Is it easier to make revolution in the Third World [Archive]

redstar2000

7th August 2005, 01:36

Decolonize The Left

7th August 2005, 03:24

Hello all,
this is my first post so please bear with me here.

I agree with RedStar in the statement that "easier" is not the issue.

Also, I think that one must look at the specific cases rather than the whole idea of "3rd world" vs. "the West".

I believe that if you look at why most the revolutions have occured in 3rd world countries, you will find that the people were not satisfied with the government. This is a very general statement but it serves my purpose as you soon wil see.
Here, in the west, we have a people who are more or less satisfied with their government. Now some of you might cry out, NO!, but it's true, sadly. But in most cases, most clearly in the USA, we can see why. What does it mean to be satisfied by our government? Now-a-days it does not mean quality education, employment, social security, ample housing, etc.. Rather it means defense against the unknown and ever-growing enemy, and material goods. Since we live in the most capitalist of countries, our economy and society are based around goods and services, which are to be sold to the public at all costs. As long as this bond is maintained (i.e. where people can get their newest magazine and clothing at any time, and as in easy a fashion as possible) there will be no revolution.

Sadly, our society has changed its value system from what people need to what people want. And this is the issue which must be addressed.

-- August

PS: I am not a historian nor have I completed half of my college education, I will be a sophmore in September, so please excuse any ignorant or naive comments on my part.

Paradox

7th August 2005, 03:31

The question about whether a revolution is "easier" is meaningless.

What counts, from a Marxist standpoint, is the class character of a revolution.

A bourgeois revolution is one in which the capitalist class rises to a position of dominance.

A proletarian revolution is one in which the working class rises to a position of dominance.

"Third world" revolutions must be, of necessity, bourgeois in content regardless of what they call themselves. Objective material conditions do not permit any other outcome.

A genuine revolution in the "first world" would likewise be, of necessity, a proletarian revolution...there is no other choice.

The working class in the "west" is clearly unable and unwilling to make such a revolution at the present time. Will that always be the case?

If Marx was right all along, then the answer is no -- that will not always be the case.

So it's a gamble...bet on Marx or bet against him.

My bet is on Marx.

I second that.

Revolution in the Third World? Fine. They obviously happen all the time. But because those nations have not developed to the level necessary for a Proletarian revolution, don't expect Communism to be their outcome. As DJ-TC said:

I think that revolutionary fertility depends on development of industrial capital which creates an army of industrial proletariat and modern day prole consciousness.

Paradox

7th August 2005, 03:41

Welcome AugustWest!

I believe that if you look at why most the revolutions have occured in 3rd world countries, you will find that the people were not satisfied with the government.

True. But this doesn't mean the result of the revolution will be Communism. As has already been said, a true Proletarian revolution cannot occur except in places where the conditions have created a Proletarian army, and when the level of class consciousness is very high.

Here, in the west, we have a people who are more or less satisfied with their government. Now some of you might cry out, NO!, but it's true, sadly.

That or apolitical. For the most part anyway. Most of the people I know are apolitical. A few are more aware and disagree with certain things the government does, but not near the level that people such as ourselves do. But in recent CNN poll, and I understand this is just one poll, they found that 97% of the people they questioned felt their government representatives did not truly represent them. I realize this doesn't really help us, but it was interesting that the number was that high.

I am not a historian nor have I completed half of my college education, I will be a sophmore in September, so please excuse any ignorant or naive comments on my part.

No need to worry. :D

Decolonize The Left

7th August 2005, 03:54

Thank you Paradox for your reply and thoughts.

1: I did not state that the revolution would have to be communist. Personally I don't think it will be, at least not in the sense of communism that we have seen in the past. Although I do feel that here in the US we are seeing more class differences and these are being displayed, not only in government policy, but merely by observation. This might be my own personal view, but I think that more people are beginning to see this as well.

2: I agree that a large portion of our society is apolitical. But, I think that in that poll, that 97% of the people questioned perhaps don't know what represents them. Therefore they say that sure, the government doesn't, but what if you asked them what does? I think a variety of responses would turn up.

