Zhang Qingzheng: New Explorations of the Socialist Path by the Communist Party of India (Marxist)

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) [hereafter CPI(M)] emerged from the Communist Party of India (CPI). In 1964, a faction represented by P. Sundarayya held the Seventh Congress of the Communist Party of India in Calcutta, marking the official founding of the CPI(M). Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe ^[1], the CPI(M) has conducted relatively effective new theoretical and practical explorations of the socialist path to adapt to the changing global situation. Consequently, the Party's strength has grown and developed, with membership achieving leapfrog growth. The CPI(M) has now become the largest Communist Party in the capitalist world today, and is the only Marxist party in a contemporary capitalist country to have achieved decades of continuous local governance through parliamentary elections. At the same time, the Party has encountered many difficulties in recent years. From its progress and the dilemmas it faces, we can roughly analyze its future prospects.

I. The CPI(M)’s Understanding of the Contemporary World Socialist Movement

Taking the reflection on the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the changes in Eastern Europe as an opportunity, the CPI(M) has utilized collective wisdom and built a consensus across the entire Party. It has gradually cleared the "ideological mist," deepened its understanding of the world socialist movement, and prepared ideologically for the achievements of its new explorations of the socialist path. Entering the 21st century, the CPI(M) has actively summarized the past while looking toward the future. In recent years, it has proposed new insights regarding new problems in the New Era, refined its understanding of the world socialist movement, and strengthened its confidence in exploring the socialist path.

1. A Rational Understanding of the Dissolution of the Soviet Union and Changes in Eastern Europe

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the changes in Eastern Europe, the CPI(M) conducted extensive democratic discussions through several Party Congresses to unify ideological understanding. It concluded that these events did not equate to a negation of the correctness of Marxism-Leninism or the October Revolution; rather, they represented the failure of a distorted model of socialist development in the Soviet Union and reflected the Soviet Union's deviation from socialist revolutionary theory and practice. Since the beginning of the 21st century, on every major anniversary of the October Revolution, the CPI(M) inevitably commemorates this historical event. It uses these occasions to affirm the positive significance of the Soviet Union in humanity's practical exploration of socialism and to praise the historical, contemporary, and future-oriented significance of the October Revolution. Prakash Karat, former General Secretary of the CPI(M), pointed out that in the "post-Soviet" and so-called "post-Marxist" era, although various trends and theories prevail, an analytical method based on Marxism remains the most scientific way to dissect and understand capitalism today and in the future; scientific socialism remains the only revolutionary alternative to capitalism in the 21st century. Sitaram Yechury, the current General Secretary of the CPI(M), noted that despite the significant defects in the Soviet Union’s process of socialist construction, the disasters and oppression brought by imperialism today further demonstrate that socialism remains the inevitable choice for humanity to achieve national and social liberation.

2. Critique of "Democratic Socialism"

Facing the trend of Communist Parties in Western Europe and the former Soviet-East European regions actively embracing the "Democratic Socialist" line, the CPI(M) has issued resolute critiques. The Resolution on Ideological Issues adopted at the 20th Congress of the CPI(M) in 2012 pointed out that "Democratic Socialism" once advocated adapting to capitalism and carrying out reforms within the capitalist system. In the current era of financial capital globalization, it has been further integrated into the capitalist system. Social Democratic parties, which once strongly advocated reformism, now embrace neoliberal policies and have completely degenerated into accomplices of bourgeois rule. In the view of the CPI(M), although "Democratic Socialist" forces have significant influence in developed capitalist countries and have made some contributions to safeguarding the interests of the working class and world peace, "Democratic Socialism" is ultimately "merely a reformist trend of thought." Social Democratic parties have abandoned Marxist-Leninist propositions regarding the state and social revolution, discarded class struggle, and preached class cooperation. As a ruling party in Western European countries, it "supports the bourgeoisie," and as an opposition party, it "supports the working class," always "betraying the working class" at critical moments. Therefore, it cannot be viewed in the same light as Communist Parties.

