State/Private Capitalism [Archive]

RED DAVE

5th December 2010, 15:21

Parties agree to adopt PPP economic model in new statute

he political parties, including the big three, have agreed to adopt Public Private Partnership (PPP) economic model in the new constitution during a meeting of the high-level taskforce formed to resolve the contentious issues pending at various thematic committees in the Constituent Assembly.

Emerging from the meeting that took place at the State Affairs Committee hall, Singha Durbar, Sunday, NC lawmaker Ramesh Lekhak said, "UCPN (Maoist) accepted the proposal put forward by NC and CPN-UML to adopt a new economic policy to bring about an economic development of the country through participation of public, private and co-operative sectors."

Also talking to the media, UCPN (Maoist) lawmaker and member of the taskforce subcommittee, Dev Gurung, informed that parties agreed to allow the state to maintain majority stake in all corporations established under the principle of Public Private Partnership (PPP). This, he said, will ensure that the state won't lose its ownership of the state corporations.

The previous taskforce meeting on Friday had failed to take any decision on the country's economic policy.(emph. added)

http://www.nepalnews.com/main/index.php/news-archive/1-top-story/11287-parties-agree-to-adopt-ppp-economic-model-in-new-statute.html

Note the care that was taken by all parties concerned, especially the Maoists, to insure workers control of the economy in the private and state-owned corporations.

RED DAVE

DaringMehring

6th December 2010, 08:58

Well, that's the New Democracy revolution for you. It's progressive, but it's not socialism.

RED DAVE

6th December 2010, 17:08

Well, that's the New Democracy revolution for you. It's progressive, but it's not socialism.What makes it "progressive"? Are you saying that the establishment of a state/private capitalist regime in Nepal is progressive?

RED DAVE

DaringMehring

6th December 2010, 21:35

Replacing proto-capitalist feudalism with a moderately developed form of capitalism is progressive. The UK today is more socially advanced than the UK in 1500.

RED DAVE

7th December 2010, 04:46

Replacing proto-capitalist feudalism with a moderately developed form of capitalism is progressive. The UK today is more socially advanced than the UK in 1500.And here we see why Maoism leads to capitalism: it's built in.

RED DAVE

red cat

7th December 2010, 05:27

Note the care that was taken by all parties concerned, especially the Maoists, to insure workers control of the economy in the private and state-owned corporations.

RED DAVE

No one has answered my questions here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-controli-t144527/index.html?p=1917323#post1917323) on workers control yet. How are Maoists supposed to know about the implementation of workers control if Trots keep these secrets among themselves ? :crying:

Seriously now, please answer my questions, or it would seem that you use the term "workers control" only to oppose revolutions. I am repeating my questions for your convenience.

What is the structure that allows workers control from top to bottom ? How exactly is it organized from a single factory to the national level ? What are the resultant social conditions ? How does such a society deal with military offensives by capitalist states ?

RED DAVE

7th December 2010, 12:24

No one has answered my questions here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-controli-t144527/index.html?p=1917323#post1917323) on workers control yet. How are Maoists supposed to know about the implementation of workers control if Trots keep these secrets among themselves ? :crying:

Seriously now, please answer my questions, or it would seem that you use the term "workers control" only to oppose revolutions. I am repeating my questions for your convenience.

What is the structure that allows workers control from top to bottom ? How exactly is it organized from a single factory to the national level ? What are the resultant social conditions ? How does such a society deal with military offensives by capitalist states ?I guess,, from the fact that you that you thanked him, that syndicat's answer here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1948982&postcount=56) is satisfactory.

Now, to get back to the central point of this thread: it is obvious that the Maoists in Nepal (and historically in China) never have implemented workers control, and I will go so far as to say they have never been concerned with doing so.

Once a so-called Marxist party gets into a political bloc with the bourgeoisie, which is part of Maoist theory and is being implemented in Nepal right now, they become advocates of capitalism, either state or private.

This is clear.

RED DAVE

Homo Songun

8th December 2010, 02:12

To anyone who may care to verify the nature of any so-called "political bloc with the bourgeoisie" called for in Maoist theory specifically in virtue of it being Maoist theory, they should check out what Mao had to say about it directly (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm). In my estimation, Mao was quite frank about what what sort of cross-class "cooperation" there could exist in a country like China or Nepal, and to what degree, and for what duration.

red cat

8th December 2010, 02:26

I guess,, from the fact that you that you thanked him, that syndicat's answer here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1948982&postcount=56) is satisfactory.

Now, to get back to the central point of this thread: it is obvious that the Maoists in Nepal (and historically in China) never have implemented workers control, and I will go so far as to say they have never been concerned with doing so.

Once a so-called Marxist party gets into a political bloc with the bourgeoisie, which is part of Maoist theory and is being implemented in Nepal right now, they become advocates of capitalism, either state or private.

This is clear.

RED DAVE

To be precise, I think what Syndicat wanted to say in that thread is that workers control cannot be achieved with a Leninist vanguard party in command. If that is the case then there is no further need of painstakingly showing that the UCPN(M) or any other Maoist CP is incapable of achieving the same; the fact that they are Leninist suffices.

The Vegan Marxist

8th December 2010, 04:13

And here we see why Maoism leads to capitalism: it's built in.

RED DAVE

Because they understand to get to Socialism, they need to first transition Nepal - completely - away from feudal conditions towards a capitalist economy - which, in itself, "is a revolutionary step away from feudalism"*?

*Karl Marx

Paulappaul

8th December 2010, 04:18

And insofar, Vegan Marxist, they do a great job at leading the bourgeois revolution!

penguinfoot

8th December 2010, 04:21

Because they understand to get to Socialism, they need to first transition Nepal - completely - away from feudal conditions towards a capitalist economy - which, in itself, "is a revolutionary step away from feudalism"*?

*Karl Marx

Great referencing there, by the way. Care to explain what is feudal about Nepal, and how you can reconcile the proposition that capitalist and feudal societies can co-exist in the same international system with everything that Marx and Lenin have to say about capitalism being an inherently expansionary and destructive mode of production that subverts pre-capitalist social forms and subjects all societies and institutions to its imperatives?

Homo Songun

8th December 2010, 05:58

It goes by the name of dialectics, if I am not mistaken.

IronEastBloc

8th December 2010, 06:07

Great referencing there, by the way. Care to explain what is feudal about Nepal

dude, it was an absolute monarchy ruled by a self-declared "god-king" and "reincarnation of vishnu" less than 5 years ago.

penguinfoot

8th December 2010, 06:30

dude, it was an absolute monarchy ruled by a self-declared "god-king" and "reincarnation of vishnu" less than 5 years ago.

Why are those features of Nepal's political institutions signs that Nepal is a feudal society, i.e. that the relations of production are something other than capitalist?

The Vegan Marxist

8th December 2010, 08:18

Why are those features of Nepal's political institutions signs that Nepal is a feudal society, i.e. that the relations of production are something other than capitalist?

Once any revolutionary change in govt. holdings takes place, whether it be a Bourgeois body taking over a once-known Monarchy, or a Proletarian body taking over a once-known Bourgeois State, each new body of governance is inheriting a society where it's mode of production is still intact the way it was before. It is up to that new body of governance to build it up towards whatever interests the new State abides by. Just because the Monarchy was overthrown doesn't mean the mode of production has made a full transition yet. This is why it took so long for the Bolshevik Party to implement Socialism in Russia after the abolition of the Bourgeois State and the development of the Proletarian State.

The Vegan Marxist

8th December 2010, 08:24

And insofar, Vegan Marxist, they do a great job at leading the bourgeois revolution!

Even if so, should we show opposition to it? Or recognize it as a revolutionary act - in which it is - from past oppressive holdings? I'd rather have a bourgeois State be led where the ruling party are under the interest of the working class, making the transition from capitalism to socialism a lot easier for said working class. Something along the lines of like Venezuela.

penguinfoot

8th December 2010, 13:34

Once any revolutionary change in govt. holdings takes place

You don't seem to understand the concept of a social revolution, especially in terms of the transition from feudalism to capitalism. A social revolution is a change in the relations of economic power, in that it involves changes in the control exercised by the producers over both their own labour power and the non-labour means of production. The transition from feudalism to capitalism occurred in such a way that capitalist relations of production were able to emerge within the broader structure of feudal society, especially through the emergence of commerce outside the confines of the guild system (at least as far as the history of capitalism in Europe is concerned) and the development of overseas trade, these changes being analyzed extensively by Marx in The German Ideology, and what this meant was that where and when political revolutions led by the bourgeoisie occurred, their role was not to create the basis for capitalist accumulation or bourgeois class rule out of nothing, but to remove the last remaining restrictions on capitalist accumulation, in order that the bourgeoisie might be able to extend its class rule, this class rule being already established to a significant degree through the growing power of the bourgeoisie in the economic sphere, even whilst the political rule of the bourgeoisie had not yet been confirmed.

In some cases, such as France, the bourgeois revolution occurred through insurrection and the toppling of the state apparatus, with the bourgeoisie (which could not exist, unless capitalist relations of production were already in existence before the bourgeois political revolution!) being situated at the top of a broad coalition of class interests, ranged against the aristocracy and its supporters, but elsewhere a similar revolutionary process was able to take place in a more protracted manner, without the overthrow of existing institutions, as the political institutions that had once served to enforce the interests of feudal elites came to act as supporters of capitalist accumulation, carrying out reforms over an extended period of time, as Marx himself highlights in the final chapters of Capital vol. 1. It is for this reason that there is no necessary contradiction between the full development of capitalism and the continued existence of monarchies and other autocratic or aristocratic forms of political rule, and that monarchies have been able to preside over the elimination of feudal remnants, as in the case of Britain, where constitutional monarchy remains in place to this day, or in Russia, where autocracy was much more unrestrained than in Britain, and where the autocracy was itself the main force responsible for capitalist development.

Your flaw, which Luxemburg identified in the revisionists over a century ago, and which Marx also subjects to intense criticism in his Critique of the Gotha Program, is to assume that there is some inherent link between capitalism and bourgeois democracy, or, for that matter, any particular form of state apparatus, and that the overthrow of a monarchy (therefore) entails the overthrow of feudalism, rather than a change in political institutions (as opposed to social relations) only. This totally ignores the role of monarchial governments in supporting capitalist accumulation, and it also ignores the fact that when, in France, the bourgeois revolution did take place through insurrection and come close to challenging bourgeois class interests when the Jacobins were influential, the ultimate conclusion of that historical process was for the bourgeoisie to turn to the restoration of monarchy and autocracy, under Napoleon Bonaparte, and then subsequently under Louis Napoleon, because monarchy and autocracy represented the only means by which their class interests could be protected, even if it meant making concessions in terms of their political influence. It would, of course, be absurd to say that, when monarchy was restored in France, feudalism was restored along with it.

I would advise you skim through The German Ideology.

EDIT: If you don't want to deal with any of the above - which is likely, as you're one of the most simple-minded people on this forum - let me ask you this - would you say that Saudi Arabia is a feudal society, on the grounds that it is an absolute monarchy? Or, to look at the same issue from the opposite angle, would you say that India - a country that Maoists frequently argue is feudal - is capitalist, given that, in appearances at least, it is a parliamentary democracy? What about China during the Nanjing Decade, when the government was a party-state rather than a monarchy, and when Mao saw China's social relations as being essentially or partly feudal?

or a Proletarian body taking over a once-known Bourgeois State,

The working class (what is "a Proletarian body" and why do you capitalize seemingly at random?) cannot simply take over the bourgeois state, however, it must smash the bourgeois state apparatus, whatever particular form - parliamentary democracy, monarchy - that state apparatus takes.

jujhar

8th December 2010, 14:21

In all this discussion there seems to an assumption that as UCPN (Maoist) or CPN(M) calls themself communist, so they must be communist and must in some way represent the working class. In reality none of these party has anything to do with working class - they are only as much workers parties as CP in China. Also, why is PPN progressive? Many highways and many airports in India are being built under PPP - the airport in Kolkatta is in fact fully 'public'. There don't seem to be much progressive in it.

In my view it is not correct to look for anything progressive in what is happening in Nepal. Let us recall that the 7 party alliance that removed the king was cobbled with the effort of Indian state (no paragon of progressive). This time China wanted to keep the king, at other occasions India supported the king. What has happened in Nepal is essentially a 'regime change' as the old regime was not able to assure smooth functioning of a system of exploitation and oppressions.

S.Artesian

8th December 2010, 16:24

It goes by the name of dialectics, if I am not mistaken.

If it goes by the name of dialectics, then you need to demonstrate the dialectic-- how each is organized in the other; how each reproduces the other; how one transcends and abolishes the other by transcending and abolishing the limitations, the determinations imposed by that other.

Using "dialectics" like some magic wand doesn't turn bullshit into roast beef.

So if you want to discuss the actual components of uneven and combined development in Nepal, let's do so. I certainly would like to know more about that. But if you don't know what that uneven and combined development is, then don't try to mask your ignorance with the label "dialectics."

S.Artesian

8th December 2010, 16:27

dude, it was an absolute monarchy ruled by a self-declared "god-king" and "reincarnation of vishnu" less than 5 years ago.

So? Japan had, and has, an emperor, supposedly the living descendant of a god.

What classes are operating? How is labor organized? How is accumulation changing? You know, all those simple things that Marx looked at .

RED DAVE

8th December 2010, 18:11

Even if so, should we show opposition to it? Or recognize it as a revolutionary act - in which it is - from past oppressive holdings?As is mentioned by penguinfoot, you are confusing the form of the bourgeois state in Nepal, which could be monarchical or bourgeois democratic, with the fact of capitalism in Nepal. Both before and after the presence of the monarchy, capitalist economic relations prevailed in Nepal in the cities and in the countryside. This has not changed. And there is nothing in the current actions of the UCPN(M) which is intended to change this.

I'd rather have a bourgeois State be led where the ruling party are under the interest of the working class, making the transition from capitalism to socialism a lot easier for said working class.I'll be you would, but what kind of Marxist does that make you?

What you are saying is that you support liberal capitalism over conservative capitalism. But, in any event, you are supporting capitalism.

There is no such thing as "a bourgeois State be led where the ruling party are under the interest of the working class." The "interest of the working class" is the overthrow of bourgeois property relations and the overthrow of the bourgeois state.

Again and again, it is clear that what Maoism is, essentially, is a cover for capitalism in third world countries. Maoism led to capitalism in China and in Vietnam as Stalinism led to capitalism in Russian.

RED DAVE

Homo Songun

8th December 2010, 18:46

Every single question in this thread has been asked before. There ought to be a "FAQs about the Nepalese Revolution" sticky thread where hostile Trots can sharpen up their criticism of the Nepalese Maoists so we don't have to have the same boring conversations over and over.

The UCPN(M) says that Nepal is "semi-feudal and semi-colonial", dominated by bureaucratic and foreign capitalist elements.

Serfdom -- that is to say, inheritable bondage to the land -- was legal in Nepal until 2008. By way of comparison, Russia legally abolished serfdom in 1861, Tibet 1959, England 1574, Scotland 1799, Austria 1848 I believe. Of course, these kinds of laws are just reflections of what is happening in the in foundations of the society in question, subject to some degree of distortion.

If people want to argue that there is some single tipping point globally whereby every particular and local manifestation of some social phenomenon (feudalism) is effectively transformed into its negation, then they are going to have to argue the case for it.

What the Nepalese Maoists are arguing for is actually much more modest than that; they are making a certain claim about the area in which they work, subject to certain qualifications and in dynamic tension with certain contradictory properties.

As an aside, absolutist monarchies historically tend to be associated with the capitalist mode of production. Arguably, this strengthens the idea that Nepal is a feudal backwater, since whenever absolutist monarchies do appear it tends to be very early in the development of capitalism, when the bourgeoisie is consolidating at the expense of the feudal forces.

S.Artesian

8th December 2010, 21:19

I'd rather have a bourgeois State be led where the ruling party are under the interest of the working class, making the transition from capitalism to socialism a lot easier for said working class. Something along the lines of like Venezuela.

Or like Spain in 1936, or like Bolivia under the MNR 1952-1964, or like Chile under the Unidad Popular 1973, or like Nicaragua under Ortega [the first time], or like Greece under the socialists, or like South Africa under the ANC, or like ______________________ [you get to fill in the blank with your favorite failure ].

Do us a favor, as they say in the UK.

Let's talk Marxism-- like the economic relations of production; like how land and labor is currently organized and whether that organization is sustainable; like the supposed "dialectic" between capitalist and feudal economies.

And if you don't want to talk about that, just say so, and I leave to your ignorance.

penguinfoot

9th December 2010, 00:13

The UCPN(M) says that Nepal is "semi-feudal and semi-colonial",

The Maoists are wrong, and so are you. In Nepal, commodity production, which Marx views to be the defining feature of capitalism, as opposed to production for use, prevails - production is conducted for exchange rather than for immediate use by the products, the inputs that go into the production process are themselves commodities, production takes place through the investment of bundles of exchange values, such that it involves the accumulation of capital, Nepal is locked into the world market, and labour power is, in the main, freely alienable, even though it is not necessary for all labour power to be totally and permanently alienable in order for a society to be capitalist. There are really no social forms in Nepal that give us reason to consider it anything but capitalist, so long as you have a Marxist understanding of what feudal and capitalist modes of production involve. This doesn't mean that feudalism was abolished all at one point, it means recognizing that capitalism is an inherently expansionary force in a way that previous modes of production are not, in that, when capitalism was able to establish itself within a single country or within a small number of countries, it was only a matter of time before the pressures of the accumulation process led to the capitalists of those initial zones seeking to locate new opportunities for accumulation, which meant violently introducing capitalist production into societies that had previously been based on production for use, either through the literal destruction of pre-capitalist social forms, or through the effects of overseas trade, which forced those societies to accommodate themselves to the imperatives of the world market. If you deny that capitalism has this expansionary character, you are presenting a liberal view of capitalism that presents it as a benign social system that can be contained within given limits and which does not subject all societies and social forms to its imperatives.

The fact that Nepal might have still had laws protecting serfdom until recently is hardly evidence that Nepal is feudal, not only because the continued existence of serfdom and slavery on large scales is perfectly compatible with capitalism - what matters is commodity production and capital accumulation, along with the other features I outlined above, and Marx recognized this by making clear that the American South was a capitalist society, despite almost all of its producers being slaves - but also because the existence of those laws suggests absolutely nothing about the extent of serfdom, just as the fact that slavery is prohibited in China and other countries does not mean that slavery does not actually take place in those countries (it does).

dominated by bureaucratic and foreign capitalist elements.

Putting aside the problems with this reactionary formulation, it is pretty ironic that the Maoists are still seeking to attract foreign investment if they think that Nepal is oppressed primarily or largely by foreign capital.

Homo Songun

9th December 2010, 02:37

The UCPN(M) says that Nepal is "semi-feudal and semi-colonial"The Maoists are wrong, and so are youThis doesn't make any sense. The Maoists can be wrong in saying that Nepal is semi-feudal and semi-colonial, or, conversely, I can be wrong in saying that the Maoists say that Nepal is semi-feudal and semi-colonial, but it cannot be the case that the Maoists are wrong in saying that Nepal is semi-feudal and semi-colonial, but at the same time I am wrong in saying that the Maoists say that Nepal is semi-feudal and semi-colonial. Surely it violates the Law of Identity in claiming that A does not equal A?

As to the rest of your post, based on the apparent position you seem to be arguing against, I think the problem is that you do not understand the actual meanings of terms like 'semi-feudal', at least as they relate to Maoist theory. For example, there is the fact that you keep trying to counterpoise the expansionary nature of capital as some kind of stumbling block that Maoist theory must somehow overcome. But in reality, Maoists use the same expansion of capital as the fundamental starting point of their theories (http://www.scribd.com/doc/35825801/21/I-A-SEMICOLONIAL-AND-SEMIFEUDAL-SOCIETY).

Naturally, its your choice to read up or not on what you are attacking, but don't expect to make a lot of sense if you don't.

penguinfoot

9th December 2010, 02:59

I can be wrong in saying that the Maoists say that Nepal is semi-feudal and semi-colonial

When I said you were wrong, I meant you were wrong because you appear to share the Maoist position that Nepal is semi-feudal and semi-colonial. I think this was clear, but it's not important.

I think the problem is that you do not understand the actual meanings of terms like 'semi-feudal', at least as they relate to Maoist theory

I would question whether it's really possible to speak of "Maoist theory", because the idea of a theory presumes some level of coherence between different stands of a theorist's thought as well as some level of articulation and complexity - that is the difference between an interesting or valid proposition and an actual theoretical development. Despite his voluminous textual output, together with his speeches, across the whole of his political activity, it is difficult to find any areas where Mao can be said to have made genuine theoretical innovations, on the same scale as Lenin's theory of imperialism, and it is also questionable as to whether he had a stable set of theoretical premises, because whilst there are certain motifs and notions that are prominent in Mao's work, both in his later work as well as in his rural surveys, such as his Report from Xunwu, and whilst some of these motifs and notions also appear in the essays that were put out by the CPC as part of the Sino-Soviet split, Mao never gave them substance or real content - he never actually explained the meanings of terms like revisionism, social-imperialism, and above all semi-feudalism, and so it is difficult to treat them as anything more than slogans.

You can compare Mao's lack of theoretical articulation in these areas with, say, Trotsky's concept of combined and uneven development, which, whilst not comprising the entirety of his thought, was articulated and explained in detail by Trotsky, both specifically in relation to Russia and on a more theoretical or abstract level. If you think otherwise, that is, if you think that Mao does lend real content to these concepts in a way that makes them effective as tools of analysis and strategy, then you can point me towards the essays where Mao explains (in detail) why semi-feudalism was an appropriate description for China in the 1920s and 30s, as well as what that concept means in the abstract, or where he explains how the restoration of capitalism was able to come about in the USSR. He certainly doesn't explain the meaning or justify the use of semi-feudalism in his Report from Xunwu, which is, as far as I'm aware, his single longest work, and the work for which he is arguably most famous.

EDIT: Thank you for linking to that document (although for some reason I can't read beyond page 40). Unfortunately, it confirms what I said above, namely that Mao and Maoism suffer from theoretical impoverishment because terms like semi-feudalism are left without real content. The author argues in 2.1 that "the semifeudal character of Philippine society is principally determined by the impingement of U.S. monopoly capitalism on the old feudal mode of production" - but at no point in that section do they actually explain what is meant by the feudal mode of production, or how modes of production should generally be distinguished from one another at a theoretical level, or how the concept of feudalism, having been developed to account for the social relations of European societies in the Middle Ages, can account for a society with such a radically different history as the Philippines, or, for that matter China, where land has historically been alienable and where a taxation system based solely on monetary transfers as opposed to labour obligations or payment in kind was introduced in the late 16th century, whilst corvee labour was still present in Europe.

The author goes on to argue that "the concrete result" of the semi-feudal character of Philippine society is "the erosion and dissolution of a natural economy of self-sufficiency in favor of a commodity economy" - the assumption here being firstly that the Philippines was in some way self-sufficient before the advent of US imperialism and that it is possible for a society to regain self-sufficiency through a National Democratic revolution, both of these being highly questionable assumptions, and secondly that it is possible for an economy to be both centered around commodity production, that is, production for exchange rather than immediate use, and remain something other than capitalist, despite the fact that Marx's most elementary definition of capitalism as presented on the very first page of Capital is that it is a mode of production under which wealth assumes the form of commodities.

Having suggested that semi-feudalism signifies or is compatible with the introduction of commodity production, the author also states that feudal agriculture exists alongside capitalist farming, the latter being characterized by "the production of a few export crops", without saying anything about the extent of export production, why export production is a sign of capitalism rather than feudalism, or what is feudal about the rest of agriculture if not the absence of commodity production.

Apart from these specific points, the author's general line of argument is that the effect of US imperialism has been to straightforwardly prevent development in the Philippines, which has something in common with dependency theory, and yet a stance of this kind does not fully capture the complex dynamics of imperialist penetration, in that it does not recognize that the effect of imperialism is both to intensify backwardness and also to enable the importation of the most advanced forms of capitalist production, giving rise to the condition of combined and uneven development, which is reflected in the Philippines in the presence of a large manufacturing sector, including automobile production, as well as the complex issue of overseas workers, particularly domestic helpers, which is surely a key part of any real analysis of revolutionary strategy in the Philippines, but one that is not addressed in this document. It is assumptions of this kind that characterize the rest of the document as well, or at least the part of it that I can read, so I don't think you've yet provided evidence that Maoism embodies real theoretical advances or indeed that semi-feudalism is an appropriate description for Nepal today.

Homo Songun

9th December 2010, 06:29

Maoist theory begins here (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm).

penguinfoot

9th December 2010, 06:53

Maoist theory begins here (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm).

I'll take that as evidence that you can't actually point to any real theoretical developments that are distinctly Maoist or defend the view that Nepal is anything other than capitalist.

thÃ¤lmann

9th December 2010, 12:31

red cat

9th December 2010, 12:43

maybe there are progressive elements in the development in nepal. but it has nothing to do with a real democratic revolution, and of course its nothing like a new democratic or nationaldemocratic revolution under leadership of the proletariat. did they smash the semifeudal, pro imperialist state? did they confiscate imperialist, comprador capital? and so on....sorry but the nepalese party has some really serious problems...

The new democratic revolution in Nepal is still incomplete. So the confiscation of feudal property or comprador capital has also been incomplete. The strategy of the UCPN(M) is to subdivide the enemies of the revolution. What used to be the most powerful one among reactionary forces, the monarchy that is, has been eliminated. Now the principal contradiction shall be that between the masses and either the comprador parties or Indian expansionism.

RED DAVE

9th December 2010, 12:56

The new democratic revolution in Nepal is still incomplete.You use the term "new democratic revolution" as if it has some validity in Marxist theory. It has none. The so-called "new democratic revolution" is a Maoist buzzword that covers collaboration with the bourgeoisie to bring about state capitalism and private capitalism. This is what happened in China; this is what's happening in Nepal. The Maoists are collaborating with the bourgeoisie to bring about full-fledged capitalism. This is an anti-Marxist as you can get without being an out-and-out bourgeois.

So the confiscation of feudal propertyWhoa! What feudal property?

Feudalism is an economic system where the production of commodities is for consumption, not sale. This is not the case in Nepal. The overwhelming mode of production in the countryside is commodity production for sale. This is the hallmark of capitalism. Even the fact that there may be some remainder of feudal relations, which would be some form of entailage, does not negate that fact that Nepal is a small-scale capitalist country.

or comprador capital has also been incomplete.If the Maoists are opposed to comprador capitalism, why are they calling for an influx of foregn capital into Nepal under purely capitalist conditions: the exploitation of Nepalese labor and natural resources.

The strategy of the UCPN(M) is to subdivide the enemies of the revolution.This is nonsense. The strategy of the UCPN(M) is to join with wholly capitalist parties to form a capitalist government. This is what they are doing at this moment.

What used to be the most powerful among reactionary forces, the monarchy that is, has been eliminated.Fine. But that is no excuse to get into an alliance with bourgeois parties and become the major force in a bourgeois government.

Now the principal contradiction shall be that between the masses and either the comprador parties or Indian expansionism.Cute that you refer to the comprador parties, which is a cover-up for the fact that the Maoists are engaged in an aliiance with the native capitalist parties.

RED DAVE

red cat

9th December 2010, 13:13

You use the term "new democratic revolution" as if it has some validity in Marxist theory. It has none. The so-called "new democratic revolution" is a Maoist buzzword that covers collaboration with the bourgeoisie to bring about state capitalism and private capitalism. This is what happened in China; this is what's happening in Nepal. The Maoists are collaborating with the bourgeoisie to bring about full-fledged capitalism. This is an anti-Marxist as you can get without being an out-and-out bourgeois.

No, Trotskyites claim that it brings about capitalism. Actually it has succeeded in establishing and maintaining socialism for some time, and it continues to be the guiding theory in many liberated zones of south Asia were the masses have established socialist systems.

Whoa! What feudal property?

Feudalism is an economic system where the production of commodities is for consumption, not sale. This is not the case in Nepal. The overwhelming mode of production in the countryside is commodity production for sale. This is the hallmark of capitalism. Even the fact that there may be some remainder of feudal relations, which would be some form of entailage, does not negate that fact that Nepal is a small-scale capitalist country.

Most of the Nepalese economy is foreign capital acting through local feudal structure.

If the Maoists are opposed to comprador capitalism, why are they calling for an influx of foregn capital into Nepal under purely capitalist conditions: the exploitation of Nepalese labor and natural resources.

They will need to tactically ally with some capitalist bloc in order to survive long enough for other revolutions to take place. They might take help in industrializing Nepal from these blocs. Some profit might be allowed as incentive, but that cannot be compared to the oppression that the Nepalese people had to endure even a few years back.

This is nonsense. The strategy of the UCPN(M) is to join with wholly capitalist parties to form a capitalist government. This is what they are doing at this moment.

No, only that you claim so.

Fine. But that is no excuse to get into an alliance with bourgeois parties and become the major force in a bourgeois government.

The UCPN(M) is not the major force in the government. Despite what election results say, the power that controls the armed forces also controls the government. Therefore alliance of other major parties backed by imperialism had always been more powerful than the UCPN(M).

Cute that you refer to the comprador parties, which is a cover-up for the fact that the Maoists are engaged in an aliiance with the native capitalist parties.

RED DAVE

Yes, it is a tactical alliance. Without that, no revolution is possible today, when no powerful socialist bloc exists.

Thirsty Crow

9th December 2010, 13:25

Yes, it is a tactical alliance. Without that, no revolution is possible today, when no powerful socialist bloc exists.
A socialist bloc consisting of Maoists and native pro-capitalist parties?
Surely you cannot fail to see a paradox here. And surely you cannot fail to see the historical outcome of tactical alliance with the bourgeoisie when it comes to China.

red cat

9th December 2010, 13:31

A socialist bloc consisting of Maoists and native pro-capitalist parties?
Surely you cannot fail to see a paradox here. And surely you cannot fail to see the historical outcome of tactical alliance with the bourgeoisie when it comes to China.

Much before socialism is established in most regions of a country, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie becomes the principal one. The bourgeoisie will not have any substantial representative party when socialism is declared. So, in a socialist bloc, capitalist parties will either not exist, or they will continue to operate for some time as small groupings being continuously attacked by the masses.

