It will soon be forty years since Lenin decided, to ‘put the lid on opposition’, as he expressed it himself at the dramatic Tenth Congress of his party in March 1921. Much has happened since then, both in the Soviet Union and in the countries which have by imitation adopted the same pattern of one-party government. It is therefore worth reflecting on the reasons which led Lenin to adopt this drastic policy; and to pause to enquire into the results which have flowed from his action—whether he intended them or not.

The bolsheviks took power in 1917 without having (as on so many other vital questions) formulated any precise theory about their future policy towards those who disagreed with them. There was a general acceptance of the need to deal sternly with ‘enemies’ – indeed no revolutionary government could hope to survive for long if it did not do something of the kind.

The institutional process is essentially an outcome and a reflection of political action. It is therefore understandable that political institutions have always interested not only political thinkers and politicians, but also those nations and groups which are struggling to set up, reorganize or abolish any given political institutions.

Their importance lies, too, in the fact that they reflect fundamental political aspirations and relationships. They are more or less the true image of a political system and of the structure of a society at a given epoch. But when seen in a more general perspective, institutions are merely the framework of power, The complexity of and problems inherent in society, its permanent need for further material, cultural and political development have led to an expansion of the institutional structure of political society. This expansion is brought about by political organizations, especially by political parties, as well as by other organizations, such as trade unions, citizens’ associations, pressure groups, etc.

It was Mencius who taught that the people are justified in rebelling against a decadent dynasty. Since the Chou dynasty replaced the Shang at the dawn of China's history, successful rebellion has been the proof that the dynasty was decadent and the rebels not rebels but the new possessors of T'ien Ming, Heaven's mandate. For ‘Heaven sees as the people see and hears as they hear’.

When Castro addressed a mass rally in Havana on the thirteenth anniversary of his unsuccessful attempt to storm the Moncada barracks, he referred with some feeling to what he called the ‘traditional communist parties’ of Latin America, attacking them for opposing his strategy of armed struggle which he claimed was the only correct way to seize power. In doing this Castro underlined the uniqueness of the Cuban situation in Latin America, and the difkulties attendant upon any attempt at classifying the Cuban revolution within the customary framework of communism in that continent.

Latin American communist movements have a poor record as insurrectionary forces. Inview of the fierce suppression of communism by governments seeking an easy target at home, and approbation in Washington, it is perhaps not surprising that the 1935 uprising in Brazil stands almost alone in the history of communist attempts at seizing power by revolution in Latin America. But the communists add themselves to the weakness of their position. Their record of dealings with dictators, including of course Batista in Cuba, however theoretically justified in the long run, discredits them in the eyes of the powerful, and growing, radical, nationalist movements.

From 1920 to 1939, under the Third Republic, and again from 1943 to 1947, under the Fourth, the French communists were able to present themselves as the harbingers of the future society. But this did not prevent them from improvising, according to circumstances and to the response they received, bold variations on the theme of their relations with the established power and society. The question which so many people are now asking: ‘Have the communists really changed ?’ can be reduced to asking whether, in the fifties although possibly in a confused way, it was not their doctrinal basis which changed; and therefore whether, after a long and victorious battle and with the revolution definitely a thing of the past, we cannot now speak of communist integration, Just as it took sixty years for the modern form of Catholicism to triumph, so perhaps a certain kind of socialist revisionism could now also triumph in similar conditions. To discover whether this is so is the object of the present enquiry.

In the summer of 1917, while under the protective wing of Finnish socialists, including Kustaa Rovio – chief of the Helsinki police force and later first secretary of the Communist Party apparatus in the Karelian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic – Lenin completed his treatise State and Revolution, rejecting with vehemence the notion that a capitalist nation could be transformed without violence into a higher form of society. The one possible exception was a small country sharing a common frontier with a large country which had already successfully undergone the transition.

The complex and frustrating problems which any Indian government must face makes the existence of a strong opposition almost inevitable. The fact that the Congress Party has been able to maintain such a strong position is as much due to the divisions and weakness of the opposition as to its own skill. The success of the Congress has been due in a large degree to its ability to take advantage of the caste and linguistic groups which play a key role in Indian politics.

Similarly, the communists have been effective only when they have recognized these non-ideological factors in the Indian political equation and have used caste or regional loyalties to their advantage. In Kerala, where the communists were able to form a government, the party's strength rests mainly on the support of two influential castes, the Nayars and the Ezhavas. Similarly, communist strength in Andhra is based on the support of the Kamma caste, which is one of the two main political forces in the state. Where the CPI has been unable to gain the support of a major caste or linguistic group, it does not constitute a major political force. In Maharashtra, for example, much of the communist leadership is Brahmin, and since there is a strong anti-Brahmin feeling in the state, CPI strength has been limited.