Mao Zedong and the Communist Party of China fiercely criticized Khrushchev's newly formulated concepts of the "State of the whole people" and the "Party of the whole people." Mao argued that abandoning the theoretical foundation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and projecting the socialist state as a classless state was an act that demolished the very bedrock of Marxism.
From China's perspective, this was not just an academic or textual debate on theory; rather, it was a perilous "Revisionism" that threw open the gates for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union.
Refusing to accept the sharp theoretical critiques raised by Mao, these parties took a defensive stance, maintaining that the Soviet Union was still traveling on the socialist path. At the same time, they vehemently opposed the Naxalbari movements that erupted in India, inspired by Mao's revolutionary principles, branding them as 'Left-wing Adventurism'.
What Did History Say Later?
In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed completely, disintegrating into dust. State assets were swept away by liberalization and privatization. Capitalism reclaimed the throne openly and without any pretense.
Was Mao's pre-emptive warning—that revisionism would ultimately lead to the restoration of capitalism—correct? Or was the theoretical evaluation of the traditional Indian Left, which blindly supported the Soviet path, flawed? This remains an unshakeable lesson that history has taught us.
China and the Deng Path
Following the demise of Mao, China began moving along the path of economic reform under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, under the banner of "Socialism with Chinese characteristics." Market economy features expanded; private capital was permitted to grow, and foreign investments were welcomed with a red carpet.
The debate over whether socialism still endures in China or whether capitalism has left its footprint there in another form continues among global leftists to this day.
However, there is a crucial point to be noted here. The very same traditional Communist parties that once portrayed Khrushchev-era Soviet Union as the fortress of socialism began praising Deng's reformist China as a sublime model of socialism.
Critics of this approach point out: "The core policy of the traditional Left never changed; rather, it was only the international centers of power they relied upon for their survival that shifted."
Electoral Politics and the Path of Compromise
This is precisely where we must analyze the current political landscape of Tamil Nadu through an ideological lens.
Once champions of revolutionary class politics, the Communist movements, after completely binding themselves within the framework of parliamentary electoral politics, began prioritizing their 'political survival' over radical social change. This parliamentary cretinism imposed a practical politics based on temporary electoral alliances rather than principle-driven politics.
The natural consequence of this is the development of a weak mindset willing to compromise ideological identities and align with any mass-popular force entirely divorced from class principles.
Support for Vijay: An Ideological Continuation of Revisionism?
The political programs put forth by actor Vijay are not remotely related to the core tenets of Marxist politics, such as class struggle, the transformation of production relations, the abolition of capitalism, or working-class politics.
His slogans center primarily around anti-corruption, good governance, administrative reform, and a general populist welfarism blended with Periyar-Ambedkar thoughts and nationalism. Even these are viewed with skepticism by neutral observers, who question whether they represent a principled ideological stance or are merely attractive rhetoric for vote-bank politics.
Nevertheless, one can observe a distinct soft stance adopted by the traditional Communist parties in their approach toward him. These parties might cite tactical lines, such as 'anti-fascism' or 'defeating the primary enemy,' as their justification.
However, critics of this compromising approach argue that this is not merely a temporary electoral tactic. The logical continuation of an ideological lineage that compromised with 'revisionist forces' internationally—from Khrushchev then to Deng now—is precisely the practical compromise they are making locally today with mass-popular alternative forces like Vijay.
Conclusion
The true theoretical yardstick of a Communist movement lies not just in whom it supports, but within what ideological framework and why it supports them.
There is no surprise that the same political tradition that once justified Soviet revisionism and later market-economy China as socialism now supports the new stars of electoral politics for the sake of its own survival.
Is this mere tactical electoral politics? A long-standing continuation of ideological revisionism? Or a pragmatic approach to adapting to new political realities?
The precise answer to these questions will ultimately be determined by history and the future political practice of these parties.
Ooraan
