Maoists (a specific question regarding New Democracy and the bloc of 4 classes)

[The Douche]

Is the concept of New Democracy and the Bloc of 4 Classes still relevant to Maoism, or is it something that has more to do with MZD Thought?

What is the relationship of the two (ND and the Bloc), do I understand it correctly, that ND is a stage where industrialization and the tasks of a bourgeois revolution are carried out, and the Bloc is necessary to include the elements of the bourgeoisie who can carry out the modernizing tasks of the bourgeois revolution, while ostensibly under the control of the proletariat?

Are these related tactics still relevant? Is the proletariat not numerous enough to be able to lead revolution without the aid of any so-called national bourgeoisie?

Obviously there are situations where people who are technically petite-bourgeois are going to side with communist revolution (that is the case even in the first world) but is there a real benefit in actually pursuing these people, should we actively attempt to bring bourgeois elements into the party? Obviously it is the bloc of four classes which allows the "capitalist roaders" and the "revisionists" into the party and into positions of power in the first place.

Am I correct in assuming that Maoists do not advocate for these things in the first world?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Mike Ely wrote a piece which I think you might find interesting when it comes to this topic: "Mao's Bloc of four classes: Lessons about Revolutionary Alliance." (http://www.revleft.com/vb/maos-block-four-t179196/index.html)

[The Douche]

Mike Ely wrote a piece which I think you might find interesting when it comes to this topic: "Mao's Bloc of four classes: Lessons about Revolutionary Alliance." (http://www.revleft.com/vb/maos-block-four-t179196/index.html)

Thanks, I'll check that out, but I'd be more interested in what Maoists outside of a pan-left/soft-maoist group like Kasama is saying.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Thanks, I'll check that out, but I'd be more interested in what Maoists outside of a pan-left/soft-maoist group like Kasama is saying.

I do not think you will find much variation in regards to this question from conflicting Maoist sects (other than Third-Worlidists, of course). The answer will probably be greatly along the same lines (whether it is Left Maoism or Right Maoism). However, I would send a message to Yet Another Boring Marxist if you wanted a direct Right-Wing Maoist's opinion.

[ind_com]

Is the concept of New Democracy and the Bloc of 4 Classes still relevant to Maoism, or is it something that has more to do with MZD Thought?

What is the relationship of the two (ND and the Bloc), do I understand it correctly, that ND is a stage where industrialization and the tasks of a bourgeois revolution are carried out, and the Bloc is necessary to include the elements of the bourgeoisie who can carry out the modernizing tasks of the bourgeois revolution, while ostensibly under the control of the proletariat?

Are these related tactics still relevant? Is the proletariat not numerous enough to be able to lead revolution without the aid of any so-called national bourgeoisie?

Obviously there are situations where people who are technically petite-bourgeois are going to side with communist revolution (that is the case even in the first world) but is there a real benefit in actually pursuing these people, should we actively attempt to bring bourgeois elements into the party? Obviously it is the bloc of four classes which allows the "capitalist roaders" and the "revisionists" into the party and into positions of power in the first place.

Am I correct in assuming that Maoists do not advocate for these things in the first world?

Maoism applies to the whole world, with the stage of revolution in the first world being socialist. In the first world, the national bourgeoisie is the principal enemy.

For the third world, the bloc of four classes in China was based on the concrete objective and subjective conditions of China, where the national bourgeoisie had retained some of its revolutionary role. In general, there is no hard-and-fast rule that the revolutionary bloc will look like what it was in China. In case of India, keeping in consideration the worsening condition of a section of the national bourgeoisie, the CPI(Maoist) maintains that, "The basic motive force of this revolution is the proletariat, the peasantry, especially the landless and poor peasants, are the main motive forces and the firmest ally of the proletariat, the urban petty bourgeoisie is a reliable ally, and the national bourgeoisie is an ally in certain periods and to a certain extent."

[Sūn Wùkōng]

What maybe could be interesting on this topic, although its not exactly about the Bloc of Four Classes, is the position of the greek KOE on their work inside SYRIZA. I think its an example for an at least maoist influenced strategie of alliance, as they dont see SYRIZA as an revolutionary-anticapitalist party (and they dont try to turn it in such a party, like some trotskyite organisations seem to try to me) but as a broad popular alliance, that could push Greece to a precondition of the overthrowing of capitalism.

Kasama has translatet some of their texts on those topics, for example:



I think you find more of those on their page if you search for it, but i havent read all of them and have no time for an advanced search right now.

Sorry, seems like I'm not allowed to post links yet :(
Just search on the Kasama-Page or google for:

"communist-organization-of-greece-koe-let-us-transform-syriza-into-a-popular-and-democratic-formation-of-the-left"

"communist-organization-of-greece-kke-as-tragedy"

"from-2008-to-now-overthrowing-the-regime-is-not-a-children-s-game"

or other texts of KOE..