"New Democracy"? [Archive]

Lyev

7th June 2010, 20:36

I thought this question could have gone in Learning or Theory, but I thought it would get a better response, and would be relevant, in here. So, what exactly is this concept? I think it's basically stagist, in the Menshevik sense, because it entails an alliance with the national bourgeoisie. I could be wrong here though. Ultimately, this is question sort of leads itself back into the whole proletariat-peasantry debate. Anyway, can someone explain why an alliance with the bourgeoisie is needed? Is it just basically for the purpose of overthrowing monarchal and feudal aspects? This quote puts in context a bit -
The fundamental character and orientation of a revolution is determined by its leadership. The 1979 revolution in Iran was led by Islamic Fundamentalists and with the help of imperialists and reactionary classes. This led to the establishment of the Islamic Republic. And with the help of imperialists it has sustained power for 31 years. The ideology and politics of the UCPN(M) on the other hand show that there is a proletarian-led revolution unfolding in Nepal. This is a New Democratic Revolution, because the peasantry, the intelligentsia and the petty bourgeoisie and even sections of the vacillating national bourgeoisie – all led by the proletariat - have become a mighty independent force in the class struggle of Nepal. The UCPN(M) is a proletarian Party because it is the product of the application of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to the revolutionary politics of Nepal.

The reactionary classes, the Indian expansionists and imperialists are all united to smash the Party and thereby the revolution. These are the main reasons why whoever cares about working class, the masses, revolution and communism would support the Nepalese revolution and its leadership, learn from its valuable lessons even while helping to overcome its shortcomings.(Emphasis mine)

Invincible Summer

7th June 2010, 22:35

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

8th June 2010, 00:32

To my understanding, to have the national bourgeoisie's resources under the control of the Communist Party would aid in creating a socialist state, jumping from "semi-feudal" to "socialist" without the need of a bourgeois revolution; in other words, it's an attempt at utilizing the national bourgeoisie's influence to skip the capitalism part of the "feudalism - capitalism - socialism - communism" ladder

The idea seems more to be some sort of class-collaborationist approach of "unity and harmony" where the bourgeoisie democratic revolution is guided by the Communist Party; of course it is stagism; a sort of "supervised historical progression" in theory.

Of course, then all hell breaks lose and it all becomes Dengist free-market capitalism in practice... but that's another story.

Saorsa

8th June 2010, 03:08

It's fundamentally based on the Maoist approach to building a movement - 'uniting all who can be united'. It's not a Menshevik approach at all, as the approach of the Mensheviks was to put the bourgeoisie in power because they argued the proletariat was not yet ready to take power for itself. Maoists argue that a coalition of revolutionary forces, led by the proletariat, must take power and that the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution cannot be carried out by the bourgeoisie itself, but can only be carried out in a revolution led by the proletariat.

Mike Ely made some very insightful comments about the nature of the new democratic revolution, in response to questions similar to yours. This is what he said:

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.

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.

RED DAVE

9th June 2010, 17:00

Here is a good example of what Maoists do and what New Democracy is about.

Prachanda rules out animosity with NC, UML
Last Updated : 2010-06-07 1:55 PM

SINDHUPALCHOWK: Chairman of the main opposition party Unified CPN-Maoist Pushpa Kamal Dahal 'Prachanda' on Monday said that his party is not against the ruling parties Nepali Congress and CPN-UML.

Speaking to media persons in Melamchi, Prachanda denied that the party is struggling against NC and UML and said that the struggle is with external forces though he did not elaborate further.http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Prachanda+rules+out+animosit y+with+NC,+UML&NewsID=246323He's lying to the media and the masses. Class conflict between these two parties is inevitable. What will he say and do when the struggles do break out?

RED DAVE

Sendo

9th June 2010, 20:37

I don't think we can pigeon hole every year into primitive-slave-feudalism-capitalism-communism. Some moments will be volatile. As Ely said, ND brought much change to China, and been though it's been going the wrong way for 30 years, it's better off than it would have been under semi-feudalism and a colonial status. The 70s could have ended much differently. The period from 1976 to 1980 showed a rapid turn around, largely at the top, that was not pre-destined. To say that ND leads to "Dengism" is like saying Marxism-Leninism will invariably lead to 1990s "kleptocracy".

Like Alistair said, this is not a self-imposed restraint, a wait-and-follow-history plan like Mensheviks to completely forgo the struggle to allow capitalism to develop itself. This is a temporary alliance to bring about progressive change as quickly as possible and then attempt to develop socialism and communism.

Look what Nepal's accomplished. Even if everything ends up like China today...c'mon, they just left feudalism a couple years ago! Things are improving. You have to look at things based on relativism to some degree. Is ND perfect? No. Is it better than Nepalese feudalism/lack of self-sufficiency/lack of capital? Yes.

Invincible Summer

9th June 2010, 21:59

Saorsa

9th June 2010, 23:32

@ Dave: The UCPN (M) is currently locked in protracted negotiations with the NC and the UML to try and force the PM to resign and create a situation where the Maoists can peacefully force through a People's Constitution that will allow for the transformation of Nepal.

Various factions within the party are starting to grow frustrated with the failure of negotiations. Kiran recently was quoted by the media as saying that he felt there was no further point in trying to negotiate the PM's resignation. So it should be obvious, when looked at in context, that Prachanda's statements are intended to try and help negotiations with the two ruling parties move forward.

Also, it should be obvious that the point Prachanda is making there is that (as he has said over and over again) the NC and the UML are Indian puppets, who follow orders from Delhi rather than pursuing an independent path. The Maoists see their main enemy and the main target of their struggle as being Indian expansionism, which controls nearly ever aspect of Nepali politics.

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel in search of 'betrayals'. Do you really think that the next time the masses are on the streets, they'll be saying "we want to march, but Prachanda was quoted in a media article we can't even read saying that the UCPN (M) is not struggling against the NC and the UML! What shall we do? We're so confused!!!"

Come on.

RED DAVE

10th June 2010, 00:22

Look what Nepal's accomplished. Even if everything ends up like China today...c'mon, they just left feudalism a couple years ago! Things are improving. You have to look at things based on relativism to some degree. Is ND perfect? No. Is it better than Nepalese feudalism/lack of self-sufficiency/lack of capital? Yes.Basically, you and the others are justifying support for state capitalism.

RED DAVE

A Revolutionary Tool

10th June 2010, 02:40

Basically, you and the others are justifying support for state capitalism.

RED DAVE

Are you justifying support for feudalism by saying it's not state capitalism?

Proletarian Ultra

10th June 2010, 02:45

How should the Maoists raise foreign exchange to revolutionize the means of production?

Squeeze the shite out of the peasants to export grain? (a la Stalin and the Great Leap Forward)
Compromise with the national bourgeoisie? (a la China in the 50's)
Compromise with international capital? (a la NEP and Dengist China)
Nationalize mining and hydrocarbons? (a la Chavez; but does Nepal have any?)

How does Nepal pay for socialist construction?

RED DAVE

10th June 2010, 03:13

Basically, you and the others are justifying support for state capitalism.
Are you justifying support for feudalism by saying it's not state capitalism?Huh?

Feudalism is hardly the issue. No one is opposing an antifeudal or an anti-imperialist revolution. But what the Nepalese Maoists are doing are establishing the condition for state capitalist while using socialist rhetoric.

And it seems that, abandoning Leninism, the Maoists around here are mostly (not entirely) okay with that.

RED DAVE

Uppercut

10th June 2010, 15:49

And it seems that, abandoning Leninism, the Maoists around here are mostly (not entirely) okay with that.

RED DAVE

Marxism-Leninism is not a dogma, and can be tweaked depending on a nation's conditions. Recruiting some members of the national bourgeoisie is not necessarily a bad thing if the country is pre-industrial and technical expertise is needed. So long as the proletariat supervises them, I wouldn't worry about it.

Of course, if a revolution happened in a first-world country, New Democracy would not be necessary.

RED DAVE

10th June 2010, 16:59

Marxism-Leninism is not a dogma, and can be tweaked depending on a nation's conditions. Recruiting some members of the national bourgeoisie is not necessarily a bad thing if the country is pre-industrial and technical expertise is needed. So long as the proletariat supervises them, I wouldn't worry about it.You are very cool about the very bloc of classes that built state capitalism in China and Vietnam. Is that what you want? Because this is what Maoist politics has always led to this: first state capitalism and then private capitalism.

Of course, if a revolution happened in a first-world country, New Democracy would not be necessary.Frankly, Comrade, I think that the concept of New Democracy is an abortion of Marxism and history proves this. ND means that Marxists, who should be in favor of proletarian or proletarian-led revolutions, instead become the ruling class for state capitalism.

I see every indication, given the relationship of the Nepalese Maoists to the working class, which they conceive of as one class in the bloc of four classes, not the leading class of the revolution, that they will become the midwives and leaders of state capitalism in Nepal.

I support the Nepalese Maoists in that they are undertaking an anti-imperialist revolution. However, I firmly believe that the result will be state capitalism.

RED DAVE

Uppercut

10th June 2010, 17:30

RED DAVE

10th June 2010, 18:20

You are very cool about the very bloc of classes that built state capitalism in China and Vietnam.
State capitalism was the initial system that was set up immediately following the revolution in order to produce a rapid enhancement in economic growth.In other words, a Communist party took it on itself to build capitalism and exploit the working class. With Communists like these, what the fuck do you need capitalists for? The Communists will do the job and then, as in Russia, China and Vietnam, turn the country over to private capitalism.

But what makes you think that this form of production relations stayed in place the entire lifespan of Mao?Because the exploitative relationship, where the state controlled the distribution of surplus value, continued. And the same relationship continues to this very day under private capitalism.

The Cultural Revolution and the revolutionary committees made quick work of rightist management.Are you trying to say that after the Cultural Revolution the workers had control of production, in a manner different from before the CR? If so, you need to study some history. The exploitative relationship was the same.

Is that what you want? Because this is what Maoist politics has always led to this: first state capitalism and then private capitalism.
The bourgeoisie grew within the party as has happened in most socialist states, eventually.So what you are saying is that after the Cultural Revolution, when the workers got control of production, then, in the space of, say 20-25 years, a bourgeoisie grew up inside the same party that had been so stalwartly defending the working class.

If you believe this, next time you're in New York, I would like to meet with you. I have a very beautiful, very large antique to sell you. Hint: It connects Brooklyn and Manhattan. You can have it cheap.

However, one of the party's main goals, since its founding, was to combat bueaurocracy.Considering the fact that the party, basically, created the modern Chinese state bureaucracy and the bureaucracy within itself, it's obvious this was rhetoric. Obama and Co., I'm sure, are combatting the bureaucracy within the US government as I write this.

This can be clearly shown by reading some of Mao's, as well as the party's statements on politics.Words are cheap. As I just said: They created the bureaucracy.

RED DAVE

Uppercut

10th June 2010, 19:22

In other words, a Communist party took it on itself to build capitalism and exploit the working class. With Communists like these, what the fuck do you need capitalists for? The Communists will do the job and then, as in Russia, China and Vietnam, turn the country over to private capitalism.

No. The state capitalism of the 50's was different from the capitalism you and I are fighting against. It was a mostly socialist, yet state capitalist system supervised by the workers of that enterprise. Revenue is required in order to build a classless society, at least until currency is abolished on a wide enough scale.

Because the exploitative relationship, where the state controlled the distribution of surplus value, continued. And the same relationship continues to this very day under private capitalism.

That's just plain wrong. China's labor relations today are much more lenient that they were. The eight hour day is gone, the rural Chinese no longer have access to adequate health care via the barefoot doctors, and most of the surplus value is invested in the urban sector. For example, China has a monorail system built from parts imported from Germany. Funny enough, Germany itself doesn't even have that same monorail system. It all depends on where the money goes.

Are you trying to say that after the Cultural Revolution the workers had control of production, in a manner different from before the CR? If so, you need to study some history. The exploitative relationship was the same.

I get the feeling that you're getting all your information from libcom or somewhere like that. The CR endorsed and encouraged as much democratic participation from the masses as possible, hence corrupt party members and PLA officers were out of office to be replaced by revolutionary committees. There were still excesses of the movement, but not on the level you believe they were.

Considering the fact that the party, basically, created the modern Chinese state bureaucracy and the bureaucracy within itself, it's obvious this was rhetoric. Obama and Co., I'm sure, are combatting the bureaucracy within the US government as I write this.

Words are cheap. As I just said: They created the bureaucracy.

I'm not even going to bother arguing with this. If Combat Liberalism, and the 16 articles don't appeal to you, then I don't know how we're going to have an analytical debate with such an anti-state mindset.

thÃ¤lmann

10th June 2010, 22:28

Saorsa

10th June 2010, 23:51

I see every indication, given the relationship of the Nepalese Maoists to the working class, which they conceive of as one class in the bloc of four classes, not the leading class of the revolution, that they will become the midwives and leaders of state capitalism in Nepal.

This is not true. Maoists see the proletariat as the leading class in the revolution, and the revolution in Nepal reflects this completely. How many times does this have to be repeated?

There is no false choice between feudalism and state-capitalism. the NDR does not inevitably lead to state-capitalism any more than the Russian revolution did. There is no point in debating such a historically inaccurate and politically useless idea.

