Nepal, stagism, and New Democracy

[DaringMehring]

From an interview with Prachanda a few months back:

“In good English, he declares that 'we are trying our best to build a new Nepal', in which the feudal political and economic structures will be replaced by 'a more dynamic, more capitalistic, mode of production'. Did he say capitalistic? 'You are surprised to hear that from the mouth of a Maoist,' he chuckles. 'The main thing is that we are against feudalism,' by which he appears to mean a political and business establishment, working closely with the now-abolished monarchy, which was noted for a high degree of corruption. 'We have to have capitalism before we can have socialism.'"


We see here the idea of stagism, that Nepal has to become capitalist before it becomes socialist.

The Chinese CP also had this idea. Indeed one of the four classes in the bloc of four classes in the "New Democracy" was the national capitalists.

This seems in line with Marx's preface to the first edition of capital, where he says there is no way for to "clear by bold leaps... the obstacles offered by the successive phases of... normal development." However, Lenin appeared to have disproved this idea in 1917 when he led the Bolsheviks to power on a socialist program, straight from tsarism.

Leon Trotsky and Mikhail Gots had already foreseen this possibility in 1905. They argued that the workers and peasants, having made the revolution by their own sweat and blood, wouldn't easily cede to the bourgeoisie, and if the bourgeoisie couldn't take the power by its own strength, then the workers and peasants would take it without any regard for schemes or stages.

My questions then are -

1) What is the track record of stagism, is it to be defended or discarded?

2) If Prachanda's stated goal is building capitalism, can he be upheld as a socialist?

3) Can the workers and peasants radicalize the CPNM, or will the CPNM be able to de-radicalize them to a program of state-capitalism?

Of course, always in solidarity with the workers and peasants of Nepal...

[Power To The People]

I was going to ask a similar question.

Mine was, should we support national bourgesie in Iran instead of religeous theocracy which is akin to fuedalism.

[chegitz guevara]

posting before Comrade Alistair.:cool:

[Proletarian Ultra]

Sort of like CPI(M)?

[CartCollector]

2) If Prachanda's stated goal is building capitalism, can he be upheld as a socialist?
The thing you have to keep in mind is, Prachanda wants to "build capitalism" not as an end in itself, but a means to an end. According to historical materialism, changes in production technology lead to changes in government. So Nepal has to build its industry before it can become socialist. The important question is, can industry be built under an ideologically socialist government, or must it be built under a capitalist one?

[kasama-rl]

stagism? every complex process, without exception has stages.

Every revolution has stages.

Nepal is a country where 80 percent of the people scratch the earth with a stick, and are so poor that the semifeudal relations can't even sustain stable feudal classes in much of the country.

In China new democracy gave land (through agrarian revolution) to hundreds of millions of peasants (yes, unleashing capitalist markets and private property in the countryside) while creating the beginnings of socialist planned economy (in the infrastructure and industry).

To be clear: The overthrow of feudalism does create revoltionary new economic conditions (which include new elements of capitalism in the economy). But New Democracy is NOT "capitalism" in the sense that it is a dictatorship of the bourgeoise... this is an antifeudal revolution that is communist led -- and heading toward socialism and communism.

New Democracy is the first stage of communist revolution. Socialism is the second stage.

Mao pointed out that the socialist revolutoin starts (and the new democratic revolution ends) with the seizure of power and the completion of land reform.

May First salute to all!

[kasama-rl]

As for the inclusion of the national bourgeoisie in the broad united front in china. This is very confusing for some people. Here are a few points that may help:

1) The national bourgeoisie had played a very radical role in the decades leading up to the 1949 seizure of power. They had organized the "great northern expedition" in the 1920s against the feudalists, and had played a role in the war against japan.

2) When the Chinese communists talked of "national bourgeoisie" they were (in general) speaking of very small workshops. Here is an interesting statistic: In 1949, the revolution nationalized the property of foreign capitalists, comprador capitalists and bureaucrat capitalists. The resulting state sector was 80 percent of the indusry of china. In other words the "national bourgeoisie" was numerous, but mainly owned very small shops with small numbers of workers -- and found themselves embedded in a planned economy led by communists.

In other words, this was not an alliance with the MAIN capitalist force in China, this was an alliance that overthrew and expropriated the MAIN capitalist forces in china.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Then you are confusing the bourgeoisie with the petit-bourgeoisie. "Very small workshops" are typically owned by the latter.

When the Guomindang was more revolutionary, it was because petit-bourgeois elements were in charge and not bourgeois-liberal ones. Minsheng Zhuyi was a very radical petit-bourgeois concept.

[Alaric]

Sounds interesting. Hopefully it will work and not be derailed by greed and such.

[Saorsa]

For once, I don't have much to say! :lol:

Mike has already made my points for me very well. To talk of a building a modern, industrially advanced socialist planned economy from scratch in a country where the vast majority of people, as Mike said, are busy trying to scratch a living out of the dirt, is ridiculous.

The task will be to build a society where power flows from the bottom up and the working masses can prevent the degeneration of the revolution as it holds out in a hostile world. And the Maoists are aware of this. They've proposed that multi-party competitive democracy exist under socialism precisely so that Nepal won't just turn into yet another country where the state and the party merge, bureaucratize and degenerate. They don't intend to replicate the past - they intend to create the future.

[Saorsa]

Mine was, should we support national bourgesie in Iran instead of religeous theocracy which is akin to fuedalism.

I think that in a country like Iran there are certain elements of the national bourgeoisie that can at least be peacefully neutralised without needing to overthrow their power in bloody revolution. But we should always argue for a workers and peasants revolution, not for a particular faction of the bourgeoisie to hold power. When workers and students were on the streets last year, it was sickening to see parts of the Western left calling on us to support Ahmadinejad.