The defeat of socialism in China was not due to tactical alliance with the bourgeoisie.

REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL

9th December 2010, 14:29

red cat

9th December 2010, 14:42

Regardless of wheter the Maoists in Nepal represent an actual improvement in conditions for the masses, or just some glossy change of the political system, I think it is evident that they are not "introducing socialism" in the near future. While it is possible to argue that they may wish to introduce it later, at the moment they are clearly a capitalist party, in that they support capitalistic social relations, regardless of wheter they want to be kinder to the working class than other capitalist factions in the Nepal goverment.

Also, in before "you aren't there so you can't judge them"/ "Privileged white kid"
/ "Not offering constructive solutions"/"Rascist"/"Real life is complicated so we can support capitalism sometimes" or any of the other lines of defense that are usually employed in Nepal threads.

The introduction of socialism in Nepal will be gradual. Nepal has not yet completed its new democratic revolution, but that it will slowly move to a socialist path in future ( if the vanguard party is not destroyed ) is very clearly demonstrated by the masses seizing control of land and workplaces, though the latter is happening on a very small scale.

RED DAVE

9th December 2010, 15:01

The introduction of socialism in Nepal will be gradual. Nepal has not yet completed its new democratic revolution, but that it will slowly move to a socialist path in future ( if the vanguard party is not destroyed ) is very clearly demonstrated by the masses seizing control of land and workplaces, though the latter is happening on a very small scale.(emph added)

Congrats. You are entitled to an official membership card in the Second International.

RED DAVE

red cat

9th December 2010, 15:14

(emph added)

Congrats. You are entitled to an official membership card in the Second International.

RED DAVE

How so ? Please explain what my post has to do anything with gaining a membership to any organization.

I also want to know in details about this organization which presently calls itself the Second International. Is it a continuation of the historical Second International ? Are you in charge of handing out membership cards on behalf of this organization ? :confused:

S.Artesian

9th December 2010, 15:34

"Gradualism" was the "program" of Bernstein in the pre-WW1 days of the 2nd Intl, a program that, with Luxemburg doing the heavy lifting, the Intl rejected.

In addition, this entire claptrap of "first a bourgeois democratic revolution, and then socialism" was the mantra of the Mensheviks and others who broke with the Bolsheviks and the left Social Democrats over that simple thing called the proletarian revolution.

Well, Bernstein had the last laugh, obviously, in that if gradualism or "first then, then that" is your program, there's no good reason not to collaborate with the bourgeoisie an not to form governments for, with the bourgeoisie for the maintenance of capitalism in order to protect the "gradual change" to socialism.

Not for nothing did parties of the 2nd Intl find themselves joining hands with parties of the 3rd Intl in "popular fronts" which were nothing but governments arrayed against the revolutionary abolition of capitalism.

So yeah, you've located yourself directly in that tradition of defeat, reversal, and loss for revolution.

You can quote anything and everything you want from the pages of Mao, or Stalin, or whomever. It doesn't matter. The legacy of the practice of Mao, Stalin, etc etc is the collapse of proletarian revolution.

red cat

9th December 2010, 15:46

"Gradualism" was the "program" of Bernstein in the pre-WW1 days of the 2nd Intl, a program that, with Luxemburg doing the heavy lifting, the Intl rejected.

I don't know about this "gradualism" proposed bu Bernstein, but to me it seems that neither the revolutionary war will be won in a single day, nor will the working class be able to learn all the managerial and administrative skills of the bourgeoisie in a moment, not to mention the question of industrialization.

In addition, this entire claptrap of "first a bourgeois democratic revolution, and then socialism" was the mantra of the Mensheviks and others who broke with the Bolsheviks and the left Social Democrats over that simple thing called the proletarian revolution.

A new democratic revolution is quite different from what we commonly mean by a bourgeois democratic revolution. Also, Russia of 1917 and Nepal of 2010 are not quite the same.

Well, Bernstein had the last laugh, obviously, in that if gradualism or "first then, then that" is your program, there's no good reason not to collaborate with the bourgeoisie an not to form governments for, with the bourgeoisie for the maintenance of capitalism in order to protect the "gradual change" to socialism. So, the ruling class will side with the revolution if the revolutionaries, gradually increase the size of the peoples' army and start gaining control of new regions one after the other ?

Not for nothing did parties of the 2nd Intl find themselves joining hands with parties of the 3rd Intl in "popular fronts" which were nothing but governments arrayed against the revolutionary abolition of capitalism.

So yeah, you've located yourself directly in that tradition of defeat, reversal, and loss for revolution.

Too bad for me then :crying: ... though I still don't understand how all these link up to my post. :confused:

You can quote anything and everything you want from the pages of Mao, or Stalin, or whomever. It doesn't matter. The legacy of the practice of Mao, Stalin, etc etc is the collapse of proletarian revolution.

Right. Similarly, the legacy of the practice of Lenin is the rise of Stalin and ultimately the collapse of proletarian revolution.

RED DAVE

9th December 2010, 16:02

Just a quicky.

[T]he legacy of the practice of Lenin is the rise of Stalin and ultimately the collapse of proletarian revolution.It is quite clear, if you study the course of the Russian Revolution from 1917 to, say, 1928, that the rise of Stalin was a result of a counter-revolution. As a result of the civil war and the so-called "Lenin levy," in which all kinds of bureaucrats and careerists and people too chicken-shit to join the party during the revolution were let in, the Bolshevik Party's class nature was changed from a proletarian party to a petit-bourgeois party.

So, red cat, your analogy fails with a simple historic analysis. In the meantime, it is obvious that Maoist leads to capitalism without a peep from the workers (as opposed to the Russian civil war) because in the transition between state capitalism and private capitalism, the working class just gets a new set of bosses.

RED DAVE

S.Artesian

9th December 2010, 16:02

I don't know about this "gradualism" proposed bu Bernstein, but to me it seems that neither the revolutionary war will be won in a single day, nor will the working class be able to learn all the managerial and administrative skills of the bourgeoisie in a moment, not to mention the question of industrialization.

You are either oblivious to the point, or distorting the issue-- which is whether or not the transformation to capitalism to socialism requires: a) independent organization of the working class opposed to the pre-existing state and governing machinery b) overthrow and abolition of the capitalist relations of production, and the organization of large-scale private property in agriculture.

No one says the working class will be able to do everything on day 1, or day 2, but one is saying, the working class and the rural poor will never be able to do anything without answering "a" and "b" above in the affirmative, and in practice.

A new democratic revolution is quite different from what we commonly mean by a bourgeois democratic revolution. Also, Russia of 1917 and Nepal of 2010 are not quite the same. Please explain what new production relations are introduced in the new democratic revolution; how those relations are sustained and expanded; and how those relations themselves will prevent the morphing of the new democracy, or even the socialist "peoples republic" from reverting back or moving forward into direct capitalism.

So, the ruling class will side with the revolution if the revolutionaries, gradually increase the size of the peoples' army and start gaining control of new regions one after the other ?Hasn't worked out that way has it? But that's the logic of your gradual advance of socialism after a new democracy, even a new capitalist democracy, is instituted to transform the "semi-feudal" economy.

Like I said at the beginning, these discussions are pointless unless and until you actually examine the relations of accumulation and reproduction and specifically point how, and who, will change, abolish, overcome that legacy.

Too bad for me then :crying: ... though I still don't understand how all these link up to my post. :confused:Well yes... and no. Too bad for those involved in the struggle who swallow this stuff about new democracy and the gradual move to socialism.

Right. Similarly, the legacy of the practice of Lenin is the rise of Stalin and ultimately the collapse of proletarian revolution.

Exactly. As long as all you do is quote Lenin or Stalin and don't engage materially with what happened in the social relations of production, in the advance and retreat of the proletarian revolution internal to Russia, and internationally, then all you are doing is spouting an ideology to cover the reality of that defeat.

red cat

9th December 2010, 16:13

Just a quicky.

It is quite clear, if you study the course of the Russian Revolution from 1917 to, say, 1928, that the rise of Stalin was a result of a counter-revolution. As a result of the civil war and the so-called "Lenin levy," in which all kinds of bureaucrats and careerists and people too chicken-shit to join the party during the revolution were let in, the Bolshevik Party's class nature was changed from a proletarian party to a petit-bourgeois party.

So, red cat, your analogy fails with a simple historic analysis. In the meantime, it is obvious that Maoist leads to capitalism without a peep from the workers (as opposed to the Russian civil war) because in the transition between state capitalism and private capitalism, the working class just gets a new set of bosses.

RED DAVE

The Stalinist counter revolution thing is not a historical analysis but a one-line assertion. Also, I don't understand that how the working class getting new bosses in the transition between state capitalism and private capitalism obviously implies that Maoism leads to capitalism. Please explain.

red cat

9th December 2010, 16:30

You are either oblivious to the point, or distorting the issue-- which is whether or not the transformation to capitalism to socialism requires: a) independent organization of the working class opposed to the pre-existing state and governing machinery b) overthrow and abolition of the capitalist relations of production, and the organization of large-scale private property in agriculture.

But all that has been already initiated by the UCPN(M) in Nepal.

No one says the working class will be able to do everything on day 1, or day 2, but one is saying, the working class and the rural poor will never be able to do anything without answering "a" and "b" above in the affirmative, and in practice.
Agreed.

Please explain what new production relations are introduced in the new democratic revolution; how those relations are sustained and expanded; and how those relations themselves will prevent the morphing of the new democracy, or even the socialist "peoples republic" from reverting back or moving forward into direct capitalism.I think these have been explained before in other threads. So, in short, the new democratic revolution consists of overthrowal of imperialism, feudalism and comprador capitalism. Land is seized by peasants and big industries by workers. Since the country concerned generally lacks industries, some incentive is given to small businesses, much like the NEP in the USSR, to allow rapid industrialization. This is followed by workers taking control of these industries as they grow and workers learn the managerial and administrative skills of the bourgeoisie.

How a capitalist restoration shall be prevented is a complicated question, and so far no one has been able to achieve and maintain socialism for more than a few decades. However, it is expected that replacing top-down decision making processes with bottom-up ones in every field will solve this problem. This has been implemented to some extent in the ongoing revolutionary movements with success.

Hasn't worked out that way has it? But that's the logic of your gradual advance of socialism after a new democracy, even a new capitalist democracy, is instituted to transform the "semi-feudal" economy.

Like I said at the beginning, these discussions are pointless unless and until you actually examine the relations of accumulation and reproduction and specifically point how, and who, will change, abolish, overcome that legacy. No, Maoists do not expect the ruling classes to side with them because of some gradual change. They at best ally with the various factions of the ruling classes so that the oppressors fight among themselves and weaken each other.

Well yes... and no. Too bad for those involved in the struggle who swallow this stuff about new democracy and the gradual move to socialism. Or may be they realize it through practice.

Exactly. As long as all you do is quote Lenin or Stalin and don't engage materially with what happened in the social relations of production, in the advance and retreat of the proletarian revolution internal to Russia, and internationally, then all you are doing is spouting an ideology to cover the reality of that defeat.Agreed. This is why Maoists stress on learning from practical examples rather than blindly using quotes from books written a century back.

RED DAVE

9th December 2010, 17:10

So, in short, the new democratic revolution consists of overthrowal of imperialism, feudalism and comprador capitalism.Notice that the native capitalists are permitted to continue to exploit the workers.

Land is seized by peasants and big industries by workers.So far, in Nepal, land seizure is minimal, and the working class has not been exhorted to seize the factories. Instead, the UCPN(M) is actively negotiating with bourgeois parties to form a bourgeois government.

Since the country concerned generally lacks industries, some incentive is given to small businesses, much like the NEP in the USSR, to allow rapid industrialization.This is not the same as negotiating with capitalist parties to form a capitalist government.

This is followed by workers taking control of these industries as they grow and workers learn the managerial and administrative skills of the bourgeoisie.Considering that the workers already run the industries by their day-to-day labor, what do they need to learn from the bourgeoisie. This is rhetoric which covers letting the capitalists run the industries.

The NEP was a short-term solution to a situation following a world war, a civil war and the drastic depletion of the ranks of the workers. It didn't last but a few years. It did not involve a coalition government with capitalists.

How a capitalist restoration shall be prevented is a complicated question, and so far no one has been able to achieve and maintain socialism for more than a few decades.I certainly can't be done by the workers sharing power with the bosses, like you Maoists advocate and put in practice.

However, it is expected that replacing top-down decision making processes with bottom-up ones in every field will solve this problem. This has been implemented to some extent in the ongoing revolutionary movements with success.Maoists have never implemented workers power from below.

No, Maoists do not expect the ruling classes to side with them because of some gradual change. They at best ally with the various factions of the ruling classes so that the oppressors fight among themselves and weaken each other.Never going to happen. What Maoists are doing,at best, is advocating a condition of dual power that will degenerate rapidly into capitalism. At worst, as in Nepal, they are basically advocating capitalism.

Show is where Lenin or any other Marxist in the 20th Century (escept the Maoists or maybe the Stalinists), advocated a coalition with the native or comprador capitalist class.

RED DAVE

red cat

9th December 2010, 17:41

Notice that the native capitalists are permitted to continue to exploit the workers.

Maybe so, but to a very small extent compared to earlier conditions. In most cases, workers in already existing industries successfully force capitalists into much higher wages and less working hours, and in case of new industries, peasants who get rid of agricultural disguised unemployment join factories for wages much higher than what they used to earn. This is a necessary evil until the workers are technically prepared to take over the smaller industries fully. In case the industry owners side with the ruling classes, or the workers are ready to take over an industry technically and militarily, they do so without any delay.

So far, in Nepal, land seizure is minimal, and the working class has not been exhorted to seize the factories.Land seizure and redistribution forms the basis of the Maoist movement. It has been implemented in every Maoist stronghold, where the feudal lords have been driven away. It continues unofficially even now. The rising power of workers struggles is demonstrated by Indian companies complaining of militant trade union activities in Nepal, and incidents such as a recent one of workers taking control of a hotel.

Instead, the UCPN(M) is actively negotiating with bourgeois parties to form a bourgeois government.No, they are dividing comprador parties in order to weaken them.

This is not the same as negotiating with capitalist parties to form a capitalist government.True, but again, what you claim has nothing to do with Nepal.

Considering that the workers already run the industries by their day-to-day labor, what do they need to learn from the bourgeoisie. This is rhetoric which covers letting the capitalists run the industries.This is a technical question, and requires more detailed discussion. In most industries, at least in south Asia, workers won't be able to manage everything on their own, not at least without a few years of training, provided they devote all of their time to that training alone.

The NEP was a short-term solution to a situation following a world war, a civil war and the drastic depletion of the ranks of the workers. It didn't last but a few years. It did not involve a coalition government with capitalists.The situation in Nepal is much worse than that. So the UCPN(M) has to defeat its enemies one at a time.

I certainly can't be done by the workers sharing power with the bosses, like you Maoists advocate and put in practice.This assertion is false.

Maoists have never implemented workers power from below.

Never going to happen. What Maoists are doing,at best, is advocating a condition of dual power that will degenerate rapidly into capitalism. At worst, as in Nepal, they are basically advocating capitalism.More false assertions.

Show is where Lenin or any other Marxist in the 20th Century (escept the Maoists or maybe the Stalinists), advocated a coalition with the native or comprador capitalist class.

RED DAVELenin practiced in different conditions. Talking of any Marxist other than Maoists and Stalinists is like concentrating on about 1% of active leftists worldwide. Also, even though Maoists respect leftists who engage in true revolutionary activities and belong to other tendencies such as orthodox Marxism-Leninism, Hoxhaism, Trotskyism, anarchism etc, they consider only the MLM line to be the correct one.

thÃ¤lmann

9th December 2010, 19:39

red cat

9th December 2010, 20:25

@red cat: subdiving the enemys of the revolution, is already the nature of an nationaldemocratic revolution. to subdivide the once which are against this kind of revolution makes no sence. or do they want to make a half-democraticrevolution before the real one?

Enemies should be subdivided as much as possible. Defeating one such enemy does not complete any qualitative stage of a revolution, as other groups representing the same ruling classes still pose a threat. So, it is not a "half democratic revolution", it is just a quantitative stage within the new democratic revolution.

S.Artesian

9th December 2010, 22:05

Lenin practiced in different conditions. Talking of any Marxist other than Maoists and Stalinists is like concentrating on about 1% of active leftists worldwide. Also, even though Maoists respect leftists who engage in true revolutionary activities and belong to other tendencies such as orthodox Marxism-Leninism, Hoxhaism, Trotskyism, anarchism etc, they consider only the MLM line to be the correct one.

What I don't read here is a single concrete analysis of class relations. How is agriculture organized? You call it feudal? Or semi-feudal? Where does the product go? How is surplus extracted and is it marketed or is it consumed by the semi-feudal semi-lord?

What has been the path of industrialization and investment over the past ten years? What has been the movement of the population from rural to urban areas?

All that stuff that might tell us something about the actual "dialectic" underway in Nepal, and not the made-up dialectic that is used as religious cant to ward off the evil task of actually providing something that resembles class analysis.

red cat

9th December 2010, 23:13

What I don't read here is a single concrete analysis of class relations. How is agriculture organized? You call it feudal? Or semi-feudal? Where does the product go? How is surplus extracted and is it marketed or is it consumed by the semi-feudal semi-lord?

Semi-feudal. Mostly imperialist capital acting through feudalism. There is little or no choice for peasants when they buy equipments or sell their produce, because they are mostly bound by traditional laws and unofficial military force to buy from and sell to specific people only.

What has been the path of industrialization and investment over the past ten years? What has been the movement of the population from rural to urban areas?

All that stuff that might tell us something about the actual "dialectic" underway in Nepal, and not the made-up dialectic that is used as religious cant to ward off the evil task of actually providing something that resembles class analysis.Over the past ten years, there has been massive de-industrialization if industries of all sizes are considered, all over south Asia, in favour of foreign companies monopolizing throughout the region. Another phenomenon is the SEZ (Special Economic Zone) Act, which allows the state to confiscate lands from peasants ( they are targeting specifically fertile lands for this ), allot it to compradors and foreign companies with heavy subsidies. The SEZ Act allows the company concerned to use most of the land so obtained for real estate business. Also, there is practically no labour law that is valid inside a SEZ.

EDIT : The movement of the population has been towards the cities. This is because even the stability of disguised agricultural unemployment is collapsing under the tremendous pressure of the growing population. So a large number of city dwellers are seasonal peasants, domestic helpers, part-time construction workers etc, with a major chunk being seasonally or totally unemployed.

RED DAVE

10th December 2010, 12:33

Semi-feudal[ism] ... feudalism.(1) What is your definition of feudalism as a mode of production?

(2) What is your definition of semi-feudalism as a mode of production?

(3) What is your definition of capitalism as a mode of production?

Let's see if we can straighten some of this out.

RED DAVE

red cat

10th December 2010, 18:07

RED DAVE

10th December 2010, 21:40

(1) What is your definition of feudalism as a mode of production?

(2) What is your definition of semi-feudalism as a mode of production?

(3) What is your definition of capitalism as a mode of production?

Let's see if we can straighten some of this out.
I am not defining feudalism here as we will probably agree on that one.Well let's see. I try to keep my definitions as close as possible to "classic Marxism"?

Capitalism is characterized by commodity production, and workers being actually able to "sell" their labour power to capitalists, not being bound by cultural, political or military constraints.This latter part of your statement may be "idealistically" correct, but, in fact, historically, there are always limitations on both the workers' freedom to sell their labor power and the capitalists' freedom to buy and sell commodities.

Semi-feudalism is capital acting through a feudal structure.This is capitalism. To call it "semi-feudalism" is to confuse the form of such a society, which is the production of commodities for sale not sue, with the form, which may or may not be characterized by a preponderance of feudal remnants. In any event, the term is politically loaded as it implies that such a society has a close relationship to feudalism when, in fact, it is a form of capitalism.

What this does is permit the Maoists to engage in political legerdemain, where they pretend that one form of capitalism is historically progressive over another form of capitalism in this period and Marxists may, as a strategy align themselves with capitalism.

This means that though agricultural commodities are produced instead of all peasants engaging in subsistence farming, and money finds its way into the transactions, feudal cultural, political and military constraints are fully active to prevent small and landless peasants to act as sellers of their produce and labour power respectively.While this is important politically, once again, you are confusing content and form. And, as you point out, agricultural is engaged in commodity production. This makes what you are calling semi-feudalism a form of capitalism. There is no excuse for confusing it with any form of feudalism except to engage in political confusion.

There are many other characteristics of these modes of production, but as of now I think that the ones described above are enough to distinguish among them.Semi-feudalism is a form aof capitalism. This is clear. Therefore, the task of Marxists is to build a revolutionary alliance between the working class and the peasantry and rural workers, with the working class as the leading class.

This the Maoists have consistently failed to do in every country where they are the predominantly revolutionary party. Instead, they make an alliance with the bourgeoisie under the guise of a bloc of four classes, and pave the way for state and private capitalism.

RED DAVE

red cat

10th December 2010, 21:48

DaringMehring

10th December 2010, 22:19

RED DAVE

10th December 2010, 22:40

Well let's see. I try to keep my definitions as close as possible to "classic Marxism"?

This latter part of your statement may be "idealistically" correct, but, in fact, historically, there are always limitations on both the workers' freedom to sell their labor power and the capitalists' freedom to buy and sell commodities.

This is capitalism. To call it "semi-feudalism" is to confuse the form of such a society, which is the production of commodities for sale not sue, with the form, which may or may not be characterized by a preponderance of feudal remnants. In any event, the term is politically loaded as it implies that such a society has a close relationship to feudalism when, in fact, it is a form of capitalism.

What this does is permit the Maoists to engage in political legerdemain, where they pretend that one form of capitalism is historically progressive over another form of capitalism in this period and Marxists may, as a strategy align themselves with capitalism.

While this is important politically, once again, you are confusing content and form. And, as you point out, agricultural is engaged in commodity production. This makes what you are calling semi-feudalism a form of capitalism. There is no excuse for confusing it with any form of feudalism except to engage in political confusion.

Semi-feudalism is a form of capitalism. This is clear. Therefore, the task of Marxists is to build a revolutionary alliance between the working class and the peasantry and rural workers, with the working class as the leading class.

This the Maoists have consistently failed to do in every country where they are the predominantly revolutionary party. Instead, they make an alliance with the bourgeoisie under the guise of a bloc of four classes, and pave the way for state and private capitalism.

As far as I understand, other than your usual anti-Maoist rantThat's called politics, Comrade.

[A]ll of your post boils down to only one point : commodity production equals capitalism.I assume you know enough Marxism to know that a commodity has two aspects to it: as a use value and as an exchange value. As a use value, a commodity satisfies a human need, and, so, production of commodities is typical of all societies. However, as an exchange value, a commodity is produced for sale, not consumption.

The peculiarity of the capitalism mode of production is that commodities are almost entirely produced as exchange values, for sale.

This is not trueLet's follow this closely.

because even though commodities are produced, the relations of production might not be anywhere near to those of capitalism.You are either bullshitting to obscure the bankruptcy of your position or you don't know basic Marxism.

The fundamental "relations of production" of capitalism are the sale of labor power as a commodity (as an exchange value), to produce exchange values.

That's it. Whether the society is a bourgeois democracy or a dictatorship, a social democracy or a vile pit of conservatism, is irrelevant to the "relations of production."

All this crap about 'semi-feudalism" is just that: crap. Nepalese society, for example, is characterized, in the countryside and in the cities, by production of commodities for sale. This makes Nepal a capitalist country. The task of the proletariat, therefore, is the overthrow of Nepalese capitalism, not to engage in an alliance with the very class that s exploiting the Nepalese working class.

And this alliance is exactly what the Nepalese Maoists are building.

RED DAVE

S.Artesian

10th December 2010, 22:51

As far as I understand, other than your usual anti-Maoist rant all of your post boils down to only one point : commodity production equals capitalism. This is not true, because even though commodities are produced, the relations of production might not be anywhere near to those of capitalism.

No, not all commodity production is capitalism; but commodity production in this world, today, by an economy that interacts with other economies, particularly other economies that are so much the focus of activity in the world markets is, in essence, capitalist commodity production.

Marx anticipates this development pretty well in Vol 2 of Capital:

Within its process of circulation, in which industrial capital functions either as money or as commodities, the circuit of industrial capital, whether as money-capital or as commodity-capital, crosses the commodity circulation of the most diverse modes of social production, so far as they produce commodities. No matter whether commodities are the output of production based on slavery, of peasants (Chinese, Indian ryots). of communes (Dutch East Indies), of state enterprise (such as existed in former epochs of Russian history on the basis of serfdom) or of half-savage hunting tribes, etc. — as commodities and money they come face to face with the money and commodities in which the industrial capital presents itself and enter as much into its circuit as into that of the surplus-value borne in the commodity-capital, provided the surplus-value is spent as revenue; hence they enter in both branches of circulation of commodity-capital. The character of the process of production from which they originate is immaterial. They function as commodities in the market, and as commodities they enter into the circuit of industrial capital as well as into the circulation of the surplus-value incorporated in it. It is therefore the universal character of the origin of the commodities, the existence of the market as world-market, which distinguishes the process of circulation of industrial capital.

Homo Songun

10th December 2010, 23:53

Originally Posted by red cat http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1953178#post1953178)
Semi-feudalism is capital acting through a feudal structure. This is capitalism. To call it "semi-feudalism" is to confuse the form of such a society, which is the production of commodities for sale not sue, with the form, which may or may not be characterized by a preponderance of feudal remnants.
Essentially, you are arguing here for less precise terminology. But Marxism's strength lies in its explanatory power. If there is a difference in the agriculture of Nepal and say, South Korea, it is because South Korea's agriculture has been subjected to land reforms in a way that has not happened in Nepal. As a result feudalistic relations are relatively inconsequential in South Korea. South Korea's bourgeoisie is relatively powerful, whereas Nepal's is weak and flabby. Obviously this has drastic consequences on strategy and tactics if you are actually working for the systematic overthrow of all existing social relations. It does not, however weigh so heavily if ones only goal is to build a small political sect. I think we can all agree that the UCPN(M) is a bit more than a political sect at this point.

In any event, the term is politically loaded Red Dave whining about somebody insisting on 'politically loaded' terms? Thats a bit rich, isn't it? :rolleyes:

as it implies that such a society has a close relationship to feudalism when, in fact, it is a form of capitalism. This is a false dichotomy since you do not deny that Nepal has certain feudal characteristics and obviously the Maoists don't deny that they are operating under conditions of capitalism. In other words, this is ideologically motivated reductionism on your part.

S.Artesian

11th December 2010, 00:07

Essentially, you are arguing here for less precise terminology. But Marxism's strength lies in its explanatory power. If there is a difference in the agriculture of Nepal and say, South Korea, it is because South Korea's agriculture has been subjected to land reforms in a way that has not happened in Nepal. As a result feudalistic relations are relatively inconsequential in South Korea. South Korea's bourgeoisie is relatively powerful, whereas Nepal's is weak and flabby. Obviously this has drastic consequences on strategy and tactics if you are actually working for the systematic overthrow of all existing social relations. It does not, however weigh so heavily if ones only goal is to build a small political sect. I think we can all agree that the UCPN(M) is a bit more than a political sect at this point.

This is a false dichotomy since you do not deny that Nepal has certain feudal characteristics and obviously the Maoists don't deny that they are operating under conditions of capitalism. In other words, this is ideologically motivated reductionism on your part.

Indeed, Marxism's strength is in its precision, and that precision is not based on the isolation of the form of production in a single country, but on the interaction of the content of that production in the world markets.

So if S. Korea and Nepal have different structures, forms, in their agriculture, then they represent different moments, expressions, modalities of the development of capitalism internationally, but capitalism nonetheless.

The differences can be explained through the uneven and combined historical development of each.

The haciendas of Mexico in the Diaz era, and during and after the revolution of 1910 were not semi-feudal structures, despite the obligations of service, despite the debt peonage, despite the arbitrary authority and coercion inflicted upon the indigenous pueblos.

And neither where the hacendados "semi-feudalists." They were profit-seeking, commercial landowners.

Homo Songun

11th December 2010, 00:17

Indeed, Marxism's strength is in its precision, and that precision is not based on the isolation of the form of production in a single country, but on the interaction of the content of that production in the world markets.

So if S. Korea and Nepal have different structures, forms, in their agriculture, then they represent different moments, expressions, modalities of the development of capitalism internationally, but capitalism nonetheless.

The differences can be explained through the uneven and combined historical development of each.
And your point is? If you are claiming that the Maoists argue otherwise, then you have not read even a scrap of the theory you are attacking.

RED DAVE

11th December 2010, 00:43

Semi-feudalism is capital acting through a feudal structure.
This is capitalism. To call it "semi-feudalism" is to confuse the form of such a society, which is the production of commodities for sale not sue, with the form, which may or may not be characterized by a preponderance of feudal remnants.
Essentially, you are arguing here for less precise terminology.Quite the contrary. It's Maoism with its deliberate confounding capitalism with an earlier social system that is less precise.

But Marxism's strength lies in its explanatory power.No shit, Shmuel. :D

If there is a difference in the agriculture of Nepal and say, South Korea, it is because South Korea's agriculture has been subjected to land reforms in a way that has not happened in Nepal.Okay. But what you are confusing is different forms of capitalist agriculure. No matter how backward Nepalese agriculture is, it is still production for sale not consumption, and, therefore, it is capitalism

As a result feudalistic relations are relatively inconsequential in South Korea. South Korea's bourgeoisie is relatively powerful, whereas Nepal's is weak and flabby.What you are calling "feudalistic relations" may in fact be retarding Nepalese agriculture, but that doesn't make it any less capitalist.

In the USA, historically, there has been agriculture based on small farms, slavery, share-cropping and large-scale farming. However, regardless of the form, all of these involved production of commodities for sale, not consumption, and were, therefore forms of capitalism.

Obviously this has drastic consequences on strategy and tactics if you are actually working for the systematic overthrow of all existing social relations.This may or may not be true. But on thing it doesn't involve, in the year 2010, is class collaboration, which is the hallmark of Maoism.

