First steps

[Red Spark]

Here, I want to ask what should be immediate steps to be taken after revolution. There are enough posts here that talks about the ideal communist society. But what about lowest stage socialism or time directly after the victory of revolution(especially in a third world country). Let me explain a bit.
Say, in a thirld world country like ours the coalition of poor peasantry and proletarian successfully captures the state power. Now, it is extremely unlikely that revolution will be simultaneously successful in every country, especially in the third world. What should be the primary task of newly established dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry(you may call that whatever you want). For simplicity, let us assume that there do not exist any the counter revolutionary currents.

Or do people here believe that revolution can't succeed in third world in the first place? Just want opinions. Thanks.

[Burzhuin]

The first step (do you like it or not) would be replace old bourgeoisie state apparatus by new, proletariat run state apparatus. But if you mean it is already done, it would be expropriation of the Bourgeoisie property through nationalization and worker's control. Trust me even if before that there were no counter revolutionary currents it would be plenty after that.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think that this sort of thinking about "The Revolution" as a singular definitive event with a "day after" corresponds to the epoch of bourgeois and liberal-democratic revolutions (a camp in which I would include the various capital-C Communist/Socialist seizures of state power).
The tasks before us in a contemporary situation, I think, ought to look to struggles that have a more prolonged character of building workers' power at the level of neighbourhood and workplace councils, women's organizations, etc. I think there are gestures toward this (even if they remain far from ideal models) in Rojava, in Venezuala, in Chiapas, in groups like Abahlali baseMjondolo in South Africa, and so on. The form of contemporary working class power looks less like old ideas about "The Revolution" and more like the undermining of effective sovereignty of the bourgeois state by direct workers' control. Insofar as there is a "day after" - after a decisive tipping point, I suppose - the tasks will be largely, I think, practical, in terms of coordinating production, self-defense, etc. among the various organizational forms by which workers have pushed things to whatever stage.
That is, I think "The Revolution" ought to be grasped dialectically, in a sense. If it is anything, it is the point where the "quantity" of workers' power (ie real control over the means and conditions of re/production) translates into quality - the point at which its accumulation has fundamentally undermined the rule of the bourgeoisie. Thus, the tasks of "the day after" look much like the tasks of "the day before", only . . . well, different, but it's hard to say exactly how from our current vantage point.

[Red Spark]

The first step (do you like it or not) would be replace old bourgeoisie state apparatus by new, proletariat run state apparatus.
How exactly will proletariat run state apparatus look like? Will there be any sort of democracy? If there will be how will it function in the midst of counter revolutionary currents, which will emerge inevitably?

[Burzhuin]

How exactly will proletariat run state apparatus look like? Will there be any sort of democracy? If there will be how will it function in the midst of counter revolutionary currents, which will emerge inevitably?
The question was already answered. Just study October Revolution experience. Workers must create their own ways to run the state. In Russia it was Soviets of Workers, Soldiers and Peasants. But in each case the name can be different but idea behind it the same.

[Red Spark]

I think that this sort of thinking about "The Revolution" as a singular definitive event with a "day after" corresponds to the epoch of bourgeois and liberal-democratic revolutions (a camp in which I would include the various capital-C Communist/Socialist seizures of state power).
The tasks before us in a contemporary situation, I think, ought to look to struggles that have a more prolonged character of building workers' power at the level of neighbourhood and workplace councils, women's organizations, etc. I think there are gestures toward this (even if they remain far from ideal models) in Rojava, in Venezuala, in Chiapas, in groups like Abahlali baseMjondolo in South Africa, and so on. The form of contemporary working class power looks less like old ideas about "The Revolution" and more like the undermining of effective sovereignty of the bourgeois state by direct workers' control. Insofar as there is a "day after" - after a decisive tipping point, I suppose - the tasks will be largely, I think, practical, in terms of coordinating production, self-defense, etc. among the various organizational forms by which workers have pushed things to whatever stage.
That is, I think "The Revolution" ought to be grasped dialectically, in a sense. If it is anything, it is the point where the "quantity" of workers' power (ie real control over the means and conditions of re/production) translates into quality - the point at which its accumulation has fundamentally undermined the rule of the bourgeoisie. Thus, the tasks of "the day after" look much like the tasks of "the day before", only . . . well, different, but it's hard to say exactly how from our current vantage point.

Thanks. It cleared many misconceptions of mine. But I still have one question for you. You said that "the revolution" is not a singular event. By that do you mean we, communists in third world, should not push for siezure of state power but engage in sort of grassroot reforms. Or I, kind of, misunderstood you??

[Red Spark]

The question was already answered. Just study October Revolution experience. Workers must create their own ways to run the state. In Russia it was Soviets of Workers, Soldiers and Peasants. But in each case the name can be different but idea behind it the same.

Probably, I don't know much about political structure of Soviet Union. Were workers allowed to vote or take part in decision making or was it entirely party's job? I am totally confused about the nature of Bolshevik Russia. Revleft is my primary source and people here seems to have diverse understanding.

[Guardia Rossa]

Read "The State and Revolution" by Lenin. I'm reading it right now and it pretty much answers any questions on the matter. Particularly useful is this:



The Commune, therefore, appears to have replaced the smashed state machine “only” by fuller democracy: abolition of the standing army; all officials to be elected and subject to recall. But as a matter of fact this “only” signifies a gigantic replacement of certain institutions by other institutions of a fundamentally different type. This is exactly a case of "quantity being transformed into quality": democracy, introduced as fully and consistently as is at all conceivable, is transformed from bourgeois into proletarian democracy; from the state (= a special force for the suppression of a particular class) into something which is no longer the state proper.
It is still necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie and crush their resistance. This was particularly necessary for the Commune; and one of the reasons for its defeat was that it did not do this with sufficient determination. The organ of suppression, however, is here the majority of the population, and not a minority, as was always the case under slavery, serfdom, and wage slavery. And since the majority of people itself suppresses its oppressors, a 'special force" for suppression is no longer necessary! In this sense, the state begins to wither away. Instead of the special institutions of a privileged minority (privileged officialdom, the chiefs of the standing army), the majority itself can directly fulfil all these functions, and the more the functions of state power are performed by the people as a whole, the less need there is for the existence of this power.

[ckaihatsu]

I think that this sort of thinking about "The Revolution" as a singular definitive event with a "day after" corresponds to the epoch of bourgeois and liberal-democratic revolutions (a camp in which I would include the various capital-C Communist/Socialist seizures of state power).
The tasks before us in a contemporary situation, I think, ought to look to struggles that have a more prolonged character of building workers' power at the level of neighbourhood and workplace councils, women's organizations, etc. I think there are gestures toward this (even if they remain far from ideal models) in Rojava, in Venezuala, in Chiapas, in groups like Abahlali baseMjondolo in South Africa, and so on.




The form of contemporary working class power looks less like old ideas about "The Revolution" and more like the undermining of effective sovereignty of the bourgeois state by direct workers' control. Insofar as there is a "day after" - after a decisive tipping point, I suppose - the tasks will be largely, I think, practical, in terms of coordinating production, self-defense, etc. among the various organizational forms by which workers have pushed things to whatever stage.
That is, I think "The Revolution" ought to be grasped dialectically, in a sense. If it is anything, it is the point where the "quantity" of workers' power (ie real control over the means and conditions of re/production) translates into quality - the point at which its accumulation has fundamentally undermined the rule of the bourgeoisie. Thus, the tasks of "the day after" look much like the tasks of "the day before", only . . . well, different, but it's hard to say exactly how from our current vantage point.


I think there's a real hazard of *separatism* and *abstentionism* always lurking in the midst of revolutionary politics -- sure, if there was a 'critical mass' of revolutionary sentiment in the populace for any given place, that group could just instantly call / claim 'revolution', and no one would object, but would it really *be* a revolution, or would the rest of the world just continue to *slouch forward* with the use of capital, the brutality of the state, etc. -- ?

It's important, in my estimation, that the workers really *are* making concrete material changes to the social landscape, such as appropriating productive facilities (factories), even if it's to immediately 'retire' such (if their products happen to no longer be needed).

And the revolution, wherever it starts, should be immediately 'exported' / expanded to all other places in the world, too, of course, and not held-onto for any localist opportunist reasons.





How exactly will proletariat run state apparatus look like? Will there be any sort of democracy? If there will be how will it function in the midst of counter revolutionary currents, which will emerge inevitably?


As a shorthand, I tend to think 'radical reformism' here, where all social-material functions, like production, would immediately be 'nationalized' / socialized, to the workers, for immediate 'hands-on' control (taken out of private hands entirely).

I'll again stress the practical need for this action to be *decisive*, and total -- there should be no 'dual power' with capital, in favor of spreading the revolutionary control worldwide as quickly and comprehensively as possible.

[Burzhuin]

Probably, I don't know much about political structure of Soviet Union. Were workers allowed to vote or take part in decision making or was it entirely party's job? I am totally confused about the nature of Bolshevik Russia. Revleft is my primary source and people here seems to have diverse understanding.
Workers formed Soviet by sending delegates (members) to City Soviet. Soldiers and Peasants did the same. But Bourgeoisie was banned political rights. The Soviet delegates were mostly elected from Factories. The same was process of electing delegates to All-Russia Convention of Soviets. The Convention for permanent work elected All-Russia Central Executive Comity. Executive Comity appointed Soviet of People Commissars. People Commissar is actually minister. Lenin was prime-minister. Unfortunately this system was ended in 1936 when new Constitution was approved. Actually many of Marxist-Leninists (including myself) considering this as Stalin greatest mistake. Stalin made several of mistakes. But by magnitude this decision literally abolish Proletariat Dictatorship was the biggest one.

[John Nada]

Say, in a thirld world country like ours the coalition of poor peasantry and proletarian successfully captures the state power. Now, it is extremely unlikely that revolution will be simultaneously successful in every country, especially in the third world. What should be the primary task of newly established dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry(you may call that whatever you want). For simplicity, let us assume that there do not exist any the counter revolutionary currents.First thing would be not to make up an artificial stage before the "real revolution" and keep power in the hands of the bourgeoisie like Kautsky's Wiemar Republic or Prachanda's "Federal Democratic Republic". The CPN(M) was so close and threw it all away!(though I'll have to learn more about how their parallel government operated) Political power should be with the proletariat, semi-proletariat and poor peasantry. IMO this is what the Bolsheviks were correct in rejecting the Provisional Government, which was in fact a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and capitalist landlords.

Secondly, there's different challenges a revolution in Third-World countries like Nepal has vs. a revolution in the US. Much of Nepal's laboring classes are not the urban industrial proletariat, but rural proletarians, migrant workers, semi-proletarians(alternate between wage labor and other means of sustenance) and poor peasantry. Due to the uneven nature of global capitalism, peripheral countries like Nepal have the evils of both pre-capitalist feudal elements like landlordism, casteism, ect., underdeveloped productive forces and neocolonial superexploitation by imperialist and expansionist nations like India, US and China. So a revolution would have to fight imperialism and resist possible invasions.

A big part of a revolution would be the agrarian revolution. A class struggle must be waged against the semi-feudal productive relations in the countryside(some like Lenin euphemistically called the "American path", like the American Civil War). There would need to be a program for redistributing and socializing land appropriated from the landlords and rich peasants, persuading the middle peasants to engage in social labor, provide modern equipment, fertilizers, non-GMO seeds, relief for fail crops, teach modern techniques in sustainable high-yielding agriculture, environmental protection, water management and such. Most important thing is keeping everyone feed and avoiding a famine like in the USSR or PRC.

In many countries the agrarian side of the revolution will be vital. It likely doesn't get discussed much among English-speaking leftists due to the highly industrialized and urbanized nature of the nations they reside in. Only 2% of the US workforce is in agriculture. None are peasants, it's highly mechanized, thoroughly capitalist, and many are big landowners, agribusinesses and petit-bourgeoisie who exploit rural proletarians(often of oppressed peoples) just as bad as any other bourgeoisie. In fact, US leftist might also need to think about the class struggle in the countryside and prepare to avoid famine when the revolution does happen. But I digress.

Engels discusses how socialist should approach the peasantry in The Peasant Question in France and Germany (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/index.htm). The worker-peasant alliance is what the hammer and sickle:hammersickle: means.
Or do people here believe that revolution can't succeed in third world in the first place? Just want opinions. Thanks.I think some may be stuck in the older Eurocentrism of early Marxism when the bulk of the proletariat was in Europe and North America, along with a workerist class reductionism that focuses on the "real proletariat" as opposed to those "lumpenproletarians and peasants" that's likely the actual proletariat "with nothing to lose but their chains". The center of gravity was thought to be in the very militant industrial proletariat of the advance nations. The underdeveloped nations didn't have the productive forces to hold out, nor a proletariat to lead a revolution. So it was thought the the proletariat in Britain, the Netherlands, France, Germany and the US would have socialist revolutions first, then spread out to the peripheral, sparing them the hell of capitalism. Sadly, this hasn't happened(yet).

However, the majority of the proletariat is now in the Third-World. The new revolutionary wave may very well begin in Latin America, Asia or Africa. Even though I'd love to just decapitate the Empire in one swoop(being in the belly of this beast, the US), this doesn't make the rest of the world's struggles pointless. Any progressive blow to capitalism strengthens the global proletariat, weakens the bourgeoisie and moves us all closer to communism. One less nations to extract superprofits from, one less imperialist outpost, one more revolutionary base.

Each victory will add up. Even in Nepal, it could help revolutionaries in India and China too. And a victorious socialist revolution in either or both of those countries would liberate a good chunk of humanity and send shock-waves throughout the world.

[Burzhuin]

Thanks. It cleared many misconceptions of mine. But I still have one question for you. You said that "the revolution" is not a singular event. By that do you mean we, communists in third world, should not push for siezure of state power but engage in sort of grassroot reforms. Or I, kind of, misunderstood you??
My answer is simple: you must "push for siezure of state power". I can quote Lenin, but it is closer to my heart slogan of Che Guevara about 'hundred Vietnams'. So far reforms never overcome bourgeoisie oppression. Our task is to replace Bourgeoisie Dictatorship by Proletariat Dictatorship.

[Red Spark]

First thing would be not to make up an artificial stage before the "real revolution" and keep power in the hands of the bourgeoisie like Kautsky's Wiemar Republic or Prachanda's "Federal Democratic Republic". The CPN(M) was so close and threw it all away!(though I'll have to learn more about how their parallel government operated) Political power should be with the proletariat, semi-proletariat and poor peasantry. IMO this is what the Bolsheviks were correct in rejecting the Provisional Government, which was in fact a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and capitalist landlords.
Agreed, but the past is gone; its the future that awaits us. What should we do now? With such a fragile economy, we cannot afford another civil war. That will just rip the country and its economy apart and who will suffer? None other than the poor working men/women. So, next step??

[Burzhuin]

Agreed, but the past is gone; its the future that awaits us. What should we do now? With such a fragile economy, we cannot afford another civil war. That will just rip the country and its economy apart and who will suffer? None other than the poor working men/women. So, next step??
Is there any RELIABLE sources to get familiar what happened and is going on in Nepal? Last time I heard about Nepal when Royal family was eliminating. Or was it just King? Pardon my ignorance.

[ckaihatsu]

I think some may be stuck in the older Eurocentrism of early Marxism when the bulk of the proletariat was in Europe and North America, along with a workerist class reductionism that focuses on the "real proletariat" as opposed to those "lumpenproletarians and peasants" that's likely the actual proletariat "with nothing to lose but their chains". The center of gravity was thought to be in the very militant industrial proletariat of the advance nations. The underdeveloped nations didn't have the productive forces to hold out, nor a proletariat to lead a revolution. So it was thought the the proletariat in Britain, the Netherlands, France, Germany and the US would have socialist revolutions first, then spread out to the peripheral, sparing them the hell of capitalism. Sadly, this hasn't happened(yet).

However, the majority of the proletariat is now in the Third-World. The new revolutionary wave may very well begin in Latin America, Asia or Africa. Even though I'd love to just decapitate the Empire in one swoop(being in the belly of this beast, the US), this doesn't make the rest of the world's struggles pointless. Any progressive blow to capitalism strengthens the global proletariat, weakens the bourgeoisie and moves us all closer to communism. One less nations to extract superprofits from, one less imperialist outpost, one more revolutionary base.

Each victory will add up. Even in Nepal, it could help revolutionaries in India and China too. And a victorious socialist revolution in either or both of those countries would liberate a good chunk of humanity and send shock-waves throughout the world.


I don't think sound revolutionary strategy should be so blithely dismissed as 'older Eurocentrism' when there are solid *material* reasons for the *industrial proletariat*, of whatever nations, to be the most militant and determining -- it's simply a matter of *productivity*, in that the most critical implements / equipment, perhaps even weapons, will be those of *industry*, which, incidentally, has now also subsumed *agricultural* processes in the developed world, as you've noted.

This goes back to my concern at post #9, of prevailing geographic-sectarian revolutionary sentiments, which are *inherently* problematic for effectively aiming only for 'socialism in one country', like the Kurds, for example.

[Red Spark]

Is there any RELIABLE sources to get familiar what happened and is going on in Nepal? Last time I heard about Nepal when Royal family was eliminating. Or was it just King? Pardon my ignorance.

It really depends on what do you mean by reliable source. If you are just wanting news then there are loads of them. Unfortunately you have to search them yourself(if you want to) because I cannot post links. I can name them though, there is Ekantipur, My republica, The Himalayan Times.

But if you are searching something from revolutionary view point then nothing comes to my mind right now. Maybe later.

PS: Nepal's politics has moved much further(not exactly in the right direction) from the abolition of the monarchy.

[John Nada]

Agreed, but the past is gone; its the future that awaits us. What should we do now? With such a fragile economy, we cannot afford another civil war. That will just rip the country and its economy apart and who will suffer? None other than the poor working men/women. So, next step??Part of why the economy is fragile is because it's still capitalist. So the law of value and what benefits capitalists guilds production and distribution. If it were on the socialist path with a planned economy presumably an effort to build up infrastructure, local industry and prepare the people for the path ahead could take place. Of course, due to the distinct geopolitical situation of Nepal this can only go so far unless something changes in India and China, unfortunately.

I wish I had the answer. But sometimes event are beyond our control. Only thing that can be done is to prepare for the future. On an individual level you could study revolutionary theory, also skills(programming, economics, medicine, engineering, teaching, ect) that could help with a future revolution.
I don't think sound revolutionary strategy should be so blithely dismissed as 'older Eurocentrism' when there are solid *material* reasons for the *industrial proletariat*, of whatever nations, to be the most militant and determining -- it's simply a matter of *productivity*, in that the most critical implements / equipment, perhaps even weapons, will be those of *industry*, which, incidentally, has now also subsumed *agricultural* processes in the developed world, as you've noted.Eurocentrist as in acting like all hinges on Germany and France above all else, like the geopolitical situation of the 1800s, when that was the case. If it happened that the industrial proletariat of Mexico or South Africa is more militant and caught up in a revolutionary fever at the moment, as opposed to Belgium or Canada, then the former two would be the new center of gravity. If it's the US or Italy, then all the better.

I just oppose both the third-worldists "It's all on you, oppressed nationalities. We'll just wait" and the "Everything you're doing in the underdeveloped countries is pointless. Our workers are more advance." Both are bullshit, since there's nothing inherently more or less revolution either way. There should be an offensive from multiple sides.

And unlike the Nineteen Century, most of the peripheral countries are way more advance than Russia, which in spite of the naysayers who claimed couldn't pull off the October Revolution, had one as opposed to Britain. The electronics, machinery, medicine and weapons in developing countries, however inferior to the developed nations, would look like an extraterrestrial civilization to Marx and Engels, who thought socialism was possible in their lifetimes. Even with France and Germany based on agriculture to a large degree at the time.
This goes back to my concern at post #9, of prevailing geographic-sectarian revolutionary sentiments, which are *inherently* problematic for effectively aiming only for 'socialism in one country', like the Kurds, for example.But couldn't there also be the same if it was Denmark or the Netherlands first? They couldn't have "socialism in one country" without Egypt or Brazil.

Is there any RELIABLE sources to get familiar what happened and is going on in Nepal? Last time I heard about Nepal when Royal family was eliminating. Or was it just King? Pardon my ignorance.It really depends on what do you mean by reliable source. If you are just wanting news then there are loads of them. Unfortunately you have to search them yourself(if you want to) because I cannot post links. I can name them though, there is Ekantipur, My republica, The Himalayan Times.

But if you are searching something from revolutionary view point then nothing comes to my mind right now. Maybe later.

PS: Nepal's politics has moved much further(not exactly in the right direction) from the abolition of the monarchy.There's the news Red Spark mentioned: http://www.myrepublica.com/ http://www.ekantipur.com/ http://thehimalayantimes.com/ . http://www.bannedthought.net/ has a section on the UCPN(M) and the CPN-Maoist. Also sometimes Signalfire (http://www.signalfire.org/) has things on the Maoist movement Nepal, though often reposts from the sites Red Spark mentioned and not as much since the people's war ended and Prachanda went all social democrat(now a lot of Maoist condemn "Prachandaite neo-revisionism").

[ckaihatsu]

Eurocentrist as in acting like all hinges on Germany and France above all else, like the geopolitical situation of the 1800s, when that was the case.


Yes, understood, and agreed.





If it happened that the industrial proletariat of Mexico or South Africa is more militant and caught up in a revolutionary fever at the moment, as opposed to Belgium or Canada, then the former two would be the new center of gravity. If it's the US or Italy, then all the better.


Yes.





I just oppose both the third-worldists "It's all on you, oppressed nationalities. We'll just wait" and the "Everything you're doing in the underdeveloped countries is pointless. Our workers are more advance." Both are bullshit, since there's nothing inherently more or less revolution either way. There should be an offensive from multiple sides.


Yes, basically agreed -- in practice real events might lead to strategies where one or the other 'country' steps-up or steps-down, relatively, in the overall tapestry of proletarian struggle activity, for a more-comprehensive overall battle with the forces of the bourgeoisie.





And unlike the Nineteen Century, most of the peripheral countries are way more advance than Russia, which in spite of the naysayers who claimed couldn't pull off the October Revolution, had one as opposed to Britain. The electronics, machinery, medicine and weapons in developing countries, however inferior to the developed nations, would look like an extraterrestrial civilization to Marx and Engels, who thought socialism was possible in their lifetimes. Even with France and Germany based on agriculture to a large degree at the time.




But couldn't there also be the same if it was Denmark or the Netherlands first? They couldn't have "socialism in one country" without Egypt or Brazil.


There are actually *3* levels going on here -- [1] individual countries, like Denmark, Holland, Egypt, or Brazil enjoying decisive revolutionary movements *internally*, respectively, [2] some kind of revolutionary *interdependence* among these four countries, or any others, and [3] *worldwide socialism* (which *should* be a redundancy of meaning), in which it would be a 'race', more-or-less, among *all* the countries of the world, for each to overthrow its own bourgeoisie, but with international solidarity and mutual aid, of course.

[Red Spark]

Prachanda went all social democrat(now a lot of Maoist condemn "Prachandaite neo-revisionism").

Funny thing is today my father brought home UCPN-M's new party pamphlet. He said they are changing again or changing back to previous organisational structure. UCPN-M(led by Prachanda) and CPN-M(led by Kiran) are likely to be uniting. He, my father, is excited again. I'm cynical though, I don't trust Prachanda any longer. Kiran is a better one but he has gone older and inefficient.