Saorsa

10th June 2010, 23:54

i think the problem in nepal starts 2006. the maoists had liberated 80 percent of the country, and were building new power through their peoples comitees.and then they totally change their strategy.... i really dont know why they choose this strange peaceful way, instead taking power in the hole country.

Maoist leader Gaurav has explained this. I would recommend reading the entire text (http://kasamaproject.org/2008/04/09/gaurav-the-revolution-in-nepal/) of his speech.

Many revolutionaries, many Maoists and our comrades have raised one question. You reached the gate of Kathmandu, why was it necessary to enter into the peace process? That is a big question.

War to the Gates — Why Then Change Tactics?

True, we had liberated 80% of the countryside and we had reached up to the gate of Kathmandu. But in order to seize countrywide power, for countrywide victory, our strength was not enough. The Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) was confined to their barracks, they could seldom come out. Whenever they were carrying out actions against our forces, they could just suddenly come out of their barracks, go 4-5 kilometres away from the barracks and encircle a village, and kill each and every person they found before returning. The next day they would propagate that they had killed a number of Maoists from the People’s Liberation Army.

Actually, they were not able to kill our force. They killed the common people. That was their practice for almost one year, since one year back. On the one hand, the RNA could not actually inflict any defeat on our People’s Liberation Army. On the other hand, we were not able to capture their big barracks. They were well fortified, especially with the help of US military experts. They used land mines to surround the barracks, and they used barbed wire. We tried many times but we failed to capture their barracks. That was the situation militarily. We were in a stagnant position militarily. We were trying to make a breakthrough but were not able to capture the barracks, because they were well fortified, and they had lots of modern weapons supplied by India and also helicopters. We were unable to achieve further military victory.

That was the military situation and so far as the political situation is concerned we enjoyed the support of the urban people, but it was not to the level that was required for general insurrection. The support was there, but finally to capture the city and the capital it was necessary to carry out insurrection, revolt. The support provided by the masses was not at a sufficient level in the cities including Kathmandu, because the masses were divided. Some supported Nepali Congress, other people supported other parties and the level of support of the masses was not enough that was required to achieve the final victory. So this was the political situation.

A Plan for Broadening Political Support

So in the midst of this situation we decided that in order to get further support from the masses our party should take some other initiatives to gather further strength. Otherwise the war would remain in a stagnant situation. Neither the enemy could defeat us, nor could we defeat the enemy. That was the situation. For how long could we continue this situation? War has its own dynamics, it cannot stay still for a long time, for example, if we cannot win victory, the enemy will eventually be able to defeat us. We had to take a new initiative. According to the dynamics of war you have to find a new way to maintain a dynamic situation, we should not be in a static situation in a war for long.

In those circumstances our party decided to take different steps, other political manoeuvres. Our party worked out alternative political tactics of going to the negotiations. Right from the beginning we explained People’s War as a total war. Sometimes there is a wrong notion among Maoists that People’s War is simply the war in which we confront the opposite army, the confrontation between two armies, but this is not true. People’s War is different. People’s War is a total war. We are confronting the enemy on all fronts, including the military front as well as the political front, economic front and also cultural front. On different fronts we have to fight the war, so it is a total war.

Lyev

11th June 2010, 22:41

So can someone make clear for me the direct correlation between Mao's "New Democracy" and the Dengist, free-market reforms of the 80s? Maoist and un-Maoists views are of course equally welcome.

bailey_187

11th June 2010, 23:10

So can someone make clear for me the direct correlation between Mao's "New Democracy" and the Dengist, free-market reforms of the 80s? Maoist and un-Maoists views are of course equally welcome.

Well "New Democracy" in China, for whatever critcisms, led to more progressive relations of production. Then in the late 50s/60s even more progressive relations of production replaced those. Deng then reversed these more progressive relations of production.

RED DAVE

11th June 2010, 23:23

Well "New Democracy" in China, for whatever critcisms, led to more progressive relations of production. Then in the late 50s/60s even more progressive relations of production replaced those. Deng then reversed these more progressive relations of production.What are you calling "progressive relations of production"? For Marxists, a "progressive" change in the relations of production would be a transfer of power, from the shop floor up, to the working class.

Now, since this didn't happen in China, before or after the late 50s/60s, what is your justification for calling what happened in China "progressive"?

RED DAVE

Homo Songun

12th June 2010, 07:54

What are you calling "progressive relations of production"? For Marxists, a "progressive" change in the relations of production would be a transfer of power, from the shop floor up, to the working class.

Now, since this didn't happen in China, before or after the late 50s/60s, what is your justification for calling what happened in China "progressive"?

Your argument is not thorough. Show us that there was not a transfer of power to the working class. Talmudic commentary on a priori "State Capitalist" principles isn't terribly convincing to people who aren't State-cappers. The Chinese revolution was kind of a big deal, so I think its the least we can expect.

RED DAVE

12th June 2010, 13:47

Your argument is not thorough.So you say.

Show us that there was not a transfer of power to the working class.NO, Comrade, the burden of proof lies with you. You show us the concrete institutions, from the workplace up to the highest circles of power, that were controlled directly by the working class, democratically.

In Russia, before, during and after the revolution of 1917, we can see the actual organs of power: the soviets. And we can trace the degeneration and defeat of the revolution by the decline of the soviets. Now, please show us the equivalent institutions in the Chinese revolutions.

Talmudic commentary on a priori "State Capitalist" principles isn't terribly convincing to people who aren't State-cappers.I agree, and that's why I argue from know facts: in the Chinese revolution, there were no organs of workers control

The Chinese revolution was kind of a big deal, so I think its the least we can expect.I agree. Show us the Chinese version of the soviets, where and when they arose, and, apparently, how they were revived and how they were defeated as private capitalism was restored.

RED DAVE

Uppercut

12th June 2010, 19:42

I agree, and that's why I argue from know facts: in the Chinese revolution, there were no organs of workers control

That's just not correct. In 1966, the proportion of industrial output value from collective and commune/brigade run industrial enterprises to state enterprises was 17:83; in 1976 it was 37:63, with the output value of collective industry growing at the annual average rate of 15.8 percent over the 10 years.

According to Marxist theory, as the consciousness of the workers is raised, the state becomes less and less necessary in some areas of life and the workers can manage enterprises without the help of the state. China can be seen as a working example of this theory.

Show us the Chinese version of the soviets, where and when they arose, and, apparently, how they were revived and how they were defeated as private capitalism was restored.

Do the revolutionary committees ring a bell? Of course, they were replaced by "people's governments" at all levels when the constitution was reformed under Deng Xiaoping.

RED DAVE

12th June 2010, 19:59

In 1966, the proportion of industrial output value from collective and commune/brigade run industrial enterprises to state enterprises was 17:83; in 1976 it was 37:63, with the output value of collective industry growing at the annual average rate of 15.8 percent over the 10 years.Let's start with your source for this and an analysis of what the "collective and commune/brigade[s]" were. Please.

RED DAVE

Uppercut

12th June 2010, 20:50

Let's start with your source for this and an analysis of what the "collective and commune/brigade[s]" were. Please.

RED DAVE

The book is called The Battle for China's Past by Mobo Gao who took part in the Cultural Revolution, along with his family.

Production brigades were grassroots production teams exclusive to that commune. One brigade might be responsible for agricultural, another for industry, and another for cultural institutions. These brigades took an active part in the the workplace, whether it was entirely collectively owned by that commune, or as part of a national enterprise.

RED DAVE

12th June 2010, 21:09

Let's start with your source for this and an analysis of what the "collective and commune/brigade[s]" were. Please.
Production brigades were grassroots production teams exclusive to that commune.You are begging more questions than you answer. You are claiming that these brigades were the essence of Chinese socialism. This is an extraordinarily serious claim and relevant to world socialist politics. So, for openers (this may require a separate thread).

(1) How were they selected? (2) Where did their programs/plans/instructions come from? (3) What were their powers in the workplace and beyond. How were they connected to similar institutions in other workplaces? (4) What role did they play in developing industrial, regional and national plans? (5) What role did they play in Chinese politics. (6) What was the role of the Communist Party in the brigades? (7) What were the other organized political tendencies in the brigades if any? (8) What was the role of the unions and the union bureaucracy?

For a beginning, these questions need to be answered for your claim that there was socialism in China to be taken seriously.

One brigade might be responsible for agricultural, another for industry, and another for cultural institutions.This is unclear. What was the organizational structures of these brigades? Where did they originate?

These brigades took an active part in the the workplace, whether it was entirely collectively owned by that commune, or as part of a national enterprise.This is not clear. Did the brigades in the workplaces originate there?

Again, you are claiming that China was, was not, was, and then was not socialism. For a Marxist, this is about the most serious claim that can be made. You need to be clear and sourced for this. One book about the Cultural Revolution is hardly enough. For example, if we wanted to discuss the role and fate of the Russian soviets or the anarchist communes in the Spanish Civil War, there would be lots of documentation. To claim that China, the most populous country in the world, was socialist, based on such a miniscule source is ludicrous.

RED DAVE

Homo Songun

13th June 2010, 01:29

Show us that there was not a transfer of power to the working class.
NO, Comrade, the burden of proof lies with you.

I don't agree. You are saying the transfer of power is unproven, therefore the transfer of power didn't happen. But that is a form of logical fallacy (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html). Logic aside, I'm sure that you agree that the state-capper hypothesis is an extreme minority opinion. It is an extreme minority opinion because it is counter-intuitive to the facts. In this case, facts such as "huge communist party defeating imperialists", "factories expropriated", "various forms of exploitation outlawed", and so on and so forth. Of course, this does not mean that the Cliffite position is incorrect. Lots of true things are counter-intuitive with regards to appearances. But such arguments do require a lot more than a continual restatement of its premises in order to be successfully argued. You haven't surmounted this obstacle.

RED DAVE

13th June 2010, 06:13

Show us that there was not a transfer of power to the working class.
NO, Comrade, the burden of proof lies with you.
I don't agree.Of course you don't.

You are saying the transfer of power is unproven, therefore the transfer of power didn't happen.Pretty much. Such an epical historical event should be easily documented.

But that is a form of logical fallacy (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html).Since when is a request for proof a logical fallacy.

Logic aside, I'm sure that you agree that the state-capper hypothesis is an extreme minority opinion.I haven't got any stats on that.

It is an extreme minority opinion because it is counter-intuitive to the facts.We shall see.

In this case, facts such as "huge communist party defeating imperialists", "factories expropriated", "various forms of exploitation outlawed", and so on and so forth.If these are supposed to be facts, you have another thought coming.

Of course, this does not mean that the Cliffite position is incorrect.True.

Lots of true things are counter-intuitive with regards to appearances.True.

But such arguments do require a lot more than a continual restatement of its premises in order to be successfully argued. You haven't surmounted this obstacle.Like I said, the burden of proof is on you.

RED DAVE

Homo Songun

13th June 2010, 19:42

RED DAVE

13th June 2010, 20:10

If the Cliffite version of "transfer of power to the working class" exists, it should be possible for you to actually articulate it, it should be testable against reality, and it should be able to be presented without recourse to logical fallacies. Lets hear it already. :)I can articulate it the absence of working class power in China simply:

(1) The workers were not, as a class, in control of work conditions in the workplaces,

(2) The Chinese state was not built upon organs of workers control and was not controlled by the working class.

(3) Investment of surplus value was not decided upon by the working class, locally or nationally.

(4) The extraction of surplus value was carried on by the state, which also made investment decisions. The state acted, basically, as one giant corporation or a series of giant corporations working in tandem. Therefore, the term "state capitalism" is appropriate.

(5) The transition from the previous economic system, state capitalism, to the current one, private capitalism, was accomplished without protests by the workers as a class because, basically, in China as in Russia, there was no change in their conditions in the workplaces.

(6) The Chinese economy still retains a large state-owned component, which is completely compatible with private ownership because the conditions of the working class in both are identical with regard to class power, which does not rest, in either case, with the working class.

I could go on, but those are the basic principles. I should add that both during and after the Chinese Revolution, the workers never controlled the workplaces. They were not the leading class of the revolution, Maoist rhetoric notwithstanding. In fact, they were told by the approaching Maoists forces not to seize control and to keep working.

RED DAVE

Lyev

13th June 2010, 20:22

I can articulate it the absence of working class power in China simply:

(1) The workers were not, as a class, in control of work conditions in the workplaces,

(2) The Chinese state was not built upon organs of workers control and was not controlled by the working class.

(3) Investment of surplus value was not decided upon by the working class, locally or nationally.

(4) The extraction of surplus value was carried on by the state, which also made investment decisions. The state acted, basically, as one giant corporation or a series of giant corporations working in tandem. Therefore, the term "state capitalism" is appropriate.

(5) The transition from the previous economic system, state capitalism, to the current one, private capitalism, was accomplished without protests by the workers as a class because, basically, in China as in Russia, there was no change in their conditions in the workplaces.

(6) The Chinese economy still retains a large state-owned component, which is completely compatible with private ownership because the conditions of the working class in both are identical with regard to class power, which does not rest, in either case, with the working class.

