Do M-Ls really advocate "2-stage" theory?

[Gorilla]

or is that just a slur?

I mean the classical 'Menshevik' line that bourgeois national-democratic revolution must happen first, and only after that, socialist revolution. During many of the Trot/Stalin flamefests on this board that's a common accusation from the Trot side, but do M-Ls really hold this as a conscious theoretical position?

Answers from Marxist-Leninists would be the most helpful.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I don't know if its an official line of ML organisations but..


Soviet theorizing during the Brezhnev era-the "non-capitalist development theory" was certainly two stage and it does seem that CPs, with their Popular Front ideology, were two stagist.The CPUS and the C oC certainly have taken this to its logical extreme.

A lot of this comes from the need to protect the interests of the fSU above that of worker's struggles and a pessimism of the ability of the class to fight for change. This seemed to have increased after the overthrow of Allende, AFAIK.Most CPs wanted a few crumbs off the table. The Cuban CP supported Batista. Maybe that was just the "Breznevites", I don't know, it may be a heritage of the ML tradition.

It would be interesting to see what people from the Marxist-Leninist tradition would say about this.

[Kamos]

or is that just a slur?

I mean the classical 'Menshevik' line that bourgeois national-democratic revolution must happen first, and only after that, socialist revolution. During many of the Trot/Stalin flamefests on this board that's a common accusation from the Trot side, but do M-Ls really hold this as a conscious theoretical position?

Answers from Marxist-Leninists would be the most helpful.

While I can't speak for every M-L, I don't find that true at all.

[red cat]

or is that just a slur?

I mean the classical 'Menshevik' line that bourgeois national-democratic revolution must happen first, and only after that, socialist revolution. During many of the Trot/Stalin flamefests on this board that's a common accusation from the Trot side, but do M-Ls really hold this as a conscious theoretical position?

Answers from Marxist-Leninists would be the most helpful.

Maoists hold that the bourgeoisie has become incapable of leading any revolution since around 1917. Therefore class leadership over every successful revolution now has to be provided by the proletariat.

[Geiseric]

I thought Maoists believed in the theory of the 4 class bloc, not sure if i got the name right.

[red cat]

I thought Maoists believed in the theory of the 4 class bloc, not sure if i got the name right.

True, in colonial or semi-colonial countries. But the proletariat leads that bloc.

[DaringMehring]

I am not M-L but I am not really anything-ist other than communist. I have worked with a couple of M-L groups so I'll just report my opinion based on those interactions.

My feeling is that most M-L do not desire to follow the two-stage theory. They want to construct a socialist economy, and recognize that stagism was the Menshevik position in 1917. However, when their group or another M-L group commits some kind of opportunism they fall back on stagist theory to maintain that it is correct. The individuals who are more revisionist, are the more stagist (so for instance they praise Dengist China because "they lack the industrial base, they have to build capitalism before proceeding to socialism.")

Of course, this is only based on interactions with 1st world M-Ls. It may be a different picture for 3rd world M-Ls.

[DDR]

Well, it depends. For the capitalist societies not, for the colonial or semi-colonial ones yes.

[red cat]

I am not M-L but I am not really anything-ist other than communist. I have worked with a couple of M-L groups so I'll just report my opinion based on those interactions.

My feeling is that most M-L do not desire to follow the two-stage theory. They want to construct a socialist economy, and recognize that stagism was the Menshevik position in 1917. However, when their group or another M-L group commits some kind of opportunism they fall back on stagist theory to maintain that it is correct. The individuals who are more revisionist, are the more stagist (so for instance they praise Dengist China because "they lack the industrial base, they have to build capitalism before proceeding to socialism.")

Of course, this is only based on interactions with 1st world M-Ls. It may be a different picture for 3rd world M-Ls.


Parliamentary revisionists in the third world that claim to be ML also use Menshevism to defend their position.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't know if its an official line of ML organisations but..

Soviet theorizing during the Brezhnev era-the "non-capitalist development theory" was certainly two stage and it does seem that CPs, with their Popular Front ideology, were two stagist.The CPUS and the C oC certainly have taken this to its logical extreme.

The most defensive iteration of the class-collaborationist Popular Front was during the Stalin era, naturally because of the fascist problem.

Boris Ponomarev and his co-thinkers emerged during the early Khrushchev era, in the 1950s. It is at this time when the Soviets really pushed an anti-colonial agenda, from supporting Castro to shaking hands with Nasser. "Non-capitalist development" was not yet developed.

It was only with the momentum from the Vietnam War, and the abject failure of anti-party worker spontaneism in France, that "non-capitalist development" emerged. BTW, thanks for reading up on this. Few posters on this board know the nuances between Mao's "new democracy" and Soviet foreign policy, especially since the latter introduced progressiveness to the character of Breakthrough Military Coups.

The papers of Ponomarev and his co-thinkers weren't released (probably because they're still classified), but those of Veniamin Chirkin have been - even if they're not readily available online except through cheap-shot reference "critiques" on the part of Ludo Martens.

Indeed I'd like to read more about "non-capitalist development" for my model, to see the true extent of whether this historical model allowed for the continued existence of some "national"/"progressive" bourgeoisie or didn't.