3. Critique of Contemporary Neoliberalism and Capitalist Crisis

In 2018, the Political Resolution of the 22nd Congress of the CPI(M) stated that the current neoliberal globalization policies of the capitalist world are unsustainable. To confirm this, one need only focus on two important features of its globalization process. First, this process is accompanied by increasing economic inequality within developed countries and between developed and developing countries. Second, neoliberal globalization has triggered the phenomenon of "jobless growth." This occurs because the pursuit of profit maximization always stimulates investment toward developing technology rather than human resources, in an attempt to save labor. During this period, the employment growth rate has consistently been lower than the global GDP growth rate. Together, these two features mean that the purchasing power of the vast majority of the population in the capitalist world has been declining. This eventually leads to goods remaining unsold, surplus value being unable to transform into profit, and capitalism inevitably falling into crisis. In the imperialist stage of economic globalization, such crises will continue to recur in different forms, making it unsustainable. Capitalism will, of course, attempt to overcome this through various means. In this process, capitalism may temporarily weather the current crisis, but it inevitably lays the foundation for deeper crises in the future. In the early 21st century, to stimulate consumption, capitalism vigorously promoted financial lending, fueling an economic "bubble" that eventually burst, triggering the 2008 financial crisis. As the global economy was already slowing down and heading toward recession, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic dealt another heavy blow to the teetering global economy. In 2022, the Political Resolution of the 23rd Congress of the CPI(M) further pointed out that the global capitalist economic recession has intensified, and neoliberalism is incapable of providing any solutions for systemic economic recession. On the contrary, the stimulus packages proposed to revive the economy have all further reinforced the neoliberal inertia of pursuing profit maximization.

4. Analysis of Development Trends in the World Socialist Movement

In the view of the CPI(M), the socialist revolution and practice since the October Revolution have brought a qualitative leap to the development of human civilization and left an indelible mark on modern civilization. Although the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a major setback for socialism, "disaster capitalism" is not humanity's future choice. Driven by neoliberalism, the global capitalist crisis following the financial crisis tends to continue developing or even worsening. The history of human development and the status quo of the capitalist world in the first two decades of the 21st century have confirmed the predictions of Marxism-Leninism: the capitalist system has internal contradictions it cannot overcome and can never escape the vicious cycle of exploiting people and falling into periodic systemic crises. Socialist countries such as China and Vietnam have achieved great development successes in socialist construction and reform, strengthening the overall power of the world socialist movement and reflecting the strong vitality and great superiority of socialism, as well as the bright prospects for 21st-century socialist development. At its recent 23rd Congress, the CPI(M) pointed out that the COVID-19 pandemic created a sharp contrast between capitalist and socialist countries. The rise of China has shocked US imperialism, and in the post-pandemic era, US imperialism will strengthen its containment and isolation of China. The continuous aggressive posture of US imperialism toward Cuba and the DPRK, especially the intensification of the China-US conflict, will impact the antagonism between imperialism and socialism. However, the demise of capitalism and the ultimate victory of socialism are historical necessities. The road to socialism is neither a linear process nor a "one-way street" but a zig-zag process of spiral ascent—namely, it progresses through stages and transitions. The development of the world socialist movement and the outcome of its contest with capitalism depend at all times on the achievements made in socialist construction. Yechury pointed out that socialism is the only option that can ensure the true and total liberation of humanity. However, this will be a struggle, both intense and marked by ups and downs. Overall, the historical direction of human civilization's development is toward socialism, and full confidence should be maintained in its future development.

II. Developments in the CPI(M)'s Theory of "People's Democratic Revolution"

In 1964, the CPI(M) officially articulated its theoretical proposition of "People's Democratic Revolution" upon its founding. From 1964 to 1989, the development of this theory by the CPI(M) primarily focused on two aspects: first, the proposal to establish a Left Democratic Front, and second, the strengthening of Party building. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the changes in Eastern Europe, the CPI(M) has updated its Party Programme in response to the requirements of the times, modifying the original "People's Democratic Revolution" theory or adding new content, thereby continuously enriching and developing it. This is mainly manifested in the following areas:

1. Updating the Understanding of the Relationship Between Capitalism and Socialism

Before the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the changes in Eastern Europe, the CPI(M) believed the world was in a stage where "capitalism would collapse immediately and socialism would achieve immediate victory worldwide." At its 14th Congress, the CPI(M) stated that this erroneous understanding must be corrected. It began to acknowledge that capitalism and socialism would coexist for a long time and argued that this is a period of constant confrontation between counter-revolutionary forces seeking to maintain the capitalist order of exploitation and revolutionary forces seeking the liberation of humanity. This continuous struggle occurs on a global scale, including within socialist countries. Additionally, the CPI(M) proposed four new major contradictions: the contradiction between world socialist forces and imperialist forces; the contradiction between imperialism and the people of developing countries; the contradiction among imperialist countries; and the contradiction between labor and capital within capitalist countries. At its 15th Congress, the CPI(M) pointed out that the contradiction between imperialism and socialism currently occupies a dominant position, and the basic direction of the current era is the transition from capitalism to socialism. By the 20th Congress, the CPI(M) noted that "emerging economies" were becoming increasingly powerful, which would have a complex impact on the contradiction between developed capitalist countries and developing countries, and that global capitalism had entered a period of crisis following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. By the 22nd Congress, the CPI(M) further pointed out that the deepening of the neoliberal crisis would exacerbate internal contradictions within imperialism, and the emergence of new political forces and intensified tensions are the norm in today's world.

2. Updating the Means and Relied-upon Forces of the "People's Democratic Revolution"

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the changes in Eastern Europe, while reiterating its firm adherence to the basic line of "People's Democratic Revolution," the CPI(M) has updated and developed the means and relied-upon forces of the revolution in light of new problems in the New Era.

Regarding the means of "People's Democratic Revolution," before the collapse of the Soviet Union, a major split occurred within the CPI(M) over this issue, leading to the departure of the Naxalbari faction ^[2], which advocated the use of peasant armed struggle. Following this, regarding the choice of revolutionary means, the CPI(M) advocated "neither imitating the Soviet Union nor following China," but instead exploring independently in combination with India’s specific national conditions. In this process, the means of peaceful and parliamentary struggle were established, and the CPI(M)’s successful practice of local governance further reinforced this understanding. However, the domestic political situation currently facing the CPI(M) has undergone significant changes; therefore, the wording in its new Party Programme is somewhat different. The new programme states: "Exert the greatest efforts to establish 'People's Democracy' through peaceful means... through a powerful mass revolutionary movement, combining parliamentary struggle with extra-parliamentary struggle... however, it must be borne in mind... to remain vigilant and respond to contingencies." That is, regarding revolutionary means, the options of extra-parliamentary struggle and other possible revolutionary means are reserved. Regarding the relied-upon forces, prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the CPI(M) focused primarily on the two classes of workers and peasants. Currently, having observed the internal differentiation within the intellectuals, middle class, and bourgeoisie, and the reality of changes in the balance of class forces, the CPI(M) proposes to rely on the joint action of four classes: the working class, the peasantry, the middle class, and the non-monopoly bourgeoisie. This forms the broadest "People's Democratic Front," and it must be ensured that the working class and the CPI(M) are in the leading position to achieve revolutionary victory.

