Epictetus
14th April 2014, 14:21
After reading about Mao's concept of New Democracy, I was faced with a couple of questions that I believe are worth discussing. As I understand it, New Democracy means cooperation of the people oppressed by the foreign imperialist bourgeoisie and local aristocratic elements (still applicable in the third world) in order to achieve independence, and the a second phase in which the proletariat and the peasants wage war against the bourgeoisie in order to establish a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. My questions are the following:
Mao states:
It is an era in which the world capitalist front has collapsed in one part of the globe (one-sixth of the world) and has fully revealed its decadence everywhere else, in which the remaining capitalist parts cannot survive without relying more than ever on the colonies and Semi-colonies, in which a socialist state has been established and has proclaimed its readiness to give active support to the liberation movement of all colonies and semi-colonies, and in which the proletariat of the capitalist countries is steadily freeing itself from the social-imperialist influence of the social-democratic parties and has proclaimed its support for the liberation movement in the colonies and semi-colonies. In this era, any revolution in a colony or semi-colony that is directed against imperialism, i.e., against the international bourgeoisie or international capitalism, no longer comes within the old category of the bourgeois-democratic world revolution, but within the new category. It is no longer part of the old bourgeois, or capitalist, world revolution, but is part of the new world revolution, the proletarian-socialist world revolution. Such revolutionary colonies and semi-colonies can no longer be regarded as allies of the counter revolutionary front of world capitalism; they have become allies of the revolutionary front of world socialism. Is the fight against imperialism a proletarian/socialist fight only if there is support by a powerful socialist state? Or is he talking about the experience of the October Revolution in general? And if so, is the latter still applicable to the modern world even though the workers don't really share this experience?
Secondly:
The first step or stage in our revolution is definitely not, and cannot be, the establishment of a capitalist society under the dictatorship of the Chinese bourgeoisie, but will result in the establishment of a new-democratic society under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes of China headed by the Chinese proletariat.How could cooperation between the classes ever work after the initial conflict? The bourgeoisie, by definition, needs to oppress the proletariat. If this new democratic society gives power to the bourgeoisie, it follows that the proletariat will be inevitably oppressed. Classes are opposing forces; they do not and cannot exercise joint control over anything as their interests are fundamentally antithetic. Furthermore, if we are talking about betterment of the proletariats condition and its coming to power, it is wrong to label the bourgeoisie as revolutionary class. Any revolution undertaken by a certain class is directed against its enemies: the bourgeoisie fights the old aristocracy and the proletariat fights the bougeoisie. Anyone against this sort of struggle is, by definition, a counter-revolutionary, and since a revolution of the proletarians would inevitably be met with resistance by the bourgeois oppressors, these people are counter-revolutionaries.
Being a bourgeoisie in a colonial and semi-colonial country and oppressed by imperialism, the Chinese national bourgeoisie retains a certain revolutionary quality at certain periods and to a certain degree--even in the era of imperialism--in its opposition to the foreign imperialists and the domestic governments of bureaucrats and warlords (instances of opposition to the latter can be found in the periods of the Revolution of 1911 and the Northern Expedition), and it may ally itself with the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie against such enemies as it is ready to oppose.
This is true. Although the bourgeoisie of a colonial nation benefits from the presence of imperialism in the country to a certain extent, the basic economic relations between colony and empire mean that the imperialist bourgeoisie, i.e. the bourgeoisie of the oppressor state, gains from the exploitation of the colonies' classes as a whole. However that is not to say that the local bourgeoisie is not gaining anything from the exploitation of the local peasantry and workers or that it would stop doing so after the foreign capitalists are gone. In fact, were that any other way, we would not be talking about a bourgeoisie. Now the above could be taken as criticism of any struggle by the oppressed semi-colonial people, but that would be a misinterpretation. Local fights for independence are always welcome and they should be encouraged: the less people a capitalist imperialist country can oppress, the weaker its bourgeoisie becomes and the easier it is for the proletariats to overthrow them, not to mention that the local proletariat that thinks itself to share the interests of its own oppressors, will realise that this was only because of the exploitation of others and will be forced to fend for itself. Nevertheless, it's completely wrong to refer to such independence movements as a proletarian-socialist revolutions.
