(A translation from Veekshanam, Telugu Monthly Journal of Political Economy and Society, Hyderabad, June 2026)
Introduction
A general opinion is currently in circulation that conditions in society have changed greatly, that there are no longer conditions favourable for revolution, that people themselves are not prepared for revolution, and that they are content if their immediate problems are resolved. Until some time ago, this was largely the opinion of a middle class whose economic condition had improved, and it was, to some extent, sustained with encouragement from ruling ideology. After recent developments in the revolutionary movement, the number and volume of those expressing this opinion have increased. Some among them are even saying that there was no revolutionary situation in the country even at the time of Naxalbari. Along with this, explanations are also being offered about how powerful the state is, how much armed strength and technological capability it is accumulating, and therefore how difficult it is to wage struggle against the state. In a way, this is turning into a form of common sense.
It is true that many changes have occurred in society, or appear to have occurred. One may ask whether these changes have altered the fundamental nature of society, or whether they have eliminated exploitation and oppression. Numerous instances of working-class discontent and struggles indicate that the vast masses of labouring people, crushed under the iron heel of the system, do not feel that any significant change has taken place in their lives.
Yet, the middle class—which has access to platforms of expression that are now widely available—is propagating this “common sense” on a large scale. Some individuals, organisations, and structures, succumbing to this common sense, are proclaiming in grand language that what is not possible for them is not possible for anyone, and that their own mental state represents the mental state of the entire world. By narrowing the broad meaning of revolution and social transformation, they reduce revolution to merely the practice of armed struggle, thereby dismissing the revolutionary work taking place in numerous other fronts, fields, and levels. Some even explicitly say that since they themselves were armed for some period, no one except them has the right to speak about revolution.
In the past six decades, the revolutionary movement has never considered armed practice alone as the only form of practice. While asserting that force and armed struggle are inevitable for systemic transformation, it understood revolution in a broad sense and encouraged revolutionary thought and practice across multiple spheres. The Naxalbari tradition understood and practised revolution in this expansive manner: it touched the hearts of millions, brought together thought and practice across hundreds of fields, and through literary, cultural, and ideological work, along with immense sacrifices, drew millions towards revolution. Now, however, some conveniently forget all this. At the mere mention of Naxalbari or revolution, they react with hostility and condemnation.
Overall, in the ruling classes’ attempt to erase the very idea of revolution from society, some are consciously participating, while others are doing so unknowingly. They forget—or pretend to forget—that revolution is not merely the resolve or deliberate action of a few individuals; it is, more fundamentally, a law of history. Revolution is a necessity of the people; revolution is a historical law. Every individual has opinions about revolution. Naxalbari taught this country that every person has a place in revolution, and that each has a role to play according to their capacities. Now, some newly claim that only they have the right to speak about revolution, but such claims cannot erase the idea of revolution.
In this context, it is necessary to place for discussion, from a Marxist perspective, certain aspects of what constitutes conditions favourable for revolution and what is meant by a revolutionary situation. It is necessary to revisit the basic principles of Marxism, foundational understandings of social science, and the laws governing the course of history.
The Need for Revolution, Possibilities of Revolution, and Revolutionary Situation
From the time class society emerged—that is, from the moment a class arose that acquired ownership over the means of production and lived by appropriating the labour of others without working, and another class that had no option but to labour and yet could not secure the fruits of its labour—a conflict has existed between these two classes. The working class has had the necessity to struggle against the exploiting class, while the exploiting class has had the necessity to suppress the working class and appropriate the fruits of its labour. The conflict between these two necessities has, for centuries, manifested itself in numerous visible and invisible forms of class struggle.
All these various forms of class struggle can be seen as forms of revolution. Revolution succeeds when the working class defeats the exploiting class. This final revolutionary victory is the result of a prolonged process; in the meantime, conflicts and struggles also occur among different factions within the exploiting class. The working class too may achieve small victories in the course of class struggle and may also face repeated defeats. In this long process of social transformation through revolution, many ideals are to be realised: equality, social justice, democracy, the abolition of the possibility of one person enjoying the fruits of another’s labour, the abolition of private ownership over the means of production, the abolition of private property, and the elimination of inequalities among individuals and groups within society. The overthrow of one system and the construction of another requires the use of force. Thus, the term revolution should not be reduced to any single form of armed or unarmed struggle, but must be understood as a broad, all-inclusive and profound process of social transformation.
