COMMUNICATION 53 Lenin's statement applies particularly to India, where, as Stalin saw even in 1925, 7 the irreversible trend of the development of capitalism had profound economic and political consequences. It can easily be seen how Utsa Patnaik's thesis on the mode of production in colonial India leads logically to the thesis of the 'colonial mode of production', although Utsa Patnaik would not accept, and would probably disown, such a label. It is no accident that a Trotskyite like Jairus Banaji, in an article, "Theory of Colonial Modes of Production," 8 praises Utsa Patnaik's studies in the development of capitalism in Indian agriculture as a contribution — in a theoretically immature form — to a theory of 'colonial modes of production' as specific entities with their own coherence and laws of development. What distinguishes historical viewpoints such as Utsa Patnaik's, in the opinion of Jairus Banaji, is that they "reject both the feudal and capitalist characterization and argue that colonialism must be understood in terms of a specific mode of production, neither feudal nor capitalist though 'resembling' both at different levels."9 While Jairus Banaji's chastening praise clearly points to the wrong tendency at work in Utsa Patnaik's academic studies and should make her look at these studies with deep suspicion, Banaji's dissatisfaction with her for not fully breaking away from 'traditional' Marxism is all in her favour and points to the possibility of reestablishing contact with the Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint and method. Utsa Patnaik's redefinition of capitalism, relevant to the conditions of backwardness and to the 'unique' conditions of India, is not acceptable in the light of the 'traditional' definition by Marx and Lenin, accepted by working-class parties all over the world. While it is clear that the conditions of the development of capitalism in a remarkable variety of historical conditions must be concretely studied, there is no situation so 'unique' as to require a dilution or revision of the Marxist-Leninist theoretical understanding of capitalism. The essential theoretical analysis of capitalism applies to advanced as well as to colonial conditions. The impact of colonialism on the socio-economic formation in India must be concretely studied, but it must be studied on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and not along the 'unique' path that Utsa Patnaik's empiricism opens up. Marxist-Leninist theory has produced the only scientific analysis of colonialism in its pre-imperialist and imperialist phases and the only scientific stand, viewpoint and method which can be applied to theoretical-conceptual work on the subject, to a concrete study of given colonial situations and to the solution of problems of specific colonial and dependent countries. ^The contradictory movement of acceleration and retardation must ll ^ be the starting point for any scientific study of^he development of capitalism in India in the era of imperialism. This contradictory movement is, of course, characterized by parasitism which is inseparable from imperialism. To stress only the trend of acceleration is to fall into the trap set by