I could go on, but those are the basic principles. I should add that both during and after the Chinese Revolution, the workers never controlled the workplaces. They were not the leading class of the revolution, Maoist rhetoric notwithstanding. In fact, they were told by the approaching Maoists forces not to seize control and to keep working.Where are the sources for this?

RED DAVE

13th June 2010, 20:49

[T]he workers never controlled the workplaces. They were not the leading class of the revolution, Maoist rhetoric notwithstanding. In fact, they were told by the approaching Maoists forces not to seize control and to keep working.
Where are the sources for this?This will do for a start:

When the Red Army entered the cities, they called on workers not to strike or demonstrate. The following eight points formed the basis of their propaganda:

“1) People’s lives and property will be protected. Keep order and don’t listen to rumours. Looting and killing are strictly forbidden.

“2) Chinese individual commercial and industrial property will be protected. Private factories, banks, godowns [warehouses], etc., will not be touched and can continue operating.

“3) Bureaucratic capital, including factories, shops, banks, godowns, railways, post offices, telephone and telegraph installations, power plants, etc., will be taken over by the Liberation Army, although private shares will be respected. Those working in these organizations should work peacefully and wait for the takeover. Rewards will be given to those who protect property and documents; those who strike or who destroy will be punished. Those wishing to continue serving will be employed.

“4) Schools, hospitals, and public institutions will be protected. Students, teachers and all workers should protect their records. Anyone with ability to work will be employed.
“5) Except for a few major war criminals and notorious reactionaries, all Kuomintang officials, police and Pao-Chia workers of the Provincial, Municipal, and Hsien Governments will be pardoned, if they do not offer armed resistance. They should protect their records. Anyone with ability to work will be employed.

“6) As soon as a city is liberated, displaced soldiers should report immediately to the new garrison headquarters, the police bureau, or army authorities. Anyone surrendering his weapons will not be questioned. Those who hide will be punished.

“7) The lives and property of all foreigners will be protected. They must obey the laws of the Liberation Army and Democratic Government. No espionage or illegal actions will be allowed. No war criminals should be sheltered. They will be subject to military or civilian trial for violations.

“8) People in general should protect all public property and keep order.” (A. Doak Barnett, China on the Eve of Communist takeover, pp. 327-8.)http://www.marxist.com/chinese-revolution-1949-two.htm

Does this sound to like a workers seizure of power?

RED DAVE

Homo Songun

13th June 2010, 20:57

If the Cliffite version of "transfer of power to the working class" exists, it should be possible for you to actually articulate it, it should be testable against reality, and it should be able to be presented without recourse to logical fallacies. Lets hear it already

I can articulate it the absence of working class power in China simply:

(1) The workers were not, as a class, in control of work conditions in the workplaces,

(2) The Chinese state was not built upon organs of workers control and was not controlled by the working class.

(3) Investment of surplus value was not decided upon by the working class, locally or nationally.

(4) The extraction of surplus value was carried on by the state, which also made investment decisions. The state acted, basically, as one giant corporation or a series of giant corporations working in tandem. Therefore, the term "state capitalism" is appropriate.

(5) The transition from the previous economic system, state capitalism, to the current one, private capitalism, was accomplished without protests by the workers as a class because, basically, in China as in Russia, there was no change in their conditions in the workplaces.

(6) The Chinese economy still retains a large state-owned component, which is completely compatible with private ownership because the conditions of the working class in both are identical with regard to class power, which does not rest, in either case, with the working class.

I could go on, but those are the basic principles. I should add that both during and after the Chinese Revolution, the workers never controlled the workplaces. They were not the leading class of the revolution, Maoist rhetoric notwithstanding. In fact, they were told by the approaching Maoists forces not to seize control and to keep working.

RED DAVE

No. While these points are a good basis for a rich discussion in themselves, insofar as the Maoists could spill considerable ink "refuting" them one by one, and Cliffists could return the favor by "refuting" those in turn, you haven't answered my question. I repeat: what is the Cliffist "transfer of power to the working class"?

RED DAVE

13th June 2010, 21:23

I repeat: what is the Cliffist "transfer of power to the working class"?The transfer of power to the working class involves the working class, through institutions of its own construction and own democratic control, taking control of society. Historically these institutions are called councils or the Russian word "soviet" is used. These councils are based in the workplaces and they are used there by the working class to control all conditions of work and to coordinate with other councils. There would also be such councils in the armed forces and in the neighborhoods, but, always, the councils in the workplace, directly involved in the running of the economy, will be the key to workers power.

Pyramiding up, always democratically, these councils are the basis of the workers state and working class power.

It is evident from this model, that the Maoist concept of New Democracy, based on a block of four classes and a state that is not directly controlled by the working class, has little to do with socialism.

RED DAVE

Homo Songun

13th June 2010, 21:28

And when does it happen?

RED DAVE

14th June 2010, 00:34

And when does it happen?Before, during and after a socialist revolution.

RED DAVE

Homo Songun

14th June 2010, 02:15

Not asking for a timeline for the building of organs of workers power, I'm asking when those organs transfer control to themselves. I'm asking about when Socialism would come to China, presuming a hegemonic Cliffite revolution there. But we already know that they would say that Socialism in one country is impossible, so what would the Cliffites do in a feudal, peasant-based economy like China once they take power? They complete the tasks of bourgeois revolution per Permanent Revolution theory, right? So whats your big guff with New Democracy then? Is only because the CCP was not lead by Trotskyists? Or because it doesn't fulfill some blueprint from Europe?

Saorsa

14th June 2010, 03:41

I'm not going to debate whether or not socialism existed in China with Red Dave. His pseudo-anarchist leanings will ensure that any examples of worker/peasant power involving the Communist Party will be dismissed (like the three-in-one committees), any examples of state controlled industry will be dismissed on the basis of Dave's assertion that the Chinese state was under the control of the bourgeoisie, any examples of land reform will be dismissed as being imposed from on high and so on. Dave supports pure revolutions that happen in history books, revolutions that flow from urban workplace economic struggles and involve plenty of Trotsky quotes.

If a revolution is not a reenactment of 1917, he has no interest in it. Neither do other people with political approaches similar to his. The workers and peasants are quite capable of deciding how they want their revolution to proceed, and they are quite capable of deciding what kind of organs of political power they will construct, what kind of party they will form and mobilise around, and how their revolution will proceed.

Dave's view of the working class and the peasantry is a view filled with contempt. It assumes that they are mindless sheep who can be easily duped and led astray by manipulative, Machiavellian leaders. The Cliffite view of the working class, for all its constant talk of being more 'free' and 'democratic' than 'Stalinism, is in fact an elitist and arrogant view that sees the working class as followers... not leaders.

The Chinese revolution was not a revolution of Mao plus disciples. It was a revolution of poor, struggling people who risked everything to smash the power of the landlords, the exploiters and the foreign imperialists. If you have read first hand accounts of the Chinese revolution, like the famous book Fanshen (http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=CY9h1N1IPH4C&dq=fanshen&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=tJEVTP7hC4LlnAf_oeD4Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAw), it depicts in painstaking detail a revolution based on mobilising and empowering the masses to liberate themselves, where EVERY COMMUNIST PARTY CADRE HAD TO PASS THROUGH A 'GATE', I.E. HAVE THEIR PARTY MEMBERSHIP APPROVED BY THE ORDINARY PEOPLE THEY HAD PLEDGED TO SERVE, AT A MASS MEETING THAT ALL COULD ATTEND.

Before we start taking Trotskyist attacks on the Chinese revolution seriously, perhaps we should study the few first hand accounts from progressive authors that exist... rather than joining with the imperialists in their slander and demonisation. While this undoubtedly makes it easier to call yourself a communist in an imperialist country like the States, giving you a constant point of common ground with bourgeois liberals ("wasn't Stalin a BAD man"), it doesn't make your attacks on the Chinese revolution correct just because you're on the same side as most bourgeois academics and bourgeois historians.

As for the often 'evidenced' call by the Communist Party to the Chinese workers to stay disciplined... so what? Really, this is proof of nothing other than that the Chinese communists lived in the real world.

China had been ravaged by civil war and foreign invasion for decades. There was famine in the countryside and economic chaos throughout the country. So as the tide turned, and the communists came close to liberating the whole of China and unifying it under the people's control for the first time in decades, they had the strange idea that perhaps they wanted to take over a country where the factories which belonged to ALL THE PEOPLE were not burned down or destroyed by SOME OF THE PEOPLE. The communists wanted to begin reconstructing a country with its factories, its wealth, its buildings and its cities INTACT.

What should they have done? Called on the workers to loot the rich people's mansions and take the jewels home as an act of 'expropriation'? The plan was to reconstruct China and raise the living standards of all people, in a process that took place with the participation, supervision and oversight of the masses. NOT TO DESTROY CHINA IN 1949 IN A WAVE OF RIOTS, POGROMS, LOOTING, BURNING AND PILLAGING.

Perhaps that would have satisfied you a bit more Dave, to see Beijing burn... but I see nothing wrong whatsoever with the CCP ordering the masses to keep working, keep producing, keep the wheels of production and distribution turning so that the country didn't starve and collapse any more than was absolutely necessary!

RED DAVE

14th June 2010, 17:00

What should they [the Chinese Communists] have done [in 1949]? Called on the workers to loot the rich people's mansions and take the jewels home as an act of 'expropriation'? The plan was to reconstruct China and raise the living standards of all people, in a process that took place with the participation, supervision and oversight of the masses. NOT TO DESTROY CHINA IN 1949 IN A WAVE OF RIOTS, POGROMS, LOOTING, BURNING AND PILLAGING.

Perhaps that would have satisfied you a bit more Dave, to see Beijing burn... but I see nothing wrong whatsoever with the CCP ordering the masses to keep working, keep producing, keep the wheels of production and distribution turning so that the country didn't starve and collapse any more than was absolutely necessary!Kind of says it all for you CA. You equate a working class seizure of factories with riots and looting.

You Maoists are really a piece of work! By the way, I read Fanshen and similar works, probably before you were born.

RED DAVE

Saorsa

14th June 2010, 21:40

The letter did not say the workers couldn't seize power. It says they had to do it in a planned, coordinated manner across China, rather than in spontaneous and destructive acts of looting.

When the workers and soldiers stormed the Winter Palace, the Bolsheviks told them not to take anything and forced those who did to give back what they took. I expect you to condemn them for siding with feudal tradition and preserving the wealth of the Tsar when starving workers were trying to expropriate it.

chegitz guevara

14th June 2010, 23:24

Your argument is not thorough. Show us that there was not a transfer of power to the working class. Talmudic commentary on a priori "State Capitalist" principles isn't terribly convincing to people who aren't State-cappers. The Chinese revolution was kind of a big deal, so I think its the least we can expect.

You can't prove a negative. You cannot prove something did not happen, only that it did. It's incumbent on those arguing that such a transfer did take place to prove their case, not merely assert it and then tell others to prove it didn't happen.

Prover there isn't an invisible pink unicorn hiding behind the Moon.

the last donut of the night

14th June 2010, 23:53

You Maoists are really a piece of work! By the way, I read Fanshen and similar works, probably before you were born.

RED DAVE

Maybe I had mononucleosis before you, does that mean I'm more experienced in that medicinal field than you now?

Nice ageism there.

RED DAVE

15th June 2010, 02:21

Once again, when the Maoists entered the cities, they called on workers not to strike or demonstrate. The following eight points formed the basis of their propaganda:

“1) People’s lives and property will be protected. Keep order and don’t listen to rumours. Looting and killing are strictly forbidden.

“2) Chinese individual commercial and industrial property will be protected. Private factories, banks, godowns [warehouses], etc., will not be touched and can continue operating.

“3) Bureaucratic capital, including factories, shops, banks, godowns, railways, post offices, telephone and telegraph installations, power plants, etc., will be taken over by the Liberation Army, although private shares will be respected. Those working in these organizations should work peacefully and wait for the takeover. Rewards will be given to those who protect property and documents; those who strike or who destroy will be punished. Those wishing to continue serving will be employed.

“4) Schools, hospitals, and public institutions will be protected. Students, teachers and all workers should protect their records. Anyone with ability to work will be employed.

“5) Except for a few major war criminals and notorious reactionaries, all Kuomintang officials, police and Pao-Chia workers of the Provincial, Municipal, and Hsien Governments will be pardoned, if they do not offer armed resistance. They should protect their records. Anyone with ability to work will be employed.

“6) As soon as a city is liberated, displaced soldiers should report immediately to the new garrison headquarters, the police bureau, or army authorities. Anyone surrendering his weapons will not be questioned. Those who hide will be punished.

“7) The lives and property of all foreigners will be protected. They must obey the laws of the Liberation Army and Democratic Government. No espionage or illegal actions will be allowed. No war criminals should be sheltered. They will be subject to military or civilian trial for violations.

“8) People in general should protect all public property and keep order.” (A. Doak Barnett, China on the Eve of Communist takeover, pp. 327-8.)http://www.marxist.com/chinese-revolution-1949-two.htm

The letter did not say the workers couldn't seize power.It also didn't say that the workers shouldn't hunt pink unicorns in the mountains. The fact is that is says nothing at all about the workers seizing power, which, given that these are supposed to be Marxist-Leninists, establishing the rule of the working class, is utterly damning. The fact is that the last thing that the Maoists wanted was workers power: workers control of society.