For those subjected to exploitation in class society, and for those crushed under the oppressive machinery that protects that exploitation, there is always a necessity to oppose it. Alongside systemic, structural exploitation and oppression, ruling policies and ideologies continuously generate further problems for the people. Hunger, unemployment, economic and social inequalities, illiteracy, ill health, corruption, rising prices, lack of a dignified life, and social and cultural repression—these problems manifest in numerous forms. All these issues generate discontent among the people and create in them a desire for resolution. In this sense, the need for revolution and the aspiration for revolution always exist in society.
However, discontent, necessity, and aspiration by themselves cannot bring about fundamental change in society. A revolutionary situation advances qualitatively to a higher stage when people recognise that this change is called revolution, that the ultimate solution to their problems lies in revolution, that they themselves must carry it out, when vanguard forces capable of instilling revolutionary consciousness emerge within society, and when a conscious, organised effort is undertaken to alter the balance of power between rulers and the ruled. The transformation of such a situation into a successful revolution is the outcome of an even more difficult and prolonged process of practice.
In a formulation at another level, Marx described this as “a stage at which a conflict arises between the forces of production and the relations of production.” These two terms carry wide meanings, but if we understand the forces of production as the people, and the relations of production as the existing social order composed of prevailing values, governance, and property relations, then revolution is the conflict between the people and the status quo. This conflict continues for a long time in internal, invisible, and indistinct forms, accumulating quantitatively, until at a certain stage it becomes qualitative. In that sense, revolution is continuous. The victory of the people in this conflict constitutes revolutionary success.
Objective Conditions
Within the social sciences as a whole, and particularly within Marxist thought, there has been extensive discussion on whether objective conditions favourable to revolution exist or not, whether subjective forces capable of advancing revolutionary practice are present or absent, and what the relationship between objective conditions and subjective forces is, and how it manifests. From Lenin onwards to the present, many Marxists have discussed historical instances where objective conditions were favourable for revolution but revolution did not advance due to the lack of subjective forces, as well as situations where subjective forces existed but objective conditions did not support revolutionary transformation.
Material conditions refer to the existence and intensification of economic, social, political, and cultural crises within a society; the recognition by people of the unbearable nature of their living conditions; the spread of extreme inequalities among social groups; the emergence among people of the understanding that the existing order is an obstacle to their lives and must be changed; and the development of confidence that such change is possible—among many other factors.
In order to define when such objective conditions, constituting the necessity for revolution, transform into a revolutionary situation, Lenin made an attempt in his 1915 work The Collapse of the Second International, written during the First World War. Lenin stated that a revolutionary situation is not merely a matter of subjective thinking but a deep, systemic crisis within society. He identified three indicators of a revolutionary situation within objective conditions:
First, a crisis emerges among the ruling classes: factional conflicts among them undermine their authority, the structures they created to govern society begin to collapse, governments become unstable, and contradictions among dominant forces intensify, leading to a situation where the rulers can no longer govern as they had before.
Second, the suffering, misery, hardship, and distress of the oppressed classes intensify far beyond previous levels. The living conditions of the people deteriorate significantly below normal levels, and economic crisis, unemployment, inflation, war, social insecurity, and widespread public discontent combine to create a situation where the governed can no longer tolerate the conditions they had previously accepted.
Third, there is a significant rise in the activity of the people. The masses, who generally remain politically passive, begin to enter the political arena in increasing numbers, engaging in strikes, protests, expressions of discontent, and other forms of collective action.
Elaborating on Lenin’s formulation, Stalin identified four indicators of a revolutionary situation: 1. The old social, economic, and political system becomes unstable. 2. The people are no longer willing to be governed as before. 3. The political arena opens up widely due to mass action by the people, and 4. A revolutionary force capable of decisive intervention emerges.
Subjective Forces
At this point, Lenin clearly stated another crucial aspect: material conditions alone are not sufficient for revolution. In the same work, he examined instances in Russia, Germany, and other countries where revolutionary situations existed but revolutions did not succeed. There is a gap between the possibility of revolution and its realisation. For revolution to succeed, there must arise within those material conditions a revolutionary organisation—a vanguard party—that can provide leadership to the people, offer direction, and formulate strategy. Only when there is proper coordination between objective conditions and subjective forces can revolutionary victory be achieved. Stalin also stated that not every revolutionary situation necessarily leads to revolution.
As mentioned earlier, from the very emergence of class society, there has always been the possibility of dissatisfaction with the status quo and a desire for change among the people. Yet revolutions have not always occurred because objective conditions had not matured sufficiently for revolutionary transformation. Subjective forces cannot, by themselves, create material conditions. In fact, subjective forces develop under the influence of objective conditions. There exists a dialectical unity between these two aspects.
There has long been debate on whether subjective forces utilise objective conditions, create them, intensify them, or generate consciousness around them. Objective conditions cannot be created by anyone; they continuously evolve based on the development of productive forces and the level of class struggle within a society. The role of the advanced sections within subjective forces is to understand existing objective conditions, identify the contradictions within them, explore ways to resolve those contradictions, raise consciousness among the people, instil confidence that the people can struggle against and defeat the ruling classes, and thereby strengthen subjective forces. Through such efforts, the quantitatively developing revolutionary situation can be advanced to a stage of qualitative transformation. Yet, due to various reasons and counter tendencies, subjective forces may still fail to utilise such a revolutionary situation to achieve victory.
Subjective forces do not consist merely of the numerical strength of the working masses; they include revolutionary consciousness, preparedness to engage in revolutionary practice, and readiness to recognise and undertake the sacrifices required in the revolutionary process. Even those sections of the working people who do not directly participate in revolutionary activity may extend solidarity. Alongside all this, since revolution involves a prolonged process of overthrowing the ruling classes and seizing state power, it requires extensive preparation. This necessitates the presence of advanced forces capable of formulating strategy and providing leadership. Only a revolutionary organisation guided by scientific theory can undertake such preparation.
The ruling classes are aware that their exploitative practices and governance policies generate increasing dissatisfaction among the people. They know, better than anyone else, that objective conditions exist under which the people can rise and overthrow them. That is precisely why they increasingly rely on armed power and security forces. They keep constant surveillance even on small movements among the people and attempt to suppress them. They make continuous efforts to identify and weaken subjective forces capable of utilising objective conditions, to fragment them, and to eliminate their guiding leadership. The ever-increasing accumulation of instruments of repression is itself an indication that the ruling classes recognise the existence of revolutionary conditions. The absence of such awareness within revolutionary leadership reflects backwardness.
While there are historically rooted counter tendencies within society that hinder the development of subjective forces, the ruling classes create additional obstacles. They continuously divide the people further and propagate ideas that justify the status quo, fatalism, and domination. They instil fear about revolution and generate doubts and mistrust toward revolutionary leadership. They undermine the credibility and unity of that leadership. They propagate an ideology that elevates self-interest as the only value worth pursuing, discouraging concern for fellow human beings or society.
Thus, on the one hand, the policies of the state and ruling classes tend to make objective conditions increasingly favourable for revolution; on the other hand, the state simultaneously obstructs the development of subjective forces capable of utilising those conditions. The repression, bans, and restrictions imposed by the state and ruling classes to suppress revolutionary conditions are visible and often meet with some resistance. However, the processes of dividing subjective forces, diverting their attention, and creating illusions and attractions among some sections occur more subtly.
In our society, there exist numerous strategies to create divisions and inducements among subjective forces—caste, religion, region, language, parliamentarism, nationalism, religion (dharma), welfare schemes, rehabilitation, slogans like “roti, kapda aur makaan,” “garibi hatao,” economic reforms, ideas of “feel good factor” and “positive approach” and “Viksit Bharat,” and many others.
