—a task which proved
unrealizable under the leadership of the national bourgeoisie. However, contrary to this, the new form of
nationalism promotes separatism along ethnic, linguistic and religious lines, with the aim of dividing up
existing states for the benefit of local exploiters. Such movements have nothing to do with a struggle against
imperialism, nor do they in any sense embody the democratic aspirations of the masses of oppressed. They
serve to divide the working class and divert the class struggle into ethno-communal conflicts.

These movements appeal to genuine democratic and socio-economic grievances. But the nationalist-
exclusivist program they advance in no way corresponds to the interests of the working class of South Asia.
The balkanization of the subcontinent would facilitate imperialist manipulation and oppression, create new
obstacles to the unification of the working class, and further institutionalize ethnic politics and strife.
The national-separatist movements articulate the strivings of local sections of the bourgeoisie for their own
ethnically defined state with a view to expanding their possibilities for enrichment and exploitation,
especially by brokering deals with international capital.

[Yes, we are definitely for a socialist federation of South Asia uniting all peoples of the subcontinent under
organized working class power. And it is obvious that Marxists are enemies of the bourgeois nationalist
movements and their ideology, which claims secession is the solution to workers and toilers’ problems,
alienate or are hostile to the workers of the oppressor nation etc. But would the WSP not defend the
oppressed peoples’ right of self-determination from India? We do not defend the balkanization of the
subcontinent, but recognize the nationalities’ right to self-determination, including separation if they decide
so. There’s no reason why this should undermine working class unity more than the alienation caused by a
history of national oppression. Check Lenin polemics with Rosa Luxembourg on this issue. At another point
the document claims the WSP is correctly for the right of self-determination, including secession, but that
seems to be in stark contrast to the part differentiating current secessionist movements to the ones of the
early twentieth century. It is possible they have shifted to the right, but I don’t think there should be a
qualitative change of attitude towards them. Check our recent statement on Catalonia to check potential
differences.]

We resolutely oppose the secessionist movements, as they serve solely the interests of the sections of
bourgeoisie, by inducing the clever divide between the workers of both nationalities.

[This paragraph is correct in general, but the highlighted sentence is one-sided and could contradict the rest
depending on its meaning. The “nationalism of the oppressed” is a useless tool for the working class from a
theoretical, political or economic point of view. But there could be a tactical interest in defeating an
oppressor nation, so it is not black and white.]

We call for a break with these redundant, sectarian and corrupt bureaucratic organizations, which do not
represent in any manner whatsoever, the interests of the modern proletariat. Instead, we must focus upon
formation of new independent organizations – such as factory and workplace committees - that truly
represent the interests of the rank-and-file workers and have potential to grow directly into workers soviets.

[While recognizing this role played by trade unions, Trotskyists still work inside them in an attempt to arm
the workers with a program to fight capitalism and the privileged bureaucracy. As organizations, they can
still be used to defend basic working class rights. This does not mean they can’t play a reactionary role when
controlled by sell-out pro-capitalist, Social-democrat or Stalinist bureaucrats. Check Trotsky’s correct
arguments in “Trade unions in the epoch of imperialist decay”].

Transitional Demands
xx) Convocation of New Constituent Assembly.
[In what context? We believe this is a valid demand in situations when no bourgeois-democratic rights are
formally guaranteed. But the Constituent Assembly is not a working class organization and should be seen
neither as a replacement to it, nor as a step to it. It is a democratic right. To have another one in India,
though, would be like “drying ice”].
xxi) Supremacy of Parliament over other organs of the state-executive and judiciary. [?]