It says they had to do it in a planned, coordinated manner across China, rather than in spontaneous and destructive acts of looting.It says no such thing. You are out and out lying. The only reference to people working, in government installations, tells them to keep working.

When the workers and soldiers stormed the Winter Palace, the Bolsheviks told them not to take anything and forced those who did to give back what they took. I expect you to condemn them for siding with feudal tradition and preserving the wealth of the Tsar when starving workers were trying to expropriate it.You are really being dishonest here. The Winter Palace was not a workplace, except for some government officials and servants of the Tsar.

The fact is that by the time the Winter Palace was stormed, the workers had, under their own initiative, and following the calls of the Bolsheviks, had already seized control of the workplaces and set up soviets. This is the exact opposite of what happened China as the Maoists took power.

It is abundantly clear from the preceding discussion that the Chinese Revolution was not a working class revolution in any way, shape or form. The Maoists took power in the name of "the bloc of four classes, which included the working class, but the working class was not the leading class, despite the rhetoric. If it was, the Maoists would have been calling for the workers to seize the workplaces, set up soviets and move to establish a workers government.

RED DAVE

Homo Songun

15th June 2010, 03:16

You can't prove a negative. You cannot prove something did not happen, only that it did. It's incumbent on those arguing that such a transfer did take place to prove their case, not merely assert it and then tell others to prove it didn't happen.

No, this oft-quoted "folk logic" maxim doesn't apply, at least here.

Firstly, it is a truism of Marxism that all societies are dictatorships of one class or another. If so, when I say "Show us that there was not a transfer of power to the working class" I am really saying nothing more than "Show us that Mao's China was bourgeois", which is exactly what Red Dave is arguing here. (Incidentally, this makes his "liking" your statement incredibly ironic, BTW.)

Secondly, even if you don't agree with Marxism that class society is not a zero sum game, that one class must rule, it is not true that you "can't prove a negative", for more info see:

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

Homo Songun

15th June 2010, 03:24

Homo Songun

15th June 2010, 04:11

(please delete the duplicate post above)

It says no such thing. You are out and out lying. The only reference to people working, in government installations, tells them to keep working.

I've been avoiding this point because it is just so twisted. So let me get this straight. One communique on the eve of the Chinese Revolution is the decisive factor in determining the political economy of China for the next 30+ years?

RED DAVE

15th June 2010, 09:18

I've been avoiding this point because it is just so twisted. So let me get this straight. One communique on the eve of the Chinese Revolution is the decisive factor in determining the political economy of China for the next 30+ years?No, but it's completely indicative of the Maoist attitude towards the working class then and after (and now in Nepal).

If you think that the Maoists were really leading the working class to democratic power, prove it.

RED DAVE

Barry Lyndon

15th June 2010, 10:07

I'm not going to debate whether or not socialism existed in China with Red Dave. His pseudo-anarchist leanings will ensure that any examples of worker/peasant power involving the Communist Party will be dismissed (like the three-in-one committees), any examples of state controlled industry will be dismissed on the basis of Dave's assertion that the Chinese state was under the control of the bourgeoisie, any examples of land reform will be dismissed as being imposed from on high and so on. Dave supports pure revolutions that happen in history books, revolutions that flow from urban workplace economic struggles and involve plenty of Trotsky quotes.

If a revolution is not a reenactment of 1917, he has no interest in it. Neither do other people with political approaches similar to his. The workers and peasants are quite capable of deciding how they want their revolution to proceed, and they are quite capable of deciding what kind of organs of political power they will construct, what kind of party they will form and mobilise around, and how their revolution will proceed.

Dave's view of the working class and the peasantry is a view filled with contempt. It assumes that they are mindless sheep who can be easily duped and led astray by manipulative, Machiavellian leaders. The Cliffite view of the working class, for all its constant talk of being more 'free' and 'democratic' than 'Stalinism, is in fact an elitist and arrogant view that sees the working class as followers... not leaders.

The Chinese revolution was not a revolution of Mao plus disciples. It was a revolution of poor, struggling people who risked everything to smash the power of the landlords, the exploiters and the foreign imperialists. If you have read first hand accounts of the Chinese revolution, like the famous book Fanshen (http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=CY9h1N1IPH4C&dq=fanshen&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=tJEVTP7hC4LlnAf_oeD4Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAw), it depicts in painstaking detail a revolution based on mobilising and empowering the masses to liberate themselves, where EVERY COMMUNIST PARTY CADRE HAD TO PASS THROUGH A 'GATE', I.E. HAVE THEIR PARTY MEMBERSHIP APPROVED BY THE ORDINARY PEOPLE THEY HAD PLEDGED TO SERVE, AT A MASS MEETING THAT ALL COULD ATTEND.

Before we start taking Trotskyist attacks on the Chinese revolution seriously, perhaps we should study the few first hand accounts from progressive authors that exist... rather than joining with the imperialists in their slander and demonisation. While this undoubtedly makes it easier to call yourself a communist in an imperialist country like the States, giving you a constant point of common ground with bourgeois liberals ("wasn't Stalin a BAD man"), it doesn't make your attacks on the Chinese revolution correct just because you're on the same side as most bourgeois academics and bourgeois historians.

This.

I should add that the Cliffite denigration of the Chinese Revolution as 'state-capitalist' is not even in line with orthodox Trotskyism. This whole 'state-capitalist' theory was developed by the Cliffite tendency in order to make themselves more respectable during the Cold War hysteria of the late 1940's/early 1950's by abdicating the responsibility to defend workers states, however deformed. This was a position that Trotsky himself fought until his death.
The traditional Trotskyist position is that capitalism was overthrown in China, and that it was the second great political event of the 20th century besides the Russian Revolution. The problem that Trotskyists had was the emergence of a parasitic bureaucracy over the workers and peasants, which had to be itself overthrown. Mao himself recognized this(at least rhetorically, its up for debate whether he was sincere or not) and this was an objective of the Cultural Revolution, to oust the bureaucrats and set up direct workers democracy. The failure to do so led to restoration of capitalism in China.

Personally I have a lot of respect for both Trotsky and Mao as revolutionaries, while recognizing their flaws.

RED DAVE

15th June 2010, 11:05

Palingenisis

15th June 2010, 11:18

One more time, if any of you would like to avoid political cursinglike Comrade Lyndon just did, and engage in debate, I would like to see some evidence for the existence of concrete organs of workers control in the work places and in the rest of society in China, Russia post-1928, or Vietnam.

RED DAVE

Dave what exactly changed in Russia in 1928? Nothing...Maybe you should just drop the pretence and accept that you are a council communist or an anarchist....

Palingenisis

15th June 2010, 11:19

One more time, if any of you would like to avoid political cursinglike Comrade Lyndon just did, and engage in debate, I would like to see some evidence for the existence of concrete organs of workers control in the work places and in the rest of society in China, Russia post-1928, or Vietnam.

RED DAVE

China under Mao or Albania under Hoxha were far more democratic than Russia under the early Bolsheviks...

RED DAVE

15th June 2010, 11:35

China under Mao or Albania under Hoxha were far more democratic than Russia under the early Bolsheviks...This may or may not be true, but it's not relevant to our discussion.

The crucial question is: were any of these countries workers democracies? Except for, as you call it, "Russia under the early Bolsheviks," where the soviets, concrete organs of workers power, existed, the answer is obviously "no."

RED DAVE

Palingenisis

15th June 2010, 11:41

This may or may not be true, but it's not relevant to our discussion.

The crucial question is: were any of these countries workers democracies? Except for, as you call it, "Russia under the early Bolsheviks," where the soviets, concrete organs of workers power, existed, the answer is obviously "no."

RED DAVE

Dave explain to me why the Workers' Opposition came into existence and why the Council-Communists broke with the Bolsheviks?

Though my personal believe is that Trotskyism is a concious conspiracy of the ruling class I think you are honestly confused....You just arent a Leninist.

RED DAVE

15th June 2010, 13:01

Dave explain to me why the Workers' Opposition came into existence and why the Council-Communists broke with the Bolsheviks?Why don't you do it? I haven't got time to research the documents. It would be a valuable addition to this discussion.

Though my personal believe is that Trotskyism is a concious conspiracy of the ruling class I think you are honestly confused....You just arent a Leninist.Why don't you do your political homework instead of engaging in political cursing?

RED DAVE

Uppercut

15th June 2010, 16:05

Why don't you do your political homework instead of engaging in political cursing?

RED DAVE

I think you just need to admit that you've been defeated in this debate.

chegitz guevara

15th June 2010, 16:53

No, this oft-quoted "folk logic" maxim doesn't apply, at least here.

Firstly, it is a truism of Marxism that all societies are dictatorships of one class or another.

From which it automatically follows China was a proletarian dictatorship? I think not. It's up to you to prove that China was something new in the world.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

Fine, but it's not merely "folk" wisdom, but a precept of science. We cannot disprove the assertion that aliens visited Earth last Tuesday. Instead, we require the person making the assertion to prove his claim.

Homo Songun

15th June 2010, 16:58

No, but it's completely indicative of the Maoist attitude towards the working class then and after (and now in Nepal).

You keep saying that this and that is "indicative of" or makes "abundantly clear" such and such, but you never actually show us such and such. Poor form.

RED DAVE

15th June 2010, 17:02

I think you just need to admit that you've been defeated in this debate.Dude, what are you smoking?

I have been able to show that there was NO WORKERS POWER IN CHINA. The Chinese working class never controlled the workplaces and never controlled the state. There isn;'t the slightest bit of evidence for either of these and tons of evidence for the contrary.

The question then becomes: if it wasn't socialism, what was it. The answer, obviously, is state capitalism.

RED DAVE

chegitz guevara

15th June 2010, 17:25

No, you actually haven't showed that. You've asserted it. There's a difference.

And state capitalism is not obvious.

RED DAVE

15th June 2010, 18:14

No, you actually haven't showed that. You've asserted it. There's a difference.

And state capitalism is not obvious.There is some truth to what you are saying, based on the limitations of this forum and the time I have to spend here as opposed to the other things I'm involved in.

However, I think my point is clear: there was no workers control in China. The Maoists didn't want it, never fought for it, it wasn't there. The burden of proof that there was such control, given the subsequent history of China, lies with those who believe that it was there. No one has been able to produce a document or any other kind of proof showing the Chinese CP actively engaged in calling for the workers to actually seize power or leading such seizures or organizing them once they happened.

The subequent questions then is: What was Maoist China if it wasn't a workers state? Since the state had control over surplus value, investment, in the same manner as a giant corporation, it seems logical, at least, to entertain the notion that this was state capitalism.

RED DAVE

Barry Lyndon

15th June 2010, 18:32

There is some truth to what you are saying, based on the limitations of this forum and the time I have to spend here as opposed to the other things I'm involved in.

However, I think my point is clear: there was no workers control in China. The Maoists didn't want it, never fought for it, it wasn't there. The burden of proof that there was such control, given the subsequent history of China, lies with those who believe that it was there. No one has been able to produce a document or any other kind of proof showing the Chinese CP actively engaged in calling for the workers to actually seize power or leading such seizures or organizing them once they happened.

The subequent questions then is: What was Maoist China if it wasn't a workers state? Since the state had control over surplus value, investment, in the same manner as a giant corporation, it seems logical, at least, to entertain the notion that this was state capitalism.

RED DAVE

Comrade Alastair actually cited a few books to back up his argument that there was(imperfect) workers and peasants control in China to various degrees, citing books like 'Fanshen' and 'The Battle of China's Past'-both works by eyewitnesses and participants in the Chinese Revolution, not Westerners dismissing the revolution from afar and operating on the unspoken but implicit racist assumption that Asians couldn't manage anything better then Oriental despotism. You just pretended that such evidence didn't exist, because all you probably ever read was Cliff's propaganda on the topic, his ready-made denunciations he had for any successful revolution(just copy-paste what he and his followers have to say about China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba, and its all the same, no need to analyze the history or material conditions!).

As for the fact that the Communists did not immediatly call for the expropriation of the capitalists and so on, isn't it more important that the Communists actually did do that, once they took power? I've heard the same criticism made of the Castro in Cuba. Apparently for certian ultra-lefts revolutionary leaders have to be so pure they have to loudly tell the capitalists and foreign imperialists what they are going to do in advance.

Lyev

15th June 2010, 18:39

A few things then:

(1) is there any alternative to New Democracy? What should workers and peasants do in a semi-feudal, monarchic or feudal country? Can Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution be applied to Nepal and China?

(2) the contention is obviously over worker's control, and I don't have much faith in a movement that actively discourages strikes (e.g., Mao in 1949 China). But, what exactly is it that constitutes workers' control? Has it ever happened properly? I think the term can be used deliberately ambiguously. To simply palm off a direct question by loosely referring to "councils" isn't that satisfactory. How are these "councils" run? How are people elected to them? Is there the immediate right of recall? etc. etc.

(3) I appreciate that revolution and instituting a whole new mode of production is by no means some sort of pre-packaged formula that can be readily applied to a diverse range of settings and environments. It's also a hugely complicating undertaking, with a thousand and one different parameters. Over the past 150 years many people, from pretty much everywhere on the globe, have tried to adapt Marx's thinking, and add to them, in an attempt to lead a revolution in their own country.