On the other hand, subjective forces themselves, including their vanguard elements, may also fail to seize revolutionary opportunities. A revolutionary situation is an objective condition, but subjective forces—or their leadership—may assess it as existing or not existing based on their own judgement, may remain uncertain about its presence, or may ultimately allow an existing revolutionary situation to slip away. History provides many examples across different societies where even when revolutionary conditions were favourable and mature, subjective forces failed to take advantage of them.
From this general background, it becomes necessary to study concretely the present global situation, and within it the conditions in the country, in order to understand whether a revolutionary situation exists, and how revolutionary forces can transform existing conditions in their favour and in favour of the people’s interests.
International Situation
At the international level, the kind of mass activism that surged during the 1960s in the last century is not visible today. The period defined as the “Angry Sixties” of enraged youth may not be repeated. At the beginning of this decade, observing the mass uprisings that erupted in the United States, Europe, Latin America, and West Asia, some analysts wondered whether this would become the “Angry Twenties.” However, the ruling classes have, to a large extent, succeeded in suppressing and weakening almost all of those movements.
Yet, merely suppressing subjective forces does not mean that the objective conditions have disappeared. Across the world today, what is visible is the dominance of conservative, religious, authoritarian, and hegemonic ruling classes. Since the 2008 crisis in the United States, trends such as conservatism, religious fundamentalism, extreme nationalism, hostility toward immigrants, Muslims, people of other countries, and even toward democracy itself have been on the rise. Political polarization, economic centralization, the growing dominance of conservative ruling groups in countries like France, Italy, Germany, Poland, and Turkey, the weakening of the welfare state, pro-corporate economic reforms, anti-working-class policies, the open and shameless use of media and the judiciary by ruling classes, militarization, and the brutal suppression of dissent—all of these are clearly visible.
However, from another perspective, this surge of conservatism is itself a reflection of the deep crisis faced by global finance capital. There is also significant resistance from the people against this crisis. Student protests, anti-war movements, labor strikes, discontent in education and healthcare sectors, environmental movements, and struggles against pension reforms and austerity measures are frequently turning into street struggles in many developed countries, including the United States. Hundreds of thousands of people are participating in protest demonstrations.
In many countries such as the United States, France, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Iran, Egypt, Tunisia, Palestine, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa, students, youth, women, workers, farmers, employees, and environmental activists are taking to the streets. Everywhere, they are confronting political leaderships, state machinery, security forces, and in some places even the military. Even though the Indian government claims to have eliminated the Maoist movement, armed guerrilla struggles continue at some level in countries like the Philippines, Turkey–Kurdistan, Colombia, and Palestine.
Today, somewhere in the world almost every day, there are struggles—big or small—by the working class, movements over land issues, environmental struggles, feminist struggles, anti-racism movements, anti-war protests, and struggles against government policies and historical and social inequalities. Deep economic crises manifested as inflation, inequality, debt burdens, and unemployment; the rapid movement of finance capital from one country to another; challenges to ruling-class authority; widespread public discontent; geopolitical instability; wars; conflicts among ruling-class factions within countries; and the grotesque growth of inequality both between and within nations—all these indicate that material conditions are favorable for revolution.
Situation in the Country
From working-class struggles that began in places like Manesar and Noida and spread across many states, to the recent expressions of discontent among Gen Z youth—even extending to formations like the “Cockroach Janata Party”—discontent is visible everywhere in the country, at all times. It manifests in both direct and indirect forms. There is no need to exaggerate this discontent, but it is equally wrong to assume that no such discontent exists and that everything is proceeding smoothly.
Globalization, privatization, labor codes, the extension of working hours beyond eight hours, wages that do not match rising prices, the absence of even minimum wages in many sectors—especially in the vast unorganized sector—along with harsh working conditions, are all steadily increasing discontent among the working class. Industrial workers, transport workers, employees in banking and insurance sectors, unorganized laborers, gig workers, public sector employees, and service sector staff—there is no section of workers without problems. Protests, both small and large, are continuously occurring in different places.
The agrarian crisis, farmers’ suicides, lack of remunerative prices, insufficient government support to agriculture, lack of proper marketing facilities for agricultural produce, and the fact that nearly half of the rural population does not own land—all these issues are increasing dissatisfaction among farmers and in rural areas. These grievances continue to surface intermittently.
In forest regions, mining activities, corporatization, and militarization undertaken by governments to satisfy corporate hunger for mineral resources are displacing tribal communities, leading to growing discontent among them. Caste discrimination, caste inequalities, and atrocities are leading to unrest and resistance among Dalit-Bahujan communities. Movements for social justice are increasing.
Discrimination against religious minorities—especially Muslims—along with the communal propaganda and actions of the Sangh Parivar are intensifying dissatisfaction among Muslims and, to some extent, Christians as well. Rising education costs, privatization of education, repression in educational institutions, lack of social justice, and the severe unemployment crisis are generating deep frustration and discontent among students and youth.
Although it may appear that struggles in Kashmir and among northeastern nationalities have disappeared due to the excessive repression by the ruling classes associated with the Sangh Parivar, there are many indications that these nationality questions have not been extinguished internally. Increasing violence against women and the spread of patriarchal (Manuvadi) ideology are heightening dissatisfaction among women. The urban middle class is also increasingly strained due to rising prices, especially fuel prices. Awareness and agitation around environmental and livelihood issues are growing among various sections. Cultural repression and intolerance under the rule of the Sangh Parivar are gradually increasing dissent among the people.
Thus, while countless issues are accumulating among the masses—issues that could erupt at any moment—the internal conflicts of the ruling classes and clashes among different sections are emerging on an unprecedented scale. The ruling class factions themselves are exposing irregularities in the Election Commission, the manner in which elections are conducted, the farcical nature of elections, and the hollowness of parliamentary democracy in the country.
Even constitutional institutions and structures, including the Supreme Court, are openly displaying bias toward ruling classes and hostility toward the people. The unchecked rise of fascism under the leadership of the Sangh Parivar demonstrates that the rulers are no longer able to govern in the manner they once did. The endless economic crisis is making life unbearable for all sections of society. Despite the rulers’ claims that armed alternative people’s movements have been eliminated, the country in reality resembles a volcano. As some commentators have observed, the country is experiencing a situation akin to that before the French Revolution.
Despite such widespread discontent across different classes and groups, it is unfortunate that there are no forces capable of uniting this dissatisfaction and transforming it into a broad, strong mass resistance movement. It is equally tragic that the ruling classes are suppressing such forces or co-opting them into their own system.
Crisis, Contradictions, and Revolutionary Possibilities
The fundamental shortcoming lies in the absence of scientific revolutionary forces capable of coordinating and leading such diverse, fragmented, and vast movements. There are many resistance movements, but they remain divided, quarreling among themselves, and drifting away from their fundamental objective. Unable to identify a common enemy, they transmit their own ideological confusion to the people and gradually lose credibility. There is a situation where no leadership commands the unambiguous trust of the masses.
On the other hand, wherever even a small dissent emerges, the rulers attempt to weaken it, divide it, co-opt it, absorb it, and divert it into electoralism or reformism, thereby distancing it from revolution. To prevent the growth of revolutionary forces, they are massively expanding their repressive apparatus and surveillance capabilities. As a result, it appears as though the strength of the rulers is increasing while the strength of resistance movements and the people is declining. It is therefore natural that despair spreads among the people, and confidence in leadership and the future diminishes, even leading to challenges to the very idea of revolution.
It is an undeniable fact that the structural contradictions of global capitalism have intensified and are in crisis—both domestically and internationally. Economic instability, rising inequalities, environmental crises, and political authoritarianism are not isolated developments; they are indicators of a system trapped in deep crisis.
Marxism does not view such crises as accidental or temporary. They are the inevitable manifestations of the fundamental contradiction inherent in class society as a whole, and in capitalism in particular: the increasing social nature of production on the one hand, and the increasing concentration of its fruits in the hands of a few on the other. This contradiction produces recurring cycles of crisis within capitalism. In the present context, alongside globalization and crisis, there is also a simultaneous eruption of discontent and resistance—this is a distinctive feature.