It does not, however weigh so heavily if ones only goal is to build a small political sect. I think we can all agree that the UCPN(M) is a bit more than a political sect at this point.The Chinese Communist Party, to this day, could eat the Nepalese UCPN(M) as a snack. That doesn't makes its politics any less disgusting. Why don't you call me a Western White Man? That's what usually comes next.

This is a false dichotomy since you do not deny that Nepal has certain feudal characteristics and obviously the Maoists don't deny that they are operating under conditions of capitalism. In other words, this is ideologically motivated reductionism on your part.Actually, Comrade, the smoke blowing is yours. We are not talking about some kind of a low-level differences.

Maoism openly and actively advocates class colaboration between the working class and the capitalist class. This is undeniable. The justification is that the capitalist class in countries like Nepal is a revolutionary class, and it's permissible to unite with them to overthrow (semi-) feudalism.

So, either people of my political persuasion are engaging in reductionism to justify sectarianism, or people in your tendency are engaging in mystification to justify class collaboration leading to state and private capitalism.

Now, we'll see what happens. Will the doughty Nepalese Maoists accomplish an anti-capitalist revolution in Nepal, or will they, as their comrades in China, Russia, Eastern Europe and Vietnam, preside over the triumph of capitalism? History does not favor Maoist class collaboration. Ask the Chinese working class.

[B]RED DAVE[

S.Artesian

11th December 2010, 01:40

And your point is? If you are claiming that the Maoists argue otherwise, then you have not read even a scrap of the theory you are attacking.

First, I wasn't attacking a theory. I doubt Mao's "junk dialectic" where according to him, there was an incipient capitalism that would have developed in China if not for imperialism, can qualify as a theory.

What I was disagreeing with was Red Cat's mumbo-jumbo about "semi-feudalism"-- it is capitalism, it isn't capitalism, it is capitalism, it isn't capitalism.

Secondly, I've read it. I've read the simplistic, didactic, little sing-song pieces that you've linked to-- Mao's contortions in twisting the meaning of uneven and combined development so he could come up with his "new democracy"--

My point is, although it's much too blunt a point for someone of your heightened and refined sensibilities, that the characterization of "semi-feudal" is not based on the mode of accumulation, but is in fact derived after the fact, the fact being the political orientation to "new democracy," the fact being the ideological justification for entry into a bourgeois government, for opposition to workers self-organization-- all those things that have gotten us exactly where we are today.

Homo Songun

11th December 2010, 02:50

In the USA, historically, there has been agriculture based on small farms, slavery, share-cropping and large-scale farming. However, regardless of the form, all of these involved production of commodities for sale, not consumption, and were, therefore forms of capitalism.

Think about what you are saying. It hinges on exactly the same principle that the Maoists are employing. It follows from it that the tasks of a revolutionist in the era of John Brown necessarily differ from the era of the Sharecroppers Union which in turn necessarily differ from today's. The Black bourgeoisie was non-existent in one era, nascent in next, and wavering and weak in the last. The common thread is that some kind of accounting must be made thereof. Similar distinctions are made in the Maoist formulation "semi-feudal and semi-colonial capitalism dominated by bureaucratic and foreign capital".

This may or may not be true. But on thing it doesn't involve, in the year 2010, is class collaboration, which is the hallmark of Maoism.
You're not seeing the forest for the trees. Class collaboration doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is good or bad depending on who is collaborating on behalf of whom. For example, in the Russian revolution, there was quite a bit of class collaboration when large chunks of the officer caste were utilized by Trotsky to smash the Whites. All the Maoists are saying is that the 'national bourgeoisie' of their respective countries should be utilized in the same way, if possible. They think it is possible in their own context because it is such a flabby and weak formation, much like the petit-bourgeoisie in industrialized countries. Now I do believe there are scattered weirdos who hold that there is to be no kind of class collaboration at all in any true revolution, but that kind of ideology forsakes Lenin and Trotsky, as well as reality.

S.Artesian

11th December 2010, 03:19

Think about what you are saying. It hinges on exactly the same principle that the Maoists are employing. It follows from it that the tasks of a revolutionist in the era of John Brown necessarily differ from the era of the Sharecroppers Union which in turn necessarily differ from today's. The Black bourgeoisie was non-existent in one era, nascent in next, and wavering and weak in the last. The common thread is that some kind of accounting must be made thereof. Similar distinctions are made in the Maoist formulation "semi-feudal and semi-colonial capitalism dominated by bureaucratic and foreign capital".

And in all instances, the black bourgeoisie offered precisely nothing, programmatically, that could end the discrimination against, and exploitation of black people in the US because the source of that discrimination was their exploitation as a labor force.

The common thread in all of this is that the black bourgeoisie have been immaterial to oppression or emancipation of black people because the issue has always been one of black labor.

And before you start telling me about how the "black bourgeoisie" of students initiated the civil rights struggle, please look a little deeper into what really initiated the breakdown of the post-Reconstruction South-- and that was the mechanization of Southern agriculture in the WW2 era which broke down the old share-cropper configuration, propelling black migration into the cities of both north and south, and also west as an urban labor-force. That was the material, economic transformation that manifested itself in the civil rights struggle.

It's always been a question of black labor.

That is why the South so dramatically attack the Union League associations of the emancipated slaves. That is why the Southern planters resorted to terror to force the former slaves back to the plantations as a ready, impoverished, captured labor force.

That is why the civil rights struggle became an explicit struggle against poverty; and why the most developed expression of the conflict materialized in the auto factories in and around Detroit, with the League of Revolutionary Black Workers [DRUM, ELRUM, Jefferson Avenue etc.]

The black bourgeoisie offer no solution for this conflict. On the contrary, with their allegiance to private property, it will do everything they can to resist a working class movement to lead the struggle for equality.

You're not seeing the forest for the trees. Class collaboration doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is good or bad depending on who is collaborating on behalf of whom. For example, in the Russian revolution, there was quite a bit of class collaboration when large chunks of the officer caste were utilized by Trotsky to smash the Whites. That's hilarious. That isn't class collaboration. Class collaboration doesn't mean an individual does something for a movement because you're holding his family at gun point. Class collaboration is when there is programmatic agreement on "structural adjustments" to the economy or government between parties of the classes.

The Spanish government of 1936 was class collaboration. Allende's Unidad Popular government 1970-1973 was class collaborationist, and that government had a distinctly [if not expressly labeled] "Maoist" theory-- i.e. that the government would nationalize the property of the imperialists and the big monopoly capitalists, and collaborate with the smaller, patriotic, national bourgeoisie. Guess what? Didn't work out real well, as the "national" "patriotic" bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie really didn't want anything to do with Allende's government, and actively worked for its destruction.

The workers however in those "national" "patriotic" capitalist enterprises were ready, willing, able to seize those enterprises, which of course put those workers on a collision course with the UP government of class collaboration.

All the Maoists are saying is that the 'national bourgeoisie' of their respective countries should be utilized in the same way, if possible. They think it is possible in their own context because it is such a flabby and weak formation, much like the petit-bourgeoisie in industrialized countries. Now I do believe there are scattered weirdos who hold that there is to be no kind of class collaboration at all in any true revolution, but that kind of ideology forsakes Lenin and Trotsky, as well as reality.Doesn't matter what you think they are saying, it's how class struggle unfolds that counts. And it has yet to unfold with a victory of the proletariat when the organizations of the workers accede to, accept, collaborate with the programs, the property relations, of the "national bourgeoisie."

You want to see what class collaboration is? Look at the Guangdong in China; check the SEZ's in Vietnam. See how much land is expropriated from rural producers for the creation of golf courses-- that's class collaboration at work.

RED DAVE

11th December 2010, 03:46

S.Artesian has pretty much made the requisite points. I just want to make this one:

In the USA, historically, there has been agriculture based on small farms, slavery, share-cropping and large-scale farming. However, regardless of the form, all of these involved production of commodities for sale, not consumption, and were, therefore forms of capitalism.
Think about what you are saying.Think about what you're saying as you just walked into one, eyes wide shut.

It hinges on exactly the same principle that the Maoists are employing. It follows from it that the tasks of a revolutionist in the era of John Brown necessarily differ from the era of the Sharecroppers Union which in turn necessarily differ from today's.All true, and the justification for engaging in class collaboration during the US Civil War is that the US bourgeoisie was carrying on the last stage of the bourgeois revolution!

This is no longer the case. The bourgeoisie is no longer a revolutionary class, nationally and internationally. The current revolutionary situation in Nepal is entirely, as in Russia, as in China, a result of the activities of the working class, the peasantry and some elements of the petit-bourgeoisie. When the Maoists in Nepal happily, as all Maoists, engage in yoking the working class to the bourgeoisie, they are sabotaging the revolution.

RED DAVE

Homo Songun

11th December 2010, 04:39

And in all instances, the black bourgeoisie offered precisely nothing, programmatically, that could end the discrimination against, and exploitation of black people in the US because the source of that discrimination was their exploitation as a labor force.

The common thread in all of this is that the black bourgeoisie have been immaterial to oppression or emancipation of black people because the issue has always been one of black labor.

[etc]
This is a tissue of fallacies, (not the least of which being the idea that a black bourgeois person isn't a constituent part of "black people"), but to be expected of the ultra-mechanical Left Communist point of view. Leninists on the other hand say that national liberation is progressive while being a product of capitalist development in general. As such it necessarily involves bourgeois forces. In particular, the Comintern described a captive black nation deriving from the nation-birthing process of capitalist development in the US South. I'll leave it at that since I'm not interested in contesting the entirety of Leninist ideology with you.

All true, and the justification for engaging in class collaboration during the US Civil War is that the US bourgeoisie was carrying on the last stage of the bourgeois revolution!

This is no longer the case. The bourgeoisie is no longer a revolutionary class, nationally and internationally. The current revolutionary situation in Nepal is entirely, as in Russia, as in China, a result of the activities of the working class, the peasantry and some elements of the petit-bourgeoisie. When the Maoists in Nepal happily, as all Maoists, engage in yoking the working class to the bourgeoisie, they are sabotaging the revolution.

Well, I take it for granted that the Nepalese bourgeoisie is not capable of leading the revolution in the era of imperialism. This is standard Leninism. That is why the Maoists are the ones leading the revolution in Nepal and not some other force that represents some other class than the proletarian class. However, your asserting of this truism is deeply problematic to your argument because you say the Maoists are capitalists and therefore bourgeois, and as a consequence incapable of putting imperialism in the position they have.

S.Artesian

11th December 2010, 05:02

This is a tissue of fallacies, (not the least of which being the idea that a black bourgeois person isn't a constituent part of "black people"), but to be expected of the ultra-mechanical Left Communist point of view. Leninists on the other hand say that national liberation is progressive while being a product of capitalist development in general. As such it necessarily involves bourgeois forces. In particular, the Comintern described a captive black nation deriving from the nation-birthing process of capitalist development in the US South. I'll leave it at that since I'm not interested in contesting the entirety of Leninist ideology with you.

You would say that. It's perfectly consistent with your anti-working class commitment.

Nobody said the black bourgeoisie weren't "part of the black people"-- but rather that the black bourgeoisie as a class are historically insignificant and cannot provide a program, a leadership, or an organization capable of overturning the oppression of black people.

Beyond that you simply don't know a fucking thing about this history of black labor in the US. The Comintern's idiotic assertion of a "captive black nation" in the South was based on a complete ignorance of the role of black labor.

Nation-birthing, my ass. Learn a little bit about Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction Southern economy

In the meantime, you're just another pompous ass with Mao button stuck to your forehead, mouthing the same old same old that has proven itself so very successful at what it does best-- restoring the bourgeoisie to power.

red cat

11th December 2010, 06:49

That's called politics, Comrade.

I assume you know enough Marxism to know that a commodity has two aspects to it: as a use value and as an exchange value. As a use value, a commodity satisfies a human need, and, so, production of commodities is typical of all societies. However, as an exchange value, a commodity is produced for sale, not consumption.

The peculiarity of the capitalism mode of production is that commodities are almost entirely produced as exchange values, for sale.

Let's follow this closely.

You are either bullshitting to obscure the bankruptcy of your position or you don't know basic Marxism.

The fundamental "relations of production" of capitalism are the sale of labor power as a commodity (as an exchange value), to produce exchange values.

That's it. Whether the society is a bourgeois democracy or a dictatorship, a social democracy or a vile pit of conservatism, is irrelevant to the "relations of production."

All this crap about 'semi-feudalism" is just that: crap. Nepalese society, for example, is characterized, in the countryside and in the cities, by production of commodities for sale. This makes Nepal a capitalist country. The task of the proletariat, therefore, is the overthrow of Nepalese capitalism, not to engage in an alliance with the very class that s exploiting the Nepalese working class.

And this alliance is exactly what the Nepalese Maoists are building.

RED DAVE

I will concentrate in the essence of your post:

The fundamental "relations of production" of capitalism are the sale of labor power as a commodity (as an exchange value), to produce exchange values.

(emphasis mine)

When political, military and cultural constraints heavily or totally restrict the actions of the classes "selling" labour power, labour power is not sold anymore but looted. This is one of the fundamental differences between capitalism and semi-feudalism.

red cat

11th December 2010, 06:56

Without getting into the sectarian stuff, which doesn't interest me, my question to the people who choose to call themselves Maoists is, how can you read the initial article, about capitalist compromise, and think "ah yes, the revolution is on the right track"? A big popular upsurge can go a number of ways and right there is evidence that it is going back into the muck of capitalism, of attempting socialism by increments under capitalism (the favorite of liberals and Mensheviks). There have been a number of signs that this is the track the UCPN intends to take, do the Maoists here actually support it, rather than a fight to seize the state and implement workers' control? I'm sympathetic to the UCPN, but if this kind of compromise with capital is the best it has to offer, and it's supporters actually agree with it, I'll have to rethink that. The popular movement in Nepal is strong and deserves better.

The main goal of the UCPN(M) at present is to overthrow feudalism, imperialism and comprador capitalism. This includes the other big parties in the parliament too. This is why they are pushing proposals that these parties will never be able to accept; so as to obtain the much needed time for preparing for a revolt, and gain a popular reason to overthrow the ruling classes in that revolt. Not denying that there are revisionist elements within the UCPN(M), if you have followed their intra-party debates over the past few months, you will notice that the portion advocating a revolt is the majority.

red cat

11th December 2010, 07:02

No, not all commodity production is capitalism; but commodity production in this world, today, by an economy that interacts with other economies, particularly other economies that are so much the focus of activity in the world markets is, in essence, capitalist commodity production.

Marx anticipates this development pretty well in Vol 2 of Capital:

This sweeping generalization of Marx is a fallacy of classical Marxism. The question that whether labour power is being bought, or being forcefully looted, cannot be ignored. This factor alone is enough to define a system different from capitalism.

RED DAVE

11th December 2010, 12:47

I apologize for the format of this post. For some reason, I can't get rid of some spurious codes.

And in all instances, the black bourgeoisie offered precisely nothing, programmatically, that could end the discrimination against, and exploitation of black people in the US because the source of that discrimination was their exploitation as a labor force.

The common thread in all of this is that the black bourgeoisie have been immaterial to oppression or emancipation of black people because the issue has always been one of black labor
This is a tissue of fallacies,Too bad that it’s accurate historically.

(not the least of which being the idea that a black bourgeois person isn't a constituent part of "black people")It’s not a matter of whether or not the black bourgeoisie is a part of the black people but whether or not the black bourgeoisie is/was historically progressive. Truth is that at precisely the point at which the bourgeoisie as whole became regressive, after the Civil War, the black bourgeoisie became reactionary. We go from Frederick Douglass to Booker T. Washington.

but to be expected of the ultra-mechanical Left Communist point of view. Leninists on the other hand say that national liberation is progressive while being a product capitalist development in general, and as such necessarily involving bourgeois forces.The Black Question in the United States was never, properly, a question of national liberation.

In particular the Comintern described a captive black nation deriving from the nation-birthing process of capitalist development in the US South but I'll leave it at that since I'm not interested in contesting the entirety of Leninist ideology with you.The Stalinist-led Comintern was wrong.

[T]he justification for engaging in class collaboration during the US Civil War is that the US bourgeoisie was carrying on the last stage of the bourgeois revolution!

This is no longer the case. The bourgeoisie is no longer a revolutionary class, nationally and internationally. The current revolutionary situation in Nepal is entirely, as in Russia, as in China, a result of the activities of the working class, the peasantry and some elements of the petit-bourgeoisie. When the Maoists in Nepal happily, as all Maoists, engage in yoking the working class to the bourgeoisie, they are sabotaging the revolution.
Well, I take it for granted that the Nepalese bourgeoisie is not capable of leading the revolution in the era of imperialism. This is standard Leninism. That is why the Maoists are the ones leading the revolution in Nepal and not some other force that represents some other class than the proletarian class. However, your asserting of this truism is deeply problematic to your argument because you say the Maoists are capitalists and therefore bourgeois, and as a consequence incapable of putting imperialism in the position they nevertheless have.First of all, I have always asserted that the UCPN(M) represents a petit-bourgeois, not a bourgeois, element.

And, in fact, it is not a question of the Nepalese (or any other) bourgeoisie) being capable of leading the revolution. It is a question of whether or not the bourgeoisie is a revolutionary class at all. And it is clear from the Nepalese experience is that it is not. The bourgeoisie is only participating in the revolution after the fact. And it is a brake on the revolution. Why, then, is the UCPN(M) in a government, basically an alliance, with this class to run the country?

At any rate, this talk of hypothetical communists in the Civil War is an irrelevant tangent.Actually, it’s quite relevant. European socialists were actively involved, militarily, in the American Civil War. And the First International sent greeting to Lincoln on his re-election. However, almost immediately the US entered into it period of savage explitation of the working class, and within 30 years, the American bourgeoisie was merrily entering the age of imperialism.

So, the crucial question is: Is the Nepalese bourgeoisie, unlike every other bourgeoisie of the 20th or 21st century, revolutionary, or not?

RED DAVE

RED DAVE

11th December 2010, 12:52

This sweeping generalization of Marx is a fallacy of classical Marxism. The question that whether labour power is being bought, or being forcefully looted, cannot be ignored. This factor alone is enough to define a system different from capitalism.(1) It is undeniable that the labor power of the slaves was "forcefully looted."

(2) It is undeniable that production in the South under slavery was for sale not consumption.

So, are you saying that Marx, who wrote extensively on the American Civil War, was wrong, and you are right, and that the American South, under slavery, was not capitalism?

RED DAVE

red cat

11th December 2010, 13:48

RED DAVE

11th December 2010, 14:49

(1) It is undeniable that the labor power of the slaves was "forcefully looted."

(2) It is undeniable that production in the South under slavery was for sale not consumption.

So, are you saying that Marx, who wrote extensively on the American Civil War, was wrong, and you are right, and that the American South, under slavery, was not capitalism?
What kind of logic is this ?It's called historical materialsim.

I don't know about the American Civil War etc.Then I strongly suggest that you read up on it. Here's a good place to start:

Marx's writings on the American Civil War (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war/index.htm)

ut if it was really like that and Marx's conclusion contradicted the definition of capitalism, then are we supposed to use both the classical definition highlighting the "sale" of labour power and Marx's later conclusion allowing "loot" of labour power as the definitions of capitalism ? These two definitions contradict each other. Either specify whether labour power is looted or sold, or altogether throw away the mention of labour power from your definition of capitalism. Just because Marx said something does not make it automatically correct.The point is not whether surplus value is "looted" or "sold." The point is that it is "extracted."

Yes, the sale of labor power is one of the hallmarks of capitalism, but it is also true that this "sale" can take place under conditions where the worker is not politically free, as in fascism, or when the ties between the laborer and the capitalist are fraught with all kinds of "feudal remnants," such as slavery, which capitalism uses to its own advantage.

You are, once again, confusing the form with the content, and what kind of logic is that? The fact is that in Nepal, the economic mode of production is production for sale, not use, display, conspicuous consumption, etc. Even when, only a few years ago, Nepal had a kind, this was true. If nepal became a militgary dictatorship, labor was not politically free, unions were banned, etc., and peasants were not allowed to leave the countryside, this would still be capitalism!

And, once a society is capitalist in the modern era of imperialism, the task of the working class is the liberation of itself and mankind. And this cannot be done with an alliance with the capitalists? And this is, apparently, what Maoists have never learned. And you will, as a tendency, keep forming alliances with "native" capitalists and not notice that the working class is getting screwed.

[B]RED DAVE

S.Artesian

11th December 2010, 14:56

What kind of logic is this ? I don't know about the American Civil War etc. but if it was really like that and Marx's conclusion contradicted the definition of capitalism, then are we supposed to use both the classical definition highlighting the "sale" of labour power and Marx's later conclusion allowing "loot" of labour power as the definitions of capitalism ? These two definitions contradict each other. Either specify whether labour power is looted or sold, or altogether throw away the mention of labour power from your definition of capitalism. Just because Marx said something does not make it automatically correct.

First off, as Marx makes clear, the slavery that was practiced in North America was part and parcel of the development of industrial capitalism. It could not have survived, much less expanded, without industrial capitalism; absent the world markets and the accumulation of capital.

Secondly, that the slavery became an obstacle and an obstruction to the expansion of industrial capital is confirmation, rather than a refutation, of Marx's analysis: "At a certain point the means of production come into conflict with the relations of production." Relations of production means property, and the expansion of the productive base of the North and the Midwest, with its relations of free labor and free soil, came into conflict with the slave property of the South. That was the same slave property which had been so instrumental in the expansion of Northern merchant capital which in turn propagated railroads, industry and free soil farming.

Thirdly, the organization of slavery in the US did not reproduce in its class relations a class capable of overthrowing slavery. The overthow of slavery required not just industrial capitalism, but the mobilization of the workers and free soil farmers to accomplish that task.

Fourthly, no sooner had that overthrow been accomplished than the bourgeoisie began their long retreat from the results of that struggle-- equivocating, undercutting, and finally abandoning Reconstruction and restoring the Redemptionist Confederate planters to positions of power and reducing the emancipated slaves to share-cropping, to an agricultural labor force.

Now is that "semi-feudal-ism" at work? Some love to call it that-- the semi-feudal South-- but the history of the matter is that this "semi-feudal" economy and status was the product of the Northern industrial and financial bourgeoisie who, in securing their own property, their own accumulation restored the planter class. That's not "semi-feudalism." That's capitalism at work.

And indeed, the defeat of Reconstruction, which occurs much earlier than the 1877 Hayes-Tilden deal, along with the Paris Commune bring the mythology of "progressive" bourgeoisie, "democratic revolution" back to earth, and with a thud.

Now that quote from vol 2 which you find so exaggerated indicates the underlying mechanism, market mechanisms, that integrate, adapt, absorb all these "backward" manifestations into the movement of capital.

I'm sure Maoists, like their CP predecessors would love to make the post-Reconstruction south "semi-feudal," requiring a "democratic revolution" to clear the way for "socialism." Hence the baloney about a "captive black nation" in the South-- which was just another way of NOT dealing with the actual class structure of the South and the North and the necessity for proletarian class struggle against both-- and against the substitution-ism of "democratic revolution" for that class struggle.

So keep on with your ignorance of the US Civil War, with the destruction of Reconstruction, with the real class issues at the core of the struggle in "semi-feudal" countries. It's so much more convenient, easy, and you get to wear those nice buttons with Mao's profile-- those pre-smiley smilies, with just as much significance and relation to Marxism as the present smilies.

red cat

11th December 2010, 15:13

It's called historical materialsim.

Then I strongly suggest that you read up on it. Here's a good place to start:

Marx's writings on the American Civil War (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war/index.htm)

The point is not whether surplus value is "looted" or "sold." The point is that it is "extracted."

Yes, the sale of labor power is one of the hallmarks of capitalism, but it is also true that this "sale" can take place under conditions where the worker is not politically free, as in fascism, or when the ties between the laborer and the capitalist are fraught with all kinds of "feudal remnants," such as slavery, which capitalism uses to its own advantage.

You are, once again, confusing the form with the content, and what kind of logic is that? The fact is that in Nepal, the economic mode of production is production for sale, not use, display, conspicuous consumption, etc. Even when, only a few years ago, Nepal had a kind, this was true. If nepal became a militgary dictatorship, labor was not politically free, unions were banned, etc., and peasants were not allowed to leave the countryside, this would still be capitalism!

And, once a society is capitalist in the modern era of imperialism, the task of the working class is the liberation of itself and mankind. And this cannot be done with an alliance with the capitalists? And this is, apparently, what Maoists have never learned. And you will, as a tendency, keep forming alliances with "native" capitalists and not notice that the working class is getting screwed.

RED DAVE

You cannot ignore the question of how surplus value is extracted. If labour power is looted, then it does not remain a commodity itself. This cannot be called capitalism.

red cat

11th December 2010, 15:22

First off, as Marx makes clear, the slavery that was practiced in North America was part and parcel of the development of industrial capitalism. It could not have survived, much less expanded, without industrial capitalism; absent the world markets and the accumulation of capital.

Secondly, that the slavery became an obstacle and an obstruction to the expansion of industrial capital is confirmation, rather than a refutation, of Marx's analysis: "At a certain point the means of production come into conflict with the relations of production." Relations of production means property, and the expansion of the productive base of the North and the Midwest, with its relations of free labor and free soil, came into conflict with the slave property of the South. That was the same slave property which had been so instrumental in the expansion of Northern merchant capital which in turn propagated railroads, industry and free soil farming.

Thirdly, the organization of slavery in the US did not reproduce in its class relations a class capable of overthrowing slavery. The overthow of slavery required not just industrial capitalism, but the mobilization of the workers and free soil farmers to accomplish that task.

Fourthly, no sooner had that overthrow been accomplished than the bourgeoisie began their long retreat from the results of that struggle-- equivocating, undercutting, and finally abandoning Reconstruction and restoring the Redemptionist Confederate planters to positions of power and reducing the emancipated slaves to share-cropping, to an agricultural labor force.

Now is that "semi-feudal-ism" at work? Some love to call it that-- the semi-feudal South-- but the history of the matter is that this "semi-feudal" economy and status was the product of the Northern industrial and financial bourgeoisie who, in securing their own property, their own accumulation restored the planter class. That's not "semi-feudalism." That's capitalism at work.

And indeed, the defeat of Reconstruction, which occurs much earlier than the 1877 Hayes-Tilden deal, along with the Paris Commune bring the mythology of "progressive" bourgeoisie, "democratic revolution" back to earth, and with a thud.

Now that quote from vol 2 which you find so exaggerated indicates the underlying mechanism, market mechanisms, that integrate, adapt, absorb all these "backward" manifestations into the movement of capital.

I'm sure Maoists, like their CP predecessors would love to make the post-Reconstruction south "semi-feudal," requiring a "democratic revolution" to clear the way for "socialism." Hence the baloney about a "captive black nation" in the South-- which was just another way of NOT dealing with the actual class structure of the South and the North and the necessity for proletarian class struggle against both-- and against the substitution-ism of "democratic revolution" for that class struggle.

Quite amazing how the discussion is moving from south Asia to America, specifically after I have provided a description of the south Asian economy. American history is not something I have studied in details, so I will not comment on it. If you want to analyze the situation in south Asia, then talk with reference mainly to south Asia, not America.

So keep on with your ignorance of the US Civil War, with the destruction of Reconstruction, with the real class issues at the core of the struggle in "semi-feudal" countries. It's so much more convenient, easy, and you get to wear those nice buttons with Mao's profile-- those pre-smiley smilies, with just as much significance and relation to Marxism as the present smilies.What is that supposed to mean ? Do you mean that fighting a revolutionary war is more convenient and easier than discussing Marx online ?

RED DAVE

11th December 2010, 15:22

You cannot ignore the question of how surplus value is extracted. If labour power is looted, then it does not remain a commodity itself. This cannot be called capitalism.This is as wrong as can be.

If labor power is "looted," as under slavery or fascism, or extracted under conditions of military dictatorship, or under bourgeois democracy, it is still labor power. It is still the power of labor and it is still producing commodities for sale.

If it isn't a commodity, then what is it?

RED DAVE

red cat

11th December 2010, 15:26

This is as wrong as can be.

If labor power is "looted," as under slavery or fascism, or extracted under conditions of military dictatorship, or under bourgeois democracy, it is still labor power. It is still the power of labor and it is still producing commodities for sale.

If it isn't a commodity, then what is it?

RED DAVE

Back in ancient India, slaves were used to produce commodities which were sold both inside India and abroad. Then that was capitalism too ?

S.Artesian

11th December 2010, 15:27

Quite amazing how the discussion is moving from south Asia to America, specifically after I have provided a description of the south Asian economy. American history is not something I have studied in details, so I will not comment on it. If you want to analyze the situation in south Asia, then talk with reference mainly to south Asia, not America.

You were the one who made the claim that there must have been a contradiction in Marx's analysis regarding slavery and capitalism

What is that supposed to mean ? Do you mean that fighting a revolutionary war is more convenient and easier than discussing Marx online ?

No, what I mean is that your analysis is derived after the fact, from you ideological requirements.

You want to talk about Nepal? Let's do that. But let's leave the ideological crap about new democracy and talk about the class relations. I'm all for that.

S.Artesian

11th December 2010, 15:30

The main goal of the UCPN(M) at present is to overthrow feudalism, imperialism and comprador capitalism. This includes the other big parties in the parliament too. This is why they are pushing proposals that these parties will never be able to accept; so as to obtain the much needed time for preparing for a revolt, and gain a popular reason to overthrow the ruling classes in that revolt. Not denying that there are revisionist elements within the UCPN(M), if you have followed their intra-party debates over the past few months, you will notice that the portion advocating a revolt is the majority.

And what are the mechanisms by which this will be accomplished? What organization is required to do these things?

Can you provide a concrete manifestation of comprador capitalism in Nepal, a specific enterprise that qualifies as comprador capitalism, and for contrast, a specific enterprise that is capitalist but not comprador?

red cat

11th December 2010, 15:37

You were the one who made the claim that there must have been a contradiction in Marx's analysis regarding slavery and capitalism

Obviously, since it contradicts the basic definition of capitalism. If you exclude the factor that labour power is supposed to be sold, not looted, in capitalism, then you can claim even some ancient slave societies to be capitalist.

No, what I mean is that your analysis is derived after the fact, from you ideological requirements.

You want to talk about Nepal? Let's do that. But let's leave the ideological crap about new democracy and talk about the class relations. I'm all for that.