(4) the main problem I see in China, and similarly in Nepal - roughly 80% of the population are peasantry, engaged in "backward agricultural occupation", with about 6% working class, is the question the peasantry. A revolution can quickly degenerate if the peasantry are substituted for the working class. The proletarian population of China in 1949 was about 1.8%.

(5) I am not categorically stating that I think agricultural countries can't have revolutions full-stop, but there is a risk of getting over-zealous when events heat up, and then throwing peasantry into the struggle in place of proletarians.

Thanks for everyone's intelligent comments and thoughts so far.

chegitz guevara

15th June 2010, 21:12

I highly recommend the following article: "How to Visit a Socialist Country." (http://monthlyreview.org/100401levins.php)

chegitz guevara

15th June 2010, 21:22

A few things then:

(1) is there any alternative to New Democracy? What should workers and peasants do in a semi-feudal, monarchic or feudal country? Can Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution be applied to Nepal and China?

I think, clearly, it can. Keep in mind, though, it only is relevant in places where the tasks of the bourgeois revolution have not been carried out. In most of the world, these tasks have been carried out, and so the PR is an historical theory of interest, but not much use.

One should keep in mind that Marx thought it was possible for a peasant based revolution to skip the capitalist mode of production and move directly to socialism IF that revolution was the spark for a wider workers [European] revolution in the advanced countries, who could then turn around and lend aid to the peasant revolution.

With the Soviet Union giving aid to the Chinese, they [i]could skip capitalism (though capitalism was already present in China, though just not the dominant mode of production). In other words, in alliance with the Soviet workers, the Chinese peasants could overthrow capitalism and build socialism.

Not saying that's what did happen, but saying it is consistent with Marx's own writing that such a thing was possible. So, it's wrong to reject it out of court.

Lyev

15th June 2010, 23:19

I think, clearly, it can. Keep in mind, though, it only is relevant in places where the tasks of the bourgeois revolution have not been carried out. In most of the world, these tasks have been carried out, and so the PR is an historical theory of interest, but not much use.

One should keep in mind that Marx thought it was possible for a peasant based revolution to skip the capitalist mode of production and move directly to socialism IF that revolution was the spark for a wider workers [European] revolution in the advanced countries, who could then turn around and lend aid to the peasant revolution.

With the Soviet Union giving aid to the Chinese, they [I]could skip capitalism (though capitalism was already present in China, though just not the dominant mode of production). In other words, in alliance with the Soviet workers, the Chinese peasants could overthrow capitalism and build socialism.

Not saying that's what did happen, but saying it is consistent with Marx's own writing that such a thing was possible. So, it's wrong to reject it out of court.I agree that the relevance of the permanent revolution in the modern world has been marginalised. It, of course, has no use in the developed, western first world. However, in the case of China and Nepal, or even somewhere like Venezuela, it can be an interesting experiment, at the very least, to try and apply it to circumstances where capitalism is not the dominant mode of of production. I am confused, though, how peasants can have a revolution, in the Marxist sense of the word. The definition of a peasant -- there's a few different types -- is either that they own land, and give some of their surplus product to the landlord, or they rent out the land from a landlord, and give their surplus, plus money, to their landlord. Is this right? In short, they own their own means of production, but with obviously a very different dynamic to that under capitalism. To add, in countries where capitalism isn't the the predominant mode of production, and where there is still a large peasant, agricultural population, the landlords can often work hand-in-hand with the capitalist bourgeoisie. But, taking all this into account, in a country like Nepal, but obviously as well as China 1949 and Russia 1917, the success of a truly proletarian revolution, that wants to overthrow capitalism, depends on the support of the mass of peasant population.

Lenina Rosenweg

15th June 2010, 23:27

If a revolution is not a reenactment of 1917, he has no interest in it. Neither do other people with political approaches similar to his. The workers and peasants are quite capable of deciding how they want their revolution to proceed, and they are quite capable of deciding what kind of organs of political power they will construct, what kind of party they will form and mobilise around, and how their revolution will proceed.

Before we start taking Trotskyist attacks on the Chinese revolution seriously, perhaps we should study the few first hand accounts from progressive authors that exist... rather than joining with the imperialists in their slander and demonisation.

This book concerns the period before the acsendancy of Mao, , but I it portrays the early period of the CCP very well. Its a must read, IMHO.

http://socialistworld.net/doc/4288

Issacs later moved to the right and rewrote the book several times. The original is a masterpiece. A full copy of this is on the Workers Liberty site somewhere but I have trouble locating it.

http://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Shadows-Simon-Leys/dp/0140047875/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276640786&sr=1-1

Chinese Shadows by Simon Leys, a leftist art historian who lived in Hong Kong during the GPCR, has very good insight into the toltalitarian nature of China during the 60s/70s.

Robert J Lifton wrote several interesting books about the psychology of the GPCR. This one delves into the mind of Mao himself.

http://www.amazon.com/Revolutionary-Immortality-Norton-Library-Lifton/dp/0393007979/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276

Lenina Rosenweg

15th June 2010, 23:36

I agree that the relevance of the permanent revolution in the modern world has been marginalised. It, of course, has no use in the developed, western first world. However, in the case of China and Nepal, or even somewhere like Venezuela, it can be an interesting experiment, at the very least, to try and apply it to circumstances where capitalism is not the dominant mode of of production. capitalist bourgeoisie. But, taking all this into account, in a country like Nepal, but obviously as well as China 1949 and Russia 1917, the success of a truly proletarian revolution, that wants to overthrow capitalism, depends on the support of the mass of peasant population.

The Theory of Permanent Revolution, that in most developing countries the bourgoise will not be strong enough to move towards national development outside of western hegemony, I think can explain why the non-aligned Bandung project collapsed by the late 80s and why movements like that led by Prachanda have reached a dead end.

the working class, as small as it may be, ultimately is the only class capable of moving a society forward, whether it be forst World or Third World. A communist movement relying on any other force will be subsumed or pushed back.

The Darker Nations by Vijay Praswhad is a good ilustration of this.

Saorsa

15th June 2010, 23:50

I think can explain why the non-aligned Bandung project collapsed by the late 80s and why movements like that led by Prachanda have reached a dead end.

I was going to wait until later today before writing a proper response to some of the points raised in this thread. But I had to comment in response to this.

The revolution in Nepal has *not* reached a dead end. It is an ongoing process and the movement is stronger than it ever was. Anyone who thinks the revolution is in its dying days is going to be in for a real shock before too long.

the working class, as small as it may be, ultimately is the only class capable of moving a society forward, whether it be forst World or Third World. A communist movement relying on any other force will be subsumed or pushed back.

Empty rhetoric. Of course the working class is the leading class, the decisive class, the class with the ability to radically transform human society and dissolve itself in the process, creating a totally new world. But it is ridiculous to claim it's the only class which can move a society forward, and there really is a dead end at the end of that train of logic. It leads to thinking that only urban proletarian workplace struggles are worth supporting, and all other struggles are irrelevant at best and dangerous at worst.

What about the peasantry? Does millions of peasants challenging the power of the landlord class and forcing through land reform count as 'moving society forward'?

And ffs, what about the bourgeoisie? Unless by 'forward' you mean only towards socialism, the bourgeoisie even today is capable of developing the means of production, developing new technologies and forms of social control, and is capable of 'moving society forward'.

We need to build revolutionary movements that are capable of seizing power, any way we can. That won't happen if we just try and build a textbook movement that fits our dogmatic vision of what it supposedly should look like.

Lenina Rosenweg

16th June 2010, 00:53

I was going to wait until later today before writing a proper response to some of the points raised in this thread. But I had to comment in response to this.
The revolution in Nepal has *not* reached a dead end. It is an ongoing process and the movement is stronger than it ever was. Anyone who thinks the revolution is in its dying days is going to be in for a real shock before too long.

Empty rhetoric. Of course the working class is the leading class, the decisive class, the class with the ability to radically transform human society and dissolve itself in the process, creating a totally new world. But it is ridiculous to claim it's the only class which can move a society forward, and there really is a dead end at the end of that train of logic. It leads to thinking that only urban proletarian workplace struggles are worth supporting, and all other struggles are irrelevant at best and dangerous at worst.

What about the peasantry? Does millions of peasants challenging the power of the landlord class and forcing through land reform count as 'moving society forward'?

And ffs, what about the bourgeoisie? Unless by 'forward' you mean only towards socialism, the bourgeoisie even today is capable of developing the means of production, developing new technologies and forms of social control, and is capable of 'moving society forward'.

The bourgeoisie is capable of developing the means of production only within the increasingly limited confines defined by the need of a few people to make a profit off our labor. In Third World countries the bourgeoisie are tied both to trans national capital and the local feudalist landowning class. They are not and cannot be strong enough to push for independent development. They played a progressive role in Europe in the 19th century, but that's it.
As for "forms of social control" while Deming's theories may have something to offer, most bourgeoisie management techniques are designed to give workers the illusion of being in control of their lives, "mind forged manacles". Its becoming increasingly evident that capitalism is being crushed under the weight of its own contradictions.

Culturally, politically, economically,ecologically, we're at a dead end. Communication technology is important to finance capital, that's why we're getting tons of cool electronic goodies each year, but I'm not sure how long even that will last. The way forward is not compromise w/the bourgeoisie, but their eradication.

I don't hate Chavez or Moralas. There have been positive developments which have helped millions. Unfortunately there's evidence of strong regression in Venezuela and Bolivia as well. The leaders of these countries are seeking room for national capitalist development outside of US hegemony. In this period it is just not possible. The working class of these societies have to move towards socialism, rapidly, or whatever gains they have made will be rolled back. This means not just nationaliing industries by the gov't but "worker's democracy", the working class running industry themselves.

Peasant rights, land reform is very important.These movements need to be combined with a working class based movement to succeed. Peasants played an important role in revolutions, from 1789-1917 but nowhere were they the leading class.They can't be. Peasant based guerrilla insurgencies have gone on for decades in Columbia, India, Mexico but that's just it, they've gone on for decades...

We need to build revolutionary movements that are capable of seizing power, any way we can.

We have to clarify both the ends and the means. If the ends are to create socialism we cannot employ means which set that back.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

16th June 2010, 01:42

Chinese Shadows by Simon Leys, a leftist art historian who lived in Hong Kong during the GPCR, has very good insight into the toltalitarian nature of China during the 60s/70s.

Not this "totalitarian" shit again, stop using fashionable words of the bourgeoisie that mean nothing at all.

also, amazon links? I'm not paying for crappy propaganda.

Uppercut

16th June 2010, 01:54

Chinese Shadows by Simon Leys, a leftist art historian who lived in Hong Kong during the GPCR, has very good insight into the toltalitarian nature of China during the 60s/70s.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how the GPCR was totalitarian with all the social progress and participation it brought with it, especially since the masses were literally encouraged to join in on scientific research and culture analysis.

Lenina Rosenweg

16th June 2010, 03:17

I'm sorry, but I can't see how the GPCR was totalitarian with all the social progress and participation it brought with it, especially since the masses were literally encouraged to join in on scientific research and culture analysis.

The GPCR was esentially a power struggle between Mao and Liu Shaoqi. Mao lost credibility and power after the enormous disaster of the Great Leap Forward and the subsequent resulting famine, in which upwards of 20 milluion people died. A more technocratic group around Liu came to power and favored a somewhat more traditional Soviet style development.

The GPCR mobilized young people against elements of the bureaucracy but this was always tightly controlled. Mao, though the army, always had the upper hand. Towards the end of the CR, when Mao was ready to wind it down, a group of students complained to him that, "a black hand was impeding the CR". Mao told them, "the black hand is me".

I've talked to a large number of people who've been through the CR. It was a mass mobilization which was highly authoritarian. One couldn't enter one's danwei (work unit) or even one's home w/out being able to recite requisite quotes from the "Little Red Book". One had to please whatever Red Guard bully was running things that day.. The GPCR left a legacy of wrecked carreers, lost opportunities, destroyed lives. Chinese people now in their late 50s or so are intensely bitter about this.

It is true there was popular participation in the sciences, especially archeaology, but this didn't come close to making up for the destruction and lost years.

The most socialist development of the GPCR was the Shanghai Commune of 1967, modeled after the Paris Commune. Shanghai workers made the mistake of taking Mao's egalitarian rhetoric seriously. The SC was surpressed on orders from Mao, w/the PLA bombing it from the air.

Homo Songun

16th June 2010, 03:39

Well, that iss the high school civics / Newsweek version anyways.:bored:

Lenina Rosenweg

16th June 2010, 04:57

From the World Socialist Website;

Mao’s utopian schemes for rural socialism, peasant communes and backyard industry produced one disaster after another, culminating in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution that he launched against his factional rivals in 1966. When workers began to take matters into their own hands, a terrified bureaucracy rapidly buried its differences and brought in the army to suppress the working class. From then on, while the CCP leadership vastly expanded a cult around Mao to justify its repressive measures, his program of peasant radicalism was buried. After Mao died in 1976, the regime arrested the so-called Gang of Four and ditched the slogans of the Cultural Revolution.

While the middle class radicals of the 1960s and 1970s glorified the Cultural Revolution, the more conscious representatives of US imperialism recognised that the class character of “Red China” and the Soviet Union were not the same. The latter remained a workers state, albeit degenerated. At the height of the “Cultural Revolution” in October 1967, Richard Nixon wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs that his coming presidency would pull “China back into the world community—but as a great and progressing nation, not as the epicentre of world revolution”.

In the same issue of Foreign Affairs, another analyst noted that Mao’s regime was not so dissimilar to bourgeois governments brought to power by anti-colonial movements. The only difference was “the superior effectiveness of Chinese communism in promoting the aims historically associated with the capitalist mode of production and the social order built upon it… The originality of Maoism lies in the methods of mobilising the masses in the name of communism for the achievement of aims proper to any national-revolutionary movement: the industrialisation of China and the acquisition of military means (including nuclear ones) adequate to the pursuit of great-power politics.”

In all its essentials, that is what has occurred during the past 30 years. Nixon met with Mao in 1972, laying the basis for an anti-Soviet alliance and China’s initial opening to foreign capital. In 1978 Deng Xiaoping vastly accelerated foreign investment and the reestablishment of the capitalist market. This coincided with a turn by world capitalism in the late 1970s towards the globalisation of production and the establishment of cheap labour platforms. The inflow of foreign capital became a flood, after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre demonstrated the regime’s willingness to use the most ruthless methods to suppress the working class.

What achievements are being celebrated today? The limited reforms of the 1949 revolution have been overturned as the CCP regime, and the grasping Chinese bourgeoisie that it represents, preside over a deepening social gulf between rich and poor. But while the CCP bureaucrats join hands with the representatives of global capitalism in toasting the Peoples Republic of China, they are casting a nervous glance over their shoulders at a Chinese working class that has enormously expanded and is closely integrated with workers around the world.

Above all, amid the worst global crisis of capitalism since the 1930s, they fear that the working class will begin to draw the political lessons of the 1949 revolution, reject the dead-end of Stalinism and Maoism, and return to the path of world socialist revolution. In China, that means building a section of the International Committee of the Fourth International, the world Trotskyist movement, to provide the essential revolutionary leadership.

John Chan

Saorsa

16th June 2010, 05:48

The GPCR was esentially a power struggle between Mao and Liu Shaoqi. Mao lost credibility and power after the enormous disaster of the Great Leap Forward and the subsequent resulting famine, in which upwards of 20 milluion people died. A more technocratic group around Liu came to power and favored a somewhat more traditional Soviet style development.

Lolwut

20 million people did not die because of the Great Leap Forward.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm

Saorsa

16th June 2010, 05:49

In China, that means building a section of the International Committee of the Fourth International, the world Trotskyist movement, to provide the essential revolutionary leadership.

lolz

RED DAVE

16th June 2010, 15:00

Of course the working class is the leading class, the decisive class, the class with the ability to radically transform human society and dissolve itself in the process, creating a totally new world. But it is ridiculous to claim it's the only class which can move a society forward, and there really is a dead end at the end of that train of logic. It leads to thinking that only urban proletarian workplace struggles are worth supporting, and all other struggles are irrelevant at best and dangerous at worst.This is the bullshit point for Maoists. After affirming the unique historic role of the working class as the only class capable of transcending capitalism, they back off from this. It is not "ridiculous" to say that the working class is "the only class which can move a society forward." It is the fundamental insight of Marxism.

What other class "can move a society forward"? Other classes can participate in this "movement," but only the working class can lead it. And this is where Maoism is exposed. It is abundantly clear that in China or in Nepal, Maoism does not rest on the working class. If they did in Nepal, there wouldn't be all this bullshit about coalition governments, block of four classes, national bourgeoisie, etc.

What about the peasantry? Does millions of peasants challenging the power of the landlord class and forcing through land reform count as 'moving society forward'?Not in the sense that we are discussing. This can only reach a point of true progress under the leadership of the working class.

And ffs, what about the bourgeoisie? Unless by 'forward' you mean only towards socialism, the bourgeoisie even today is capable of developing the means of production, developing new technologies and forms of social control, and is capable of 'moving society forward'.And here you have it, comrades, the justification for state capitalism.

We need to build revolutionary movements that are capable of seizing power, any way we can. That won't happen if we just try and build a textbook movement that fits our dogmatic vision of what it supposedly should look like.The only dogmatism around here is Maoism, which insists that, somehow, like Harry Potter waving his wand, we can magically make history the way we want it to go.

China is the lesson: to build a revolution based on any class but the working class, which can and must lead a class alliance, contrary to Maoist practice, leads to state capitalism and private capitalism. If the Maoists take power in Nepal under their present program, we'll have state capitalism before you can say "Avada Kadavra."

RED DAVE

RED DAVE

16th June 2010, 16:08

Thanx to Zanthorus for this:

A fundamental condition for the successful accomplishment of the primary task of organisation confronting us is that the people’s political leaders, i.e., the members of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), and following them all the class-conscious representatives of the mass of the working people, shall fully appreciate the radical distinction in this respect between previous bourgeois revolutions and the present socialist revolution.

In bourgeois revolutions, the principal task of the mass of working people was to fulfil the negative or destructive work of abolishing feudalism, monarchy and medievalism. The positive or constructive work of organising the new society was carried out by the property-owning bourgeois minority of the population. And the latter carried out this task with relative ease, despite the resistance of the workers and the poor peasants, not only because the resistance of the people exploited by capital was then extremely weak, since they were scattered and uneducated, but also because the chief organising force of anarchically built capitalist society is the spontaneously growing and expanding national and international market.

In every socialist revolution, however—and consequently in the socialist revolution in Russia which we began on October 25, 1917—the principal task of the proletariat, and of the poor peasants which it leads, is the positive or constructive work of setting up an extremely intricate and delicate system of new organisational relationships extending to the planned production and distribution of the goods required for the existence of tens of millions of people. Such a revolution can be successfully carried out only if the majority of the population, and primarily the majority of the working people, engage in independent creative work as makers of history.http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...918/mar/28.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/28.htm)

RED DAVE

Barry Lyndon

16th June 2010, 16:33

What achievements are being celebrated today? The limited reforms of the 1949 revolution have been overturned as the CCP regime, and the grasping Chinese bourgeoisie that it represents, preside over a deepening social gulf between rich and poor. But while the CCP bureaucrats join hands with the representatives of global capitalism in toasting the Peoples Republic of China, they are casting a nervous glance over their shoulders at a Chinese working class that has enormously expanded and is closely integrated with workers around the world.

Above all, amid the worst global crisis of capitalism since the 1930s, they fear that the working class will begin to draw the political lessons of the 1949 revolution, reject the dead-end of Stalinism and Maoism, and return to the path of world socialist revolution. In China, that means building a section of the International Committee of the Fourth International, the world Trotskyist movement, to provide the essential revolutionary leadership.

John Chan

Yes, limited reforms- ending famine, teaching a nation of illiterates how to read, providing health care for all, breaking the chains of patriarchy, liberation from foreign imperialism, the right to criticize and attack public officials- such trivial things that were accomplished after 1949, and such trivial things that were lost from 1976 onward. I guess it doesn't really matter whether China is capitalist or not, since 'state-capitalism' is all the same.

'the world Trotskyist movement'. Lol! I'm still a staunch admirer of Trotsky, but that statement is a total joke. Basically, what it comes down to is that you'll never consider a revolution legitimate unless its led by a Trotskyist party, and only then one from your specific tendency. Your arrogance is incredible. I guess the Chinese workers will have to suffer until you benevolently save them.

RED DAVE

16th June 2010, 17:07

Yes, limited reforms- ending famine, teaching a nation of illiterates how to read, providing health care for all, breaking the chains of patriarchy, liberation from foreign imperialism, the right to criticize and attack public officials- such trivial things that were accomplished after 1949, and such trivial things that were lost from 1976 onward. I guess it doesn't really matter whether China is capitalist or not, since 'state-capitalism' is all the same.Notice, Comrade, that workers control of the economy is missing from your list. That's because the Maoists, propaganda to the contrary, never seriously considered this as part of their program.

Question: Would you, as a Marxist, in 2010, support a revolutionary movement whose program was restricted to these limited reforms you mention above and which involved the working class in a coalition with the bourgeoisie and permitted the bourgeoisie to continue to control the workplaces?

RED DAVE

Lyev

16th June 2010, 17:20

Notice, Comrade, that workers control of the economy is missing from your list. That's because the Maoists, propaganda to the contrary, never seriously considered this as part of their program.

Question: Would you, as a Marxist, in 2010, support a revolutionary movement whose program was restricted to these limited reforms you mention above and which involved the working class in a coalition with the bourgeoisie and permitted the bourgeoisie to continue to control the workplaces?

RED DAVEI agree with most of your analysis so far Dave, but what would you posit as an alternative? Is there any other way a movement like that in Nepal, or China in 1949, can emancipate itself from imperialism without an alliance with the "national bourgeoisie"? Or is perhaps that it's this very alliance that limits such a movement to "limited reforms", rather going that one step further, by occupying workplaces and "expropriating the expropriators"? It could be, perhaps, that because the proletarian-led movement, along with the peasantry, has tied itself to the bourgeoisie, that it has to forgo the more radical changes, and cede some gains to the bourgeois forces, to keep them satisfied. Then, because of this "bloc of four classes", bourgeois interests become more and more prominent, gradually leading to some sort of Thermidor effect.

Barry Lyndon

16th June 2010, 17:37

Notice, Comrade, that workers control of the economy is missing from your list. That's because the Maoists, propaganda to the contrary, never seriously considered this as part of their program.

Question: Would you, as a Marxist, in 2010, support a revolutionary movement whose program was restricted to these limited reforms you mention above and which involved the working class in a coalition with the bourgeoisie and permitted the bourgeoisie to continue to control the workplaces?

RED DAVE

I wouldn't support that, and your a liar. The bourgeoisie did NOT continue to 'control the workplace' in China after the revolution. Some of the bourgeoisie were allied with the Communists, but within a few years after taking power the the Communists turned on them(The ruling class uses 'divide and conquer' tactics against the workers, why can't revolutionaries do the same?). They were expropriated, driven into exile and in many cases killed. You could argue that they were merely replaced by party bureaucrats instead of direct workers control, the standard Trotskyist interpretation, but to just claim that the bourgeoisie continued to control the workplaces is an utter falsehood.

And if I was a Chinese peasant or worker starving to death, I would not consider such reforms 'limited'. The fact that you would have the gall to say that reflects your total detachment from reality.

Lyev

16th June 2010, 17:45

I wouldn't support that, and your a liar. The bourgeoisie did NOT continue to 'control the workplace' in China after the revolution. They were expropriated, driven into exile and in many cases killed. You could argue that they were merely replaced by party bureaucrats instead of direct workers control, the standard Trotskyist interpretation, but to just claim that the bourgeoisie continued to control the workplaces is an utter falsehood.

And if I was a Chinese peasant or worker starving to death, I would not consider such reforms 'limited'. The fact that you would have the gall to say that reflects your total detachment from reality.I don't understand this, because doesn't Mao encourage an alliance with the bourgeoisie, in the "Bloc of Four Classes"? Could someone explain this to me? So basically, the Maoist forces just made friends with the bourgeoisie (to rid themselves of imperialism) then expropriated them, and occupied their factories? Is that right? But didn't the Kuomintang actually execute thousands of Marxist-Leninist and Trotskyist activists? Anyway, thanks for answering all my questions.

RED DAVE

16th June 2010, 17:58

I wouldn't support that, and your a liar.If I were you, Comrade, I would begin to watch my mouth.

The bourgeoisie did NOT continue to 'control the workplace' in China after the revolution. Some of the bourgeoisie were allied with the Communists, but within a few years after taking power the the Communists turned on them(The ruling class uses 'divide and conquer' tactics against the workers, why can't revolutionaries do the same?).What is evident from the "divide and conquer" strategy is that the working class did not control the workplace. And it is also evident that at no time did the workers control the workplaces.

They were expropriated, driven into exile and in many cases killed.But somehow their influence lingered on to be the basis of private capitalism. How did that happen?

You could argue that they were merely replaced by party bureaucrats instead of direct workers control, the standard Trotskyist interpretationI indeed "argue" this because it is a fact.

but to just claim that the bourgeoisie continued to control the workplaces is an utter falsehood.Bourgeois relations continued in the workplace.

By the way, I was referring to Nepal, where the Nepalese Maoists took it upon themselves to assume the prime ministership in a coalition government that left the property and property relations of the bourgeoisie intact.

And if I was a Chinese peasant or worker starving to death, I would not consider such reforms 'limited'. The fact that you would have the gall to say that reflects your total detachment from reality.What you have no concept of is the role of Marxists in history. It is not to make the bourgeois revolution.

It is becoming more and more evident from the position assumed by Maoists on the board that Maoism=State Capitalism. In the name of reform and anti-imperialism, Maoists seem to find opening the door to state and private capitalism to be cool.