Examined in light of Lenin’s formulation of a revolutionary situation, the current conditions clearly show that, both globally and domestically, ruling classes are unable to secure stable consent. They are attempting to rule through violence, repression, and ideological divisions. A growing recognition is emerging among the masses that their living conditions are deteriorating. Protests, strikes, and agitations are visible across the world and within the country. The politicization of social life, as Lenin described, is increasing.
However, objective conditions do not automatically transform into revolutionary change. The decisive factor becomes the role of subjective forces. What is required is a political force that can win the trust of all sections engaged in struggle, that is organized, capable of strategic thinking, and able to implement that strategy in practice. In the absence of such a force, popular discontent remains fragmented—reduced to isolated incidents and scattered expressions—and is eventually absorbed by the ruling classes. History has repeatedly shown how even powerful movements can dissipate in this manner.
To define the present phase precisely, it is a historically crucial transitional period. As Gramsci described, it is a stage where the old is dying but the new has not yet been born. As Mao put it, it is a phase where multiple contradictions compete with one another, without yet consolidating into a single principal contradiction capable of producing a revolutionary rupture.
Whether this crisis leads to a breakdown or a breakthrough is the question. Whether this transitional phase develops into a full-fledged revolutionary situation does not depend solely on the intensification of the ruling-class crisis. It also depends on the capacity of political forces that can correctly understand and interpret this situation, take hold of it, unify and organize mass movements, and lead them with clarity of purpose. Recognizing objective conditions is not enough; conscious political action is required to transform them. Such forces must not only identify and utilize revolutionary opportunities, but also recognize and challenge counter tendencies that obstruct those opportunities.
These capabilities exist within the Naxalbari path. Although international and domestic conditions have changed significantly since the time of the Naxalbari uprising, there are many examples demonstrating that the fundamental theoretical propositions it advanced for the Indian revolution remain relevant. Despite changes in global capitalism and the expansion of finance capital, the Leninist analysis of imperialism and the path shown by Mao for revolutions in semi-colonial societies remain scientifically valid.
The character of India’s ruling classes—the bureaucratic comprador bourgeoisie—and the nature of state power have not changed; rather, they have become even more evident compared to the time of Naxalbari. While there have been some changes in the agrarian and rural sectors, including shifts within semi-feudal structures and the increased prominence of the comprador bourgeoisie, the diversity, vastness, and inequalities of Indian society—across class, caste, and region—make the protracted people’s war strategy proposed by Naxalbari even more relevant today.
One major organizational component of the Naxalbari path may have suffered setbacks and may be severely damaged, making reconstruction difficult. Some creative additions and changes may be necessary. However, the fundamental theoretical significance of the Naxalbari path has not diminished. The path it showed for achieving revolution in Indian society has not died.
In sum, what appears as a condition of crisis is also a condition of opportunity. What appears as despair is also a condition of hope. But that opportunity and hope will not realize themselves automatically—they require conscious effort.
It was under similar domestic and international conditions as today that the Naxalbari uprising emerged—as a child of the turbulent 1960s and of the Cultural Revolution. Naxalbari demonstrated the ability to turn crisis into opportunity. It showed that it is not enough to merely understand and interpret conditions; they can be changed. It emphasized that practice is primary, that one must learn through action, and that there is no dividing line between study and practice.
Carrying forward these invaluable contributions that Naxalbari gave to the people’s struggles of this country is the responsibility of every revolutionary-minded individual today. To equip oneself to be able to seize the future opportunity is the need of the hour. Revolution is a necessity of the people, an aspiration of the masses, and a law of history. It does not occur simply because someone desires it, nor does it stop because someone opposes it.
(Based on a speech delivered at the seminar with the theme ‘Naxalbari Has No Death’ organized by Former Revolutionary Students’ Forum in Hyderabad on May 24, 2026.)
(Author is the Editor of Veekshanam)