3. Strengthening Party Building

The CPI(M) maintains a high degree of vigilance regarding the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, as well as the lessons derived therefrom. At its 14th National Congress, the CPI(M) pointed out that "an important reason for the demise of the CPSU and the collapse of the state was the neglect of Party building and the continuous expansion of bureaucratism ^[3], which led to the Party becoming seriously divorced from the masses." To respond to the new situation and the future development of the Party, the CPI(M) has continuously strengthened its own construction in terms of ideology, politics, work style, and organization. First, ideological construction. Facing various forms of anti-communist ideology and neoliberal propaganda, almost every Party Congress of the CPI(M) in the New Era has emphasized "strengthening the ideological struggle against all alien ideologies." This involves: 1) conducting party-wide discussions on important historical, theoretical, and practical issues of socialism to unify ideological understanding; 2) holding multiple sessions at the Central Party School for the training and education of members and cadres, though such cadre education has not been sustained; 3) publishing various books and pamphlets regarding Party history and theoretical study; and 4) establishing specialized Party propaganda departments with a focus on updating propaganda methods and platforms. Second, political and work style construction. The CPI(M) adheres to "seeking a concrete analysis of concrete conditions," determining its immediate goals and political line based on national conditions—namely, uniting left-wing democratic forces to eventually establish a "People's Democratic" state to replace the bourgeois state power. The Party has always attached great importance to "strengthening the revolutionary party through the mass line and establishing close relations with the masses." Third, organizational construction. This includes: 1) making the procedures for joining the Party more rigorous; 2) stipulating that members must strictly fulfill their obligations and execute the Party's policies, resolutions, and instructions; 3) emphasizing Party discipline and stressing punishments for disciplinary violations; 4) adhering to and improving democratic centralism, opposing harmful tendencies such as sectarianism, separatism, and "mountain-stronghold" mentalities ^[4] within the Party, and strengthening the authority and leadership of the Party Central Committee; 5) actively addressing the serious imbalance in the distribution of Party strength by strengthening Party building in the Hindi-speaking heartland and other regions; and 6) emphasizing the streamlining of Party organizations while striving to absorb youth and women into the Party to build a high-quality revolutionary party.

4. Adjusting the Party’s Policy and Line Based on practical needs, the CPI(M) has adopted more flexible tactics to form a broad united front to strike at the primary reactionary forces on the path forward. In the 1970s, the target of the CPI(M)’s united front was left-wing parties and other democratic forces, thereby establishing the "Left-Democratic Front." Since the 1990s, in response to the reactionary policies of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the CPI(M)’s united front has undergone new changes—namely, uniting all left-wing parties, democratic forces, and secularist forces (excluding the Indian National Congress and the BJP) to form a "Third Alternative." In 2011, the CPI(M) lost its governing power in West Bengal. At its 21st Congress, the CPI(M) began to advocate for restoring the leading position of the "Left-Democratic Front." In 2018, at its 22nd Congress, the CPI(M) advocated for uniting all left-wing and intellectual forces with various dispersed socialists and democratic factions within secular bourgeois parties to construct an "alternative to the Left-Democratic Front," and proposed a program to substitute neoliberal and bourgeois-landlord policies. It advocated for unity and struggle actions through the "Jan Ekta Jan Adhikar Andolan" (People’s Unity and People’s Rights Movement) platform, projecting the power of this mass movement onto the national level. Due to successive electoral losses in West Bengal and Tripura, there has been intense debate within the Party in recent years over whether the political front should be adjusted. The core of the debate is whether to unite with the Congress Party to defeat the BJP. One faction, represented by the current General Secretary Sitaram Yechury, advocates for uniting all "secular" forces, including the Congress Party, to defeat the BJP as the primary enemy. Another faction, represented by former General Secretary Prakash Karat and current Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, opposes an alliance with the Congress Party. Both sides adhere to their views, and a vote was held at the 22nd Congress in 2018 on the motion to adjust the political line, resulting in 31 votes in favor and 55 against. Although the proposal ultimately failed to pass, disagreements on this front persist within the Party. Currently, the CPI(M) and the Congress Party have "reached a political understanding but have not formed an alliance"; whether the CPI(M) will adjust its line in the future remains to be seen.

5. Envisioning the Program and Policies of a Future "People’s Democratic" State Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the changes in Eastern Europe, the CPI(M)’s new Party Program envisioned the policies and program of a future "People’s Democratic" state, rather than engaging in utopian designs for a future socialist society. The CPI(M) regards achieving victory in the "People’s Democratic Revolution" and establishing a "People’s Democratic" state as an essential stage in the transition to socialism. Viewed from the CPI(M)’s conceptualization, its policies and program carry a distinct socialist color. Regarding the future state structure and democracy, it advocates for popular sovereignty, equality for all citizens, the accountability of state power organs to the people, the exercise of state power by people's representatives, and the direct election of local bodies above the village level; it also calls for the elimination of social inequalities, caste oppression, and discrimination against women. Regarding policies for agriculture, peasants, industry, and workers, it advocates for land reform, the abolition of landlord ownership of land, and the free distribution of land to landless or land-poor peasants. It proposes that the state take over private monopoly property and eradicate domestic and foreign monopoly capital; recognizes trade unions and their rights to collective bargaining and striking; and implements price and tax policies beneficial to the masses. Regarding public undertakings such as culture, education, healthcare, and environmental protection, it advocates for developing a democratic, secular, new, and progressive national culture; developing mass media for the people while preventing private and foreign capital from controlling the media; implementing free and compulsory education below the secondary level; establishing a free healthcare system; and taking measures to protect the ecological environment. Regarding foreign policy, it advocates for developing relations with all countries on the basis of equality, friendship, and cooperation; promoting South-South cooperation; revitalizing the Non-Aligned Movement; supporting all movements against imperialism and for democracy and socialism; and peacefully resolving differences and territorial disputes with neighboring countries.