South Asia and more specifically about India. New democracy is deduced from the class relations in such countries.

red cat

11th December 2010, 15:54

And what are the mechanisms by which this will be accomplished? What organization is required to do these things?

The revolt is supposed to be accomplished by an armed insurrection. A vanguard party, a well-trained army and a mass base both in cities and villages are required for this. To prevent counter-revolution, steadily progress to communism and beat back future imperialist invasions, the masses must be able to replace martyrs and overthrow reactionary leaders and cliques within the party and army.

Can you provide a concrete manifestation of comprador capitalism in Nepal, a specific enterprise that qualifies as comprador capitalism, and for contrast, a specific enterprise that is capitalist but not comprador?In Nepal you won't hear of many prominent compradors, most of them are local businessmen. But some big compradors such as the Tatas, Birlas and Jindals in India are well known. Again, capitalists who are not comprador are very small and remain vacillating allies of the revolution, but in case of places like north east India were Indian expansionism is quite rampant, there are such businessmen (http://www.nagalandpost.com/ShowStory.aspx?npoststoryiden=UzEwMjY0MTE%3D-%2B9ClkQd5bcc%3D) who help actively in the revolutionary wars for national liberation in those areas.

S.Artesian

11th December 2010, 16:01

The revolt is supposed to be accomplished by an armed insurrection. A vanguard party, a well-trained army and a mass base both in cities and villages are required for this. To prevent counter-revolution, steadily progress to communism and beat back future imperialist invasions, the masses must be able to replace martyrs and overthrow reactionary leaders and cliques within the party and army.

In Nepal you won't hear of many prominent compradors, most of them are local businessmen. But some big compradors such as the Tatas, Birlas and Jindals in India are well known. Again, capitalists who are not comprador are very small and remain vacillating allies of the revolution, but in case of places like north east India were Indian expansionism is quite rampant, there are such businessmen (http://www.nagalandpost.com/ShowStory.aspx?npoststoryiden=UzEwMjY0MTE%3D-%2B9ClkQd5bcc%3D) who help actively in the revolutionary wars for national liberation in those areas.

Thanks. Sorry for not being more clear in the earlier post. The first part isn't exactly what I was looking for. I was looking for the program, the social transformation that is being advanced.

Tatas is not comprador bourgeoisie. Tatas is a major capitalist enterprise with independent operations throughout the world markets.

Thanks for the link, but it seems to be broken.

red cat

11th December 2010, 16:12

Thanks. The first part isn't exactly what I was looking for. I was looking for the program, the social transformation that is being advanced.

Tatas is not comprador bourgeoisie. Tatas is a major capitalist enterprise with independent operations throughout the world markets.

Thanks for the link, but it seems to be broken.

The comprador bourgeoisie does have capital of its own. The Tata group has its own factories in India, but its major function is to help imperialism maintain its grip over the country. These comprador groups coordinate the working of the state. If you look at their history, you will see that they began openly as native managers of British imperialism and foreign companies. They had always been steady financers of parliamentary parties. Even today they openly invite foreign investors and oversee the state arranging for land and labour for them.

Here is the link again :

http://www.nagalandpost.com/ShowStory.aspx?npoststoryiden=UzEwMjY0MTE%3D-%2B9ClkQd5bcc%3D

RED DAVE

11th December 2010, 16:26

Back in ancient India, slaves were used to produce commodities which were sold both inside India and abroad. Then that was capitalism too ?(1) Yes, those were commodities produced for sale.

(2) No that was not a capitalist society because its primary mode of production was not production for sale but for ruse.

(3) There has always been a certain amount of commodity production for sale, even in, say, ancient Egypt. The key question is: is the primary mode of production the production of commodities for sale? In ancient India, no. In the American South under slavery, yes, In Nepal, yes. Therefore, we are justified in calling the American South and Nepal capitalist and ancient India non-capitalist.

RED DAVE

red cat

11th December 2010, 18:15

(1) Yes, those were commodities produced for sale.

(2) No that was not a capitalist society because its primary mode of production was not production for sale but for ruse.

(3) There has always been a certain amount of commodity production for sale, even in, say, ancient Egypt. The key question is: is the primary mode of production the production of commodities for sale? In ancient India, no. In the American South under slavery, yes, In Nepal, yes. Therefore, we are justified in calling the American South and Nepal capitalist and ancient India non-capitalist.

RED DAVE

An accepted definition should be the most effective one when distinguishing societies in terms of general features, class contradictions and successful revolutionary strategy. Commodity production, or commodity production as the primary mode of production are indeed important features of capitalism, but they do not define it in such a way that it is identified with a single system with a particular social structure, set of class contradictions and other broad features.

I still prefer to stick to the definition of capitalism as a system in which labour-power itself is a commodity. This automatically implies that labour power has to be bought, not looted.

RED DAVE

11th December 2010, 19:07

An accepted definition should be the most effective one when distinguishing societies in terms of general features, class contradictions and successful revolutionary strategy.True, which is something that Maoists have consistently failed to do.

The proletarian regime led by the Bolsheviks was overthrown by a clearly identifiable counter-revolution led by Stalin and his ilk. The result was state capitalism, which morphed into private capitalism without any further counter-revolution because none was necessary.

The Chinese Revolution, led by the CCP, was state capitalist from the start and morphed into private capitalism with no counter-revolution as none was necessary.

Maoists have never analyzed these phenomena and have covered them over with the notion of "revisionism," with no answer as to how alien class forces ended up in a working class party. As a result, when confronted with the distinct possibility that the UCPN(M) is the repository of class forces other than the working class and, therefore, carrying out an anti-working class program, they are not capable of considering this.

Commodity production, or commodity production as the primary mode of production are indeed important features of capitalism, but they do not define it in such a way that it is identified with a single system with a particular social structure, set of class contradictions and other broad features.You are throwing up a cloud of words.

The fact is that capitalism is the only form of economic production for which the production of commodities for sale is the dominant mode. Any society where the dominant mode of production of commodities is commodities for sale is capitalism.

Nepal is a capitalist country. It is not feudal or semi-feudal. It has certain phenomenon typical of pre-capitalist societies, but, in fact, these phenomena are integrated into capitalism itself. They deform Nepalese capitalism as slavery deformed US capitalism. But, and this is crucial, US capitalism was capable of eliminating slavery while Nepalese capitalism was not capable of eliminating feudal forms, such as the monarchy, without the assistance of revolutionary forces outside itself from the working class, the peasantry and the petit-bourgeoisie.

What is a nightmare is that, Nepalese capitalism having proved itself impotent in carrying out its own revolution, the Maoists obliged it by including it in a revolution that should have been anti-capitalist.

I still prefer to stick to the definition of capitalism as a system in which labour-power itself is a commodity. This automatically implies that labour power has to be bought, not looted.Even on your own basis of what you "prefer," which has no basis in history as it happened or Marxism as an explanation of that history, you're wrong

Commodities which are stolen, exploited, looted, etc., including labor power, are still commodities. This is easily demonstrated.

• Are the products produced in US prisons, some of which are, by now, virtually slave-labor factories, still commodities produced for sale?

• Were the munitions produced in the salve labor camps in nazi Germany and purchased by the government from the munitions makers commodities?

• Was the cotton produced in the American South by slaves, and which was sold to England, a commodity?

Of course they were. Get off it. Nepal is capitalist.

RED DAVE

red cat

11th December 2010, 19:27

True, which is something that Maoists have consistently failed to do.

The proletarian regime led by the Bolsheviks was overthrown by a clearly identifiable counter-revolution led by Stalin and his ilk. The result was state capitalism, which morphed into private capitalism without any further counter-revolution because none was necessary.

The Chinese Revolution, led by the CCP, was state capitalist from the start and morphed into private capitalism with no counter-revolution as none was necessary.

Maoists have never analyzed these phenomena and have covered them over with the notion of "revisionism," with no answer as to how alien class forces ended up in a working class party. As a result, when confronted with the distinct possibility that the UCPN(M) is the repository of class forces other than the working class and, therefore, carrying out an anti-working class program, they are not capable of considering this.

You are throwing up a cloud of words.

The fact is that capitalism is the only form of economic production for which the production of commodities for sale is the dominant mode. Any society where the dominant mode of production of commodities is commodities for sale is capitalism.

Nepal is a capitalist country. It is not feudal or semi-feudal. It has certain phenomenon typical of pre-capitalist societies, but, in fact, these phenomena are integrated into capitalism itself. They deform Nepalese capitalism as slavery deformed US capitalism. But, and this is crucial, US capitalism was capable of eliminating slavery while Nepalese capitalism was not capable of eliminating feudal forms, such as the monarchy, without the assistance of revolutionary forces outside itself from the working class, the peasantry and the petit-bourgeoisie.

What is a nightmare is that, Nepalese capitalism having proved itself impotent in carrying out its own revolution, the Maoists obliged it by including it in a revolution that should have been anti-capitalist.

Even on your own basis of what you "prefer," which has no basis in history as it happened or Marxism as an explanation of that history, you're wrong

Commodities which are stolen, exploited, looted, etc., including labor power, are still commodities. This is easily demonstrated.

• Are the products produced in US prisons, some of which are, by now, virtually slave-labor factories, still commodities produced for sale?

• Were the munitions produced in the salve labor camps in nazi Germany and purchased by the government from the munitions makers commodities?

• Was the cotton produced in the American South by slaves, and which was sold to England, a commodity?

Of course they were. Get off it. Nepal is capitalist.

RED DAVE

Again, concentrating on the useful and relevant part of the post :

Commodities which are stolen, exploited, looted, etc., including labor power, are still commodities. This is easily demonstrated.

• Are the products produced in US prisons, some of which are, by now, virtually slave-labor factories, still commodities produced for sale?

• Were the munitions produced in the salve labor camps in nazi Germany and purchased by the government from the munitions makers commodities?

• Was the cotton produced in the American South by slaves, and which was sold to England, a commodity?"Commodities" which are stolen, exploited, looted, etc.,... So you consider labour-power a commodity to begin with ? What characterizes it as a commodity if it is looted in the first place ? This means that labour power is a commodity in every economic system.

RED DAVE

11th December 2010, 20:25

Again, concentrating on the useful and relevant part of the post :So you can hide your weird-ass politics behind abstractions. :D

"Commodities" which are stolen, exploited, looted, etc.,...As above.

So you consider labour-power a commodity to begin with ?Labor power is a commodity under capitalism. The following summary from wikipedia, is useful.

Under capitalism, according to Marx, labour-power becomes a commodity – it is sold and bought on the market. A worker tries to sell his or her labour-power to an employer, in exchange for a wage or salary. If successful (the only alternative being unemployment), this exchange involves submitting to the authority of the capitalist for a specific period of time.

During that time, the worker does actual labour, producing goods and services. The capitalist can then sell these and obtain surplus value; since the wages paid to the workers are lower than the value of the goods or services they produce for the capitalist.

Labour power can also be sold by the worker on "own account", in which case he is self-employed, or it can be sold by an intermediary, such as a hiring agency. In principle a group of workers can also sell their labour-power as an independent contracting party. Some labour contracts are very complex, involving a number of different intermediaries.

Normally, the worker is legally the owner of his labour power, and can sell it freely according to his own wishes. However, most often the trade in labour power is regulated by legislation, and the sale may not be truly "free" - it may be a forced sale for one reason or another, and indeed it may be bought and sold against the real wishes of the worker even although he owns his own labour power. Various gradations of freedom and unfreedom are possible, and free wage labour can combine with slave labour or semi-slavery.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_power#Labour_power_as_commodity

What characterizes it as a commodity if it is looted in the first place ?What characterizes labor power as a commodity under capitalism is that it is (a) a use-value; that is, it is useful, and (b) it is an exchange value; that is, it is an object of exchange.

One more time, although you ducked it above:

• Are the products produced in US prisons, some of which are, by now, virtually slave-labor factories, still commodities produced for sale?

• Were the munitions produced in the salve labor camps in nazi Germany and purchased by the government from the munitions makers commodities?

• Was the cotton produced in the American South by slaves, and which was sold to England, a commodity?
This means that labour power is a commodity in every economic system.No, dude, it means that labor power is a commodity when it is an object of use, in any society, and when it is an object of exchange, which is tpical of capitalism only.

Wiggle all you want, red cat, but you can't get away from the fact that Nepal is a cpaitalist society, characterized by the buying and selling of labor power as a commodity.

RED DAVE

red cat

11th December 2010, 20:31

So you can hide your weird-ass politics behind abstractions. :D

As above.

Labor power is a commodity under capitalism. The following summary from wikipedia, is useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_power#Labour_power_as_commodity

What characterizes labor power as a commodity under capitalism is that it is (a) a use-value; that is, it is useful, and (b) it is an exchange value; that is, it is an object of exchange.

One more time, although you ducked it above:

No, dude, it means that labor power is a commodity when it is an object of use, in any society, and when it is an object of exchange, which is tpical of capitalism only.

Wiggle all you want, red cat, but you can't get away from the fact that Nepal is a cpaitalist society, characterized by the buying and selling of labor power as a commodity.

RED DAVE

I still don't understand your point. What do you mean by object of exchange when labour power is being looted ?

RED DAVE

11th December 2010, 23:59

I still don't understand your point. What do you mean by object of exchange when labour power is being looted ?Sigh!

(1) A table lamp is a commodity. Sitting on a table in your home, it's a use value.

(2) Labor power is a commodity. When it is used to produce a commodity at home to make a clay pot, it is a use value.

(3) The table lamp is stolen.

(4) A worker is put in jail.

(5) The table lamp is sold in a flea market. It is now an exchange value.

(6) The worker is put to work in a factory in the prison making table lamps, which are sold. (He is fed, clothed and housed to keep him alive.) His labor power is now being used to produced commodities for sale. It is an exchange value

(7) The vast majority of workers in Nepal, in the cities and in the countryside, are producing commodities for sale, and they are paid for their work.

(8) Nepal is a capitalist country. It's bourgeoisie exploits the working class. To make an alliance with the class that exploits the workers is an act of class collaboration.

RED DAVE

red cat

12th December 2010, 06:28

Sigh!

(1) A table lamp is a commodity. Sitting on a table in your home, it's a use value.

(2) Labor power is a commodity. When it is used to produce a commodity at home to make a clay pot, it is a use value.

(3) The table lamp is stolen.

(4) A worker is put in jail.

(5) The table lamp is sold in a flea market. It is now an exchange value.

(6) The worker is put to work in a factory in the prison making table lamps, which are sold. (He is fed, clothed and housed to keep him alive.) His labor power is now being used to produced commodities for sale. It is an exchange value

(7) The vast majority of workers in Nepal, in the cities and in the countryside, are producing commodities for sale, and they are paid for their work.

(8) Nepal is a capitalist country. It's bourgeoisie exploits the working class. To make an alliance with the class that exploits the workers is an act of class collaboration.

RED DAVE

Do you mean that when the product of labour becomes a commodity, labour power should be considered as a commodity too ?

DaringMehring

12th December 2010, 07:44

From what I gather,

the Maoist here are saying ---

The UCPN is agreeing to these deals with the bourgeois Parties to allow capital to continue to penetrate Nepal, and that is good. They are just doing what they need to do, in the New Democratic revolution. It is theoretically justified and therefore, right.

The Trotskyist are saying ---

The UCPN is selling out the rank and file, based on their flawed ideology which means that their revolutionary attempt is doomed from the get go. They are just a cover for capitalist exploitation.

Is anyone defending the position that --- these kind of moves, represent the leadership drawing down on the revolutionary struggle, and dampening the fighting spirit of the masses, but this leadership at other times promoted a deepening and broadening of the struggle, and so it represents a negative development that was not necessarily inevitable. Nothing is constant and the role of the leadership over time has not been. This is just a new phase of a living social struggle. It is neither correct to endorse & cheer these compromises, nor is is correct to presuppose them as a predetermined outcome.

I think along these lines and the argument that has developed here seems ludicrous to me, based more on sectarianism than anything else.

RED DAVE

12th December 2010, 13:27

From what I gather,

the Maoist[s here are saying ---

The UCPN is agreeing to these deals with the bourgeois Parties to allow capital to continue to penetrate Nepal, and that is good. They are just doing what they need to do, in the New Democratic revolution. It is theoretically justified and therefore, right.I think that's a fair statement of the Maoist position

The Trotskyist[s] are saying ---

The UCPN is selling out the rank and file, based on their flawed ideology which means that their revolutionary attempt is doomed from the get go. They are just a cover for capitalist exploitation.Not quite, but let's go with it.

Is anyone defending the position that --- these kind of moves, represent the leadership drawing down on the revolutionary struggle, and dampening the fighting spirit of the masses, but this leadership at other times promoted a deepening and broadening of the struggle, and so it represents a negative development that was not necessarily inevitable.It wasn't inevitable, but given Maoism as the ideology of the revolutionary leadership, it was inevitable. Put in crudest terms, the Maoists have no way to bridge the gap between the countryside and the cities, except by military conquest. When this failed in Nepal, the UCPN(M) was stalemated.

What this failure is due to is, despite Maoist protests to the contrary, a failure, despite rhetoric to the contrary, to place the working class firmly at the center of the revolution as the leading class. According to Maoist theory, the working class is one of a bloc of four classes, the working class, the native bourgeoisie, the petit-bourgeoisie and the peasantry, which will make the revolution and establish some kind of a hybrid society called New Democracy. This is totally against Marxist theory, which is based on the primary revolutionary role of the working class in the transformation from capitalism to socialism. Look in the works of Marxism and you will find no category such as "New Democracy." In revolutions in under-developed countries, a notion was developed, by Lenin and Trotsky, that the working class would lead a revolutionary alliance against the bourgeoisie, native, foreign or comprador.

The debate going on above between red cat and myself, over labor power, is actually a debate about the role of the working class in revolution in under-developed countries. red cat's arguments about labor power are an attempt to prove that Nepal is "semi-feudal," and therefore the Nepalese bourgeoisie has a role in the revolution. This is contradicted by Leninism, which demonstrated nearly 100 years ago, that the bourgeoisie of a country like Nepal cannot accomplish the revolution to achieve a modern society. Only the working class can do this.

The Maoists yoking of the working class with the bourgeoisie represents a massive failure to understand the nature of revolution in our time. It also invites either a stalemate, as in Nepal, or, should the revolution succeed with the bourgeoisie as a component, the result, as in China and Vietnam, is state capitalism, which morphs into private capitalism.

Nothing is constant and the role of the leadership over time has not been.True. But we have to look at the theory and practice of any given leadership to see "what it's all about."

This is just a new phase of a living social struggle. It is neither correct to endorse & cheer these compromises, nor is is correct to presuppose them as a predetermined outcome.Comrade, the Nepalese Maoists have showed their faces again and again. For them, the working class is not the center of the revolution, the leading class. For them, the working class is instrumental, not essential. If they could have taken the cities of Nepal without the working class, they would have so. Having been unable to do this, and because they are unable to mobilize the working class for revolution in tandem with its class enemy, and so they are left with parliamentary manipulation.

I think along these lines and the argument that has developed here seems ludicrous to me, based more on sectarianism than anything else.Comrade, nothing would please me more than to watch and in some way be a part of the triumph of a Marxist party in Nepal (or anywhere else). Instead, we have bizarre series events in which a "Marxist" party assumes the prime ministership of a bourgeois government, negotiates with bourgeois parties, discusses liquidating its fighting forces, etc.

We now know, as we did not know 100 years ago, that there is an alternative for societies like Nepal that is neither socialism nor private capitalism, but state capitalism. Should the UCPN(M) achieve state power, either through parliament or insurrection, this is what there is every indication they will establish.

RED DAVE

red cat

12th December 2010, 14:18

Is anyone defending the position that --- these kind of moves, represent the leadership drawing down on the revolutionary struggle, and dampening the fighting spirit of the masses, but this leadership at other times promoted a deepening and broadening of the struggle, and so it represents a negative development that was not necessarily inevitable. Nothing is constant and the role of the leadership over time has not been. This is just a new phase of a living social struggle. It is neither correct to endorse & cheer these compromises, nor is is correct to presuppose them as a predetermined outcome.

I think along these lines and the argument that has developed here seems ludicrous to me, based more on sectarianism than anything else.

A peoples' war has its ups and downs. Retreat might be due to strategic reasons or an opportunistic line. Whether the peace process was meant for reorganizing and spreading the struggle, or liquidating the struggle altogether, cannot be said right now.Taking the help of foreign industrialists is justifiable to an extent considering the absence of industries, particularly heavy industries, in vast areas of Nepal. The main question is whether to continue the coalition with the comprador parties or move for an all out revolt and the UCPN(M) is undergoing an intense two-line struggle on this.

S.Artesian

12th December 2010, 16:20

.Taking the help of foreign industrialists is justifiable to an extent considering the absence of industries, particularly heavy industries, in vast areas of Nepal. The main question is whether to continue the coalition with the comprador parties or move for an all out revolt and the UCPN(M) is undergoing an intense two-line struggle on this.

Wait minute, I thought "new democracy" was opposed to foreign capital, and I thought collaboration with the comprador bourgeoisie was specifically excluded by the Maoist doctrine.

How can you have a "2 line struggle" over this-- and please don't feed me any bullshit about "dialectics"-- this has no relation to the dialectic of class struggle, and to the dialectic of capitalist accumulation.

red cat

12th December 2010, 16:23

Wait minute, I thought "new democracy" was opposed to foreign capital, and I thought collaboration with the comprador bourgeoisie was specifically excluded by the Maoist doctrine.

How can you have a "2 line struggle" over this-- and please don't feed me any bullshit about "dialectics"-- this has no relation to the dialectic of class struggle, and to the dialectic of capitalist accumulation.

Because the alliance with comprador parties is due to the strategy of dividing and defeating the enemy. The two line struggle is mainly over the military question of whether the UCPN(M) is strong enough to take on the comprador parties and foreign intervention together or not.

RED DAVE

12th December 2010, 17:13

Because the alliance with comprador parties is due to the strategy of dividing and defeating the enemy.Or, much more logically, it's a groping towards a state capitalist policy.

The two line struggle is mainly over the military question of whether the UCPN(M) is strong enough to take on the comprador parties and foreign intervention together or not.Or how to best make a deal.

RED DAVE

S.Artesian

12th December 2010, 18:07

Because the alliance with comprador parties is due to the strategy of dividing and defeating the enemy. The two line struggle is mainly over the military question of whether the UCPN(M) is strong enough to take on the comprador parties and foreign intervention together or not.

Come on, man, do I look like I just fell off a truckload of turnips coming to market? There's program, strategy, and tactics. Tactics are supposed to apply the strategy to the particular situation; strategy is the way of achieving the program; program is the actual method, organization which the working class rules all of society.

There's needs to be a systematic coherence of tactics to strategy to program.

Here's how we approach the connections in the railroad industry:

Program-- that is our operating book of rules, the way in which we ensure safe, and successful, train operations.

Strategy-- timetable special instructions that tell us what rules apply over specific sections of the system-- i.e. what tracks are designated as main line tracks, what tracks are yard tracks, what the speed restrictions are on any particular track

Tactics-- those are our bulletin orders and train orders, involving applications of certain rules to sections of the tracks other than those applications listed in the timetable-- like temporary speed restrictions due to track work, or a track removed from service, or a the authorized speed of operation of a new type of equipment.

You cannot annul, contradict your program with your tactics. We cannot annul a rule and NOT provide for another rule that will not conform to our strategy which needs to conform to our program for safe train operations.

This, BTW, is why I don't think you can properly describe Mao's evaluations as a "theory" since the evaluations so easily accommodate their own annulment, their own embrace of what the theory claims to oppose-- "foreign capital," the "comprador bourgeoisie."

If your program is the achievement of socialist revolution, for the workers overthrowing capitalism and establishing the organization of production for use, then you can't achieve that program by collaborating on a program with, of, for the bourgeoisie, for the preservation or expansion of capital as capital.

Your strategy and tactics have to strengthen that program for the workers to act independently, for their program, which puts them as the ruling power.

If you think the workers are too weak to do that-- and by that I mean advance that program, then what are doing, as we have seen so painfully and recently, is setting up the conditions for the restoration of capitalism after, at best, an historically brief interlude of maybe 30-50 years-- if that.

Now you may claim railroads have nothing to do with revolution, but that would be a demonstration of your lack of understanding of historical materialism.

Not for nothing did Engels call revolution the locomotive of history. This theory of collaboration being presented here is a good way to derail that locomotive.

red cat

12th December 2010, 19:03

Or, much more logically, it's a groping towards a state capitalist policy.

Or how to best make a deal.

RED DAVE

A one line description of what you mean by commodification of labour power would be appreciated.

red cat

12th December 2010, 19:58

Come on, man, do I look like I just fell off a truckload of turnips coming to market? There's program, strategy, and tactics. Tactics are supposed to apply the strategy to the particular situation; strategy is the way of achieving the program; program is the actual method, organization which the working class rules all of society.

There's needs to be a systematic coherence of tactics to strategy to program.

Here's how we approach the connections in the railroad industry:

Program-- that is our operating book of rules, the way in which we ensure safe, and successful, train operations.

Strategy-- timetable special instructions that tell us what rules apply over specific sections of the system-- i.e. what tracks are designated as main line tracks, what tracks are yard tracks, what the speed restrictions are on any particular track

Tactics-- those are our bulletin orders and train orders, involving applications of certain rules to sections of the tracks other than those applications listed in the timetable-- like temporary speed restrictions due to track work, or a track removed from service, or a the authorized speed of operation of a new type of equipment.

You cannot annul, contradict your program with your tactics. We cannot annul a rule and NOT provide for another rule that will not conform to our strategy which needs to conform to our program for safe train operations.

This, BTW, is why I don't think you can properly describe Mao's evaluations as a "theory" since the evaluations so easily accommodate their own annulment, their own embrace of what the theory claims to oppose-- "foreign capital," the "comprador bourgeoisie."

If your program is the achievement of socialist revolution, for the workers overthrowing capitalism and establishing the organization of production for use, then you can't achieve that program by collaborating on a program with, of, for the bourgeoisie, for the preservation or expansion of capital as capital.

Your strategy and tactics have to strengthen that program for the workers to act independently, for their program, which puts them as the ruling power.

If you think the workers are too weak to do that-- and by that I mean advance that program, then what are doing, as we have seen so painfully and recently, is setting up the conditions for the restoration of capitalism after, at best, an historically brief interlude of maybe 30-50 years-- if that.

Now you may claim railroads have nothing to do with revolution, but that would be a demonstration of your lack of understanding of historical materialism.

Not for nothing did Engels call revolution the locomotive of history. This theory of collaboration being presented here is a good way to derail that locomotive.

Or rather we should choose the options that conform the most to our strategy. If there are two enemies, it is better to ally with one of them and defeat the other than being defeated by a coalition of the two.

S.Artesian

12th December 2010, 21:15

Or rather we should choose the options that conform the most to our strategy. If there are two enemies, it is better to ally with one of them and defeat the other than being defeated by a coalition of the two.

Right, right... which is exactly why, in advanced countries, the CP is always advocating allying with the "lesser evil, the "progressive bourgeoisie" vs. the "conservative bourgeoisie."

"New democracy-Popular Front"

Same-same; bullshit-bullshit.

False split among the elements of the ruling structure of society-- "progressive capitalists" vs. "reactionary capitalists"
"foreign capitalists" vs. "national capitalists"

And in this case, it seems you are allying with both-- the foreign and the comprador capitalists.

RED DAVE

12th December 2010, 21:27

Or rather we should choose the options that conform the most to our strategy. If there are two enemies, it is better to ally with one of them and defeat the other than being defeated by a coalition of the two.After all, that worked so fucking well in China.

If there are two class enemies, native and foreign bourgeolisie, you fight them both. This is what the Bolsheviks did.

Maoists think that they can place fast and loose with history.

RED DAVE

RED DAVE

12th December 2010, 21:35

A one line description of what you mean by commodification of labour power would be appreciated.This means that labor power is itself a commodtiy which is bought and sold. It is bought by the capitalist for the purpose of making more commodities. It is sold by the worker for the purpose of maintaining life.

As an addendum, when the sale of labor is not free, as in slavery, the worker is "paid" by the wherewithal of life, and his/her labor is still used to produce commodities.

RED DAVE

red cat

12th December 2010, 23:27

This means that labor power is itself a commodtiy which is bought and sold. It is bought by the capitalist for the purpose of making more commodities. It is sold by the worker for the purpose of maintaining life.

As an addendum, when the sale of labor is not free, as in slavery, the worker is "paid" by the wherewithal of life, and his/her labor is still used to produce commodities.

RED DAVE

So even if it is looted, since labour creates commodity, labour-power should be considered as a commodity? I do not agree with this.

red cat

12th December 2010, 23:30

Right, right... which is exactly why, in advanced countries, the CP is always advocating allying with the "lesser evil, the "progressive bourgeoisie" vs. the "conservative bourgeoisie."

"New democracy-Popular Front"

Same-same; bullshit-bullshit.

False split among the elements of the ruling structure of society-- "progressive capitalists" vs. "reactionary capitalists"
"foreign capitalists" vs. "national capitalists"

And in this case, it seems you are allying with both-- the foreign and the comprador capitalists.

After all, that worked so fucking well in China.

If there are two class enemies, native and foreign bourgeolisie, you fight them both. This is what the Bolsheviks did.

Maoists think that they can place fast and loose with history.

RED DAVE

There is no point in debating this. We have seen what happened when far-leftist adventurism was applied in south Asia. The dogmatic line of fighting all enemies at once was defeated in Sri Lanka. All over south Asia and abroad, those who advocate in this line, never implement it in reality. It is used only to slander revolutions and it cannot be applied to overthrow imperialism in reality.

S.Artesian

12th December 2010, 23:41

There is no point in debating this. We have seen what happened when far-leftist adventurism was applied in south Asia. The dogmatic line of fighting all enemies at once was defeated in Sri Lanka. All over south Asia and abroad, those who advocate in this line, never implement it in reality. It is used only to slander revolutions and it cannot be applied to overthrow imperialism in reality.

Right.. fall back to your safe position-- we are slandering real revolutions. Of course, we are not the ones who have transformed China into capitalism's latest experiment in low-wages, big profits. We are not the ones who have Vietnam working for Nike.

Nope, that slander against the workers is performed by those who were trained in that "new democracy," in that "splitting" of enemies" etc; by those who tell us how "this will be different. Nepal isn't _________[fill in the blank]."

Guess what? Take a look around... where exactly has imperialism been overthrown?

red cat

12th December 2010, 23:47

Right.. fall back to your safe position-- we are slandering real revolutions. Of course, we are not the ones who have transformed China into capitalism's latest experiment in low-wages, big profits. We are not the ones who have Vietnam working for Nike.

Nope, that slander against the workers is performed by those who were trained in that "new democracy," in that "splitting" of enemies" etc; by those who tell us how "this will be different. Nepal isn't _________[fill in the blank]."

So, the solution is ... the 30,000 strong PLA taking on the 90,000 strong RNA and getting destroyed ? Plus a possible Indian military intervention ?

Guess what? Take a look around... where exactly has imperialism been overthrown?Imperialism had been overthrown in China, Korea and Vietnam. Though capitalist restorations have occured in each of these, imperialism has not been able reconquer China.

S.Artesian

13th December 2010, 03:30

So, the solution is ... the 30,000 strong PLA taking on the 90,000 strong RNA and getting destroyed ? Plus a possible Indian military intervention ?

Imperialism had been overthrown in China, Korea and Vietnam. Though capitalist restorations have occured in each of these, imperialism has not been able reconquer China.

First part- No, no one here has advocated insurrection or armed struggle at this point. The issue has been, is, social program, class program. Apparently you have no concept of such thing but think revolution is only armed struggle or class collaboration. The former is a tactic, the latter is a disaster.

Second part... see that's the point you think "imperialism was overthrown in China" but the whole point is that you can't overthrow imperialism in isolation in one, two, three, countries. You might for a brief period, expel it; but when you do that, the imperialism morphs and reinsinuates itself into the economy, sooner or later, through the restoration of capitalism-- unless of course you consider the fact that [in 2007] 80% of China's hi-tech exports were owned by foreign enterprises evidence of something other than international capital extracting profits from China.

Or perhaps you consider the dismantling of the fSU and its economy, and the "shock therapy" economic treatment that drove life expectancy down to 3rd world levels manifestation of something other than the demands of international capital.

Hey, no matter. If you don't understand the distinction between tactics and program, between armed struggle and revolution, you probably won't understand the unity between "national capitalism" and international capital.

red cat

13th December 2010, 05:14

First part- No, no one here has advocated insurrection or armed struggle at this point. The issue has been, is, social program, class program. Apparently you have no concept of such thing but think revolution is only armed struggle or class collaboration. The former is a tactic, the latter is a disaster.

You fail to see that a war will be imposed on the Maoists if they don't continue dividing the enemy and allying with a certain fraction of them. You can have an idea of the class program by looking at the land seizures and workers movements.

Second part... see that's the point you think "imperialism was overthrown in China" but the whole point is that you can't overthrow imperialism in isolation in one, two, three, countries. You might for a brief period, expel it; but when you do that, the imperialism morphs and reinsinuates itself into the economy, sooner or later, through the restoration of capitalism-- unless of course you consider the fact that [in 2007] 80% of China's hi-tech exports were owned by foreign enterprises evidence of something other than international capital extracting profits from China.

Or perhaps you consider the dismantling of the fSU and its economy, and the "shock therapy" economic treatment that drove life expectancy down to 3rd world levels manifestation of something other than the demands of international capital.

Hey, no matter. If you don't understand the distinction between tactics and program, between armed struggle and revolution, you probably won't understand the unity between "national capitalism" and international capital.It seems that you are one who doesn't understand the difference between being a colony under imperialism and being an imperialist country taking part in imperialism. Relations of production in China are capitalist now, and China is actively increasing its influence in Africa and south Asia.

S.Artesian

13th December 2010, 05:58

You fail to see that a war will be imposed on the Maoists if they don't continue dividing the enemy and allying with a certain fraction of them. You can have an idea of the class program by looking at the land seizures and workers movements.

If there are land seizures and a powerful workers movement emerging, then allying with any fraction of the enemy will work to disorient those movements, to prevent them from organizing for power, and for emboldening the hardest core, the most ruthless sections of the ruling class. Allying with fractions, sections of the ruling class is the best way to lose the war that will be imposed.

It seems that you are one who doesn't understand the difference between being a colony under imperialism and being an imperialist country taking part in imperialism. Relations of production in China are capitalist now, and China is actively increasing its influence in Africa and south Asia.And your point is what? That such transformation was possible only because of the Maoist "new democracy"? That only Mao's revolutionary alliance with parts of the ruling class could emancipate China from imperialism, by which you mean what? Relieve the poverty of the great majority of the population? Apparently not, as China still ranks well down that list with high rates of poverty. In fact, as you well know, the whole world attributes the "benefits" of China's recent growth to capitalism.

Do you mean that only such a revolution could open up the way for improved literacy and healthcare, increased life-spans, declines in infant mortality, etc. etc? Nope-- look at Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia.

Or is it your point that China can now take its rightful place at the table of imperialist diners, and that consequently, allying with fractions of the ruling class is the only way to become a successful capitalist power?

The real question, the only questions that must be answered right now are: what is the class character of the revolutionary struggle in Nepal? Is it a struggle for the expropriation of capital? One that requires the expropriation of the property of the ruling class? If so what class must lead that struggle to bring it to fruition? How can that class organize itself, its own power to accomplish the necessary task?

What is the class character of the revolution in Nepal? Proletarian or "new democratic"? The answer to that is determined not by the isolation of Nepal, by its backwardness, but more so by its modest integration, its connection to the world markets.

red cat

13th December 2010, 07:18

If there are land seizures and a powerful workers movement emerging, then allying with any fraction of the enemy will work to disorient those movements, to prevent them from organizing for power, and for emboldening the hardest core, the most ruthless sections of the ruling class. Allying with fractions, sections of the ruling class is the best way to lose the war that will be imposed.

Wrong. Not allying with a part of the enemy will lead to immediate defeat. On the other hand, allying with compradors as is being done in Nepal does not mean yielding to all of their demands. So such an alliance can be achieved to an extent without really harming the basic mass movements and using the time to prepare the masses for seizure of power.

And your point is what? That such transformation was possible only because of the Maoist "new democracy"? That only Mao's revolutionary alliance with parts of the ruling class could emancipate China from imperialism, by which you mean what? Relieve the poverty of the great majority of the population? Apparently not, as China still ranks well down that list with high rates of poverty. In fact, as you well know, the whole world attributes the "benefits" of China's recent growth to capitalism.

Do you mean that only such a revolution could open up the way for improved literacy and healthcare, increased life-spans, declines in infant mortality, etc. etc? Nope-- look at Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia.

Or is it your point that China can now take its rightful place at the table of imperialist diners, and that consequently, allying with fractions of the ruling class is the only way to become a successful capitalist power? My point is that China is now an imperialist power itself, implying that it is not a colony and has overthrown imperialism.

The real question, the only questions that must be answered right now are: what is the class character of the revolutionary struggle in Nepal? Is it a struggle for the expropriation of capital? One that requires the expropriation of the property of the ruling class? If so what class must lead that struggle to bring it to fruition? How can that class organize itself, its own power to accomplish the necessary task?

What is the class character of the revolution in Nepal? Proletarian or "new democratic"? The answer to that is determined not by the isolation of Nepal, by its backwardness, but more so by its modest integration, its connection to the world markets.The nature of the revolution in Nepal is new democratic, because it has not yet completely ousted feudalism and imperialism, so that pre-capitalist relations of production are still dominant.

The class that leads a new democratic revolution is the proletariat. In the countryside, the former slaves and landless peasants transform into proletarians as the relations of production are transformed by the revolution itself, and in the cities the urban proletariat gradually engages in militant movements. The organization is enough for the completion of the first stage of the revolution when both are able to militarily defend themselves.

S.Artesian

13th December 2010, 15:57

The nature of the revolution in Nepal is new democratic, because it has not yet completely ousted feudalism and imperialism, so that pre-capitalist relations of production are still dominant.

OK, your analysis then maintains that the remnants of the feudal relations, and imperialism are not embedded in the "national" capitalism of Nepal, and the struggle from those "unnational uncapital" relations is not inseparable from the struggle against capitalism.

Of course, the very fact that imperialism is capitalism, is capitalism adapting and pressuring the "semi-feudal" remnants is, I guess, secondary to your analysis.

Except.... except the entire economy of Nepal yields a GDP of about $12.5 billion dollars. Imports are equal to 33% of GDP and are considered a deduction from total GDP. Half of all imports are manufactured goods. I don't know of any "feudal" economy that imports manufactured goods, goods from capitalist sources such as India, China, the European Union, etc. that equal 1/6 of its total economic output.

Whatever "feudal" remnants exist in Nepal, they are part and parcel of Nepal's capitalist development, the development of its underdevelopment. The abolition of those remnants is not separate and apart from the abolition of capitalism. It does not proceed in separate, discreet "stages."

Palingenisis

13th December 2010, 16:15

[FONT=Times-Roman]The Black Question in the United States was never, properly, a question of national liberation.

A lot of people are puzzled by the generally reactionary nature of the white working class within the United States when the answer is starring them in the face. It is because of the subjection of the Black/New Afrikan nation and to a greater or lesser extent the white working class's collaboration with it and comparative priveilage over the New Afrikan people that ties them to capitalism.

The national liberation of the capitive Black nation is the key to the American revolution.

RED DAVE

13th December 2010, 17:00

The Black Question in the United States was never, properly, a question of national liberation.

A lot of people are puzzled by the generally reactionary nature of the white working class within the United States when the answer is starring them in the face.Uh, not quite, Comrade. It's a little more complicated than you think.

It is because of the subjection of the Black/New Afrikan nation and to a greater or lesser extent the white working class's collaboration with it and comparative priveilage over the New Afrikan people that ties them to capitalism."White skin privilege" is one thing. Analyzing the condition of African-Americans using national criteria is another.

The national liberation of the capitive Black nation is the key to the American revolution.The African-American nationality in the USA is not a nation. Just for openers, they are not geographically concentrated; they do not have a class structure separate from the class structure of the rest of the country.

A serious discussion of this issue, and it merits such, should take place in another thread. Start one, someone, if you want to continue this.

RED DAVE

RED DAVE

13th December 2010, 17:01

Whatever "feudal" remnants exist in Nepal, they are part and parcel of Nepal's capitalist development, the development of its underdevelopment. The abolition of those remnants is not separate and apart from the abolition of capitalism. It does not proceed in separate, discreet "stages."Exactly.

RED DAVE

red cat

13th December 2010, 17:22

OK, your analysis then maintains that the remnants of the feudal relations, and imperialism are not embedded in the "national" capitalism of Nepal, and the struggle from those "unnational uncapital" relations is not inseparable from the struggle against capitalism.

Of course, the very fact that imperialism is capitalism, is capitalism adapting and pressuring the "semi-feudal" remnants is, I guess, secondary to your analysis.

Except.... except the entire economy of Nepal yields a GDP of about $12.5 billion dollars. Imports are equal to 33% of GDP and are considered a deduction from total GDP. Half of all imports are manufactured goods. I don't know of any "feudal" economy that imports manufactured goods, goods from capitalist sources such as India, China, the European Union, etc. that equal 1/6 of its total economic output.

Whatever "feudal" remnants exist in Nepal, they are part and parcel of Nepal's capitalist development, the development of its underdevelopment. The abolition of those remnants is not separate and apart from the abolition of capitalism. It does not proceed in separate, discreet "stages."

What is wrong with a semi-feudal economy importing manufactured goods ? Generally colonies are treated as cheap sources of raw-materials. This means the market for manufactured goods in these colonies will rely on imports.

Nepal, being a colony, has never had its "capitalist" development. The stages of the revolution have to be recognized as the primary class contradictions change with its progress.

S.Artesian

13th December 2010, 18:18

What is wrong with a semi-feudal economy importing manufactured goods ? Generally colonies are treated as cheap sources of raw-materials. This means the market for manufactured goods in these colonies will rely on imports.

Nepal, being a colony, has never had its "capitalist" development. The stages of the revolution have to be recognized as the primary class contradictions change with its progress.

Nothing is "wrong" with it-- but it certainly undermines the notion that such economies are "feudal"-- feudal economies do not import, nor export, as an economy very much in the way of manufactured goods. There is no real market for such goods.

That's the point. The colonized economies being fed, or force fed, manufactured goods are no longer feudal economies. They exhibit uneven and combined development, but they are not feudal, and the mechanisms of accumulation do not revolve the accumulation of surplus product, but surplus value.

Nepal is never going to have its "capitalist" revolution, in the classical sense of England in the 17th century, France in the 18th century. That era is over, it ended in the 19th century. Neither Russia [on the low development end] nor Germany and Japan [on the high development end] experienced capitalist revolution. Didn't make their economies any less a participant in international capitalism.

To Palingenisis: the emancipation of black labor is the "key" to proletarian revolution in the US. There is no "captive black nation." There never has been a captive black nation in the US. From slavery times onward, the oppression of black people has been based on maintaining the mechanisms of super-exploitation of black labor, in agriculture in the South, and in mines and industry in both South and North.

RED DAVE

13th December 2010, 18:18

The stages of the revolution have to be recognized as the primary class contradictions change with its progress.This is unintelligible. Please clarify.

RED DAVE

red cat

13th December 2010, 20:03

Nothing is "wrong" with it-- but it certainly undermines the notion that such economies are "feudal"-- feudal economies do not import, nor export, as an economy very much in the way of manufactured goods. There is no real market for such goods.

That's the point. The colonized economies being fed, or force fed, manufactured goods are no longer feudal economies. They exhibit uneven and combined development, but they are not feudal, and the mechanisms of accumulation do not revolve the accumulation of surplus product, but surplus value.

The economy of Nepal is semi feudal, or semi colonial - semi feudal to be precise. When Maoists talk of feudalism in modern times, that is essentially what they mean. The existence of pure feudalism today is limited to very small isolated regions which have not been penetrated by imperialist capital due to local reasons. These are not very significant in the class analysis of bigger areas like a country for example.

The word semi feudal itself means that imperialism is looting labour power through feudal political and military means. Therefore it is not very convenient to try to match all of its features with classical feudalism.

Nepal is never going to have its "capitalist" revolution, in the classical sense of England in the 17th century, France in the 18th century. That era is over, it ended in the 19th century. Neither Russia [on the low development end] nor Germany and Japan [on the high development end] experienced capitalist revolution. Didn't make their economies any less a participant in international capitalism.
The fact that there will be no capitalist revolution now is a Leninist conclusion. Maoists agree with it and it forms the basis for new democratic revolutions in colonial countries.

red cat

13th December 2010, 20:09

This is unintelligible. Please clarify.

RED DAVE

When the primary class contradictions in a country are those between the broad masses and feudalism, imperialism and comprador capitalism, the revolution is said to be new democratic. As the revolution progresses, these enemies are eliminated, the classes that are the motive forces of the revolution transform into the proletariat due to change of production relations, and the contradiction between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie becomes the primary one. Thus, at a time when feudalism, imperialism and comprador capitalism have been fully or mostly ousted from the country, the primary contradiction changes and the revolution enters its socialist phase.

S.Artesian

13th December 2010, 23:03

When the primary class contradictions in a country are those between the broad masses and feudalism, imperialism and comprador capitalism, the revolution is said to be new democratic. As the revolution progresses, these enemies are eliminated, the classes that are the motive forces of the revolution transform into the proletariat due to change of production relations, and the contradiction between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie becomes the primary one. Thus, at a time when feudalism, imperialism and comprador capitalism have been fully or mostly ousted from the country, the primary contradiction changes and the revolution enters its socialist phase.

How does the accumulation of surplus under the conditions of "semi-feudalism, imperialism, and comprador capitalism" in a "semi-feudal, semi-colonized" country differ from the accumulation of surplus by non-comprador capitalists in that same country?

How does the contradiction between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie become the "primary contradiction" in "new democracy" unless that "new democracy" actually empowers the bourgeoisie, actually establishes the dominance of national capitalism in the economy?

How are the relations of production changed in the transition from the new-democratic to the socialist stage of this revolution and what change in property form accompanies this change?

RED DAVE

13th December 2010, 23:29

When the primary class contradictionsBy which Marxists, but not Maoists, mean class conflict. To call class conflict class contradiction is to prepare the way for class collaboration as in Nepal, where the Maoists assumed the prime ministership of a capitalist government.

in a country are those between the broad masses and feudalismThere is no significant feudalism remaining in Nepal. What is present is commercial agriculture.

imperialism and comprador capitalismAnd you are just consciously, deliberately and dishonesty eliminated that class conflict between the Nepalese workers and peasants and the Nepalese "native" capitalists. This is precisely the "mistake" that the Chinese Maoists made, and the result was state capitalism and then private capitalism.

[T]he revolution is said to be new democratic.It is "said" to be this by Maoists. The rest of us call it either state capitalism or a deformed workers state or what have you. In any event, it is the open door to capitalism.

As the revolution progresses, these enemies are eliminated, the classes that are the motive forces of the revolution transform into the proletariat due to change of production relations, and the contradiction between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie becomes the primary one.It was a primary conflict all along. We know what the result of this strategy is in China and Vietnam: CAPITALISM.

And watching the events in Nepal, where the Nepalese Maoists are playing footsie with the bourgeoisie, we'll see it again if it keeps going on the same course.

Thus, at a time when feudalism, imperialism and comprador capitalism have been fully or mostly ousted from the country, the primary contradiction changes and the revolution enters its socialist phase.Never happen with Maoists at the helm of the revolution. Other nonmaoist revolutionaries will have to start over. I am reminded of my favorite quote from the English socialist William Morris:

I pondered all these things, and how men fight and lose the battle, and the thing that they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and when it comes turns out not to be what they meant, and other men have to fight for what they meant under another name.RED DAVE

red cat

13th December 2010, 23:44

How does the accumulation of surplus under the conditions of "semi-feudalism, imperialism, and comprador capitalism" in a "semi-feudal, semi-colonized" country differ from the accumulation of surplus by non-comprador capitalists in that same country?

The primary difference is that instead of being bought, labour-power is looted. Since compradors are those capitalists who side with the state, they are the ones who can use the state politically and militarily to loot labour power. On the other hand, non-compradors are generally very small and not close to the state. So they mostly have to buy labour power.

How does the contradiction between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie become the "primary contradiction" in "new democracy" unless that "new democracy" actually empowers the bourgeoisie, actually establishes the dominance of national capitalism in the economy?

This happens primarily because all the contradictions that are above the one between the national bourgeoisie and the proletariat, are solved by the completion of the new democratic revolution. Moreover, due to the massive industrialization undertaken during and after the later stages of the new democratic revolution, the national bourgeoisie tries to gain control over the economy.

How are the relations of production changed in the transition from the new-democratic to the socialist stage of this revolution and what change in property form accompanies this change?

The socialist stage mostly consists of the working class gaining control of the now grown industries. Also, the working class continues its struggles within the CP, cleansing it of bureaucrats and minimizing central decision making.

red cat

13th December 2010, 23:50

By which Marxists, but not Maoists, mean class conflict. To call class conflict class contradiction is to prepare the way for class collaboration as in Nepal, where the Maoists assumed the prime ministership of a capitalist government.

There is no significant feudalism remaining in Nepal. What is present is commercial agriculture.

And you are just consciously, deliberately and dishonesty eliminated that class conflict between the Nepalese workers and peasants and the Nepalese "native" capitalists. This is precisely the "mistake" that the Chinese Maoists made, and the result was state capitalism and then private capitalism.

It is "said" to be this by Maoists. The rest of us call it either state capitalism or a deformed workers state or what have you. In any event, it is the open door to capitalism.

It was a primary conflict all along. We know what the result of this strategy is in China and Vietnam: CAPITALISM.

And watching the events in Nepal, where the Nepalese Maoists are playing footsie with the bourgeoisie, we'll see it again if it keeps going on the same course.

Never happen with Maoists at the helm of the revolution. Other nonmaoist revolutionaries will have to start over. I am reminded of my favorite quote from the English socialist William Morris:

RED DAVE

Generally analyzing such a complex situation is very hard. You should clarify your concept of capitalism before you move on to this kind of difficult stuff. Otherwise your posts will continue to sound like trollish sectarian rants.

S.Artesian

14th December 2010, 00:19

The primary difference is that instead of being bought, labour-power is looted. Since compradors are those capitalists who side with the state, they are the ones who can use the state politically and militarily to loot labour power. On the other hand, non-compradors are generally very small and not close to the state. So they mostly have to buy labour power.

Examples please? Ford buys tracts of land in the Amazon to grow rubber trees; hires workers; pays them less than it pays its US workers, subjects the workers to pretty shitty conditions. Is that looting? Getting something without exchanging anything for it?

Brazilian company 60 years later clears massive tracts of land in the rain forest, displaces indigenous people, expels squatters, hires hundreds of workers to run soybean growing, harvesting and processing. Is that looting?

This happens primarily because all the contradictions that are above the one between the national bourgeoisie and the proletariat, are solved by the completion of the new democratic revolution. Moreover, due to the massive industrialization undertaken during and after the later stages of the new democratic revolution, the national bourgeoisie tries to gain control over the economy.

What is the direct relation of the national bourgeoisie to this massive industrialization? Do they own the industries? Do they buy and sell labor-power?

Does the national bourgeoisie have its own, classwide, forms of organization? Political parties? Associations?

The socialist stage mostly consists of the working class gaining control of the now grown industries. Also, the working class continues its struggles within the CP, cleansing it of bureaucrats and minimizing central decision making.

Where has the working class done this following the "new democratic" revolution? Where has bureaucracy and central decision making devolved into workers' control?

red cat

14th December 2010, 00:35

Examples please? Ford buys tracts of land in the Amazon to grow rubber trees; hires workers; pays them less than it pays its US workers, subjects the workers to pretty shitty conditions. Is that looting? Getting something without exchanging anything for it?

Brazilian company 60 years later clears massive tracts of land in the rain forest, displaces indigenous people, expels squatters, hires hundreds of workers to run soybean growing, harvesting and processing. Is that looting?

I don't know about those places, but in India a classic example would be indigo farming. This is a historical example. Nowadays labour power is looted through more complex structures. Examples can be found, but it will be difficult and time consuming to analyze them.

What is the direct relation of the national bourgeoisie to this massive industrialization? Do they own the industries? Do they buy and sell labor-power? Depends. They might start the smaller industries as owners. They might be hired as managers in the bigger ones. Either way, they try to gain control over the industries.

Does the national bourgeoisie have its own, classwide, forms of organization? Political parties? Associations? They might have their parties or associations. But by definition these will engage in anti-mass activities and will be counter-attacked by the masses. In the first revolutions, the masses will more or less attack them on issue wise conflicts, due to the heavy external threat of invasion. After a powerful socialist bloc is formed, these parties might be officially banned.

Where has the working class done this following the "new democratic" revolution? Where has bureaucracy and central decision making devolved into workers' control?Partially in the central Indian liberated zones and other areas. You will notice that due to this, the assassination of leaders does not cause any visible hindrance to the Indian Maoist movement.

S.Artesian

14th December 2010, 01:04

Would be interested to know about the indigo farming. Any references?

Thanks.

red cat

14th December 2010, 01:10

Would be interested to know about the indigo farming. Any references?

Thanks.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigo_revolt) for now. It does not fully describe how the political and military measures enabled the planters to loot labour power. I will look for better online sources.

RED DAVE

14th December 2010, 02:55

RED DAVE

14th December 2010, 03:05

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigo_revolt) for now. It does not fully describe how the political and military measures enabled the planters to loot labour power. I will look for better online sources.What is described in this link is the ruthless exploitation of farmers by native and comprador bourgeoisie. The fact is that the farmers were paid for their crops, albeit at a miserable rate, probably not enough to sustain their lives.

What is described here no more negates capitalism than the hideous exploitation that the working class went through in the major industrial countries during the period of primitive accumulation.

In any event, you have described in the link events that occurred 150 years ago.

All this is, of course, an attempt to justify the class collaborationist policies of the Nepalese Maoists. Apparently, it is perfectly in line with Marxism for a Maoist to become the prime minister of a bourgeois government.

RED DAVE

red cat

14th December 2010, 03:12

Comrade red cat: even if you could demonstrate that "looting" of labor power negates capitalism (which it doesn't), the fact is that in Nepal, "looting" is not what's taking place in the here and now. What we have in Nepal is a nation where labor power is bought and sold like other commodities.

In other words: CAPITALISM.

RED DAVE

You clearly have no idea of how labour power can be actually looted. A simple "work and take wages" situation is not what prevails over most of south Asia.

red cat

14th December 2010, 03:14

What is described in this link is the ruthless exploitation of farmers by native and comprador bourgeoisie. The fact is that the farmers were paid for their crops, albeit at a miserable rate, probably not enough to sustain their lives.

What is described here no more negates capitalism than the hideous exploitation that the working class went through in the major industrial countries during the period of primitive accumulation.

In any event, you have described in the link events that occurred 150 years ago.

The farmers where forced to grow indigo, take loans for it and sell to particular planters. This is not capitalism.

All this is, of course, an attempt to justify the class collaborationist policies of the Nepalese Maoists. Apparently, it is perfectly in line with Marxism for a Maoist to become the prime minister of a bourgeois government.

RED DAVE

You're so clever ! :rolleyes:

DaringMehring

14th December 2010, 03:38

S.Artesian

14th December 2010, 04:12

Sorry red cat but I just can't see what you're saying. Your position seems like it is fine from a 3rd world nationalist perspective, but I can't see Marxist validity. You can't dismiss the critiques of RED DAVE et al about class collaboration & covering for the bourgeoisie as irrelevant, and still have a basis in Marxism.

But RED DAVE & S. Art, I think you miss the point. Sure, you can criticize the UCPN for class collaboration, and that is a deadly charge (if you just dismiss it like red cat does, with some pseudo-Marxist phrases, then you're reactionary) --- BUT, class collaboration is not a predetermined outcome.

Your evidence that it is, is that the UCPN is Maoist and so has a wrong ideological line. HOWEVER, you miss the point that wrong ideology doesn't predetermine any outcome, when there are powerful material forces at work. How about a historical analogy -- February 1917 was made in the main by a movement that put not just Mensheviks and SRs, but Cadets and even aristocrats into power w' the Provisional Government. Thus the movement was led by essentially a totally wrong ideology. And the Bolsheviks? They didn't have the ideological clarity to decisively oppose the Prov. Gov't, until Lenin returned and published the theses. You could easily accuse Kamenev, Stalin, Zinoviev, and the Bolsheviks in general etc. of class collaboration at that point.

BUT despite the ideological flaws of pretty much every Party, the material contradictions remained. The workers & peasants crafted the vehicle they needed to achieve their aims. You cannot dismiss the capability of the Nepali workers & peasants to do the same. The revolution is still undecided.

I AGREE that the leadership of UCPN show bad signs of having a significant portion looking to draw down the struggle far short of what the Nepali workers & peasants need to achieve, ie far short of at least low level socialism. This should be fought, not not accepted & glorified as red cat does, and also not taken as a sign to give up, as you do. Nobody should have given up on the Bolsheviks in Feb-Mar 1917.

What say you?

Ideology, and ideological flaws have nothing to do with it. Marxism isn't ideology.

Sure class collaboration is deadly but it's not a predetermined outcome? Because, what? Because under the pressure of events, and from the pressures from below, and from the pressure of Lenin's return, the "cooperators" were forced away from collaboration? Well, that's one happy accident, perhaps, in the history of class struggle.

But in the history of the defeats of the working class in class struggle, that class collaboration as imposed upon the working class and against revolution hasn't exactly had such lucky results has it?

Do we really have to recount the defeats -- China 1926-27; Spain 36-37; Vietnam 37 and again in 1945; Bolivia 1952-1964; Chile 1973; Argentina with the return of Peron; South Africa 1994-- when Mandela and the ANC left the economy firmly in control of the Afrikaners and junked the Freedom Charter; Indonesia 1965; Algeria, Portugal, etc. etc?

As I stated much earlier, my "practical" objections are based on the tactics, strategy, and program of class collaboration don't lead the revolution to power.

My analytic objection is that characterization of an "underdeveloped" country is just not accurate; simply does not conform to the argument that such countries are "semi-feudal," with an "incipient capitalism" fettered by imperialism that must be allowed to develop, thus creating the basis for the next "stage"-- a workers' revolution. Hasn't worked out that way, as Red Cat admits, except for one area in India.

Nobody's "giving up." I'm simply stating that such a "strategy" is hardly going to produce success.

RED DAVE

14th December 2010, 04:17

Sorry red cat but I just can't see what you're saying. Your position seems like it is fine from a 3rd world nationalist perspective, but I can't see Marxist validity. You can't dismiss the critiques of RED DAVE et al about class collaboration & covering for the bourgeoisie as irrelevant, and still have a basis in Marxism.

But RED DAVE & S. Art, I think you miss the point. Sure, you can criticize the UCPN for class collaboration, and that is a deadly charge (if you just dismiss it like red cat does, with some pseudo-Marxist phrases, then you're reactionary) --- BUT, class collaboration is not a predetermined outcome.

Your evidence that it is, is that the UCPN is Maoist and so has a wrong ideological line. HOWEVER, you miss the point that wrong ideology doesn't predetermine any outcome, when there are powerful material forces at work. How about a historical analogy -- February 1917 was made in the main by a movement that put not just Mensheviks and SRs, but Cadets and even aristocrats into power w' the Provisional Government. Thus the movement was led by essentially a totally wrong ideology. And the Bolsheviks? They didn't have the ideological clarity to decisively oppose the Prov. Gov't, until Lenin returned and published the theses. You could easily accuse Kamenev, Stalin, Zinoviev, and the Bolsheviks in general etc. of class collaboration at that point.

BUT despite the ideological flaws of pretty much every Party, the material contradictions remained. The workers & peasants crafted the vehicle they needed to achieve their aims. You cannot dismiss the capability of the Nepali workers & peasants to do the same. The revolution is still undecided.

I AGREE that the leadership of UCPN show bad signs of having a significant portion looking to draw down the struggle far short of what the Nepali workers & peasants need to achieve, ie far short of at least low level socialism. This should be fought, not not accepted & glorified as red cat does, and also not taken as a sign to give up, as you do. Nobody should have given up on the Bolsheviks in Feb-Mar 1917.