RED DAVE

Barry Lyndon

16th June 2010, 18:04

I don't understand this, because doesn't Mao encourage an alliance with the bourgeoisie, in the "Bloc of Four Classes"? Could someone explain this to me? So basically, the Maoist forces just made friends with the bourgeoisie (to rid themselves of imperialism) then expropriated them, and occupied their factories? Is that right? But didn't the Kuomintang actually execute thousands of Marxist-Leninist and Trotskyist activists? Anyway, thanks for answering all my questions.

It was rather complicated. Under orders from Stalin, the Communist Party in China aligned itself with the Kuomintang in the 1920's to oppose the foreign imperialists(primarily Britain, France, and the US) that dominated China at the time. Then, disastrously, the Kuomintang turned on the Communists in 1927 and massacred thousands of them. The Communists later retreated into the countryside in the famous 'Long March' in 1934-35 and established rural bases in Shangxaii. When Japan attacked China in 1937, the Communists and the Nationalists again combined into a national front against the invaders. It was around that time that Mao developed the 'Bloc of Four Classes' strategy I believe. After Japan was defeated in 1945, the two sides resumed fighting each other and the Communists were victorious after 4 years.
Does that make sense? Lol.

Lenina Rosenweg

16th June 2010, 22:16

There were undoubtly tremendous gains from the Chinese Revolution. 1949 along with 1917 stands as an important historic milestone. The fact is though that China was never socialist, defining socialism as the working class in democratic control of the means of production.

If China was truly socialist, why and how was capitalism restored? It wasn't the infilitration of sinister "revisionist elements" but rather the result of ongoing crisis. After all, Mao himself said, "The black hand is me".

China had a ruling class. This class faced a crisis after the death of Mao. The struggles of the 70s between Jiang Qing, Hua Yaobang, Deng, Wang Dongxing and others was a struggle within the ruling group.It did not entail mass mobiziliation and the PLA was the kingmaker. The protest movement that erupted after the death of Zhou Enlai was essentially a protest against any revival of the GPCR.

Mao made tremendous blunders. We could debate their historical context but the fact is these "campaigns" were all disasters for China. Korean War intervention, 100 Flowers Campaign, Great Leap Forward, the GPCR.All represented setbacks for China.Most Marxists think Mao's opportunist treatment of the dialectic was bizarre, to say the least. Arguably the best thing Mao did for China was in 1976.

It is not possible to have a "bloc of four classes" or any other such class collaboration. The bourgoise and the working are, by definition, mortal enemies. It is possible some bourgoise could be allowed to remain for a short time, strictly subordinate to the organs of the working class.

http://chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1068/

Lenina Rosenweg

16th June 2010, 22:18

Excellent article

http://chinaworker.info/en/content/news/326/

The Maoist regime acted to block any independent movements of the working class using a mix of cunning, manoeuvres and repression. But at the same time, in order to maintain its own privileges and power, it defended state property and the social gains of the revolution. This gave the regime a contradictory character – a combination of reactionary and progressive features. This is no longer the case. Having thrown in its lot with capitalism, the Chinese state has lost this dual, contradictory, character.
Trotsky described the Stalinist bureaucracy as a cancerous tumour on the body of the workers’ state. He explained that, "A tumour can grow to tremendous size and even strangle the living organism, but a tumour can never become an independent organism". (The Class Nature of the Soviet State, 1933)
The ‘tumour’ of the Chinese bureaucracy cannot acquire a life of its own in relation to the means of production, and it is certainly not itself the repository of the socially progressive features created by the 1949 revolution. Rather the opposite is true. Under Stalinism and Maoism these gains existed in the consciousness and mass pressure of the workers and poor peasants, despite the disorganising and confusing role of the bureaucracy.

Saorsa

17th June 2010, 00:13

China was under the control of a revolutionary state apparatus controlled by the Communist Party of China, a revolutionary organisation created, built and led by the workers and poor peasants. An organisation formed in the class struggle of the Chinese cities, which gradually extended its influence into the countryside and sunk deep roots amongst hundreds of millions of struggling peasants. An organisation which waged a revolutionary armed struggle for decades, which became a movement of hundreds of millions of people consciously and creatively seizing history and changing China's path towards socialism and ultimately communism.

The Communist Party was under the control of the masses from it's beginnings right up to 1949 and beyond. In the decades that followed the revolution, class struggle was reflected inside the Communist Party - large sections of the cadres and the leadership became seperated from the masses and hostile to their interests. These people sought to consolidate the bourgeois revolution and defer the socialist revolution until some indefinite later point. They represented the forces of the counter-revolution, the Thermidor, the capitalist restoration.

Opposed to them were Mao, the Four, and the hundreds of millions of workers, peasants, and young people who threw themselves into the greatest mass movement in history - the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Arguing that there was no going back, that the masses of working people were in control and that this had to be developed and consolidated in new ways, they sought to destroy the counter-revolutionary forces in society and create a new generation of committed revolutionary communists who could carry on this struggle indefinitely.

Communist Party branches across China were dissolved and replaced with new, younger and radical branches. Cadres of the party and state employees had to face the criticism of the ordinary working people in mass meetings, and those who did not satisfy the people were driven from their posts. Three in one committees were formed, where workers elected representatives to administrate the workplace, shop floor workers were involved in every step of the decision making process and everyone was involved in both shop floor work AND administrative work.

This struggle, of course, did not proceed evenly across China. In some areas it was blocked from happening at all, where the capitalist forces were strongest. In some areas counter-revolutionary elements in the party, representing the interests of the emerging new bourgeoisie, pretended to be supporters of the GPCR and formed 'Red Guard' groups of their own, which clashed with genuine Red Guard forces. In some areas, despite Mao's calls not to do this, intellectuals, cadres and state employees were subjected to violence and unnecessarily harsh treatment by the revolutionaries. But revolutions are messy by their very nature - they do not proceed smoothly or in a straight line.

Another great problem with GPCR, perhaps its main problem, was that the decision was made to leave the PLA out of it. There were grave problems with bourgeois forces controlling the military, and particularly with the emergence of a privileged, unelected officer corps that lorded it over the ordinary soldiers. Had the GPCR been extended to the army, had the ordinary soldiers waged a struggle to identify, expose and throw out the reactionary elements in their ranks and in particular among their officers, history could have played out completely differently. But at a time when the USSR was massing troops on China's borders and threatening it with nuclear weapons, and at a time when China was surrounded by imperialist threats on all sides, the decision was made that China could not afford to weaken its military and introduce the chaos of the GPCR to the PLA - it would have made China ripe for invasion.

This decision was probably wrong, although (contrary to the amusingly ridiculous Trotskyist approach) history is far too simple to just single out a handful of factors that led to a counter-revolution and then claim they are universal. But when Mao died, and the reactionary elements moved against the Four and the revolutionary movement they represented, the PLA had been turned into a top down army where the soldiers obeyed the officers without question, and the workers, peasants and students who resisted the revisionist coup were shot down like dogs.

Arrogant, mostly white and almost universally Western Trotskyists like to think they can tell the naive, stupid, sheeplike workers of the Third World how their revolution 'must' be carried out. And, of course, it must be carried out exactly like the revolution in Russia was - coincidentally enough, the only Marxist revolution which has taken place in a mostly white country and coincidentally enough, the only Marxist revolution which has taken place in a country that is even close to being part of the Western imperialist states. Trotskyists like those posting in this thread have nothing but contempt for the workers and peasants of the Third World, and dismiss the ability of these workers and peasants to construct their own Communist Party's, their own vehicles of liberation, and to do so in a manner that fits the unique conditions of their particular countries.

That's what happened in China. A massive, revolutionary party emerged from the struggles of hundreds of millions of people, and led a revolutionary process that spanned almost 80 years, from the formation of the party in 1921 to the counter-revolution in the mid-to-late 70s. This revolution destroyed the power of the bourgeoisie and the landlords, and drove out foreign imperialism. It then went through the tortuous process of building a new kind of society, a society which could not and should never have replicated what was done in Russia as it is clear to everyone that did not work!

The model of urban soviets did not stop counter-revolution. A parasitic bureaucracy, a new bourgeoisie emerged FROM the soviets as well as from the party, and the explanations for this provided by Trotskyists - Stalin was evil plus the revolution failed to spread - simply provide an excuse for inevitabilistic and deterministic thinking. Trotskyists say the revolution was inevitably doomed to fail because it didn't spread fast enough - they do not offer solutions to struggling people who have seized power in their own country without it spreading internationally. It's no coincidence that Trotskyism is rejected and laughed at by the vast majority of the world's people who have had any contact with Marxism - it's the preserve of privileged people in the imperialist countries, so much wiser and more special than their counterparts in the neo-colonies with their backward ideas.

The Chinese revolution failed, like every other revolution to this point. Most revolutions fail even to seize state power, and nowhere has it been successfully held against the threat of counter-revolution afterwards. But the Chinese experience, and in particular the GPCR, offers a rich set of lessons for revolutionaries to learn from around the world, and around the world that is exactly what's happening, particularly in the revolutions emerging right now in South Asia.

From this moment until the very last moments of capitalism, as revolution finally sweeps the globe, there will continue to be Trots like Dave and Lenina quoting from their religious textbooks and doing imperialism's job for it by attacking revolutionary movements from the 'left'. As revolutions struggle for power in Nepal and India, and in other countries across the globe, they need an internationalist communist movement that can extend them political and material support. But this, tragically, will not happen. Why? Because throughout the First World, what little in the way of a communist movement that exists is dominated by Trotskyist groups, who for all their talk of the importance of international revolution are for the most part not doing their fucking jobs. They prefer to denounce from afar, rather than try to build solidarity, and it's made the international situation far more difficult than it has to be.

This will change. As the 21st century revolutions happen, either in Nepal and India or somewhere else (these revolutions may well be defeated), as imperialism suffers defeats around the world, a new communist movement will emerge in response to this and I am hopeful and confident that it will not have anything to do with the kind of sectarian, dogmatic, imperialist running dog bullshit that sums up most of the Trotskyist movement today.

/endrant

Saorsa

17th June 2010, 00:22

Mao made tremendous blunders.

All human beings make blunders. Of course, it's typical that a Trot like you would subscribe to the Robert Conquest view of history and believe the lies told about what Mao's blunders were and how much damage they did.

We could debate their historical context but the fact is these "campaigns" were all disasters for China.

Lolz, who needs evidence? A Western Trotskyist, who must know so much about China, says it's a fact!

Korean War intervention, 100 Flowers Campaign, Great Leap Forward, the GPCR.All represented setbacks for China.

This is bizarre. The only thing in that list that possibly represented a setback in any way is the Great Leap Forward, and as I've pointed out you're just swallowing and spreading imperialist lies about that anyway. The Korean War intervention was one of the greatest acts of internationalism in history- China sent its sons and daughters to die in the fields of a foreign country in defence of that country's revolution and in opposition to the US invasion. If not for China, the DPRK would have been conquered. Is that what you'd have liked to see?

Most Marxists think Mao's opportunist treatment of the dialectic was bizarre, to say the least.

That's not true either. I'm a member of a party that is made up of both Trots and Maoists, and the man in charge of our educational program is from the Trotskyist tradition. We study On Contradiction and On Practice to help new members understand dialectics, and it works. I'm not going to debate this any further as it might attract Rosa <__<

Arguably the best thing Mao did for China was in 1976.

Well fuck you.

Lyev

17th June 2010, 14:05

I would just like to comment CA, that just because someone isn't Maoist doesn't mean they can't criticize "your" revolutionary movement. Other leftists are allowed to criticize other revolutions. This sums it up rather well:
"self-criticism, remorseless, cruel, and going to the core of things is the life’s breath and light of the proletarian movement."I think your point about "religious" Trots is quite frankly ridiculous. To say that Trotskyists are inactive is quite annoying too. You say that we're not trying build "international solidarity", but, in fact, at the last branch meeting I went to (of a Trotskyist organisation) I found out about two comrades who are traveling to a small Indian city of about 9 million people in the summer. I can't remember the name of the city but they're traveling their to help build up the Indian section the CWI. But what would you have them do Alastair? This was a nice discussion until you had to drag the "lazy Trotskyist" cliché up and make things all sectarian. What's the point? As I have said, just because we're Trotskyists doesn't mean we can't comment on and analyse other revolutions. Anyway, as regards your actual points themselves, I am trying to find my book on Mao at the moment, which I will read the relevant parts of, then get back to you.

Barry Lyndon

17th June 2010, 14:30

To say that Trotskyists are inactive is quite annoying too. You say that we're not trying build "international solidarity", but, in fact, at the last branch meeting I went to (of a Trotskyist organisation) I found out about two comrades who are traveling to a small Indian city of about 9 million people in the summer. I can't remember the name of the city but they're traveling their to help build up the Indian section the CWI. But what would you have them do Alastair? This was a nice discussion until you had to drag the "lazy Trotskyist" cliché up and make things all sectarian. What's the point? As I have said, just because we're Trotskyists doesn't mean we can't comment on and analyse other revolutions. Anyway, as regards your actual points themselves, I am trying to find my book on Mao at the moment, which I will read the relevant parts of, then get back to you.