III. New Impartus Given by the CPI(M) to the Practice of the "People's Democratic Revolution"

1. The Development of the CPI(M)’s Strength and the Conduct of Mass Movements and Struggles Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the changes in Eastern Europe, the CPI(M) has generally been in a state of rapid expansion, though its growth momentum has declined significantly in the last decade. In 1991, the CPI(M) had 579,666 members; by the end of 2021, the membership stood at 985,757. At the time of the 14th Congress, membership in mass organizations led by the CPI(M) was approximately 28.78 million; by the 19th Congress in 2008, it had climbed to over 61 million, and the current size of mass organizations continues to fluctuate around this scale. In the view of the CPI(M), since the BJP came to power in the 1990s, its anti-people and anti-democratic policies have not only caused Indian domestic politics to turn to the right but have also led to the rise of communalist forces. Consequently, the CPI(M) has actively led mass organizations in movements to protect secularism and oppose communalism and caste discrimination. In the early 21st century, the CPI(M) primarily criticized the economic policies of the BJP and the Congress Party for excessively pursuing liberalization and privatization during their terms in office. In the last decade, the CPI(M) has mainly criticized the Indian government for implementing neoliberal reforms, promoting crony capitalism, and fostering national chauvinism, which has led to the severe exploitation of the working class, allowed the big bourgeoisie to benefit and become large monopoly groups, created an increasingly distorted economic structure, intensified social polarization, and undermined secular democracy and Indian constitutionalism. To this end, the CPI(M) has for years led mass organizations in movements and struggles to oppose the federal government's liberalization, privatization, and neoliberal economic reforms, and to defend workers' rights. Furthermore, the CPI(M) opposes the bourgeois-landlord policies of the federal government and actively organizes the masses to carry out movements and struggles to help peasants seize and redistribute land. Since entering the 21st century, almost every resolution of the CPI(M)’s Party Congresses has expressed resolute opposition to the BJP's alignment with US hegemonism and strategic expansion. In the political resolution of the 17th Congress, the CPI(M) noted on the issue of China-India relations that bilateral issues could be resolved peacefully through dialogue. The CPI(M) strongly condemned the mistake of domestic right-wing political forces in following the United States by positioning China as an adversarial power, advocating instead for Sino-Indian friendship and cooperation and the active development of bilateral relations. Consequently, while publicly opposing the BJP's foreign policy, the CPI(M) has actively engaged in constructive and friendly exchanges and communication with neighboring countries, promoting economic and trade cooperation as well as people-to-people exchanges between various Indian states and many other nations.

2. New Dynamics in Local Governance In 1977, the Left Front government led by the CPI(M) began its tenure in West Bengal; in 2011, it lost the state general election, and its continuous 34-year rule came to an abrupt end. Since then, the number of seats held by the Left Front in the state assembly has plummeted, dropping to zero in 2021—"the first time since independence that there has been no left-wing representation in the West Bengal Assembly." In 1993, the CPI(M) regained its governing position in Tripura, but was defeated by the BJP in the 2018 state assembly election, losing its governing status. From the 1960s until 1991, the Left Democratic Front led by the CPI(M) and the United Democratic Front led by the Indian National Congress alternated in power in Kerala. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the changes in Eastern Europe, the CPI(M) lost its governing position in that state until reclaiming it in 1996. In the 2016 and 2021 Kerala state assembly elections, the CPI(M) achieved major victories. This marks the CPI(M)’s longest governing cycle in the state since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the changes in Eastern Europe, boosting the Party's morale after the successive loss of power in West Bengal and Tripura and sounding a new call for the CPI(M) to regain confidence, carry out self-revolution, and continue its past glories.

