Leninism/Maoism/New Democracy

[Qayin]

Whats the point of "New Democracy"? Isn't Leninism effectively handle everything needed for development?

It seems to me that the idea of New Democracy is not only liberal because of the class collaboration but a revision of Leninism itself, and this is coming from an Anarchist. To be an anti-revisionist effectively it seems you have to be a Hoxhaist.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As I understand the various "two stage theories" emerged out of the foreign policy needs of the Soviet Union and their bureaucracy over the needs of the working class. This began with the Popular Front in France and then Spain. It was essentially an updated version of the Menshevik theory, the kind of policy Lenin wrote 'the April Thesis" in opposition to.

CPs later used this to put a brake on revolutionary movements in China, Portugal, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Cuba and many other places.

Mao's New Democracy was essentially political opportunism used to justify allying with the Guomindang against the Japanese. This tactic may ave had situational validity to it but it would be absurd to generalize this.

"New Democracy" has not exactly been a sterling success in Nepal or anyplace else.

[Homo Songun]

I recommend going to the source, "On New Democracy (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm)" by Mao Zedong.

By way of introduction though, in the early part of the 20th century, there was an incomplete revolution against feudalism in China, or in Marxist jargon, a "bourgeois-democratic" revolution. (Google May 4th Movement as a jumping off point.) I guess this would be somewhat analogous in a couple different ways to the 1905 revolution in Tsarist Russia. As Marxists, the Chinese CP saw this as the first of two stages towards a transition to socialism. But, according to the Leninist view, since the bourgeoisie were not capable of their historic tasks in the era of imperialism (for a variety of reasons), it fell to the proletariat (with the CCP at the helm, natch) to complete these tasks:


The Chinese proletariat rapidly became an awakened and independent political force as a result of [the early stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution] and of the influence of the Russian Revolution. It was the Chinese Communist Party that put forward the slogan "Down with imperialism" and the thoroughgoing programme for the whole bourgeois-democratic revolution, and it was the Chinese Communist Party alone that carried out the Agrarian Revolution.On this view, which is Mao's, if there is "class collaboration" in New Democracy, then it is certainly in the interest of the toilers at the expense of the bosses:


The first step or stage in our revolution [ie, New Democracy] is definitely not, and cannot be, the establishment of a capitalist society under the dictatorship of the Chinese bourgeoisie, but will result in the establishment of a new-democratic society under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes of China headed by the Chinese proletariat The revolution will then be carried forward to the second stage, in which a socialist society will be established in China.And on the petit-bourgeoisie's role:


[T]he intelligentsia and other sections of the petty bourgeoisie in China have become a mighty independent political force under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.Clearly then, what the Chinese were talking about, and put into practice was, at bottom, an orthodox Leninist "United Front", albeit under the command of the proletariat, a conjucture made possible by the unique circumstances of China as a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country:


Being a bourgeoisie in a colonial and semi-colonial country and oppressed by imperialism, the Chinese national bourgeoisie retains a certain revolutionary quality at certain periods and to a certain degree--even in the era of imperialism--in its opposition to the foreign imperialists and the domestic governments of bureaucrats and warlords (instances of opposition to the latter can be found in the periods of the Revolution of 1911 and the Northern Expedition), and it may ally itself with the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie against such enemies as it is ready to oppose. In this respect the Chinese bourgeoisie differs from the bourgeoisie of old tsarist Russia. Since tsarist Russia was a military-feudal imperialism which carried on aggression against other countries, the Russian bourgeoisie was entirely lacking in revolutionary quality. There, the task of the proletariat was to oppose the bourgeoisie, not to unite with it. But China's national bourgeoisie has a revolutionary quality at certain periods and to a certain degree, because China is a colonial and semi-colonial country which is a victim of aggression. Here, the task of the proletariat is to form a united front with the national bourgeoisie against imperialism and the bureaucrat and warlord governments without overlooking its revolutionary quality. And on why the proletariat must be in command, Mao has this to say:


...being a bourgeois class in a colonial and semi-colonial country and so being extremely flabby economically and politically, the Chinese national bourgeoisie also has another quality, namely, a proneness to conciliation with the enemies of the revolution. Even when it takes part in the revolution, it is unwilling to break with imperialism completely and, moreover, it is closely associated with the exploitation of the rural areas through land rent; thus it is neither willing nor able to overthrow imperialism, and much less the feudal forces, in a thorough way. So neither of the two basic problems or tasks of China's bourgeois-democratic revolution can be solved or accomplished by the national bourgeoisie. At the same time, he takes pains distinguish this "national bourgeoisie" from the "comprador" or "big" bourgeoisie, the class that facilitates imperialist dominance of the colonial world, with which no alliance is possible:


As for China's big bourgeoisie, which is represented by the Kuomintang, all through the long period from 1927 to 1937 it nestled in the arms of the imperialists and formed an alliance with the feudal forces against the revolutionary people. ... In this respect, then, the bourgeoisie in China differs from the earlier bourgeoisie of the European and American countries, and especially of France. When the bourgeoisie in those countries, and especially in France, was still in its revolutionary era, the bourgeois revolution was comparatively thorough, whereas the bourgeoisie in China lacks even this degree of thoroughness. At the time that the Japanese imperialists occupied his country, Mao generalized that there were three basic kinds of states, according to the class in power. These were, bourgeois dictatorships, proletarian dictatorships, and 'joint dictatorships' of multiple revolutionary classes. In the last case, Mao theorized that, being necessarily transitional, such states were the form that successful revolutions in the colonial and semicolonial world would have to assume, where "revolutionary" naturally entails "anti-imperialist" in that particular context.

For more information, including on the political economy of the "New Democratic" type state, just read the article I linked. Mao is very easy to read.

[Homo Songun]

"New Democracy" has not exactly been a sterling success in Nepal or anyplace else.

And in comparison the ballyhooed "transitional program" of the Trotskyists has remained simon pure due to the fortunate ability to remain purely theoretical, and as such, non-falsifiable.

:rolleyes: