4 SOCIAL SCIENTIST struggle in India, the objective part played by these manoeuvres is, in every case, the same: to attack the science of Marxism-Leninism from the 'left9, to confuse and mislead honest students of the science, to clear the way for support to the ideology and politics of the ruling classes and to serve them faithfully. Where They Stand The basic idea^ of the sect, which arc expressed in diverse forms can be presented as follows: 1 There can be no general conception or definition of capitalism equally relevant to the conditions of'development and 'underdcvelopment'. There are no essential features that can be said to characterize a socio-economic formation called capitalism. Capitalism in the advanced capitalist countries was, and continues to be, different in all its essential features from the mode of production in the underdeveloped countries. 2 While capitalism in Europe's historical experience was an 'integrated^, 'total5 process which functioned on its own steam, in underdeveloped countries such as India, it did not go through this integrated, total process. In fact, generalized commodity production was imposed on India from outside by imperialism and did not develop into a genuine or full-fledged capitalism. While Lenin, following Marx, was able to understand the essential features of the capitalist countries with the integrated, total process, he failed to appreciate the unique and singular qualities of the non-white colonies and semi-colonies in their historical development. What is required is a 'theory of the colonial mode of production^. To study the unique and singular features of the colonial modes of production, one must go back to the 'method' of Marx (as opposed to the 'model') as Lenin, not to speak of Stalin, failed to do. 3 Advanced capitalist development and the colonial and semi-colonial world of underdevelopment are two repellent poles; two different animals, metropolis and satellite; opposite sides of the same coin; not merely 'relative and quantitative^ but 'relational and qualitative9; even in 'dialectical contradiction'. In other words, they are in a contrary and an exact inverse relationship with each other and constitute a 'zero-sum game5, Imperialism might have industrialized Russia and the white colonies such as Australia, New Zealand and.Canada; but it merely generated underdevelopment in the non-white colonies and semi-colonies. Its historical role, which Lenin could not really grasp was only to retard the development of capitalism in the underdeveloped world. In the strikingly schematic presentation of the question by Andrc Gunder Frank and Bipan Chandra: While development develops, undcrdevelopmexU wderdevelops, except for temporary spurts of development during wars or depression which plague the metropolis and momentarily weaken the spell of development over underdevelopaient. 4 Marxists should be concerned not so much with the relationship of the Indian bourgeoisie with imperialism, but with the structural