3. A New Phase in Inter-Party Relations Inter-party relations constitute an important part of the CPI(M)’s practical activities. From 1964 to 1977, the CPI(M) and the Communist Party of India (CPI) were in a relationship of antagonism. From 1978 to 1991, the hostile relationship began to thaw. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the changes in Eastern Europe, along with changes in the international situation and particularly in Indian domestic political forces, exchange and cooperation between the two parties have surged. On February 20, 1996, the leadership of both parties met and established the goal of jointly building a broader left and democratic alliance, known as the "Third Force." In the 21st century, in order to block the BJP’s extremist religious policies, the alliance formed by the two parties has become more solid, and their domestic influence has increased significantly. However, the CPI(M) has consistently opposed the CPI's proposal for a merger of the two parties and frequently criticizes the CPI's cooperation with the Congress Party. Overall, in the New Era, consensus and cooperation between the two parties constitute the mainstream, while differences and contradictions are secondary. Before the 1980s, the CPI(M)’s relationship with the Communist Party of China (CPC) was in a period of deep freeze; in the 1980s, due to changes in the domestic and international situations of both parties and adjustments in their own policies, the two sides began contact and set about restoring normal relations; by the 1990s, relations were completely normalized. In the 21st century, exchanges between the CPI(M) and the CPC have become more frequent, and bilateral relations have grown closer. The CPI(M) attaches great importance to strengthening the construction of bilateral relations with the CPC, frequently publishing articles in its official Party newspaper to introduce the CPC's theories and practices and calling for party-wide discussion of them. Furthermore, the CPI(M)’s relationship with the CPSU underwent a complex transition from hostility to friendship and then to disagreement. In the 21st century, the CPI(M)’s exchanges with the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and other communist parties worldwide have become more frequent, and inter-party relations have further advanced. Every National Congress of the Party receives a large number of congratulatory letters and telegrams from communist parties in other countries, and delegations from many foreign political parties are invited to attend.

IV. Successful Experiences, Existing Problems, and Development Prospects of the CPI(M) in its New Explorations

1. Successful Experiences

First, the Communist Party must fortify its ideological positions and unswervingly adhere to Marxism-Leninism while holding fast to socialist ideals and convictions; this is the foundation for establishing and flourishing the Party. During the process of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe ^[5], the CPI(M) set about consolidating a political and ideological consensus across the entire Party, expressing its firm faith in Marxism. Since that period, the CPI(M) has consistently insisted on educating and arming the whole Party with Marxism-Leninism, drawing on the experiences and lessons of the theoretical and practical development of world socialism, and actively engaging in ideological struggle. At almost every National Congress, the Party deploys specific plans for ideological work, even forming resolutions that require the entire Party’s execution. Furthermore, when major shifts occur in domestic or international situations and various external factors influence the ideological understanding of its members, the CPI(M) takes the initiative to conduct Party-wide discussions on these issues. This serves to deepen understanding, resolutely overcome and transform various non-proletarian party ideologies, eliminate cognitive deviations, and reach a consensus, ensuring the entire Party consistently upholds Marxism-Leninism as its guide for action in the continuous exploration of the socialist road.

Second, if a proletarian party is to promote the localized rooting and development of the socialist cause, it must Sinicize [N] Marxism—or rather, apply the principle of "Marxism localized" (本土化)—uphold a developmental perspective, and independently explore a socialist road suited to its own national conditions. As Prakash Karat emphasized in his address at the opening ceremony of the 20th Congress of the CPI(M): "The CPI(M) has always insisted on applying Marxism-Leninism to the concrete conditions of India to explore its own revolutionary path. We have never sought to imitate foreign models and must constantly update our ideological understanding." In fact, the theory and practice of the CPI(M)’s "People's Democratic Revolution" is the embodiment of the Indicization of Marxism. Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the CPI(M) has been able to timely correct and modify outdated perceptions and practices. A crucial reason for the achievements made in its new explorations lies in its attitude of independence and advancing with the times.