3: Yes I agree that we don't have the 'prole capital' for a revolution. I think this is because our work is being shipped overseas, yet I don't think this is far out of the publics view. It is just blurry, or being blurred...

Thanks again.
--August

JC1

7th August 2005, 03:56

The question about whether a revolution is "easier" is meaningless.

What counts, from a Marxist standpoint, is the class character of a revolution.

A bourgeois revolution is one in which the capitalist class rises to a position of dominance.

A proletarian revolution is one in which the working class rises to a position of dominance.

So far so good ...

"Third world" revolutions must be, of necessity, bourgeois in content regardless of what they call themselves. Objective material conditions do not permit any other outcome.

Here the rub ... there a thing called "The Law of Combined and Uneven Development". Its a thing based a thing called Marxist economics, not white cvhauvinism.

It States :

1) The Bourgoise under Imperialism is suffocated by imperialist Capital, witch consigns it too a Comprador role.

2) The Capital that does run the show re-enforces the landed Aristocracy in semi-fuedal economies, becuase that makes it easier to suck out value by keeping wages low.

3) Therefore, the only class capable of ecomplishing the tasks of the democratic reveloution is the working class (No matter if there small(And in no country today is the working class small). The peaseantry cant lead this struggle as a class, but unite with the working class on slogans of Democracy ( This creates trouble after the reveloution, no doubt).

Therefore, in content, all those reveloutions were prolatarian in content.

And I think that at this point, we cant deny the law of Combined and Uneven Development.

redstar2000

7th August 2005, 12:49

Originally posted by JC1
Here the rub ... there's a thing called "The Law of Combined and Uneven Development". It's a thing based a thing called Marxist economics, not white chauvinism.

Presumably the "white chauvinist" version of that "law" would be called "The Law of Disassociated and Even Development". :lol:

How about a discussion of the issues instead of irrelevant asides about "white chauvinism" and imaginary "laws"?

The Bourgeoisie under Imperialism is suffocated by imperialist Capital, which consigns it to a Comprador role.

Usually so...but not always. (So much for that "law".)

The Capital that does run the show re-enforces the landed Aristocracy in semi-feudal economies, because that makes it easier to suck out value by keeping wages low.

That does take place...but it's very far from the whole story. There are several processes involved.

The over-riding reason that wages are low in the "third world" is that the average social cost of reproducing labor power is low.

Therefore, the only class capable of accomplishing the tasks of the democratic revolution is the working class (No matter if they're small. And in no country today is the working class small). The peasantry can't lead this struggle as a class, but [can] unite with the working class on slogans of Democracy. (This creates trouble after the revolution, no doubt.)

This is rather muddled.

1. The general consensus is that the working class in "third world" countries is small as a proportion of the total population...whatever its absolute numbers might be in any given country.

2. "Third world" revolutions are not "led" by the working class but by middle-class nationalist dissidents organized in a "revolutionary party" or "guerrilla movement" -- which may draw its following from the working class, the peasantry, or both.

3. Without regard to their rhetoric or their conception of themselves, they do what the bourgeoisie did in 19th century Europe...develop modern capitalism. Material conditions do not permit any other course...and that really is a Marxist law of development.

Therefore, in content, all those revolutions were proletarian in content.

Nope. Go back to that definition I offered: A proletarian revolution is one in which the working class rises to a position of dominance.

Only in a few cities in European Russia did the working class briefly dominate -- say October 1917 to May 1918 to be generous. After that, the most you could say is that the working class had influence on political and economic decision-making by the party -- and after 1921 that was gone too.

In all the other revolutions (Yugoslavia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.), it seems most reasonable to me to suggest that at best there were parts of the "revolutionary party" that, in a sense, represented the class interests of the workers. But those parts did not have dominance. What dominated those revolutions was a new class-in-formation -- a middle class bureaucracy transforming itself as quickly as it could into a new vigorous native bourgeoisie.

How could it be otherwise?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

novemba

7th August 2005, 13:49

Only time will tell.

Faceless

7th August 2005, 14:13

"Third world" revolutions must be, of necessity, bourgeois in content regardless of what they call themselves. Objective material conditions do not permit any other outcome.

