Red Indians: Maoists urge anti-globalization uprising

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://rt.com/news/indian-maoists-revolution-mnc-359/



A growing Maoist group in India is brewing a revolution that could soon spill on to the streets, urging multinational companies (MNCs) out of the country because, they say, globalization causes a widening gap between rich and poor.

For almost 25 years the Maoist rebels in India, estimated to have 10,000 armed fighters and around 50,000 supporters, have been attempting to overthrow the government in New Dehli, using violence and intimidation to turn India into a communist society.

In some parts of the country their tactics have worked, creating a so-called “red corridor” in areas where traditional law and order is almost nonexistent.

In their eyes the government is not taking any interest in the indigenous people of rural India and has actually displaced the population from its mineral-rich land for development projects.

The government has called the Maoists the single biggest security threat to India and has held them responsible for displacing and killing thousands of civilians.

But far from the jungles of India a new Maoist revolution is springing up, largely focused on overthrowing multinational companies and development.

The Maoists argue that the arrival of multinational companies in India has actually caused a further divide between rich and poor. They want to see an India without the presence of “dominant Western companies,” where everyone has access to basic rights.

The brains behind this uprising is Varavara Rao. The highly-educated man is, in most senses, the opposite of his counterparts in the jungle, though he served eight years in prison for anti-government activities.

Armed with a pen and paper and sitting in his relatively modern flat in Hyderabad, Rao is seen as the intellectual leader of the Maoists and a voice for a growing group of Indians against globalization.

“If the investment is from outside, we will kick them away and occupy them. Today the Indian government itself has become a big real estate agent for big companies and multinational companies,” claims Varavara Rao.

Hyderabad is a symbol for many Indians of the country’s booming economy and presence on the global stage. The city has the biggest Microsoft research and development office outside the United States and is home to several major multinational groups, IT firms and biopharmaceutical companies. For many in the city, the presence of foreign firms is welcomed.

“They are providing us job opportunities. We are educated here with a lot of talent, so that talent is used by the MNC’s, but if they don’t use the talent then that’s wasted,” a young man told RT.

“They are providing different applications for our needs like supermarkets, ATMS,” echoes another.

“Because of corporate companies educated people are getting more jobs. They can earn more money within short period of time with dignity,” explains a third.

But the Maoists are not convinced that modernization means a better quality of life for everyone.

Maoist leader Venugopal believes that “Those who did not get the fruits of this globalization even they got frustrated, they tend to get frustrated and one day if their genuine grievances are not addressed they will fight it out. Will throw all of us out including us middle class who are sitting idle.”

While most Indians are not convinced that communism is the answer, many agree that India needs to find a way to improve on its own.

“I, as a patriot, think that India has such a huge resource of minerals, water wealth, land power, science and technology establishment, human resources that we can produce anything. We don’t need MNC’s, it is MNC’s who need India,” Venugopal concludes.

While they watch the uprisings around the Arab world, they believe it is the subcontinent’s turn to demand change.

[DaringMehring]

“I, as a patriot, think that India has such a huge resource of minerals, water wealth, land power, science and technology establishment, human resources that we can produce anything. We don’t need MNC’s, it is MNC’s who need India,” Venugopal concludes.


Aside from the "patriot" appeal, you're right. Except for one thing: you can kick out the MNCs, and the Indian bourgeoisie will still take all those things.

There is the India of the bourgeoisie, and the India of the poor, not one all-peoples India being corrupted by the MNCs.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Of course "globalization," that is the economic integration of the entire world, was actually one the historic benefits of the development of capitalism. While capital pursues its own aims, the creation of a global economy can only benefit us when it comes time to move beyond the nation-state and initiate efficient production for human ends on a world scale.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ NHIA, Ricardo's comparative advantage has limits: http://www.revleft.com/vb/comparative-advantage-kinds-t163400/index.html


Aside from the "patriot" appeal, you're right. Except for one thing: you can kick out the MNCs, and the Indian bourgeoisie will still take all those things.

There is the India of the bourgeoisie, and the India of the poor, not one all-peoples India being corrupted by the MNCs.

Slight correction to your last sentence: there is the India of the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeois compradors, and the India of everyone else (new sans-culottes, dispossessed class and socioeconomic patriotic petit-bourgeoisie, etc.). India is ripe for revolutionary change of, by, and for the "everyone else" - so long as the proletarian demographic minority knows its place.

[Rocky Rococo]

Of course "globalization," that is the economic integration of the entire world, was actually one the historic benefits of the development of capitalism. While capital pursues its own aims, the creation of a global economy can only benefit us when it comes time to move beyond the nation-state and initiate efficient production for human ends on a world scale.

Strictly speaking that's true, but the way the term "globalization" has come to be used is as a shorthand for the neoliberal character and content of the process as it has proceeded in the past several decades. The original statement makes far more sense when read in that manner, although I certainly agree with Daring Mehring's point about the fact that the Indian bourgeoisie would be glad to take control of the means of production so developed.

[Jose Gracchus]

Sounds like a bunch of bullshit rhetoric to direct struggles into the safe waters of nationalism, chauvinism, and reactionary fantasies of "local" and "independent" economy and society.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

the term "globalization" has come to be used is as a shorthand for the neoliberal character and content of the process as it has proceeded in the past several decades.The question is "by who?"

The answer is, liberals, reformists, labor bureaucrats and others who promote a return to the "glory days" of capitalism; for their own reasons.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Indian Maoists should just stick with what they do well, like killing dozens of cops. Everytime they issue anything even remotely bordering on a political statement, I just get depressed because I'm reminded of the fact that they're Maoists.

[Os Cangaceiros]

"I'm an Indian patriot, we need to get these goddamn carpetbaggers out of India!" < not really my idea of a stirring communist message.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think they're trying to say that their resources should belong to the Indian people not the multi-nationals. I wouldn't read too much nationalist rhetoric in what they're saying.

[Jose Gracchus]

Why not? Do they say large Indian firms which destroy resources and people's lives should be subject to the same treatment as the evil foriegners? This reads exactly like special pleading for the "progressive," "patriotic," or "national" bourgeoisie, and you have to be able to see that.

And "Indian people" is a bourgeois-national construct, that serves bourgeois-national ends. It is not a communist aim.

[RED DAVE]

India is ripe for revolutionary change of, by, and for the "everyone else" - so long as the proletarian demographic minority knows its place.And what do you believe that place is?

RED DAVE

[Obs]

so long as the proletarian demographic minority knows its place.

How the fuck are you not restricted yet?

[Die Neue Zeit]

And what do you believe that place is?

Just not the ruling class, ruling over those outnumbering them. When the Indian proletariat outnumbers everyone else, that's a different story.


How the fuck are you not restricted yet?

Your logic is flawed. HINT: This board doesn't restrict Maoists except Third Worldists.

[Commissar Rykov]

Did I really just read that right? Why are you here if you don't agree with Proletariat Emancipation? Wow you are beyond the simple bureaucrat I thought you were.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Two stages are necessary in India, just not of the bourgeois or "New Democracy" types.

[Commissar Rykov]

^^^ Two stages are necessary in India, just not of the bourgeois or "New Democracy" types.
But a stage without the Proletariat in charge. So how is that any different from those two ideas?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Because another class other than the bourgeoisie and proletariat is in charge, positioned to develop "capitalism without capitalists." :)

[RED DAVE]

Because another class other than the bourgeoisie and proletariat is in charge, positioned to develop "capitalism without capitalists." :)Congratulations: you have (a) stumbled in the formula for state capitalism; (b) you
confirmed your essential stalinism.

RED DAVE

[Per Levy]

so long as the proletarian demographic minority knows its place.

on its knees and bowing down to the petite bourgeoisie you so adore?


Just not the ruling class, ruling over those outnumbering them. When the proletariat outnumbers everyone else, that's a different story.

you should change your tendency from revolutionary marxist to reformist socialdemocrat, the latter is more fitting to your views. just saying.

[Die Neue Zeit]

on its knees and bowing down to the petite bourgeoisie you so adore?

you should change your tendency from revolutionary marxist to reformist socialdemocrat, the latter is more fitting to your views. just saying.

I'm merely reviving a central tenant of Old Bolshevism (calling itself "revolutionary social democracy") with regards to the relationship between a proletarian demographic minority and a petit-bourgeois demographic majority.

Politico-ideological independence for the working class /= class rule.

[Per Levy]

as i see it, reading several of your threads, you just look for an excuse to abandon the proletariat and finally become a advocate of the petit bourgeoisie you so desire. cause lets face it, with your "tactics" the proletariat will never gain a victory and always be the slave of either the bourgeoisie or the petit-bourgeoisie.

[Die Neue Zeit]

as i see it, reading several of your threads, you just look for an excuse to abandon the proletariat and finally become a advocate of the petit bourgeoisie you so desire. cause lets face it, with your "tactics" the proletariat will never gain a victory and always be the slave of either the bourgeoisie or the petit-bourgeoisie.

Hardly. Why do you think I stated that the First World petit-bourgeoisie are reactionary to the point of being part of One Reactionary Mass?

[Ocean Seal]

DNZ, why not class rule of the proletariat and the peasantry? And proletarianization of the peasantry.

[Die Neue Zeit]

DNZ, why not class rule of the proletariat and the peasantry? And proletarianization of the peasantry.

Lenin's formula was flexible enough to allow the class rule of the peasantry and proletariat (note the order, which takes demographic realities into account), along with proletarianization of the peasantry.

The latter can occur if the Third World regime draws public policy-makers and administrators from the ranks of the peasantry, and then these peasant elements decide on an aggressive economic development program upon seeing the former "national" bourgeoisie's political bankruptcy in this area.

More broadly, and in today's conditions, the demographic majority includes the "socioeconomically patriotic" elements of the urban petit-bourgeoisie.

[NewLeft]

Can you imagine the Maoists in power? Goddamn, the whole country will be going to hell.. They'd run the place like the mafia.

[thefinalmarch]

HINT: This board doesn't restrict Maoists except Third Worldists.
Clearly this board is doing something wrong.

[Obs]

Your logic is flawed. HINT: This board doesn't restrict Maoists except Third Worldists.

At least Maoists have the decency to not outright talk shit about workers, whereas you pounce on the opportunity.

[dodger]

Sounds like a bunch of bullshit rhetoric to direct struggles into the safe waters of nationalism, chauvinism, and reactionary fantasies of "local" and "independent" economy and society.

Jose.....can you not see that those of us in the world suffering under national attack might want to seize back sovereignty. The wheel that grinds"local" and "independent" economy and society... must be combated. It can hardly be ignored. Workers and yes peasants must work and produce. They also have a duty to protect patrimony in their seas, forests and in the earth. The mining company or indeed loggers have such an abysmal history. Their methods have changed little since gold was found in the Black Hills or the California of 1848.
Del Monte he say yes...WELL THE PEOPLE ARE SAYING NO. Heavens knows where they got the ideas from but here they are descending on these hyenas and in minutes the security are disarmed and expensive equipment destroyed. I have come across these partizans at one of their road blocks. Disciplined and most polite...they alerted me to the fact there was an operation ahead...and for our safety it was best if we waited or turned back. We were encouraged to continue planting rice...not get swept up in eco fuel projects. Or indeed banana...it was OK by me and wifey...besides the fools who did have watched the price drop like a stone. This country has already become a net importer of rice. We have never been taxed by the partizans...I have developed a nose for when a medical or dentist is in attendance. There is no hint at what goes on in town on the progressive front. Salvaging is enough reason not to ask questions...I have actually known a state killer. Believe me, Wifey was the first to put 2+2 together..he left our lodgings in a hurry and went to next province. HE AND 2 others had gone to kill someone..after the deed 2 went back, lingering doubt he was dead. Meanwhile a police major from next town, shopping, thinking they were criminals pulled a gun and shot one of them dead, before being killed himself. It was all hushed up ...the army paid the police widow....it never happened as they say here..............

The fog of war and of course as the very old saying goes"the first casualty of war, is truth"....inhibits me from pontificating on their struggle....anyhow...it's their business...not mine.

[RED DAVE]

Lenin's formula was flexible enough to allow the class rule of the peasantry and proletariat (note the order, which takes demographic realities into account)Except that Lenin's formula was the exact opposite of yours. He advocated "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. So your "demographic realities" are at odds with Lenin's. In addition, the Bolsheviks finally adopted a dictatorship of the proletariat, the notion advocated by Trotsky.


along with proletarianization of the peasantry.Whatever that means. (Watch. DNZ will probably start a round on this to avoid the fact that he just contradicted Lenin.)


The latter can occur if the Third World regime draws public policy-makers and administrators from the ranks of the peasantry, and then these peasant elements decide on an aggressive economic development program upon seeing the former "national" bourgeoisie's political bankruptcy in this area.This is one more slightly concealed formula for state capitalism. Notice the key role of the working class in this description.


More broadly, and in today's conditions, the demographic majority includes the "socioeconomically patriotic" elements of the urban petit-bourgeoisie.You just love those "socioeconomically patriotic" elements of the urban petit-bourgeoisie. In fact, to you they're more important than the poletariat as you constantly mention that they have to be part of your "demographic majority" fantasy.

The notion that the working class , when it is not a numerical majority, can be the leading class of a revolution, is alien to you. Of course you neglect that fact that your precious petit-bourgeoisie is the grave digger of socialist revolution if it is in the leadership. See Nepal if you doubt this.

RED DAVE

[piet11111]

DNZ why would you promote a bourgeois revolution if that stage can be avoided all together ?

[Commissar Rykov]

DNZ why would you promote a bourgeois revolution if that stage can be avoided all together ?
Because he obviously supports Bourgeois or more specifically Petit-Bourgeois control of society and keeping the Proletariat in their place at the bottom. He is simply at this point trying to cover up how anti-Revolutionary he is in order to be able to still promote his ideas that the Proletariat must remain on the bottom of the hierarchical structure of a revolution.

[tir1944]

He advocated "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.No.The "dem.dict. of the prol. and peas." is a transitional,bourgeois phase,that comes before the (socialist) dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, our revolution is a bourgeois revolution as long as we march with the peasants as a whole
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/subservience.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

Except that Lenin's formula was the exact opposite of yours. He advocated "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. So your "demographic realities" are at odds with Lenin's. In addition, the Bolsheviks finally adopted a dictatorship of the proletariat, the notion advocated by Trotsky.

Again, I have stated that, in reality, Old Bolshevism prevailed. Lenin didn't write "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat supported by the peasantry."


This is one more slightly concealed formula for state capitalism. Notice the key role of the working class in this description.

Proletarian demographic minorities, while an independent but non-ruling class, don't have to be passive under such a Third World Caesarean Socialist regime. In fact, they can be at the vanguard of the vigilante, paramilitia/paramilitary, security, and civil-administrative "goons and thugs" (S. Artesian) sent by the regime to liquidate all the "national" bourgeoisie and all the compradors amongst the petit-bourgeoisie.


You just love those "socioeconomically patriotic" elements of the urban petit-bourgeoisie. In fact, to you they're more important than the poletariat as you constantly mention that they have to be part of your "demographic majority" fantasy.

In response to your first sentence: that's Third World reality. In response to your second: the likes of Devrim already said that the urban petit-bourgeoisie is typically outnumbered by proletarian demographic minorities. However, when combined with the rural petit-bourgeoisie (i.e., the peasantry), the sum is the demographic majority.


The notion that the working class , when it is not a numerical majority, can be the leading class of a revolution, is alien to you.

I'm just acknowledging historical lessons against such fantastic illusions.


Of course you neglect that fact that your precious petit-bourgeoisie is the grave digger of socialist revolution if it is in the leadership. See Nepal if you doubt this.

I did write "Nationalistic or more optimally pan-nationalistic petit-bourgeoisie" for a reason. The Indian subcontinent needs Pan-Indian political leadership from the "socioeconomically patriotic" parts of its rural and urban petit-bourgeoisie, spanning from Pakistan to Bangladesh and from Sri Lanka to Nepal itself.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Because he obviously supports Bourgeois or more specifically Petit-Bourgeois control of society and keeping the Proletariat in their place at the bottom. He is simply at this point trying to cover up how anti-Revolutionary he is in order to be able to still promote his ideas that the Proletariat must remain on the bottom of the hierarchical structure of a revolution.

You're misconstruing my words. You obviously don't value equal suffrage or other basic democratic principles much.

[Commissar Rykov]

You're misconstruing my words. You obviously don't value equal suffrage or other basic democratic principles much.
A DoP supposes one does not support that unless you really want class enemies having a say or control over various apparatuses which I assume you do. Class Enemies deserve no say in the DoP and shall never have a voice until they are liquidated as a class alongside all classes.

[piet11111]

You're misconstruing my words. You obviously don't value equal suffrage or other basic democratic principles much.

With class collaboration you end up with situations like Nepal.

What happens is that a state remains in order to still be able to govern and that state apparatus will eventually be taken over by bourgeois forces.

Its in the interest of the proletariat to throw out all of the bourgeois and govern in their own name no matter how many peasants petite-bourgeois or what have you there are.
Either the proles are strong enough to overthrow capitalism or they are not but anything less then the end of capitalism is a defeat.

[RED DAVE]

Except that Lenin's formula was the exact opposite of yours. He advocated "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. So your "demographic realities" are at odds with Lenin's. In addition, the Bolsheviks finally adopted a dictatorship of the proletariat, the notion advocated by Trotsky.
Again, I have stated that, in reality, Old Bolshevism prevailed. Lenin didn't write "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat supported by the peasantry."What prevailed was "permanent revolution," the notion associated with Trotsky.


This is one more slightly concealed formula for state capitalism. Notice the key role of the working class in this description
Proletarian demographic minorities, while an independent but non-ruling class, don't have to be passive under such a Third World Caesarean Socialist regime.(1) There is no such thing as a "Third World Caesarean Socialist regime." I don't know where you came up with this garbage-dump of a concept, but you had best send in back from whence it came.

(2) You are positing some form of socialism in which the working class is not running the economy. One more time, you are talking about your favorite form of society: state capitalism or, as some call it, stalinism. You try to cover it up with nonsense like "independent but non-ruling class," but it's clear you're talking about stalinism. (Watch to see if down the line DNZ tries to quibble about whether or not Stalin should be associated, really, with state capitalism.)


In fact, they can be at the vanguard of the vigilante, paramilitia/paramilitary, security, and civil-administrative "goons and thugs" (S. Artesian) sent by the regime to liquidate all the "national" bourgeoisie and all the compradors amongst the petit-bourgeoisie.What you are saying is that the working class should do the dirty work for the petit-bourgeoisie but not be the ruling class. This is really disgusting.


You just love those "socioeconomically patriotic" elements of the urban petit-bourgeoisie. In fact, to you they're more important than the poletariat [sic] as you constantly mention that they have to be part of your "demographic majority" fantasy.
In response to your first sentence: that's Third World reality.What reality? That there's a petit-bourgeoisie in so-called third world countries capable of being the ruling class for awhile? No shit, Sherlock. That's called stalinism or state capitalism. And lately, if Nepal is any example, there ain't even any room for that. Globalization may well have obviated a crucial role for the petit-bourgeoisie.


In response to your second: the likes of Devrim already said that the urban petit-bourgeoisie is typically outnumbered by proletarian demographic minorities. However, when combined with the rural petit-bourgeoisie (i.e., the peasantry), the sum is the demographic majority.So fucking what? Either you favor class rule of the working class or class rule of some other class. You obviously favor class rule of the petit-bourgeoisie. Basically, at best, you're a Menshevik.


The notion that the working class , when it is not a numerical majority, can be the leading class of a revolution, is alien to you
I'm just acknowledging historical lessons against such fantastic illusions.What you are acknowledging is (a) according to you the Bolsheviks were wrong; (b) the Maoists in, say, Nepal, were right; (c) you are indeed on the other side of the class line from the proletariat.


Of course you neglect that fact that your precious petit-bourgeoisie is the grave digger of socialist revolution if it is in the leadership. See Nepal if you doubt this.
I did write "Nationalistic or more optimally pan-nationalistic petit-bourgeoisie" for a reason.And the reason is to cover your class collaborationist, anti-working class politics.

Classes, dude, in Marxism, dude, are not, defined by their political attitudes, dude. They are defined by their relationship to the means of production. There is, in the Marxist scheme of things, no fundamental class difference between nationalist, non-nationalist, pan-nationaist or reactionary sections of the petit-bourgeoisie. They are all part of the same class. Portions of this class may, to serve its own interest, ally with the working class, but, in the end, this alliance must be run by the working class always under the understanding that it leads to a dictatorship of the proletariat.


The Indian subcontinent needs Pan-Indian political leadership from the "socioeconomically patriotic" parts of its rural and urban petit-bourgeoisie, spanning from Pakistan to Bangladesh and from Sri Lanka to Nepal itself.Again, you are mistaking a political distinction for a class distinction. In any event, you are advocating class rule over the working class.

Why don't you quietly and gracefully move to OI where you belong?

RED DAVE

[ScarletSojourner]

Of course "globalization," that is the economic integration of the entire world, was actually one the historic benefits of the development of capitalism. While capital pursues its own aims, the creation of a global economy can only benefit us when it comes time to move beyond the nation-state and initiate efficient production for human ends on a world scale.

This should be basic Marxism but so many people have forgotten this.

[Die Neue Zeit]

A DoP supposes one does not support that unless you really want class enemies having a say or control over various apparatuses which I assume you do. Class Enemies deserve no say in the DoP and shall never have a voice until they are liquidated as a class alongside all classes.

Equal suffrage /= universal suffrage. The latter is where you have the bourgeoisie able to vote and be elected.

Equal suffrage is about making sure no individual legally entitled to participate in the political processes has greater influence on the policy-making and administrative processes than another. The crudest manifestations of equal suffrage are one-man-one-vote and proportional representation (as opposed to district-based elections).

Despite Soviet Russia discriminating against the peasantry electorally (urban vs. rural soviets), the bureaucracy responsible for forced collectivization was stacked in the main with those from peasant backgrounds. Now, unless you consider the peasantry to be a class enemy, then that's a different story.


With class collaboration you end up with situations like Nepal.

What happens is that a state remains in order to still be able to govern and that state apparatus will eventually be taken over by bourgeois forces.

Its in the interest of the proletariat to throw out all of the bourgeois and govern in their own name no matter how many peasants petite-bourgeois or what have you there are.
Either the proles are strong enough to overthrow capitalism or they are not but anything less then the end of capitalism is a defeat.

Again, equal suffrage /= universal suffrage. Neither the renegade Kautsky nor Lenin polemicized against one another in 1918 on the question of equal suffrage between a worker and a peasant. If there are nine peasants and one worker in a group of ten, the weight of peasant votes vs. worker votes should be nine-to-one.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What prevailed was "permanent revolution," the notion associated with Trotsky.

Again, historians have questioned this.


(1) There is no such thing as a "Third World Caesarean Socialist regime." I don't know where you came up with this garbage-dump of a concept, but you had best send in back from whence it came.

At the present time there aren't, but historically there have been opportunities for Third World Caesarean Socialist programs to be implemented, from 1911 Mexico to 1917 Russia itself to 1920s China to South America to pan-nationalist "Pan-African" movements to the modern Indian subcontinent.


You try to cover it up with nonsense like "independent but non-ruling class," but it's clear you're talking about stalinism. (Watch to see if down the line DNZ tries to quibble about whether or not Stalin should be associated, really, with state capitalism.)

Because what you call "Stalinism" was against politico-ideological independence for the working class, from vulgar Two-Stagism to Popular Fronts, not to mention how the regimes handled domestic working-class organization.



In fact, they can be at the vanguard of the vigilante, paramilitia/paramilitary, security, and civil-administrative "goons and thugs" (S. Artesian) sent by the regime to liquidate all the "national" bourgeoisie and all the compradors amongst the petit-bourgeoisie.

What you are saying is that the working class should do the dirty work for the petit-bourgeoisie but not be the ruling class. This is really disgusting.

Being at the vanguard of the dirty work doesn't mean doing all the dirty work. All I am saying is that there are ways for proletarian demographic minorities to be politically active, without having illusions about being the ruling class before becoming a demographic majority.

There are cleaner ways, such as building the pre-WWI SPD and inter-war USPD models.


What reality? That there's a petit-bourgeoisie in so-called third world countries capable of being the ruling class for awhile? No shit, Sherlock. That's called stalinism or state capitalism. And lately, if Nepal is any example, there ain't even any room for that. Globalization may well have obviated a crucial role for the petit-bourgeoisie.

Nepal is one tiny country. Which goes down to my final point:


There is, in the Marxist scheme of things, no fundamental class difference between nationalist, non-nationalist, pan-nationaist or reactionary sections of the petit-bourgeoisie. They are all part of the same class. Portions of this class may, to serve its own interest, ally with the working class, but, in the end, this alliance must be run by the working class always under the understanding that it leads to a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Again, you are mistaking a political distinction for a class distinction. In any event, you are advocating class rule over the working class.

My description of a Caesarean Socialist movement encompassing the entire Indian subcontinent as a Pan-Nation was made to highlight the bankruptcy of petty nationalism of the nation-states there and especially of the smaller regions they have within them.