What say you?Many good points. Problem is, in comparing Leninism and Maoism, Leninism contained within it a methodology that enabled it to engage in the radical self-criticism that led to October. I see no such methodology in Maoism.

I have yet to see a Maoist or a Maoist tendency that was clear on the role of the working class as the leading class of the revolution, nor are they willing to criticize themselves in this regard. They frequently, but not always, have the working class central in their rhetoric, but in their practice, never. This is why Maoist groups in the major industrials get nowhere. And it's why they constantly engage in class collaborationism bullshit that leads to state capitalism and private capitalism.

Is it possible for the UCPN(M) to engage in militant self-criticism and change course? Sure. But to do that would involve a critique of their ideology from the bottom up, including whether their loyalty to the working class is real or not. I see no tendencies in the UCPN(M) willing to do this. And should such a tendency arise, it would face massive obstacles within the party itself.

I want to add that all this stuff that red cat is obfuscating about: looting, feudalism, semi-feudalism, etc., is exactly what one would expect from a tendency trying to conceal from the world and even from itself its real class basis while trying to pretend to Marxism.

RED DAVE

S.Artesian

14th December 2010, 04:19

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigo_revolt) for now. It does not fully describe how the political and military measures enabled the planters to loot labour power. I will look for better online sources.

This from your source:

The indigo planters left no stones unturned to make money. They mercilessly pursued the peasants to plant indigo instead of food crops. They provided loans, called dadon at a very high interest. Once a farmer took such loans he remained in debt for whole of his life before passing it to his successors. The price paid by the planters was meagre,only 2.5% of the market price. So the farmers could make no profit by growing indigo. The farmers were totally unprotected from the brutal indigo planters, who resorted to mortgage or destruction of their property if they were unwilling to obey them. Government rules favoured the planters. By an act in 1833, the planters were granted a free hand in oppression. Even the zamindars, money lenders and other influential persons sided with the planters. Out of the severe oppression unleashed on them the farmers resorted to revolt.

Comrade, that most definitely IS capitalism. The production is commercial production not of foodstuffs for use, but of a commodity, indigo, that is of no use to the direct producers save as an object of and for exchange.

This same process takes place in Mexico with the haciendas taking over the pueblo lands and absorbing whole villages, making them grow hemp, or sugar cane.

The same process took place in the Philippines with the growing of sugar cane.

The same process takes place throughout the world of capitalism. This impoverishment of the direct producers is one of the fundamental transformations that signify and manifest the transition to capitalism.

DaringMehring

14th December 2010, 04:46

DaringMehring

14th December 2010, 04:56

Sure class collaboration is deadly but it's not a predetermined outcome? Because, what? Because under the pressure of events, and from the pressures from below, and from the pressure of Lenin's return, the "cooperators" were forced away from collaboration? Well, that's one happy accident, perhaps, in the history of class struggle.

But in the history of the defeats of the working class in class struggle, that class collaboration as imposed upon the working class and against revolution hasn't exactly had such lucky results has it?

You have a bizarre defeatism, calling the Bolshevik victory "a lucky accident". We agree class collaboration and stagism are wrong. That "strategy" won't produce socialism. However, you see no possibility to overcome & reject that line, even given the mass mobilizations and major social contradictions in Nepal. One has to ask ala John Reed in Reds, "if you're not willing to fight here, what's your life been all about?"

RED DAVE

14th December 2010, 05:02

Problem is, in comparing Leninism and Maoism, Leninism contained within it a methodology that enabled it to engage in the radical self-criticism that led to October. I see no such methodology in Maoism.
You're still taking ideology to be decisive, not material forces.It's not a matter with Maossts of ideology being decisive but class orientation. I believe that Maoism is basically a petit-bourgeois movement, using Marxism as a cover, whose historical purpose is to institute state capitalism. I have the advantage of history behind me: this is what they've always done.

But it is not really important whether Babu Ram Bhattarai has the chance to sit by a still lake and reflect on his methods. Either the peasantry&workers will be strong and determined enough to push through, or not.I think you're missing a point here. I believe that, objectively, the peasantry and workers of Nepal can break through. However, the Maoists have no intention of leading this as it would involve a break with the bourgeoisie, which they are unwilling to make.

Lenin & Trotsky won out over Kamenev, Zinvoviev, Stalin, etc. not because Kamenev et al. thought about it and understood their errors, but because they came out, fought for their line, and the workers & peasants ended up siding with them.True. However, I see no such "Leninist" tendency among the Maoists in Nepal or elsewhere.

If indeed class collaboration and state capitalism is victorious in Nepal, the UCPN's ideology will have played some part, but really, it will be down to objective material forces, like Nepal's low level of productive forces & lack of a large working class, its lack of allies, powerful foreign enemies, etc.I believe you're missing a crucial point. Objectively, materially, at the point of revolution a vanguard party becomes crucial. If the party that should, historically, be that vanguard party is, in fact, an apostle of class collaboration, this can have a disastrous effect on the outcome of the revolution.

I have no doubt that by the late 1940s China was ripe to go all the way to socialism. The presence of the Maoists as the leading party meant that the drive to socialism would drown in the swamp of class collaborationism and the unwillingness of the Maoists to place the revolt of the working class in the center of the revolution and urge and lead the working class on to power.

RED DAVE

S.Artesian

14th December 2010, 05:23

You have a bizarre defeatism, calling the Bolshevik victory "a lucky accident". We agree class collaboration and stagism are wrong. That "strategy" won't produce socialism. However, you see no possibility to overcome & reject that line, even given the mass mobilizations and major social contradictions in Nepal. One has to ask ala John Reed in Reds, "if you're not willing to fight here, what's your life been all about?"

What are you talking about? I've done a bit more than just a bit of fighting. The point is that the success of revolution is not pre-determined by some arrangement of productive forces, but requires the revolutionary class to act as a "class-for-itself."

Of course I see every possibility to overcome and defeat class collaboration, and I see it exactly in the capitalist contradictions. Do you even bother to read what is written?

Those contradictions are driving this struggle. I don't see any possibility for the successful overcoming of those contradictions if class collaboration is forced upon the class struggle.

That's the point. Either pay attention to what actually has been written or piss off. I don't need to waste time responding to your make believe posts.

PS Take your dilettante bullshit about "the meaning of life"-- that existential crap about authenticity and peddle it somewhere else. It has nothing to do with Marxism and revolutionary struggle.

DaringMehring

14th December 2010, 05:38

What are you talking about? I've done a bit more than just a bit of fighting. The point is that the success of revolution is not pre-determined by some arrangement of productive forces, but requires the revolutionary class to act as a "class-for-itself."

Of course I see every possibility to overcome and defeat class collaboration, and I see it exactly in the capitalist contradictions. Do you even bother to read what is written?

Those contradictions are driving this struggle. I don't see any possibility for the successful overcoming of those contradictions if class collaboration is forced upon the class struggle.

That's the point. Either pay attention to what actually has been written or piss off. I don't need to waste time responding to your make believe posts.

PS Take your dilettante bullshit about "the meaning of life"-- that existential crap about authenticity and peddle it somewhere else. It has nothing to do with Marxism and revolutionary struggle.

Ok --- I've already tried, but I guess I need to spend more time, divining what you mean, when you talk about class collaboration being "forced upon the class struggle."

And I wasn't talking about you w' the Reds quote, bc you or I presumably have next to 0 ability to influence the fight in Nepal. I was using the quote to make an analogy to the situation in the movie, where the anarchist Emma Goldman was telling John Reed all the things wrong with the Russian revolution.

S.Artesian

14th December 2010, 05:45

Read what's written. Most of what I've written is questioning the economic, and social, characterizations of "semi-feudal" "comprador" "imperialist" and "national bourgeoisie."

The remarks about class-collaboration being forced upon the struggle are based on precisely the fact that in struggle after struggle class collaboration has been imposed, enforced by the so-called "national front" or "popular unity" coalitions-- with disastrous results.

internasyonalista

14th December 2010, 06:43

I'm living in the Philippines and once a member of maoist "Communist" Party of the Philippines (CPP). Like the Nepal maoists, CPP also categorize Philippines as "semi-colonial and semi-feudal" and the "main enemies" are imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism. The national bourgeoisie is an ally of "new-democratic revolution" while the comprador bourgeoisie is an enemy together with the landlord class and of course imperialism, but mainly US imperialism. The link here posted by somebody defending the Nepal maoists comes from the Philippines. The author is the "Chairman" of the CPP. His book, where the excerpts of the link regarding "semi-feudal, semi-colonial is the "Philippine Society and Revolution".
There is no comprador bourgeoisie differentiated from the national bourgeoisie. The truth is national bourgeoisie in backward countries like Philippines and Nepal can be divided into 3 categories. First, the big national bourgeoisie who has more capital for export (ie, exporters), second is the middle and third is lower. These 2 last categories strives to have more capital and be an exporter someday like the first one. But since the competition is very intense within them, the first category cannot permit that these last two will enter their "club". Thus, the "hatred" of the last two category to the first one, not because they hate imperialism or foreign investors, but because they cannot be able to be partners with them. The last two categories are daily striving to enlarge their capital but block by the first one. These last two are in danger to be drag into a simple merchants or worst, proletarians. That is the reason why they "hate" so much the first category within their "family" (ie, class): they don't want to be proletarians!.
The maoist inclusion of the national bourgeoisie as their ally has nothing to do with marxism, but for practical reason: support for their guerilla warfare in the countryside. Worst, they even consider the landlords or "comprador bourgeoisie" who gave them money and material support like transportation, etc as "enlightened"!
The maoist concept of peasants as "revolutionary class" has nothing to do with class war or class analysis, but more on military considerations: as their based in the countryside.
As you can see, even in Mao's China, few years after the "victory" the Party was calling for collectivization of land. But before the victory they are calling for "land to the tillers". Any "conscious" maoists know that individual ownership cannot develop the countryside. But how can they dragoon the disintegrating peasants to their guerilla war? By promising them the "heaven of free land distribution".

red cat

14th December 2010, 08:26

This from your source:

Comrade, that most definitely IS capitalism. The production is commercial production not of foodstuffs for use, but of a commodity, indigo, that is of no use to the direct producers save as an object of and for exchange.

This same process takes place in Mexico with the haciendas taking over the pueblo lands and absorbing whole villages, making them grow hemp, or sugar cane.

The same process took place in the Philippines with the growing of sugar cane.

The same process takes place throughout the world of capitalism. This impoverishment of the direct producers is one of the fundamental transformations that signify and manifest the transition to capitalism.

You are confusing general commodity production with capitalism. If the farmers refused to plant indigo, they were starved and tortured inside the planter's residential bungalows, their huts and all other belongings were burnt and they were often murdered. They were forced to sell their produce to whatever price the planters offered. This is what I mean by the loot of labour power. It is not a feature of capitalism.

red cat

14th December 2010, 08:39

RED DAVE

14th December 2010, 12:33

You are confusing general commodity production with capitalism.If what you mean by "general commodity production" is the production of commodities for sale rather than consumption, and this is the predominant mode of production, then it is capitalism.

If the farmers refused to plant indigo, they were starved and tortured inside the planter's residential bungalows, their huts and all other belongings were burnt and they were often murdered. They were forced to sell their produce to whatever price the planters offered. This is what I mean by the loot of labour power. It is not a feature of capitalism.Here's Marx to contradict you:

The mode of production in which the product takes the form of a commodity, or is produced directly for exchange, is the most general and most embryonic form of bourgeois production. It therefore makes its appearance at an early date in history, though not in the same predominating and characteristic manner as now-a-days.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S4

Notice: nothing about the form of the state, the role of violence, etc. In the US prison system right now, hundreds of thousands of people are working for virtually no wages. If they refuse to work they are beaten, placed in solitary confinement, have their terms of imprisonment extended, etc. In addition, more and more of these prisons are themselves owned and operated by private corporations. This is capitalism 2010.

RED DAVE

red cat

14th December 2010, 12:45

If what you mean by "general commodity production" is the production of commodities for sale rather than consumption, and this is the predominant mode of production, then it is capitalism.

Just clarify one point. Can there be commodity production without labour power turning into commodity or not ?

S.Artesian

14th December 2010, 13:44

Yes, there can be, and there has been. There were commodities before industrial capitalism converted labor into wage-labor.

IMO, the error you keep repeating is in separating, segmenting an economy, so that a certain section of the economy is capitalist, another section is imperialist, another section is semi-feudal, this little piggy is comprador, this little piggy is national bourgeois.

Such an analysis can take you to a point where you say-- oh, well the proletariat needs socialism, but this other section, agriculture, needs capitalism, and this section needs really independent capitalism, and this section needs...

The economy is a whole, even in, especially in its uneven and combined development. This doesn't mean the contradictions aren't exacerbated by uneven and combined development. It means exactly that. It also means that the resolution of the contradictions falls to overthrow of the totality of the private property relations.

Moreover, the key is grasping that this uneven and combined development is intimately connected with the reproduction of capital on the international level; again making the resolution of the unevenness dependent on the overthrow of the most advanced private property relations in order to overcome those most archaic remnants.

Die Neue Zeit

14th December 2010, 15:23

S.Artesian

14th December 2010, 15:52

1) Nepal is too small a country to effect nearby revolution. The Naxalites are doing their thing regardless of what's happening in Nepal.

2) Nepal doesn't have much of a proletariat, even less so than Russia. It's mostly peasants.

3) We're not in a revolutionary period.

Conclusion: Introduce state capitalism and align with either China or India depending on who's better positioned to improve Nepal economically.

Fantastic. Another "Marxist" endorsing capitalism-- "TINA"-- there is no alternative.

Is there a revolt going on in Nepal? It sure looks that way. Is the rebellion triggered by economic relations, by social relations of production? It would seem so unless of course materialism no longer applies to that section of the world economy and the globe. Are "we" in a revolutionary period? Fuck no, WE know we're not because somebody somewhere has made a deep and detailed study of Nepal and the overall situation of capitalism and has determined that there is no revolutionary period- fuck what those peasants and workers say; fuck what workers are confronted with all over the globe and what actions they have taken and will take to combat those attacks.

Will it take suppression of that rebellion in order to introduce "state capitalism"? Bet on it. And therefore we get pseudo-Marxists reliving and repeating the stupidity, the arrogance, the capitulation, and the enforcement of capitalist accumulation of their long-gone "Marxist" heroes.

It's enough to gag a maggot.

RED DAVE

14th December 2010, 16:00

Just clarify one point. Can there be commodity production without labour power turning into commodity or not ?Here is the beginning of Marx's exposition on commodity production, labor power, value, etc.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

RED DAVE

RED DAVE

14th December 2010, 16:03

red cat

14th December 2010, 16:19

Yes, there can be, and there has been. There were commodities before industrial capitalism converted labor into wage-labor.

And most of the south Asian economy is still of this type.

IMO, the error you keep repeating is in separating, segmenting an economy, so that a certain section of the economy is capitalist, another section is imperialist, another section is semi-feudal, this little piggy is comprador, this little piggy is national bourgeois.

Such an analysis can take you to a point where you say-- oh, well the proletariat needs socialism, but this other section, agriculture, needs capitalism, and this section needs really independent capitalism, and this section needs...

The economy is a whole, even in, especially in its uneven and combined development. This doesn't mean the contradictions aren't exacerbated by uneven and combined development. It means exactly that. It also means that the resolution of the contradictions falls to overthrow of the totality of the private property relations.

Moreover, the key is grasping that this uneven and combined development is intimately connected with the reproduction of capital on the international level; again making the resolution of the unevenness dependent on the overthrow of the most advanced private property relations in order to overcome those most archaic remnants.In my opinion, when a real revolution is concerned, every condition is to be studied to the finest details. In a largely unindustrialized semi feudal - semi colonial state, the differences in the characteristics of the the national bourgeois are so great that we can divide them into large right and left wings. Considering the whole class as neutral, revolutionary or reactionary would be a grave error.

Similarly, if the socialist struggle against the national bourgeoisie is not initiated and continued in the liberated areas just because the overall character of the revolution is new democratic, then that will spell disaster for the revolution. When real situations are concerned, we should be a precise as possible.

The dominance of certain conditions over others determine the overall nature of struggle, but ignoring the minutes can end the struggle itself.

red cat

14th December 2010, 16:20

Here is the beginning of Marx's exposition on commodity production, labor power, value, etc.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

RED DAVE

Sorry, too long an answer for my question.

S.Artesian

14th December 2010, 17:01

And most of the south Asian economy is still of this type.
In my opinion, when a real revolution is concerned, every condition is to be studied to the finest details. In a largely unindustrialized semi feudal - semi colonial state, the differences in the characteristics of the the national bourgeois are so great that we can divide them into large right and left wings. Considering the whole class as neutral, revolutionary or reactionary would be a grave error.

Similarly, if the socialist struggle against the national bourgeoisie is not initiated and continued in the liberated areas just because the overall character of the revolution is new democratic, then that will spell disaster for the revolution. When real situations are concerned, we should be a precise as possible.

The dominance of certain conditions over others determine the overall nature of struggle, but ignoring the minutes can end the struggle itself.

It's one thing to study every detail, it's something else to not integrate those details into the whole, the uneven and combined whole of reproduction.

And it's something else again to abstract these elements from their relationships, and from the property form that unifies these relationships and decide-- "oh there are stages here; there are "liberated territories" that function right alongside capitalism and represent another version of the autonomists' "alternative" to revolution.

You've failed to provide any concrete economic example of the dominance of "semi-feudal" relations over and against capitalist relations. The example you do provide is a classic, and I do mean classic, example of the uneven and combined nature of capitalism in "underdeveloped" agricultural systems.

RED DAVE

14th December 2010, 17:03

Sorry, too long an answer for my question.Do your own homework. :D I had to read this as a leftist when I was a teenager. If you have not wrestled with the basic works of Marx and Engels and grasped their meaning, you are not a Marxist.

I'm serious. If you haven't read the basic pamphlets and books of Marxism, you can't use Marxist theory correctly, you can't sustain yourself in a debate and you will make obvious political errors based on your lack of comprehension. Knowledge of Marxism doesn't shield us from mistakes, but it helps.

ETA: Also, if I digest Marx, etc., for you, we could very well end up debating whether my digesting was correct or not instead of discussing the application of basic Marxist categories to the issue at hand.

RED DAVE

red cat

14th December 2010, 18:51

Do your own homework. :D I had to read this as a leftist when I was a teenager. If you have not wrestled with the basic works of Marx and Engels and grasped their meaning, you are not a Marxist.

I'm serious. If you haven't read the basic pamphlets and books of Marxism, you can't use Marxist theory correctly, you can't sustain yourself in a debate and you will make obvious political errors based on your lack of comprehension. Knowledge of Marxism doesn't shield us from mistakes, but it helps.

ETA: Also, if I digest Marx, etc., for you, we could very well end up debating whether my digesting was correct or not instead of discussing the application of basic Marxist categories to the issue at hand.

RED DAVE

Still, it's too much to read for just this simple question. :D But never mind, Artesian has answered it already.

red cat

14th December 2010, 18:55

It's one thing to study every detail, it's something else to not integrate those details into the whole, the uneven and combined whole of reproduction.

And it's something else again to abstract these elements from their relationships, and from the property form that unifies these relationships and decide-- "oh there are stages here; there are "liberated territories" that function right alongside capitalism and represent another version of the autonomists' "alternative" to revolution.

You've failed to provide any concrete economic example of the dominance of "semi-feudal" relations over and against capitalist relations. The example you do provide is a classic, and I do mean classic, example of the uneven and combined nature of capitalism in "underdeveloped" agricultural systems.

It is very difficult to provide such examples post 1947, because after that the Indian government has maintained such a wide gap between what it does and what it claims to do, that it is hard to believe if not witnessed first-hand. Anyways, I think certain nation-wide events such as the appropriation of lands using military force for building SEZs can serve as evidence for the fact that the peasantry is bound by political and military constraints.

RED DAVE

14th December 2010, 19:57

It is very difficult to provide such examples post 1947, because after that the Indian government has maintained such a wide gap between what it does and what it claims to do, that it is hard to believe if not witnessed first-hand. Anyways, I think certain nation-wide events such as the appropriation of lands using military force for building SEZs can serve as evidence for the fact that the peasantry is bound by political and military constraints.All workers are, in the end, bound by political and military restraints in all capitalist countries. This is one of the things that capitalists do: oppress people, including in their own countries.

In Marxism, we often use the term "political economy" instead of "economic" because we understand that political actions, including repression, are part of the system. Workers in many countries are forbidden to strike, or forbidden to strike during the course of a contract. Many workers have to accept jobs given to them by the government in order to "earn" benefits.

All these and a zillion more examples are part and parcel of capitalism. Forcible land seizures, militarization of labor, genocide, forced evacuations, war, etc., are all part of the system. None of these makes for anything but capitalism.

For you to try to isolate some examples in one underdeveloped country like Nepal, where some remnants of a previous system may survive, and claim that this justifies class collaboration on the part of a Marxist party is ludicrous.

RED DAVE

S.Artesian

14th December 2010, 20:41

It is very difficult to provide such examples post 1947, because after that the Indian government has maintained such a wide gap between what it does and what it claims to do, that it is hard to believe if not witnessed first-hand. Anyways, I think certain nation-wide events such as the appropriation of lands using military force for building SEZs can serve as evidence for the fact that the peasantry is bound by political and military constraints.

Sounds to me like your making a bit too much, almost a fetish, of political and military constraints. Yes, Marx makes a point of explaining how market dependence replaces extra-economic coercion with the advance of capitalism, but there is no point in that advance where the property at the core of market relations is not preserved, maintained through coercion.

If you follow your position through its logical extension, then you wind up arguing that post US Civil War plantation production employing black sharecroppers was not capitalism as extra-economic coercion, like the KKK, segregation laws etc. was applied.

Or you even wind up with something that says-- the slave labor conducted on behalf of IG Farben by the German govt in WW2 wasn't capitalism.

Or the death squads in Argentina, erecting cells and torture chambers right on the grounds of Ford, Daimler-Benz, and seizing workers right off the production line wasn't capitalism.

As the example you provided shows, as every aspect of capitalism shows, so coercion is always present, ever at the ready in order to enforce the economic relation of production for exchange.

red cat

15th December 2010, 15:11

All workers are, in the end, bound by political and military restraints in all capitalist countries. This is one of the things that capitalists do: oppress people, including in their own countries.

In Marxism, we often use the term "political economy" instead of "economic" because we understand that political actions, including repression, are part of the system. Workers in many countries are forbidden to strike, or forbidden to strike during the course of a contract. Many workers have to accept jobs given to them by the government in order to "earn" benefits.

All these and a zillion more examples are part and parcel of capitalism. Forcible land seizures, militarization of labor, genocide, forced evacuations, war, etc., are all part of the system. None of these makes for anything but capitalism.

For you to try to isolate some examples in one underdeveloped country like Nepal, where some remnants of a previous system may survive, and claim that this justifies class collaboration on the part of a Marxist party is ludicrous.

RED DAVE

If such restrictions are introduced in a capitalist country, then of course the strategy of revolution has to be transformed, provided a vanguard party is not already having well developed organizations among the working class. Even then, since the ownership of capital is national, the ruling class can be expected to act less violently than it would had the ownership of capital been foreign.

Generally European fascism is viewed as the worst political form of government with those familiar to only official versions of the history of colonial countries. Interestingly, a more detailed study can draw interesting parallels within the two, and at times, the colonial and neo-colonial governments can surpass the European fascist regimes in brutality and oppression.

In case of Nepal, an alliance with the national bourgeoisie is required for industrialization, while a tactical alliance with a portion of the comprador bourgeoisie is necessary due to the military weakness of the UCPN(M).

red cat

15th December 2010, 15:47

Sounds to me like your making a bit too much, almost a fetish, of political and military constraints. Yes, Marx makes a point of explaining how market dependence replaces extra-economic coercion with the advance of capitalism, but there is no point in that advance where the property at the core of market relations is not preserved, maintained through coercion.

If you follow your position through its logical extension, then you wind up arguing that post US Civil War plantation production employing black sharecroppers was not capitalism as extra-economic coercion, like the KKK, segregation laws etc. was applied.

Or you even wind up with something that says-- the slave labor conducted on behalf of IG Farben by the German govt in WW2 wasn't capitalism.

Or the death squads in Argentina, erecting cells and torture chambers right on the grounds of Ford, Daimler-Benz, and seizing workers right off the production line wasn't capitalism.

As the example you provided shows, as every aspect of capitalism shows, so coercion is always present, ever at the ready in order to enforce the economic relation of production for exchange.

I don't know about this in details, but Argentina is considered to be a semi feudal - semi colonial country by Maoists.

Political and military constraints involved in a country are among the foremost factors one should consider when it comes to discussing the type of contradictions involved. These political and military constraints, together with the foreign ownership of capital resulting in an agriculture dependent, dictatorial economy are the key factors determining the characteristic features of a new democratic revolution.

If you want to call such an economy capitalism, then you are at risk of not recognizing feudalism, imperialism and comprador capitalism as the chief enemies, and the national bourgeoisie a vacillating ally of the revolution. If this is not done, then the revolutionaries tend to underestimate the military reaction of the government to any revolutionary activity, and cannot industrialize rapidly due to alienating the national bourgeoisie. Both of these lead to defeat of the revolution.

S.Artesian

15th December 2010, 16:43

I don't know about this in details, but Argentina is considered to be a semi feudal - semi colonial country by Maoists.

Then clearly the Maoists don't know a thing about Argentina. Argentina has had, and for over a century, modern capitalist relations in agriculture.

The influence, and dominance of British capital, hardly reduced the national bourgeoisie to the status of impoverished, oppressed masses.

In fact, the impoverishment of Argentina's population [forcing 30% of the population into poverty] came with the agreement of the national bourgeoisie to destroy the workers' movement in the 1970s and 1980s.

From what I've read by Mao himself; from what I read about their analysis of India; and with this ridiculous evaluation of Argentina-- Maoists simply don't seem to have any idea of what capitalism is, how uneven and combined development manifests itself.

It sounds to me like Maoists have a purely idealized, and abstact notion of capitalism-- where capitalism is only capitalism if it exhibits only the most advanced relations between capital and wage-labor; if there isn't a single archaic relationship preserved and adapted by the capitalists, regarding agricultural production.

If you want to call such an economy capitalism, then you are at risk of not recognizing feudalism, imperialism and comprador capitalism as the chief enemies, and the national bourgeoisie a vacillating ally of the revolution. If this is not done, then the revolutionaries tend to underestimate the military reaction of the government to any revolutionary activity, and cannot industrialize rapidly due to alienating the national bourgeoisie. Both of these lead to defeat of the revolution.

Has nothing to do with what I want, but rather what is. The "semi-feudal" elements are relations of land and labor absorbed and adapted to world market relations, which are the relations of capital. I'm not at any risk of not recognizing feudalism, imperialism, and comprador capitalism as the chief enemies, and the national bourgeoisie as a vacillating ally. First, because feudalism as feudalism simply doesn't exist in any economy connection to the world market through production for those markets, or exchange with those markets.

Secondly- imperialism and comprador capitalism act through their agents, which are the national bourgeoisie. It would be nice if you could point to anywhere, other than one isolated place in India where the national bourgeoisie have actually supported a social revolution.

Argentina? Not hardly. Peronism was not a social revolution, and the national bourgeoisie were hardly supporters of even that lame effort.

China? Not that I can find evidence of, so if somebody has evidence of a national bourgeoisie, as a class not as individuals, supporting the struggle against the KMT, I'd love to know about it.

Bolivia? Surely not. Look at the failure of the MNR, which was a movement of the national bourgeoisie to support a social revolution.

South Africa? Angola? Egypt?

And finally-- exactly where has your scenario -- failure of a revolution to industrialize rapidly due to alienating the national bourgeoisie-- actually occurred? More importantly, where has the contra-positive occurred-- where collaborating with the national bourgeoisie has lead to rapid industrialization after a social revolution?

Where and when in the last 60 years has the national bourgeoisie introduced rapid industrialization separate and apart from the massive influx of capital from the advanced capitalist, those imperialist countries?

RED DAVE

15th December 2010, 17:01

If such restrictions are introduced in a capitalist country, then of course the strategy of revolution has to be transformed, provided a vanguard party is not already having well developed organizations among the working class. Even then, since the ownership of capital is national, the ruling class can be expected to act less violently than it would had the ownership of capital been foreign.That may be true, but it's irrelevant. It's still capitalism.

Generally European fascism is viewed as the worst political form of government with those familiar to only official versions of the history of colonial countries. Interestingly, a more detailed study can draw interesting parallels within the two, and at times, the colonial and neo-colonial governments can surpass the European fascist regimes in brutality and oppression.Okay.

In case of Nepal, an alliance with the national bourgeoisie is required for industrializationFunny that Lenin, in one of the least industrialized countries in Europe, failed to grasp this.

while a tactical alliance with a portion of the comprador bourgeoisie is necessary due to the military weakness of the UCPN(M).In other words, put the workers into an alliance with their enemies.

We know how well that turned out in China. Maoism=Masochism.

RED DAVE

red cat

15th December 2010, 17:03

Then clearly the Maoists don't know a thing about Argentina. Argentina has had, and for over a century, modern capitalist relations in agriculture.

I don't know, may be Argentinian Maoist comrades will be able to clarify this.

The influence, and dominance of British capital, hardly reduced the national bourgeoisie to the status of impoverished, oppressed masses.

In fact, the impoverishment of Argentina's population [forcing 30% of the population into poverty] came with the agreement of the national bourgeoisie to destroy the workers' movement in the 1970s and 1980s.

From what I've read by Mao himself; from what I read about their analysis of India; and with this ridiculous evaluation of Argentina-- Maoists simply don't seem to have any idea of what capitalism is, how uneven and combined development manifests itself.

It sounds to me like Maoists have a purely idealized, and abstact notion of capitalism-- where capitalism is only capitalism if it exhibits only the most advanced relations between capital and wage-labor; if there isn't a single archaic relationship preserved and adapted by the capitalists, regarding agricultural production.
To me it seems that declaring commodity production rather than the nature of interaction between the bourgeoisie and the working class as the chief identifying feature of capitalism, separates it from the practical aspects of the revolutionary war.