Finally, even if a CP manages to unite the local bourgeois and proletarians in an oppressed country, and frees those people from imperialist oppression, how would it be possible for it to start violently oppressing its previous supporters (that is to say the revolutionary bourgeoisie) without losing legitimacy?
Mao states:
It is an era in which the world capitalist front has collapsed in one part of the globe (one-sixth of the world) and has fully revealed its decadence everywhere else, in which the remaining capitalist parts cannot survive without relying more than ever on the colonies and Semi-colonies, in which a socialist state has been established and has proclaimed its readiness to give active support to the liberation movement of all colonies and semi-colonies, and in which the proletariat of the capitalist countries is steadily freeing itself from the social-imperialist influence of the social-democratic parties and has proclaimed its support for the liberation movement in the colonies and semi-colonies. In this era, any revolution in a colony or semi-colony that is directed against imperialism, i.e., against the international bourgeoisie or international capitalism, no longer comes within the old category of the bourgeois-democratic world revolution, but within the new category. It is no longer part of the old bourgeois, or capitalist, world revolution, but is part of the new world revolution, the proletarian-socialist world revolution. Such revolutionary colonies and semi-colonies can no longer be regarded as allies of the counter revolutionary front of world capitalism; they have become allies of the revolutionary front of world socialism. Is the fight against imperialism a proletarian/socialist fight only if there is support by a powerful socialist state? Or is he talking about the experience of the October Revolution in general? And if so, is the latter still applicable to the modern world even though the workers don't really share this experience?
Secondly:
The first step or stage in our revolution is definitely not, and cannot be, the establishment of a capitalist society under the dictatorship of the Chinese bourgeoisie, but will result in the establishment of a new-democratic society under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes of China headed by the Chinese proletariat.How could cooperation between the classes ever work after the initial conflict? The bourgeoisie, by definition, needs to oppress the proletariat. If this new democratic society gives power to the bourgeoisie, it follows that the proletariat will be inevitably oppressed. Classes are opposing forces; they do not and cannot exercise joint control over anything as their interests are fundamentally antithetic. Furthermore, if we are talking about betterment of the proletariats condition and its coming to power, it is wrong to label the bourgeoisie as revolutionary class. Any revolution undertaken by a certain class is directed against its enemies: the bourgeoisie fights the old aristocracy and the proletariat fights the bougeoisie. Anyone against this sort of struggle is, by definition, a counter-revolutionary, and since a revolution of the proletarians would inevitably be met with resistance by the bourgeois oppressors, these people are counter-revolutionaries.
Being a bourgeoisie in a colonial and semi-colonial country and oppressed by imperialism, the Chinese national bourgeoisie retains a certain revolutionary quality at certain periods and to a certain degree--even in the era of imperialism--in its opposition to the foreign imperialists and the domestic governments of bureaucrats and warlords (instances of opposition to the latter can be found in the periods of the Revolution of 1911 and the Northern Expedition), and it may ally itself with the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie against such enemies as it is ready to oppose.
This is true. Although the bourgeoisie of a colonial nation benefits from the presence of imperialism in the country to a certain extent, the basic economic relations between colony and empire mean that the imperialist bourgeoisie, i.e. the bourgeoisie of the oppressor state, gains from the exploitation of the colonies' classes as a whole. However that is not to say that the local bourgeoisie is not gaining anything from the exploitation of the local peasantry and workers or that it would stop doing so after the foreign capitalists are gone. In fact, were that any other way, we would not be talking about a bourgeoisie. Now the above could be taken as criticism of any struggle by the oppressed semi-colonial people, but that would be a misinterpretation. Local fights for independence are always welcome and they should be encouraged: the less people a capitalist imperialist country can oppress, the weaker its bourgeoisie becomes and the easier it is for the proletariats to overthrow them, not to mention that the local proletariat that thinks itself to share the interests of its own oppressors, will realise that this was only because of the exploitation of others and will be forced to fend for itself. Nevertheless, it's completely wrong to refer to such independence movements as a proletarian-socialist revolutions.
Finally, even if a CP manages to unite the local bourgeois and proletarians in an oppressed country, and frees those people from imperialist oppression, how would it be possible for it to start violently oppressing its previous supporters (that is to say the revolutionary bourgeoisie) without losing legitimacy?