Third, opposing class oppression and realizing the people’s status as masters of the country is the true character and responsibility of a proletarian party, as well as the source of its vitality. Facing the Indian bourgeoisie's oppression of the working class and peasantry, especially the intensification of labor-capital conflicts, the CPI(M) has launched mass movements and achieved relevant legislation, defending the interests of the masses ^[6]. This has "increased the Party's prestige among the masses and promoted the spread of the Party's ideas." Furthermore, the CPI(M) implemented land reforms in the states where it held power, replacing the old landlord family power with grassroots village self-governance; promoted secularism to reduce ethnic and religious conflicts; and adopted "People's Planning" to achieve decentralization. These measures greatly promoted the people’s role as masters of the country, demonstrated the CPI(M)’s character as a people’s revolutionary party, and expanded its political reputation.

Fourth, a proletarian party must attach high importance to its own building, win the broadest mass support, adopt flexible tactics, and expand the broadest possible united front. The CPI(M)’s current objective for Party building is: "To be a powerful revolutionary party with a firm mass base, high quality, and optimized structure based on Marxism-Leninism." The CPI(M) believes that only by building a strong Party can it promote new achievements in the exploration of the socialist road. Therefore, the CPI(M) places the strengthening of the Party’s ideology, politics, work style, organization, and personnel structure in a prominent position, adheres to the mass line, and adopts different united fronts according to changes in the domestic and international situation. Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, whenever the CPI(M) has attached particular importance to Party building, serving the people, and uniting various forces in the united front, it has been a stage where the Party’s strength and influence grew relatively rapidly.

2. Existing Problems

First, the political projection of the CPI(M) is severely unbalanced, and its political influence fluctuates significantly. Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Party’s influence has remained concentrated in only a few Indian states, with more than half of its members coming from Kerala. In the second decade of the 21st century, the Party suffered major setbacks in national elections and local governance. From 1989 to 2004, the number of seats the CPI(M) held in the Lok Sabha (House of the People) grew steadily. In 2004, the Left Front led by the CPI(M) set a record by winning 61 out of 543 parliamentary seats, making the path of parliamentary struggle in the exploration of the socialist road seem bright. However, the number of seats subsequently suffered a "cliff-like" drop, falling to just three seats in the most recent election, illustrating the magnitude of the fluctuation. The 2014 general election for the 16th Lok Sabha was a watershed moment in contemporary Indian political history. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won a majority on its own strength, significantly altering India’s political landscape. The Left forces led by the CPI(M) suffered "Waterloo-style" defeats in West Bengal and Kerala—long known as "Left bastions"—reflecting a shaking of the long-term trust the local populace had in them. At its 23rd Congress in 2022, the CPI(M)’s self-assessment was: "The Party is facing the most challenging situation since its founding in 1964... our mass base and influence have been eroded." Consequently, the CPI(M) urgently needs to rebuild the trust of the masses.

Second, although the CPI(M) emphasizes Party building, the leadership has slackened in this regard in recent years. Many Indian Left leaders and political commentators believe that "the biggest problem with the CPI(M) leadership is that despite expressing self-reflection, they have made no practical or necessary corrections in line or strategy. Even after consecutive electoral defeats, no Party leader has taken responsibility." Furthermore, some Party members have exhibited bureaucratic styles, ideological and political confusion, and lax discipline—failing to attend Party meetings, organizational activities, or mass activities, becoming detached from the masses, or even pursuing only their own immediate interests while failing to fulfill their duties as members. Therefore, the CPI(M) needs to strengthen the training and education of its members. Because the mechanism for regularly holding Central Party School training for cadres ^[7] that began in the 1990s was not maintained over the long term, the CPI(M) currently lacks a systematized, vertical training mechanism.

Third, while the number of CPI(M) members grew rapidly in the early part of the New Era, it only grew slowly from 2007 to 2017. More seriously, "in recent years, there has been a continuous decline in the number of Party members." Additionally, the membership of mass organizations led by the CPI(M), after years of growth, has also stagnated or declined recently. Both phenomena reflect the predicament facing the development of the Party’s strength.

Fourth, new sectarian and separatist forces within the Party cannot be ignored. These forces have established the "Save CPI(M) Forum" to confront parallel state-level leadership bodies and State committees, even setting up organizations like the "Real Communist Party of India (Marxist)" in an attempt to seize Party leadership. Furthermore, a certain degree of factional struggle exists between the CPI(M) leadership and local state committees. This has seriously weakened the Party’s authority, appeal, and internal cohesion.

Fifth, there is a trend of losing ideological ground and the weakening of the Party’s "mouthpieces." The methods and means of the CPI(M)’s propaganda and education are relatively traditional, lacking an effective integrated propaganda system and advanced technical means. This is specifically manifested in: a general downward trend in the circulation of various Party organs since the beginning of the 21st century; a need to improve the quality and professional skills of the propaganda talent pool; and a lack of popularization and modernization in propaganda content. Regarding propaganda methods, although some new social software platforms have been adopted, the Party generally remains reliant on old traditional methods, with insufficient levels of integrated, multi-dimensional, diversified, refined, and systematic communication.

3. Development Prospects

There are many favorable conditions for the continued growth of the CPI(M). First, although India's national system is capitalist, it retains the constitutional preamble of "constituting India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic." This, coupled with the bourgeois multi-party parliamentary democratic system and a political environment filled with numerous parties, objectively provides a certain space for the survival and development of the CPI(M). Second, the CPI(M) has the hope of winning more mass support. Although it has suffered heavy setbacks in recent elections, it still maintains prestige and relatively intact institutions and organizations in some regions, making it possible to regain mass support. While India's urbanization is progressing steadily, the total rural population is still growing annually—by the end of 2021, India had over 900 million rural inhabitants—and the increasing wealth gap will induce discontent among the masses. Third, the vigorous development of socialist construction in countries such as China and Vietnam, along with the gradual recovery of global Left forces, provides a favorable international environment for the CPI(M) to a certain extent. Fourth, and most crucially, are the CPI(M)’s own successful experiences and advantages.

The unfavorable conditions for the CPI(M)’s growth include many objective factors alongside the Party’s own internal problems. First, India is a country with very strong religious overtones; combined with numerous sects and ethnic antagonisms, this is to some extent unfavorable for the output of the CPI(M)’s ideology and the expansion of its influence. However, this unfavorable condition can be transformed into a favorable one under certain circumstances, as economic and social inequalities caused by sectarian and ethnic conflicts are generally seen as favorable conditions for the development of the Left. Second, the CPI(M) faces an intensifying trend of joint suppression by imperialist and capitalist regimes. To take recent events: in January 2019, CPI(M) leader Sujan Chakraborty was detained by police while leading the masses in what was the largest national strike in Indian history. In August 2019, CPI(M) General Secretary Sitaram Yechury was detained without cause while visiting a sick Party leader. In July 2021, the CPI(M) protested against the government's purchase of Pegasus software from the Israeli NSO Group for espionage surveillance. In September 2021, numerous local CPI(M) offices, newspapers, and TV stations were subjected to violence and arson attacks by BJP members; the headquarters in Tripura suffered particularly severe destruction and heavy losses. Manik Sarkar, former Chief Minister of Tripura and member of the CPI(M) Politburo, recently stated that in Tripura, "as many as 24 CPI(M) leaders and workers have been assassinated over the past four years."

In general, the CPI(M) has withstood various tests since the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Although its exploration of the socialist road has been full of hardships and twists, it has achieved new developments and breakthroughs and accumulated beneficial experiences. Of course, it also faces a series of problems. Some of these problems existed even before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Although new proposals and methods have been put forward in the New Era, the results have not been ideal and require continuous improvement in the future—specifically regarding Party building. Based on the domestic and international situations facing the CPI(M) and its own internal factors, it can be predicted that the CPI(M) will achieve new successes in its future explorations of the socialist road, but the path will remain far from smooth.