Has nothing to do with what I want, but rather what is. The "semi-feudal" elements are relations of land and labor absorbed and adapted to world market relations, which are the relations of capital. I'm not at any risk of not recognizing feudalism, imperialism, and comprador capitalism as the chief enemies, and the national bourgeoisie as a vacillating ally. First, because feudalism as feudalism simply doesn't exist in any economy connection to the world market through production for those markets, or exchange with those markets.

Secondly- imperialism and comprador capitalism act through their agents, which are the national bourgeoisie. It would be nice if you could point to anywhere, other than one isolated place in India where the national bourgeoisie have actually supported a social revolution.The example I gave applies to the situation in the whole of north-east India. The national bourgeoisie in Maoist dominated areas is much smaller and are reported simply as "locals" due to small size of their businesses.

Argentina? Not hardly. Peronism was not a social revolution, and the national bourgeoisie were hardly supporters of even that lame effort.

China? Not that I can find evidence of, so if somebody has evidence of a national bourgeoisie, as a class not as individuals, supporting the struggle against the KMT, I'd love to know about it.

Bolivia? Surely not. Look at the failure of the MNR, which was a movement of the national bourgeoisie to support a social revolution.

South Africa? Angola? Egypt?

And finally-- exactly where has your scenario -- failure of a revolution to industrialize rapidly due to alienating the national bourgeoisie-- actually occurred? More importantly, where has the contra-positive occurred-- where collaborating with the national bourgeoisie has lead to rapid industrialization after a social revolution?

Where and when in the last 60 years has the national bourgeoisie introduced rapid industrialization separate and apart from the massive influx of capital from the advanced capitalist, those imperialist countries?The first thing that comes to my mind is not the case of an alliance with the national bourgeoisie in a new democratic revolution, but a policy after the socialist revolution in Russia. Why was the NEP required and what were its effects ?

red cat

15th December 2010, 17:11

That may be true, but it's irrelevant. It's still capitalism.

Okay, then it's capitalism with qualitatively different class contradictions, social and political situation, and characters of revolutionary war.

Okay.

Funny that Lenin, in one of the least industrialized countries in Europe, failed to grasp this.

Even the least industrialized country in Europe was an imperialist power, making the ownership of the capital acting in it native and not foreign.

In other words, put the workers into an alliance with their enemies.

We know how well that turned out in China. Maoism=Masochism.

RED DAVE

Your posts will look much better if you don't end them with this kind of sectarian trollish nonsense.

S.Artesian

15th December 2010, 19:51

The first thing that comes to my mind is not the case of an alliance with the national bourgeoisie in a new democratic revolution, but a policy after the socialist revolution in Russia. Why was the NEP required and what were its effects ?

First, let's not gloss over the most important point: The Russian working class had seized power and had expropriated the bourgeoisie. The policy of the Bolsheviks was no support to the national bourgeoisie, no collaboration with the bourgeoisie. That's 1.

Here's 2. The Russian working class and peasantry had just fought a civil war where they had liquidated, physically, the bourgeoisie and the landowners as classes. There was NO national bourgeoisie in Russia at the time of the introduction of the NEP. That's 2.

Here's 3. The point of the NEP was not to encourage a local bourgeoisie, which did not exist, to undertake rapid industrialization. In fact, the obstacles to private ownership of the means of industrial production were not removed or eased. The point of the NEP was to encourage the peasantry to increase production based on incentives of trade with the urban areas through the inter-mediation of the brokers-- the "NEP men." That's 3.

Here's 4. There was no rapid industrialization of Russia under the NEP. As a matter of fact, industrialization languished. While it certainly recovered modestly from the civil war lows, it never approached the levels of 1912 and 1914. As a matter of fact, the NEP was undertaken in the midst of strong sentiment among the Bolsheviks, including Lenin, that the international bourgeoisie, those very imperialists, could perhaps be persuaded to invest in industrializing Russia.

Other than that, other than being wrong on every major point, your example of the NEP as an alliance with a national bourgeoisie is spot on.

S.Artesian

15th December 2010, 19:57

Even the least industrialized country in Europe was an imperialist power, making the ownership of the capital acting in it native and not foreign.

Yes and no. Yes there were empires. No, some, like Russia were still grossly "underdeveloped" on the scale of industrial capitalism and much of the industrial capital was foreign owned-- in Russia it was France and Germany with the dominant positions.

Take a look at Spain prior to the revolution and civil war. Empire? In part, still having a colony in Morocco. But was its industrial capital native? Not hardly. British and US capital was heavily invested in the transportation and communication networks; closely linked with the mining interests, etc.

In fact, the Spanish economy, a capitalist economy, expressed all the manifestations of "underdevelopment" in agriculture and rural labor relations that were also dominant in Latin America and other underdeveloped, and colonized, areas.

RED DAVE

16th December 2010, 03:03

Okay, then it's capitalism with qualitatively different class contradictions, social and political situation, and characters of revolutionary war.If it's capitalism, then the fundamental contradiction is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The political situation may be peculiar to Nepal, but the central contradiction is the same. Given this fact, the class allegiance of Marxists should be clear. Engaging in a political alliance with the bourgeoisie is a betrayal of the working class.

Even the least industrialized country in Europe was an imperialist power, making the ownership of the capital acting in it native and not foreign.Russia was an imperialist power; however, "the ownership of capital acting in it" was not Russian. In fact, the majority of large-scale industry in Russia was foreign owned. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks, once Lenin clarified the situation (against the class collaboration of Stalin), rejected any alliance with "native" bourgeolisie of Russia.

Your posts will look much better if you don't end them with this kind of sectarian trollish nonsense.Give it up. Address the issues. The UCPN(M) is engaging in class colaboration. We know what thw outcome will almost certainly be.

(And, by the way, let's not forget that at one point earlier this your you wrote that state capitalism would be an acceptable outcome.)

RED DAVE

Die Neue Zeit

16th December 2010, 06:40

Fantastic. Another "Marxist" endorsing capitalism-- "TINA"-- there is no alternative.

Is there a revolt going on in Nepal? It sure looks that way. Is the rebellion triggered by economic relations, by social relations of production? It would seem so unless of course materialism no longer applies to that section of the world economy and the globe. Are "we" in a revolutionary period? Fuck no, WE know we're not because somebody somewhere has made a deep and detailed study of Nepal and the overall situation of capitalism and has determined that there is no revolutionary period- fuck what those peasants and workers say; fuck what workers are confronted with all over the globe and what actions they have taken and will take to combat those attacks.

Will it take suppression of that rebellion in order to introduce "state capitalism"? Bet on it. And therefore we get pseudo-Marxists reliving and repeating the stupidity, the arrogance, the capitulation, and the enforcement of capitalist accumulation of their long-gone "Marxist" heroes.

It's enough to gag a maggot.

CONCLUSION: You are no Marxist. You are a conscious, dedicated social democrat.

Social democrats want to improve the condition of the working class under capitalism. Marxists fight for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism.

RED DAVE

To both of you: I'm looking at things from a more global perspective. I was very clear in what I meant by "state capitalism": minimal or preferrably no role for any "national bourgeoisie."

I personally prefer that a "Little Caesar" and the appropriate class bloc call the shots in Nepal.

RED DAVE

16th December 2010, 12:54

To both of you: I'm looking at things from a more global perspective. I was very clear in what I meant by "state capitalism": minimal or preferrably no role for any "national bourgeoisie."Are you calling for capitalism of the working class?

I personally prefer that a "Little Caesar" and the appropriate class bloc call the shots in Nepal.Sounds like a dictatorship over the proletariat is fine with you, complete with bonapartist dictator. Do you really think that's a Marxist program?

RED DAVE

Die Neue Zeit

16th December 2010, 14:31

Caesarism /= Bonapartism.

Please read this article (which also refutes Permanent Revolution) and the second link:

People’s Histories, Blocs, and "Managed Democracy" Reconsidered (http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-and-peasantry-t145342/index.html?p=1937383

RED DAVE

16th December 2010, 14:58

Caesarism /= Bonapartism.You're right. The kind of casarism you're contemplating is Stalinism.

Please read this article (which also refutes Permanent Revolution) and the second link:

People’s Histories, Blocs, and "Managed Democracy" Reconsidered (http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-and-peasantry-t145342/index.html?p=1937383Any rulership over the working class should be absolutely unacceptable to any Marxist. This is bullshit. The task of the working class is the emancipation of the working class and thereby all mankind. For the working class to collaborate with any capitalist class is political suicide.

RED DAVE

Die Neue Zeit

16th December 2010, 15:22

You're right. The kind of casarism you're contemplating is Stalinism.

What's so Stalinist about

There, the DOTP comes about after anti-bourgeois and "national" but "petit-bourgeois"/non-worker democratism via the Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and National Petit-Bourgeoisie, of which I propose a policy combination of the Julius Caesar of people's history (military culture of sorts), Proudhon (communal power), Lassalle (state-aid coops), Bismarck (moral measures), and Putin (harassing liberal and other bourgeois opposition):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-hi...332/index.html

In all this, the worker-class must maintain its own independent organizations, from the first-stage Bloc struggle to the second-stage battle against the anti-bourgeois and "national" but non-worker Bloc forces.

???

Any rulership over the working class should be absolutely unacceptable to any Marxist. This is bullshit. The task of the working class is the emancipation of the working class and thereby all mankind. For the working class to collaborate with any capitalist class is political suicide.

I'm not promoting any illusions in or collaboration with a "national" bourgeoisie at all.

S.Artesian

16th December 2010, 15:41

I'm not promoting any illusions in or collaboration with a "national" bourgeoisie at all.

Really? Then why the repeated expression of admiration for.... Putin? That's not urging a collaboration with the national bourgeoisie? That's Caesarism? Putin, master of the wars against Chechnya? Putin?

RED DAVE

16th December 2010, 17:02

To both of you: I'm looking at things from a more global perspective. I was very clear in what I meant by "state capitalism": minimal or preferrably no role for any "national bourgeoisie."
...

I personally prefer that a "Little Caesar" and the appropriate class bloc call the shots in Nepal.Do you read what you write before you post it?

Without a national bourgeoisie, what is the point of state capitalism? Why not, as Lenin and the Bolsheviks attempted, go straight for socialism?

What is the fucking little caesar you are calling for but a stalin? Why do you even bring such shit up? What kind of "appropriate class bloc" are you calling for? The only bloc a Marxist should be interested in would be the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with the peasantry and petit-bourgeoisie as junior partners.

RED DAVE

Die Neue Zeit

16th December 2010, 21:14

Really? Then why the repeated expression of admiration for.... Putin? That's not urging a collaboration with the national bourgeoisie? That's Caesarism? Putin, master of the wars against Chechnya? Putin?

I don't admire Putin at all. I just think the way the Kremlin represses liberal opposition is the way that worker-friendly "managed democracy" in the Third World should repress bourgeois and liberal opposition.

Without a national bourgeoisie, what is the point of state capitalism? Why not, as Lenin and the Bolsheviks attempted, go straight for socialism?

State capitalism isn't dependent upon the existence of any bourgeoisie.

What is the fucking little caesar you are calling for but a stalin? Why do you even bring such shit up? What kind of "appropriate class bloc" are you calling for? The only bloc a Marxist should be interested in would be the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with the peasantry and petit-bourgeoisie as junior partners.

Like the Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry, the Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and National Petit-Bourgeoisie is more flexible in who's the leading partner and who isn't.

S.Artesian

16th December 2010, 21:17

I don't admire Putin at all. I just think the way the Kremlin represses liberal opposition is the way that worker-friendly "managed democracy" in the Third World should repress bourgeois and liberal opposition.

WTF? And you abstract that from his cronyism, his war in Chechnya, the tolerance, more or less, of neo-Nazi groups?

Do us a favor.... as they say in England.

I wish I could say "You can't be serious." but I know you are.

FUBAR, FUBAB

RED DAVE

17th December 2010, 03:02

I don't admire Putin at all. I just think the way the Kremlin represses liberal opposition is the way that worker-friendly "managed democracy" in the Third World should repress bourgeois and liberal opposition.That's about as close as you can get to calling yourself a stalinist without without saying, "I am stalinist."

State capitalism isn't dependent upon the existence of any bourgeoisie.I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Like the Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry, the Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and National Petit-Bourgeoisie is more flexible in who's the leading partner and who isn't.Boy are you deluded. One class we know is not the "leading partner" in that latter and that's the working class.

RED DAVE

Die Neue Zeit

17th December 2010, 03:20

That's about as close as you can get to calling yourself a stalinist without without saying, "I am stalinist."

The Bolsheviks repressed counterrevolutionaries by more arbitrary and intimidating means. By your standards, the Julius Caesar of people's history was a "Stalinist." :lol:

And you abstract that from his cronyism, his war in Chechnya, the tolerance, more or less, of neo-Nazi groups?

All that crap is irrelevant to how the regime handles the likes of Kasparov, Khodorovsky, etc.

S.Artesian

17th December 2010, 03:56

All that crap is irrelevant to how the regime handles the likes of Kasparov, Khodorovsky, etc.

Really? Irrelevant? Here's what's irrelevant in the course of the accumulation of capital? How many years Putin keeps Khodorovsky in jail; how man "liberal capitalists" he silences or removes.

That's immaterial and irrelevant since he's simply protecting the class of capitalists, and the accumulation of capital as capital.

Starting wars to cover and distract the piss-poor ability of the economy to provide decent living standards for all? Irrelevant says DNZ.

Tolerating police/neo-Nazi collaboration, attacks on minorities, gays, etc? Irrelevant, says DNZ.

DNZ= Doesn't Know Zhit

Die Neue Zeit

17th December 2010, 04:11

Since you're the one who's fixated on Putin, let's turn to the likes of Chavez to make things clearer, shall we?

Only recently did Chavez mimick some of Putin's tricks for foreign NGOs. The regime also purchased a stake in the minority but with significant influence with respect to Globovision. The communitarian populist suppression of all segments of the bourgeoisie and the comprador petit-bourgeoisie in less developed countries could borrow a trick or two from "goons" and "thugs" (your words).

Where are Chavez's wars? Where is Chavez's protection of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie? Where are the attacks on minorities, gays, etc.?

And while we're on the subject of authoritarian Bonapartist tactics used for Caesarian ends, let me voice my disappointment in Chavez not emulating the "Iron Chancellor" Bismarck's Kulturkampf against the Roman Catholic Church.

One class we know is not the "leading partner" in that latter and that's the working class.

Like with Lenin, that's only a possibility, unlike the certain contempt for non-proletarian "working classes" in Permanent Revolution.

RED DAVE

17th December 2010, 04:37

Let me just state it out and out: socialism, a workers state, is incompatible with caesarism. Where you or anybody gets the idea that revolutionary democracy is compatible with a dictator, is beyond me. The Bolsheviks undertook certain measures to preserve the rvolution. There were excesses. The fact that these measures had to be taken in the first place, plus the excesses, plus the fact that those who committed the excesses were not punished sufficiently and these tendencies to authoritarianism rooted out, is part of what doomed socialism in Russian.

What you are doing, DNZ, is making of virtue of temporary measures and excesses.

One class we know is not the "leading partner" [...] and that's the working class.[QUOTE=Die Neue Zeit;1960174]Like with Lenin, that's only a possibility, unlike the certain contempt for non-proletarian "working classes" in Permanent Revolution.(1) There is only one possibility for a regime supported by Marxists, and that is a regime controlled by the working class. (2) What the fuck are you talking about in reference to permanent revolution? Do you mean that in its form as articulated by Trotsky it insisted that only the working class could carry out the democratic and socialist revolutions in the age of imperialism?

Well that happens to be true.

RED DAVE

S.Artesian

17th December 2010, 04:46

Since you're the one who's fixated on Putin, let's turn to the likes of Chavez to make things clearer, shall we?

I'm not fixated on Putin-- I hardly give the fuck a moment's thought. You're the one with the positive references.

Only recently did Chavez mimick some of Putin's tricks for foreign NGOs. The regime also purchased a stake in the minority but with significant influence with respect to Globovision. The communitarian populist suppression of all segments of the bourgeoisie and the comprador petit-bourgeoisie in less developed countries could borrow a trick or two from "goons" and "thugs" (your words).

Hey, maybe you haven't been paying attention but while your buddy has been doing that, the economy has been tanking, generation of electrical power was failing to meet demand, inflation is eating away at wages, and... Chavez's popular is declining. Now I know all of that is irrelevant. I know that there's nothing that makes your heart go pitty-pat like a man in uniform all dressed up and looking for his horse, but you know what? I think in the end, it's just those things, just that economic which will mean the end to Chavez and put the shark's bite back on the urban and rural poor.

I don't care what Chavez does regarding NGOs and purchasing TV stations and/or jailing liberal pundits. As Newt said in Aliens "It won't make any differnce."

Where are Chavez's wars? Where is Chavez's protection of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie? Where are the attacks on minorities, gays, etc.?

Nice try, but guess what? There's more to history than your obvious romance with the "great man theory." There's defense and protection of the bourgeoisie going on all the time in capitalist Venezuela by elements in and out of the government. Doesn't have to be Chavez personally.... you realize that don't you? He can even be opposed to it. BFD, like Newt said in Aliens "They mostly come at night. mostly."

And while we're on the subject of authoritarian Bonapartist tactics used for Caesarian ends, let me voice my disappointment in Chavez not emulating the "Iron Chancellor" Bismarck's Kulturkampf against the Roman Catholic Church.

Fucking priceless... all hail Bismarck. Exactly where did Bismarck's Kulturkampf get the proletariat?

Like with Lenin, that's only a possibility, unlike the certain contempt for non-proletarian "working classes" in Permanent Revolution.

Still spewing out that slanderous crap about contempt for the peasantry in permanent revolution?

Don't take this personally, but I really don't like you.

Die Neue Zeit

17th December 2010, 05:14

Die Neue Zeit

17th December 2010, 05:26

Hey, maybe you haven't been paying attention but while your buddy has been doing that, the economy has been tanking

The GDP shrinkage figures have decreased. It's only a matter of time in Chavez's term before the economy will recover.

generation of electrical power was failing to meet demand, inflation is eating away at wages, and... Chavez's popular is declining

Again, the economy needs to recover before Chavez's popularity recovers. I'm sure it will recover, hopefully in 2011.

Nice try, but guess what? There's more to history than your obvious romance with the "great man theory."

I don't subscribe to Great Men crap:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html

Within this “managed democracy” the most obvious element is the National Leader or pan-national equivalent, even if there is no organizational emphasis here [...] Despite all this power, the president should be subject to legislative confidence, and a National Leader outside the presidency should also be the leading member of a party (all the more so as president).

Again, the most important element of this “managed democracy” is not the National Leader or pan-national equivalent, but the managed multi-party system.

[...]

Attempts to form political organizations to the right of the “Party of Order” would receive executive treatment not unlike the full spectrum of the Kremlin’s treatment of liberal opposition groups: immediate criminalization for actions like receiving funds from foreign capitalists and their governments, more mundane haranguing, collective monopoly on electoral registration to be held by the four parties or groups of parties (so that, like with the difficulties of third-party registration in the US, this further-right opposition would be forced to file endless stacks of papers, go through long waiting times, and so on), coordinated media taboos, and Potemkin diversions (pseudo-parties staffed entirely by public agents with the goal of dividing the further-right opposition, all the while making organizational and political mishaps at that opposition’s expense).

S.Artesian

17th December 2010, 05:36

Sure, the economy is going to recover. Bet on it. Right the capitalist economy will recover and everything will be hunky-dory.

Die Neue Zeit

17th December 2010, 05:48

So you have nothing but a snide remark after what I've said, refuting your exaggeration of the economic conditions and your accusation of me being a "Great Man" person? :(

S.Artesian

17th December 2010, 17:01

So you have nothing but a snide remark after what I've said, refuting your exaggeration of the economic conditions and your accusation of me being a "Great Man" person? :(

You haven't refuted a thing about economic conditions, just as a break in the bond traders' assault on EU debt doesn't mean the debt overhang has been resolved.

It's a hoot that you claim to have refuted the accusation of the "Great Man" theory, when in the posts you write in response you wind up citing, with nostalgia, Bismarck's Kulturkampf.

Do you ever stop and think about what you write?

RED DAVE

17th December 2010, 22:29

Let me just state it out and out: socialism, a workers state, is incompatible with caesarism.
I agree with that premise totally. However, I'm suggesting a new form of Two-Stageism in less developed countries, since in most of them the proletariat is in the demographic minority compared to sharecroppers, small tenant farmers, urban petit-bourgeoisie, etc.So, all by your lonesome, in the absence of praxis, you're going to revise fundamental Marxist theory. Rots of ruck.

Hence my new Bloc stuff, the line of the Second International against both Trotsky and Menshevism.Would you care to refresh our memories as to what this theory was and who came up was. Could it be ... Kautsky. (He's one of those revolutionary Marxists whe didn't ahve the guts oppose WWI when it might have made a difference.

That the working class may not necessarily be the leading class come the first, thoroughly anti-bourgeois, but Caesarian stage is irrelevant so long as they have independent organizations.(1) Welcome to the wonderful world of stalinism.

(2) There is no caesarist state of socialist revolution. Show me any mention of this in the work of Marx or any other Marxist theoretician.

(3) What you are calling caesarism is stalisnism. If (a) the economy is nationalized and (b) the working class is not running the show, then (c) you've got stalinism.

Do you mean that in its form as articulated by Trotsky it insisted that only the working class could carry out the democratic and socialist revolutions in the age of imperialism?
Only the working class can carry out the "socialist revolution."Okay, but why do you put the socialist revolution in quotes?

The bourgeoisie's ability to carry out the "democratic revolution" alone or with support has expired.Okay, but, again, why the quotes?

HoweverHere comes the shit!

The working class is NOT the only class that can carry out the "democratic revolution."Okay, show us a case where another class or group of classes accomplished this.

The proof is in the pudding: "people's wars," Focoism, PDPA-style military coups (in reference to 1970s Afghanistan), etc. All I'm suggesting is one more flavour: "marches on Rome" (not the Mussolini farce but the event that sparked civil war in the late Roman Republic)What does any of this have to do with the democratic revolution in the way that Marxists understand it: the bourgeois revolution?

Are you implying the Julius Caesar accomplished a bourgeois revolution? If so, Comrade, you need to go back to the basic tests of Marxism and do your homework.

RED DAVE

Die Neue Zeit

18th December 2010, 04:25

It's a hoot that you claim to have refuted the accusation of the "Great Man" theory, when in the posts you write in response you wind up citing, with nostalgia, Bismarck's Kulturkampf.

Nostalgia is for those who've lived in a past period. Even if the Kulturkampf had mixed results, it was a well-intended policy aimed against the political influence of the Roman Catholic Church. Chavez will need something bigger because he doesn't have a Catholic minority.

Die Neue Zeit

18th December 2010, 04:33

Would you care to refresh our memories as to what this theory was and who came up was. Could it be ... Kautsky. (He's one of those revolutionary Marxists who didn't have the guts oppose WWI when it might have made a difference.

He was merely only of them. Lenin, through the two-stage RDDOTPP, was another.

(1) Welcome to the wonderful world of Stalinism.

"Marxism-Leninism" doesn't have independent worker organizations, and encourages collaboration with select bourgeois elements.

(2) There is no Caesarist state of socialist revolution.

Not every anti-bourgeois revolution is "socialist," though this Caesarism would have a lot of very left-socdem characteristics ("commanding heights" nationalizations, zero unemployment, labour-friendly work laws, etc.).

Okay, but why do you put the socialist revolution in quotes?

Because no form of "socialism" is the lower phase of the communist mode of production. I don't subscribe to a monetary socialism, but to a system based on labour credits.

Okay, but, again, why the quotes?

Go check out the Theory thread on the Marxist minimum program (titled "Minimum Program: Social Labor"). The meaning of "democratic revolution" changed over time. The long-held equivalence of "democratic revolution" with "bourgeois revolution" is just plain wrong.

S.Artesian

18th December 2010, 04:58

Not every anti-bourgeois revolution is "socialist," though this Caesarism would have a lot of very left-socdem characteristics ("commanding heights" nationalizations, zero unemployment, labour-friendly work laws, etc.).

You really need to study a bit more about actual revolutions-- like Mexico in 1910, hell, like Latin America with Bolivar and Sucre; and the failure of revolutions like in Ireland, Argentina, Bolivia.

Not every anti-bourgeois revolution is "socialist"? How about proletarian? How about that old "class-for-itself" that Marx described as the proletariat thereby becoming able to emancipate all from capitalism.

Not every anti-bourgeois revolution is socialst? And where has there been an anti-bourgeois revolution, not socialist, that hasn't reverted to capitalism? Right now, I can only think of one, Cuba, and its latest economic program doesn't bode well for its future.

Die Neue Zeit

18th December 2010, 05:00

^^^ FYI, the Paris Commune comes to my mind, actually.

S.Artesian

18th December 2010, 06:24

^^^ FYI, the Paris Commune comes to my mind, actually.

Brilliant. Lasted how long? Over how much territory? Encompassing how much rural production?

And not to put too fine a point on it, there was no left Caesarism, was there?

Do you think up this stuff all by yourself, or do you have help?

RED DAVE

18th December 2010, 12:47

[Th]is Caesarism would have a lot of very left-socdem characteristics ("commanding heights" nationalizations, zero unemployment, labour-friendly work laws, etc.).Welcome to the wonderful world of stalinism.

RED DAVE

red cat

18th December 2010, 15:32

First, let's not gloss over the most important point: The Russian working class had seized power and had expropriated the bourgeoisie. The policy of the Bolsheviks was no support to the national bourgeoisie, no collaboration with the bourgeoisie. That's 1.

Here's 2. The Russian working class and peasantry had just fought a civil war where they had liquidated, physically, the bourgeoisie and the landowners as classes. There was NO national bourgeoisie in Russia at the time of the introduction of the NEP. That's 2.

And yet Lenin says these :

Now the bourgeoisie of the whole world are supporting the Russian bourgeoisie, and they are still ever so much stronger than we are.

- Lenin

Never before in history has there been a struggle like the one we are now witnesses of; but there have been wars between peasants and landowners more than once in history, ever since the earliest times of slavery. Such wars have occurred more than once; but there has never been a war waged by a government against the bourgeoisie of its own country and against the united bourgeoisie of all countries.

-Lenin
Here's 3. The point of the NEP was not to encourage a local bourgeoisie, which did not exist, to undertake rapid industrialization. In fact, the obstacles to private ownership of the means of industrial production were not removed or eased. The point of the NEP was to encourage the peasantry to increase production based on incentives of trade with the urban areas through the inter-mediation of the brokers-- the "NEP men." That's 3. Were these brokers hired by the government with fixed salaries or did they make profits ? If they made profits then Maoists would classify them as the national bourgeoisie. Similarly, middle and big peasants who hire men and make profits are members of the national bourgeoisie.

Here's 4. There was no rapid industrialization of Russia under the NEP. As a matter of fact, industrialization languished. While it certainly recovered modestly from the civil war lows, it never approached the levels of 1912 and 1914. As a matter of fact, the NEP was undertaken in the midst of strong sentiment among the Bolsheviks, including Lenin, that the international bourgeoisie, those very imperialists, could perhaps be persuaded to invest in industrializing Russia.
Interesting. Can you provide an account of the number and types of industries in the USSR and America in 1917 ? Also, how were new industries started in the USSR ?

Other than that, other than being wrong on every major point, your example of the NEP as an alliance with a national bourgeoisie is spot on.Note that I haven't written anywhere that NEP was an alliance with the national bourgeoisie. In every revolution, the national bourgeoisie is supposed to become the principal adversary of the masses as soon as feudalism, imperialism and comprador capitalism are defeated. Russia was already capitalist before the revolution.

red cat

18th December 2010, 16:27

If it's capitalism, then the fundamental contradiction is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The political situation may be peculiar to Nepal, but the central contradiction is the same. Given this fact, the class allegiance of Marxists should be clear. Engaging in a political alliance with the bourgeoisie is a betrayal of the working class.

Russia was an imperialist power; however, "the ownership of capital acting in it" was not Russian. In fact, the majority of large-scale industry in Russia was foreign owned. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks, once Lenin clarified the situation (against the class collaboration of Stalin), rejected any alliance with "native" bourgeolisie of Russia.

Give it up. Address the issues. The UCPN(M) is engaging in class colaboration. We know what thw outcome will almost certainly be.

(And, by the way, let's not forget that at one point earlier this your you wrote that state capitalism would be an acceptable outcome.)

RED DAVE

How many heavy industries did Russia have at that time ? How many does Nepal have at present ?

Also, what the UCPN(M) is doing the best option right now. All other methods will result in every gain being reversed, and all possibilities of total seizure of power vanishing.

RED DAVE

18th December 2010, 17:17

How many heavy industries did Russia have at that time ? How many does Nepal have at present ?

Also, what the UCPN(M) is doing the best option right now. All other methods will result in every gain being reversed, and all possibilities of total seizure of power vanishing.What you are doing is justifying class collaboration and state capitalism. What you are saying is that the road to "total seizure of power" is for the so-called Marxist party to enter into a capitalist government with the capitalist class. Why don't you just call yourself a liberal and get it over with? Should the Maoists end up leading this government, all real revolutionaries will have to start, immediately, plans to ovethrow it, as in China.

RED DAVE

red cat

18th December 2010, 17:28

What you are doing is justifying class collaboration and state capitalism. What you are saying is that the road to "total seizure of power" is for the so-called Marxist party to enter into a capitalist government with the capitalist class. Why don't you just call yourself a liberal and get it over with? Should the Maoists end up leading this government, all real revolutionaries will have to start, immediately, plans to ovethrow it, as in China.

RED DAVE

Tactics have to be set according to the situation. If you do not want to recognize the threat of a disastrous war that the UCPN(M) might have to face if it quits the parliament at this stage, then it is better for you to follow anarchism instead of Leninism. Anarchism is the best option for anyone who does not understand the military aspects of a revolution.

RED DAVE

18th December 2010, 17:47

Tactics have to be set according to the situation.So you consider class collaboration to be tactic. It's tactical question whether or not a working class party should enter a capitalist government? I guess, then it would be okay for a socialist party in the US to support Obama and enter his government. I guess Bernie Sanders is our true leader.

If you do not want to recognize the threat of a disastrous war that the UCPN(M) might have to face if it quits the parliament at this stage, then it is better for you to follow anarchism instead of Leninism.You show me how specifically contradicting the actions that the Bolsheviks took under the same circumstances as the UCPN(M) find themselves now, constitutes Leninism.

Anarchism is the best option for anyone who does not understand the military aspects of a revolution.Class collaborationism is the best option for anyone who doesn't understand Marxism. You and Die Neue Zeit really need to form an alliance.

RED DAVE

red cat

18th December 2010, 17:58

So you consider class collaboration to be tactic. It's tactical question whether or not a working class party should enter a capitalist government? I guess, then it would be okay for a socialist party in the US to support Obama and enter his government. I guess Bernie Sanders is our true leader.

You show me how specifically contradicting the actions that the Bolsheviks took under the same circumstances as the UCPN(M) find themselves now, constitutes Leninism.

Class collaborationism is the best option for anyone who doesn't understand Marxism. You and Die Neue Zeit really need to form an alliance.

ED DAVE

Yes, as if Marxism means abandoning all military aspects of a revolutionary war. What is the UCPN(M) supposed to do if after ending the coalition it is declared terrorist and China and India help the RNA in war against it ?

Die Neue Zeit

18th December 2010, 18:27

Welcome to the wonderful world of stalinism.

RED DAVE

Except there's not much of a central planning apparatus, is there? Oh, and money would still function under capitalistic norms, not becoming merely a means of accounting like the Soviet ruble. :p

RED DAVE

18th December 2010, 21:31

Yes, as if Marxism means abandoning all military aspects of a revolutionary war.Ending all military aspects of a revolutionary war, and all attempts to organize the working class, is exactly what the UCPN(M) us doing: substituting, instead, parliamentary maneuvering.

What is the UCPN(M) supposed to do if after ending the coalition it is declared terrorist and China and India help the RNA in war against it ?Are you saying that the parliamentary coalition is all that's keeping China and India from intervening?

RED DAVE

red cat

18th December 2010, 21:55

Ending all military aspects of a revolutionary war, and all attempts to organize the working class, is exactly what the UCPN(M) us doing: substituting, instead, parliamentary maneuvering.

To me it seems that they are using this temporary period of peace to build mass bases all over the country, while keeping the main portions of their army intact.

Are you saying that the parliamentary coalition is all that's keeping China and India from intervening?

RED DAVE

Mostly because of that plus the alliance with different groups in China and India from time to time.

RED DAVE

19th December 2010, 00:11

To me it seems that they are using this temporary period of peace to build mass bases all over the country, while keeping the main portions of their army intact.There is no indication that they are doing this. Quite the contrary, one of the leaders of the UCPN(M) has publicly state that the party will not let it's 19,000 fighters stand in the way of a parliamentary rapproachement. Likewise there is no indication of any kind of organizing or mobilizing in the cities, among the working class or in the countryside. Everything is subordinated to parliamentary wheeling and dealing.

As an example, there is no indication of mobilizing the working class in Nepal to support the striking workers in Bangladesh.

Are you saying that the parliamentary coalition is all that's keeping China and India from intervening?
Mostly because of that plus the alliance with different groups in China and India from time to time.You have no evidence whatsoever that the parliamentary wheeling and dealing between the Maoists and the bourgeois parties is preventing intervention. Unless, of course, you mean that what's holding off intervention in the ability of the UCPN(M) to preserve capitalism in Nepal.

This is what you call Marxism?

RED DAVE

S.Artesian

19th December 2010, 00:52

Please cite the references for these quotes from Lenin so we can see the context of the remarks, their dates, the subject under discussion. Without that, the remarks are pretty generic.

Were these brokers hired by the government with fixed salaries or did they make profits ? If they made profits then Maoists would classify them as the national bourgeoisie. Similarly, middle and big peasants who hire men and make profits are members of the national bourgeoisie.
They made profits-- and to call them a national bourgeoisie is ridiculous. First they had absolutely no power to separate the direct producers from the products, and from the basis of production. These were brokers, middlemen, essentially traveling agents buying grain.

To identify middle and big peasants, even those who hire labor and make profits as members of the national bourgeoisie is also ridiculous. These are classic examples of the petty-bourgeoisie. The whole basis of peasant production, including the "big peasants" who hire labor, is the small scale of individual production.

This is the thing about these theories: terms and classifications are thrown around with so little precision, so little relation to Marx's analysis of the relations behind the terms that the terms are distorted beyond all applicability-- rather than a materialist analysis, the terms become an ideological obfuscation of the actual relations of production.

Interesting. Can you provide an account of the number and types of industries in the USSR and America in 1917 ? Also, how were new industries started in the USSR ?
Yes, I can, but are you really going to tell me that you don't know what the purpose of the NEP was? How it's emphasis was on the peasantry and inducing the peasantry to grow more grain etc. for the cities? Are you really going to tell me that you didn't know that the lack of industrialization under the NEP became the point of contention between those on the left allied with Trotsky, and those of the center-right allied with Stalin, Zinoviev, and Bukharin? That Bukharin's program, and the one that pretty much dominated until Stalin's sudden about face in 1928 was "socialism at a snail's pace" and "peasants! enrich yourselves"?

Here's the wikipedia entry for the NEP which is serviceable enough for just the most superficial sketch:

Agricultural production increased greatly. Instead of the government taking all agricultural surpluses with no compensation, the farmers now had the option to sell their surplus yields, and therefore had an incentive to produce more grain. This incentive coupled with the break up of the quasi-feudal landed estates not only brought agricultural production to pre-Revolution levels but surpassed them. While the agricultural sector became increasingly reliant on small family farms, the heavy industries, banks and financial institutions remained owned and run by the state. Since the Soviet government did not yet pursue any policy of industrialization, this created an imbalance in the economy where the agricultural sector was growing much faster than heavy industry. For info on the NEP, there's thousands of books out there. Roger Munting's The Economic Development of the USSR has good info. And Alec Nove, despite being a avowed social democrat, provides good info in An Economic History of the USSR.

Re industrial output, and growth in Russia-- from statistical reports produced in the USSR in 1934 come the following:

Industrial [factory] production [millions of 1926-1927 rubles]:

1913-- 10251, 1921-- 2004, 1923--4005, 1924--4660 1925-- 7739. It was not until 1926 that industrial production surpassed 1913 levels. However, the most important point is that the NEP did nothing to bring "capitalism" into industrial production. There was zero private ownership of the production of coal, electricity, pig iron, steel, cotton, railroads. NONE.

Regarding agricultural output.

Grain [million tons]:

1913-- 80.1 1921--37.6 1923--56.6 1924-- 51.4 1925-- 72.5 1926--76.8

For US figures you can consult the Statistical Abstract of the United States, available on line for any year you desire.

Note that I haven't written anywhere that NEP was an alliance with the national bourgeoisie. In every revolution, the national bourgeoisie is supposed to become the principal adversary of the masses as soon as feudalism, imperialism and comprador capitalism are defeated. Russia was already capitalist before the revolution.Here's what I wrote and here's what you replied, prior to my post disagreeing with your example of the NEP:

And finally-- exactly where has your scenario -- failure of a revolution to industrialize rapidly due to alienating the national bourgeoisie-- actually occurred? More importantly, where has the contra-positive occurred-- where collaborating with the national bourgeoisie [I]has lead to rapid industrialization after a social revolution?

Where and when in the last 60 years has the national bourgeoisie introduced rapid industrialization separate and apart from the massive influx of capital from the advanced capitalist, those imperialist countries?

The first thing that comes to my mind is not the case of an alliance with the national bourgeoisie in a new democratic revolution, but a policy after the socialist revolution in Russia. Why was the NEP required and what were its effects ?

So you did identify the NEP as a collaboration with the national bourgeoisie, but after a "socialist revolution in Russia."

Russia, indeed, prior to the October Revolution, was capitalist , with tremendous conflicts of uneven and combined development-- just as China was capitalist and part of the capitalist world markets, with a tremendous burden of uneven and combined development. Your designation of China, India [to this day!] as feudal is, as I said, an after identification constructed to rationalize pursuing an alliance with the national bourgeoisie-- an alliance that has never delivered what you claim is the reason for pursuing such an alliance-- the need for rapid industrialization.

Die Neue Zeit

19th December 2010, 07:01

They made profits-- and to call them a national bourgeoisie is ridiculous. First they had absolutely no power to separate the direct producers from the products, and from the basis of production. These were brokers, middlemen, essentially traveling agents buying grain.

To identify middle and big peasants, even those who hire labor and make profits as members of the national bourgeoisie is also ridiculous. These are classic examples of the petty-bourgeoisie. The whole basis of peasant production, including the "big peasants" who hire labor, is the small scale of individual production.

This is the thing about these theories: terms and classifications are thrown around with so little precision, so little relation to Marx's analysis of the relations behind the terms that the terms are distorted beyond all applicability-- rather than a materialist analysis, the terms become an ideological obfuscation of the actual relations of production.

But some family farmers or the modern version of the "big peasants" can be bourgeois. Agriculture has become so mechanized that they can produce more, and get more capital if they form their own corporations.

Dimentio

19th December 2010, 13:46

S.Artesian

19th December 2010, 15:58

But some family farmers or the modern version of the "big peasants" can be bourgeois. Agriculture has become so mechanized that they can produce more, and get more capital if they form their own corporations.

Absolutely. The big peasantry can become capitalist farmers, but that takes a whole process of dispossession of smaller peasants, of creation of a landless rural proletariat first and foremost prior to mechanization.

At the end of the NEP, at the beginning of the first Five Year Plan, the number of "big peasants" in Soviet agriculture, and their "specific gravity"-- their leverage over total output-- was tiny, truly tiny.

And of course it was the five year plan that undertook that dispossession of rural producers, that creation of an agricultural proletariat.

RED DAVE

19th December 2010, 19:58

But some family farmers or the modern version of the "big peasants" can be bourgeois. Agriculture has become so mechanized that they can produce more, and get more capital if they form their own corporations.Do you read what you're writing? We are talking about the economic development of a country and you're bullshitting around as to whether or not "some family farmers" can be bourgeois. And all this in the service of justifying class collaboration between the working class and the "national bourgeoisie."

Where are you coming from politically? Surely this isn't Marxism.

RE DAVE

RED DAVE

19th December 2010, 20:01

Generally speaking, Nepal is too small to be able to install some kind of socialist system which would be completely autonomous. Socialism in one country only works if the country is sufficiently large and has enough resource diversity.

The ideal countries, looking at resources, would be Canada and Australia. Small populations and big surface.Socialism in one country always has been and always will be nonsense. The fact is that (1) all countries are tied together in a global capitalist system and (2) any serious socialist development would be met with military attack.

RED DAVE

Die Neue Zeit

20th December 2010, 00:00

Do you read what you're writing? We are talking about the economic development of a country and you're bullshitting around as to whether or not "some family farmers" can be bourgeois. And all this in the service of justifying class collaboration between the working class and the "national bourgeoisie."

Where are you coming from politically? Surely this isn't Marxism.

RE DAVE

WTF are you talking about? Nowhere did I advocate any smooching with the "national bourgeoisie," unlike the Maoists!

Get it plugged to your head re. Caesarism. It's about the politically revolutionary if not socially revolutionary role of the "national" petit-bourgeoisie (those not being of the comprador petit-bourgeoisie) by means of their Anti-Republicanism: Urban Petit-Bourgeois Radical Democratism plus Peasant Absolutism/Autocracy against bourgeois oligarchy/plutocracy.

S.Artesian

20th December 2010, 01:16

WTF are you talking about? Nowhere did I advocate any smooching with the "national bourgeoisie," unlike the Maoists!

Get it plugged to your head re. Caesarism. I's about the politically revolutionary if not socially revolutionary role of the "national" petit-bourgeoisie (those not being of the comprador petit-bourgeoisie) by means of their Anti-Republicanism: Urban Petit-Bourgeois Radical Democratism plus Peasant Absolutism/Autocracy against bourgeois oligarchy/plutocracy.

Or it might just be the basis for a "left fascism." The MNR a national anti-republican petit-bourgeois party in Bolivia was truly entranced with Mussolini's corporatism.

Die Neue Zeit

20th December 2010, 01:21

S.Artesian

20th December 2010, 02:30

"Left Fascism" is a means for collaboration with "national" bourgeois elements, and opposes the independent political organization of the working class. Unless you want to call the Julius Caesar of people's history a precedent for fascism, then that's your prerogative. :lol:

Except this is the 21st century. There isn't going to be a radical, independent, left movement of the petit bourgeois that can sustain itself-- that hell is going to even last a year absent the movement of the working class.

I mean look around what happens when this pseudo-Caesarist movements get government power?

Die Neue Zeit

20th December 2010, 02:41

Except this is the 21st century.

Your past equivalents said "Except this is the 20th century" - look at people's war (despite the "Bloc of Four Classes"), Focoism, PDPA-style military coups, etc.

There isn't going to be a radical, independent, left movement of the petit bourgeois that can sustain itself-- that hell is going to even last a year absent the movement of the working class.

The "movement of the working class" is a must, so long as it is conscious of the necessity of a thoroughly anti-bourgeois but nonetheless Two-Stage process by not obstructing the March on Rome.

I mean look around what happens when this pseudo-Caesarist movements get government power?

But you just said "pseudo-Caesarist" and not Caesarist. You implicitly dismissed the possibility of a "radical, independent, left movement of the petit-bourgeoisie" period, not just one "that can sustain itself absent the movement of the working class."

S.Artesian

20th December 2010, 03:17

Not implicitly, explicitly.

Your past equivalents said "Except this is the 20th century" - look at people's war (despite the "Bloc of Four Classes"), Focoism, PDPA-style military coups, etc.

Yeah? And that's really worked out well for humanity, you think?

Die Neue Zeit

20th December 2010, 03:20

S.Artesian

20th December 2010, 04:55

Check out my new History thread. :)

More progressive change came out of such primarily anti-colonial struggles than from reactionary tred-iunion bile such as Solidarnosc or spontaneist dead-ends such as May 1968 (that doesn't discount the need for worker-class partiinost one bit).

"Not implicitly, explicitly."

There goes denying "contempt for the peasantry." ;)

What fucking peasantry? Take a good long look at how agriculture is practiced in the world markets and tell me where you see a peasantry. Are you even aware of how capitalism reproduces itself?

And saying the petit-bourgeois are not going to "March on Rome" or Brussels, of New York to hail Caesar is not contempt.

You're distortions are quite annoying.

Die Neue Zeit

20th December 2010, 06:24

What fucking peasantry? Take a good long look at how agriculture is practiced in the world markets and tell me where you see a peasantry. Are you even aware of how capitalism reproduces itself?

As Paul Cockshott argued, India for example has a lot of feudal relations left. Africa is notorious for pre-capitalist farming relations.

And saying the petit-bourgeois are not going to "March on Rome" or Brussels, of New York to hail Caesar is not contempt.

You're distortions are quite annoying.

I never said a "March on Rome" would apply to places like Brussels or New York. In the most developed countries, the Lassallean agitational line towards the small business owners and moreso towards the (ever-unproductive) self-employed, the cops-lawyers-judges apparatus, the private security guard apparatus, etc. is applicable: One Reactionary Mass.

This is so that a workers-only voting membership policy can be pursued in building a party-movement (even in the less developed countries where "Hail Caesar" is more appropriate). You know, this goes back to class independence.

EDIT: Now, maybe we're not on the same wave length in our perception of what a "March on Rome" today would be like. It seems you're saying that the Third World national petit-bourgeoisie would not only march on their home capitals, but would march on Washington, New York, London, Brussels, Berlin, etc. If that's the case, then I apologize. :(

RED DAVE

20th December 2010, 12:34

The "movement of the working class" is a must, so long as it is conscious of the necessity of a thoroughly anti-bourgeois but nonetheless Two-Stage process by not obstructing the March on Rome.What the fuck are you talking about?

(1) What two-stage process?

(2) What March on Rome?

(3) This keeps getting weirder and weirder.

RED DAVE

Die Neue Zeit

20th December 2010, 16:36

What the fuck are you talking about?

(1) What two-stage process?

Petit-Bourgeois Anti-Republicanism (Urban Petit-Bourgeois Democratism and Peasant Absolutism/Autocracy)

"Socialist" Revolution

(2) What March on Rome?

The Julius Caesar of people's history crossed the Rubicon with his troops, against the high law of the Roman Republic not to have troops garrisoned in Italy. This act of treason was the beginning of Caesar's effective military coup d'etat and sparked civil war (ostensibly between him and Pompey).

RED DAVE

21st December 2010, 15:03

DNZ:

(1) Your two-stage process of achieving socialism is essentially saying that a period of stalinism is necessary prior to socialism.

(2) Why are you using an example of ostensble class struggle from a society built on slavery to discuss political developments under capitalism?

RED DAVE

Die Neue Zeit

21st December 2010, 15:45

DNZ:

(1) Your two-stage process of achieving socialism is essentially saying that a period of stalinism is necessary prior to socialism.

"Marxism-Leninism" was based on the benevolent tyrant model during the period of socialist primitive accumulation, then on an oligarchic model after. The Anti-Republican political model proposed above goes against benevolent tyrants. It's not about a social contract between the benevolent tyrant and the masses, since it's clear the benevolent tyrant fails his end of the bargain. It's a social contract between one form of absolutism/autocracy and one form of democracy.

Liberal republicanism has always been a means of legitimizing bourgeois oligarchy in the triangle of democracy, "monarchy" (rule-of-one), and "aristocracy" (rule by "the best").

(2) Why are you using an example of ostensble class struggle from a society built on slavery to discuss political developments under capitalism?

Because, in less developed countries, the petit-bourgeoisie are still around and various roads are available to them. I'm just pointing out the most anti-bourgeois one.

RED DAVE

21st December 2010, 16:00

"Marxism-Leninism" was based on the benevolent tyrant model during the period of socialist primitive accumulation, then on an oligarchic model after.Bullshit. You obviously have a stalinized view of Lenin. Show us where in Lenin's writings this is true. And please, do not confuse the distortions of the civil war with socialism.

The Anti-Republican political model proposed above goes against benevolent tyrants. It's not about a social contract between the benevolent tyrant and the masses, since it's clear the benevolent tyrant fails his end of the bargain. It's a social contract between one form of absolutism/autocracy and one form of democracy.This is nonsense. Socialism is about revolutionary democracy not about tyrants and masses.

Liberal republicanism has always been a means of legitimizing bourgeois oligarchy in the triangle of democracy, "monarchy" (rule-of-one), and "aristocracy" (rule by "the best").Who gives a fuck about liberal republicanism, except liberal republicans and maoists? Socialism is about the revolutionary, democratic rule of the working class.

Because, in less developed countries, the petit-bourgeoisie are still around and various roads are available to them.The only roads available to the petit-bourgeolisie are an alliance with the bourgeoisie (maoism) or the working class (socialism).

I'm just pointing out the most anti-bourgeois one.The only true anti-bourgeois "road" for the petit-bourgeoisie is a revolutionary alliance with the working class.

RED DAVE

Die Neue Zeit

21st December 2010, 23:44

Bullshit. You obviously have a stalinized view of Lenin. Show us where in Lenin's writings this is true. And please, do not confuse the distortions of the civil war with socialism.

You said "a period of Stalinism is necessary." I didn't.

I said "benevolent tyrant model during the period of socialist primitive accumulation" and opposed it. Guess when that model happened? Not under Lenin, but Stalin!

This is nonsense. Socialism is about revolutionary democracy not about tyrants and masses.

The lower phase of the communist mode of production has many features of "revolutionary democracy," but I'm not referring to the lower phase of the communist mode of production, am I?

Trotskyists confuse this lower phase with "socialism," while "Marxist-Leninists," even in erring on a protracted "socialist mode of production," at least distinguished that from the lower phase.

You're exaggerating the tyrant part. The absolutism/autocracy element kicks in with respect to purely executive functions (as well as those judicial functions where interpretation of the constitution is at stake). So, there's extreme petit-bourgeois democratism in making the laws (and recalling bad politicians), but the bureaucratic underlings carrying out the laws and the constitutional court judges interpreting the laws would be ordered around, hired, and fired solely by the whims of El Presidente, El Comandante en Jefe, the National Leader.

Wanna dump some incompetent bureaucrat? Petition for his firing to El Presidente. Fed up with El Presidente? Recall the bastard! [But if you're doing this in a bourgeois and/or liberal opposition, don't be so surprised if he pulls a Kremlin on your Khodorovsky/Kasparov. :D ]

Who gives a fuck about liberal republicanism, except liberal republicans and maoists?

Then you'll never understand how bourgeois revolutions were made. The excesses of "democracy," hereditary "aristocracy," and monarchy led bourgeois thinkers to cough up a Liberal Republic as a check-and-balance scheme. In the US, you have the House of Representatives, the originally elected-by-states Senate, and the Presidency, respectively.

red cat

22nd December 2010, 00:52

There is no indication that they are doing this. Quite the contrary, one of the leaders of the UCPN(M) has publicly state that the party will not let it's 19,000 fighters stand in the way of a parliamentary rapproachement.

They have said it, but have not surrendered their arms or disbanded their army.

Likewise there is no indication of any kind of organizing or mobilizing in the cities, among the working class or in the countryside. Everything is subordinated to parliamentary wheeling and dealing.

The land seizures or workers taking over hotels and bargaining for higher wages elsewhere indicate very well that the Maoists are organizing the masses.

As an example, there is no indication of mobilizing the working class in Nepal to support the striking workers in Bangladesh.

How is this supposed to be done and what will the workers in Bangladesh gain from it ?

You have no evidence whatsoever that the parliamentary wheeling and dealing between the Maoists and the bourgeois parties is preventing intervention.

Can you prove the contrary ?

Unless, of course, you mean that what's holding off intervention in the ability of the UCPN(M) to preserve capitalism in Nepal.

This is what you call Marxism?

RED DAVE

How is the UCPN(M) preserving capitalism by distributing land to the masses and encouraging workers to take over workplaces ?

red cat

22nd December 2010, 01:03

Please cite the references for these quotes from Lenin so we can see the context of the remarks, their dates, the subject under discussion. Without that, the remarks are pretty generic.

Both in "The New Economic Policy And The Tasks Of The Political Education Departments".

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/17.htm

They made profits-- and to call them a national bourgeoisie is ridiculous. First they had absolutely no power to separate the direct producers from the products, and from the basis of production. These were brokers, middlemen, essentially traveling agents buying grain. I don't understand this point.

To identify middle and big peasants, even those who hire labor and make profits as members of the national bourgeoisie is also ridiculous. These are classic examples of the petty-bourgeoisie. The whole basis of peasant production, including the "big peasants" who hire labor, is the small scale of individual production. According to Maoists, middle peasants are petit or national bourgeois depending on their conditions. Big peasants are totally the rural national bourgeoisie. Their attitude towards the revolution is vacillating alliance.

This is the thing about these theories: terms and classifications are thrown around with so little precision, so little relation to Marx's analysis of the relations behind the terms that the terms are distorted beyond all applicability-- rather than a materialist analysis, the terms become an ideological obfuscation of the actual relations of production.
Yes, I can, but are you really going to tell me that you don't know what the purpose of the NEP was? How it's emphasis was on the peasantry and inducing the peasantry to grow more grain etc. for the cities? Are you really going to tell me that you didn't know that the lack of industrialization under the NEP became the point of contention between those on the left allied with Trotsky, and those of the center-right allied with Stalin, Zinoviev, and Bukharin? That Bukharin's program, and the one that pretty much dominated until Stalin's sudden about face in 1928 was "socialism at a snail's pace" and "peasants! enrich yourselves"?

Here's the wikipedia entry for the NEP which is serviceable enough for just the most superficial sketch:

For info on the NEP, there's thousands of books out there. Roger Munting's The Economic Development of the USSR has good info. And Alec Nove, despite being a avowed social democrat, provides good info in An Economic History of the USSR.
Marx's classifications need not be taken as granted. It is a fact that the big and middle peasantry tend to expand as capitalists during the period of rapid industrialization.

Re industrial output, and growth in Russia-- from statistical reports produced in the USSR in 1934 come the following:

Industrial [factory] production [millions of 1926-1927 rubles]:

1913-- 10251, 1921-- 2004, 1923--4005, 1924--4660 1925-- 7739. It was not until 1926 that industrial production surpassed 1913 levels. However, the most important point is that the NEP did nothing to bring "capitalism" into industrial production. There was zero private ownership of the production of coal, electricity, pig iron, steel, cotton, railroads. NONE.

Regarding agricultural output.

Grain [million tons]:

1913-- 80.1 [identified as an "extremely favorable year"] 1921--37.6 1923--56.6 1924-- 51.4 1925-- 72.5 1926--76.8

For US figures you can consult the Statistical Abstract of the United States, available on line for any year you desire.
Thank you. A comparison is necessary between the then USA and the USSR, and the present USA and Nepal to show the relative conditions.

But what I want to know is that how were new industries started in the USSR ?

Here's what I wrote and here's what you replied, prior to my post disagreeing with your example of the NEP:

So you did identify the NEP as a collaboration with the national bourgeoisie, but after a "socialist revolution in Russia."Notice: a policy, not an alliance.

Russia, indeed, prior to the October Revolution, was capitalist , with tremendous conflicts of uneven and combined development-- just as China was capitalist and part of the capitalist world markets, with a tremendous burden of uneven and combined development. Your designation of China, India [to this day!] as feudal is, as I said, an after identification constructed to rationalize pursuing an alliance with the national bourgeoisie-- an alliance that has never delivered what you claim is the reason for pursuing such an alliance-- the need for rapid industrialization.The big and parts of the middle peasantry are considered to be the national bourgeoisie by Maoists. They had been encouraged during the NEP for saving the economy from immediate collapse.

RED DAVE

22nd December 2010, 02:53

The big and parts of the middle peasantry are considered to be the national bourgeoisie by Maoists. They had been encouraged during the NEP for saving the economy from immediate collapse.I love it! A temporary and desperate policy of the Bolsheviks, you're making into a political principle.

RED DAVE

S.Artesian

22nd December 2010, 03:23

Quote:
They made profits-- and to call them a national bourgeoisie is ridiculous. First they had absolutely no power to separate the direct producers from the products, and from the basis of production. These were brokers, middlemen, essentially traveling agents buying grain.

I don't understand this point.They could not dispossess the peasantry from the land, or from the instruments of production. They were brokers agents; they made a market, but they could not assume ownership of the means of production.

Quote:
To identify middle and big peasants, even those who hire labor and make profits as members of the national bourgeoisie is also ridiculous. These are classic examples of the petty-bourgeoisie. The whole basis of peasant production, including the "big peasants" who hire labor, is the small scale of individual production.

According to Maoists, middle peasants are petit or national bourgeois depending on their conditions. Big peasants are totally the rural national bourgeoisie. Their attitude towards the revolution is vacillating alliance.As I said way at the beginning, you shape your economic analysis to fit your political ideology. Here you give the classic example--identifying peasantry by their allegiance, or lack thereof to "revolution" rather than making an economic analysis of any particular class's role in the accumulation of capital.

Quote:
This is the thing about these theories: terms and classifications are thrown around with so little precision, so little relation to Marx's analysis of the relations behind the terms that the terms are distorted beyond all applicability-- rather than a materialist analysis, the terms become an ideological obfuscation of the actual relations of production.
Yes, I can, but are you really going to tell me that you don't know what the purpose of the NEP was? How it's emphasis was on the peasantry and inducing the peasantry to grow more grain etc. for the cities? Are you really going to tell me that you didn't know that the lack of industrialization under the NEP became the point of contention between those on the left allied with Trotsky, and those of the center-right allied with Stalin, Zinoviev, and Bukharin? That Bukharin's program, and the one that pretty much dominated until Stalin's sudden about face in 1928 was "socialism at a snail's pace" and "peasants! enrich yourselves"?

Here's the wikipedia entry for the NEP which is serviceable enough for just the most superficial sketch:

For info on the NEP, there's thousands of books out there. Roger Munting's The Economic Development of the USSR has good info. And Alec Nove, despite being a avowed social democrat, provides good info in An Economic History of the USSR.

Marx's classifications need not be taken as granted. It is a fact that the big and middle peasantry tend to expand as capitalists during the period of rapid industrialization.Nobody is taking anything for granted... if you don't agree with Marx's classifications then it's your obligation to explain why and what the proper classification is... and where Marx goes wrong.

As for the "fact" that the middle peasantry expands during a period of rapid industrialization.... WHERE? Certainly not during the NEP since there was no rapid industrialization. Not in the industrialization of Brazil in the second half of the 20th century. Not in the industrialization of the US in second half of the 19th century. Not in the industrializaton of England. Not during the industrialization of Germany under Bismarck. Not in the expansion of capitalism in the Mexico. Not in the Asian "tigers." Where exactly has this occurred?

Thank you. A comparison is necessary between the then USA and the USSR, and the present USA and Nepal to show the relative conditions.Well, go right ahead. I won't stop you. If you want to argue that the industrialization rate in the USSR during the NEP exceeded that of the USA, let me be the first tell you how dead wrong you were, since after 1921, the US economy resumed its expansionary course, on that continued until 1929.

Notice: a policy, not an alliance.You gave the example, not me. I asked for an example of where a collaboration with the national bourgeoisie produced rapid industrialization-- you said the NEP came to mind. Take it up with yourself.

The big and parts of the middle peasantry are considered to be the national bourgeoisie by Maoists. They had been encouraged during the NEP for saving the economy from immediate collapse. Yeah, you are repeating your ideology. You said the NEP was an example of your argument that a collaboration with the national bourgeoisie was necessary for industrialization, for rapid industrialization. That didn't happen. You want to say now that oh.. it was necessary to save the country from collapse. But that's another subject, and... it was hardly an alliance, a collaboration. It was simply a policy to end forced requisitioning and allow market incentives to stimulate individual petty production. And it did that.

I have to say your responses are quite shallow, superficial, and evasive. You make claims and expect others to do the research for you. You make other claims and when they are shown to not demonstrate what you claimed they demonstrated, you change what you are claiming.

If that's the depth of your Marxism, it's no Marxism at all. If that is the accurate measure of your Maoism, then your Maoism is nothing but an after-the-fact rationalization for collaborating with the bourgeoisie... and we know how well that worked out in Indonesia, don't we?