Speaking as a former Trot myself, it is not a cliche to say that many if not most Trots in my experience are exactly as Alastair described- detail obsessed, incredibly dogmatic and ultra-sectarian, constantly hair-splitting and declaring themselves the only 'true Marxists' and denouncing everyone who doesn't agree with them 100% on everything, including other Trots. Granted, this is a problem with the radical left in the US in general which is almost totally cut off from the working class, but many Trotskyists have elevated this behavior to an art form, less interested in building an actual working class party then in debating whether the Soviet Union was a 'degenerated workers state' or 'state capitalist', something that 99.999999999% of workers couldn't give a shit about.

So you can give an anecdote here and there about some individual Trotskyists at one meeting engaging in international solidarity, but that still doesn't change the fact that Trotskyists in the US and the world in general are not leading any major revolutionary movements in the world today nor have they anywhere really since Trotsky's death. And this is because Trotskyism, in practice, is pretty much an intellectual tendency, not a mass political tendency.

None of this is an indictment of Trotsky himself, who I still consider one of the greatest revolutionaries of the 20th century, but rather this tendency to treat everything he said and wrote like religious texts that can't be deviated from.

Lenina Rosenweg

17th June 2010, 15:22

The organization I am in (SA/CWI) is in political solidarity w/organizations in many developing countries including Palestine, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bolivia,Hong Kong, and South Africa. This is extensive discussion of and solidarity work with struggles in these countries. My criticisms of Maoism were not those of a "bench warmer" but of someone who has an active interest in and has been a participant in this.

I've lived in the PRC for several years. I've heard many first hand horror stories of the havoc wreaked by the GLR and the CR. Yes, I have friends in India (Muslim and Hindu) who were caught up in communal violence there and I know there are horrors elsewhere, that's why I'm a Marxist. There were undoubted gains after Jiefang in China.Compare the literacy rates of India and China today. The disasters in China though can be directly attributable to the "hair brained schemes" of Mao Zedong.

If the GPCR was truly a Maoist struglge for socialism, why did Mao himself use the army to wind it down? Why did Mao crush the Shanghai Commune?

BTW CA, Thanks for taking down the icepick photos. My comment about "the bset thing Mao did was in 1976" was inappropriate. I just think we need a different theoritical orientation for the struggles developing in the next period to be successful.

Uppercut

17th June 2010, 16:52

I've lived in the PRC for several years. I've heard many first hand horror stories of the havoc wreaked by the GLR and the CR.

The "The Chinese say it themselves so it must be true," method is not exactly the best approach to take pertaining to the Mao years.

For example, The Private Life of Chairman Mao was supposedly written by Mao's personal physician, Li Zhisui. However, Li's memoirs were not based on original records or personal diaries. All his original diaries were burned by himself during the Cultural Revolution. Instead, the book is based on restructured memories, which might 'be wrong' and 'fallible' as Li's collaborator, Anne F. Thurston, later had to admit.

The English version is acknowledged to be translated by Professor Tai Hung-chao while the Chinese version is acknowledged to be translated by Li himself. According to Tai, it was Random House the publisher who wanted to add more 'juicy bits' such as Mao's sex life to the book, to attract a larger readership.

Li Zhisui (1996), in a ltter that appeared posthumously, admitted that the Chinese edition was not his original Chinese version but a translation from English and that substantial parts of the original Chinese manuscript were cut by Thurston.

Yes, I have friends in India (Muslim and Hindu) who were caught up in communal violence

And I've spoken to foreign exchange students who have had family members partake in the GPCR. They still speak favorably of Mao and criticize the current Chinese leadership for their unfair labor policies.

But even pertaining to India, the wide number of people's committees in the liberated zones, as well as the number of improvements the rebels have brought to villages is something to acknowledge.

If the GPCR was truly a Maoist struglge for socialism, why did Mao himself use the army to wind it down? Why did Mao crush the Shanghai Commune?

There were two lines of thought pertaining to the GPCR. Liu's line of thought saw the problem organizationally as CCP grassroots corruption by elements from outside the party. The Mao line, however, saw the problem as being ideologically inside the party. Liu was of the idea that th ecadres at grassroots level in rural China were either bribed by the former landlords or corrupted by capitalist thoughts of pleasure. Therefor measures had to be taken to uncover the embezzling and corrupted cadres. Moreover, these measures should be imposed from top to bottom and from outside forces organizationally. The Mao line of thought was the majority of the grassroots cadres were either innocent or just following policies from above. He thought that the majority of grassroots cadres should not the targets of struggle and that parachuting in so many people from the outside to one place to carry out struggle was politically wrong and technically impossible.

However, to carry out the struggle against grassroots cadres, Liu sent work teams totaling 15,000 people from outside into the count of Xinchen which had a population of less than 300,000. The work teams then started to strike against the broad sector of the masses of old categories of class enemies, seeing them as counter-revolutionary or siding with class enemies' ideas. A local sector of the PLA was required in order to protect the people from Liu's work teams. Mao was left with no other choice in this situation. The main idea behind the GPCR was that the fundamental solution had to come from changes of values and beliefs, and those changes required a cultural revolution.

And the Shanghai commune was not "crushed" it was simply replaced by a more substantial model of revolutionary organization while China was still surrounded by capitalist nations. Antagonistic contradictions still existed both within and outside China.

Lyev

17th June 2010, 17:09

RED DAVE

20th June 2010, 19:34

These accusations against Trotskyism and Trotskyist organisation, which I think are totally reasonable in some cases, can be discussed on another thread. But anyway, now let's veer the discussion away from a sectarian pissing-contest, and back onto the original topic: the credibility of the Chinese revolution, Maoist tactics and examining how the Thermidor effect in China, the capitalist restoration, has unfolded the way it has, in relation to such theories as New Democracy and the Bloc of Four Classes.Veer away.

Another point I would like to bring up is one regarding how western Marxists, living in the developed first world, look at and examine revolutionary movements in third world countries, e.g, Nepal, India, Philippines etc.Bring it up.

I think the way (relatively) rich westerners approach revolution in the third world can often be quite patronising and insulting.That's a pretty strange thing for a Marxist to say. Marxists, East or West, are supposed to approach revolutions, in the third world, second world or first world from the the point of view of the working class. That neither patronizing nor insulting.

I don't think, with a movement like that in Nepal or India, it's my place to basically tell people, who are living in abject poverty, with next to no workers' rights, in the neocolonial world, that they're basically doing their revolution wrong.Comrade, we are Marxists, not liberals. Our responsibility is to express and explain our politics and engage in revolutionary criticism. It is precisely because of the oppression in countries like Nepal that we have an obligation to offer our criticism.

As I have mentioned, revolutionary Marxism is not a pre-packaged formula. It's not a rigid dogma, or at least shouldn't be.Okay. Let's see where this is going.

We are materialists and it just so happens that the material conditions in places like India and China lead themselves to a focus on the peasantry.As wrong as can be. Historical materialism teaches up that the peasantry, no matter how oppressed, can never be the leading class of a revolution. [i]Only the working class can lead a revolution against oppression in the third world or anywhere else.

But even Russia, too, had a proletarian population of roughly 11%. If I recall correctly, the proletarian population of India is actually 12%, while in Nepal it is 6%.And the bourgeoisie of Nepal is even smaller. But it is leading the country even as we speak.

And, as I have said, with the right, level-headed approach these movements can succeed; as long as the peasantry aren't actually substituted for the proletarian, because of course they are only the class in the position to overthrow the bourgeoisie, these revolutions are on the right track.The problem with Maoism is not substituting the peasantry for the working class, but with substituting the party and the state bureacracy for the working class.

That's just a fundamental of Marxism.Sure the necessity of the working class leading the revolution is fundamental. But one this is obvious about Maoism is that this fundamental is only given lip service. Hence, the block of four classes as opposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Hence New Democracy, which is state capitalism, instead of a workers and peasants government and fight for socialism.

Anyway, that's a bit off-point, although it does partly link into "New Democracy", because of an alliance of classes, but once I have read a bit about the actual history of the Chinese revolution itself, then I will try and comment more in-depth.Your remarks have been very much on point.

RED DAVE

Barry Lyndon

20th June 2010, 23:59

Veer away.

Bring it up.

That's a pretty strange thing for a Marxist to say. Marxists, East or West, are supposed to approach revolutions, in the third world, second world or first world from the the point of view of the working class. That neither patronizing nor insulting.

Comrade, we are Marxists, not liberals. Our responsibility is to express and explain our politics and engage in revolutionary criticism. It is precisely because of the oppression in countries like Nepal that we have an obligation to offer our criticism.

Okay. Let's see where this is going.

As wrong as can be. Historical materialism teaches up that the peasantry, no matter how oppressed, can never be the leading class of a revolution. [i]Only the working class can lead a revolution against oppression in the third world or anywhere else.

And the bourgeoisie of Nepal is even smaller. But it is leading the country even as we speak.

The problem with Maoism is not substituting the peasantry for the working class, but with substituting the party and the state bureacracy for the working class.

Sure the necessity of the working class leading the revolution is fundamental. But one this is obvious about Maoism is that this fundamental is only given lip service. Hence, the block of four classes as opposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Hence New Democracy, which is state capitalism, instead of a workers and peasants government and fight for socialism.

Your remarks have been very much on point.

RED DAVE

It is patronizing and insulting when you presume that you and your political tendency's point of view is synonymous with that of 'the working class'(as if there isn't a plurality of views).

Stories of 'oppression' from the reactionary anti-communist media which you dutifully parrot because you can use them as a weapon in your sectarian feces throwing contests.

So, because only the working class can lead a 'real' revolution, the people of Nepal should do what? The people of China and Vietnam and Cuba should have done what? Continued to rot and suffer and die under feudalism and colonial pillage? What is your alternative for people in the semi-industrialized, mostly agrarian societies, beyond rhetorical flourishes and pompous polemics?

Also, Russia was at best semi-industrialized in 1917, and yet you consider it a legitimate revolution. Why the double standard? Yes, I know it was initially a working class revolt, but it was only consolidated after vicious battles against the reactionary elements in the peasantry, which began under Lenin and ended disastrously under Stalin.

With regards to the 'Bloc of Four Classes'-Again, you are taking a temporary strategy used by Mao when the Communists were relatively weak in the 1930's, and using it to smear the entire revolutionary process. We are talking about a roughly 50-year old period, which had many zig zags, twists and turns. That's what happens when revolutionaries aspire to actually take power, and not simply wax romantic about it in academic seminars. Lenin and Trotsky did many of the same things, but I don't see you dragging out the Brest-Livstok Treaty over and over again. Hell, Trotsky was not even a Bolshevik until 1917.

Saorsa

21st June 2010, 00:54

Excellent post BL. Said everything I would have said myself.

Yes, I know it was initially a working class revolt, but it was only consolidated after vicious battles against the reactionary elements in the peasantry, which began under Lenin and ended disastrously under Stalin.

My only disagreement would be with this. The civil war between the poor peasants allied with the workers and the kulaks, with the revolutionary government backing the former and opposing the latter, ended succesfully with a victory for the masses. Collectivisation was achieved despite the resistance of the rich peasants and exploiters, and while I think many aspects of the campaign were flawed, there was no historical precedent to learn from. All things considered it could have gone a lot worse.

Lyev

21st June 2010, 15:32

Veer away.

Bring it up.

That's a pretty strange thing for a Marxist to say. Marxists, East or West, are supposed to approach revolutions, in the third world, second world or first world from the the point of view of the working class. That neither patronizing nor insulting.Sorry, sometimes I find it hard to articulate precisely what I am thinking. First off, let's just presume, obviously, that everyone here approaches analysis of revolution from a working class, Marxist POV. What I was trying to get across is that I wouldn't feel very comfortable or welcome at all going to Nepal right this second and telling Prachanda that he should reinvent all his theories and tactics. Whilst, I do have legitimate criticism of the revolutionary movement in Nepal and the UCPN-M -- like entering into coalition with the NCP and CPN-UML -- I just don't feel that it's appropriate to go to Nepal, or India, the Philippines, Venezuela etc. to tell them that their socialism is not the "true" socialism or whatever.
Comrade, we are Marxists, not liberals. Our responsibility is to express and explain our politics and engage in revolutionary criticism. It is precisely because of the oppression in countries like Nepal that we have an obligation to offer our criticism.Like I have mentioned, whilst I do have criticism -- as Marxists, of course we should criticise -- I don't feel it's my business as a westerner from the first world to lecture poverty-stricken, overworked and starved Nepali peasants that they shouldn't follow the UCPN-M.

As wrong as can be. Historical materialism teaches up that the peasantry, no matter how oppressed, can never be the leading class of a revolution. [i]Only the working class can lead a revolution against oppression in the third world or anywhere else.Not once have I said that peasants can lead a successful socialist revolution. My point was simply, with a working class population of roughly 6% and a 81% engaged in "backward agricultural occupation"*, making room in a the movement for the peasantry is quite understandable. In fact, at the start of the people's war, I'd wager that the majority of Prachanda's support came from the rural peasantry. They started they campaign in the mountains, not the cities.
The problem with Maoism is not substituting the peasantry for the working class, but with substituting the party and the state bureacracy for the working class.Could you elaborate a bit more on this? Is there any very specific sources or incidents where this happens? And why is this particularly characteristic of Maoism?

*http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/teach-in-politico-economic-rationale-of-peoples-war-in-nepal/