I would like to take issue with you on this point. As in pre-revolutionary Russia, there are cases where the bourgeoisie finds itself in the following position, on the edge between two modes of production; the old feudal relations are found at its rear, with all the implications that these have against the bourgeoisie. In front of it however the bourgeoisie is confronted with the already developing proletariat, miles ahead in class consciosness than the earliest proletariat of England or France due to global experience. The bourgeoisie of this under-developed nation too have the experience of the global crisis confronting the other world bourgeois. In such a situation the bourgeoisie can come to side with the forces of reaction instead of performing the progressive role that the brougeoisie of the French revolution performed. Instead they do their best to find a compromise with the old feudal lords. As such it can be left to the proletariat to perform the tasks that the bourgeoisie are reluctant to perform. These include democratic reforms and land reforms, bringing land and capital into greatest possible concentration. The proletariat can rise to supremacy as in 1917, if only to perform the tasks of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat of England was still very much mingled with petty bourgeois elements, it held the view that private property was sacred as the bourgeoisie did too. They therefore could stand as allies with the bourgeoisie. We see today that in social and economic sense, it is left to the proletariat to create a bourgeois revolution before it can advance to its ultimate goal; proletarian revolution.

Lamanov

7th August 2005, 14:24

These were not proletarian revolutions. The fact that industrial proletariat played a primary revolutionary role is besides the point, and has it's economic explanation [pasivity of the bourgeoisie and union with feudal aristocracy, as explained hundred times before].

I bet on Marx too. :ph34r:

JC1

7th August 2005, 17:37

Presumably the "white chauvinist" version of that "law" would be called "The Law of Disassociated and Even Development".

How about a discussion of the issues instead of irrelevant asides about "white chauvinism" and imaginary "laws"?

It causes me great discomfort that a self-decribed marxist is discarding such a major law. And regarding the aside about "white chauvinism" is the fact you admited that Iraq was an industrial cxountry ... but countinued to say the working class of iraq cant (Despite the fact the oil strike (Lead by the WCPI " Vanguard) is fermenting workers class counsince).

Usually so...but not always. (So much for that "law".)

Evidence ? The overwhelmining majority of time this is the case (99 %).

That does take place...but it's very far from the whole story. There are several processes involved.

There are, but this a major factor.

The over-riding reason that wages are low in the "third world" is that the average social cost of reproducing labor power is low.

And this has to with the fact there is an army of peaseants (The fact theres so many sellers causes prices to fall) selling crops at low low prices. Tying back into fuedalism.

1. The general consensus is that the working class in "third world" countries is small as a proportion of the total population...whatever its absolute numbers might be in any given country.

So is the bourgiose. And the landed aristocracy.

2. "Third world" revolutions are not "led" by the working class but by middle-class nationalist dissidents organized in a "revolutionary party" or "guerrilla movement" -- which may draw its following from the working class, the peasantry, or both.

This is true of the workers movements in any country at an early enough phase (The Communist League has done some work on the realation of the petit-bourgoise to the working class in the previous epoch). But just as an aside, prachanda's parents were both poor peaseants and Comrade Bhattari's folks were industrial workers.

3. Without regard to their rhetoric or their conception of themselves, they do what the bourgeoisie did in 19th century Europe...develop modern capitalism. Material conditions do not permit any other course...and that really is a Marxist law of development.

Uh-Huh. So witch class rules? Are you saying the workin' class develops the productive forces ... then cedes state power to the capitilist classs ?

Only in a few cities in European Russia did the working class briefly dominate -- say October 1917 to May 1918 to be generous. After that, the most you could say is that the working class had influence on political and economic decision-making by the party -- and after 1921 that was gone too.

I will concede there was deformity. However, the party's base was overwhelminingly prolatarian (1/5 of party clubs were factory clubs) and the fact is, most party sectaries in a factory were not managers (Indeed, in the troika power arangement set up by Stalin, 1/3 of the power went to the Mangers, 1/3 to the party branch (Who were to not overlap with the manegment) and 1/3 to the Worker Committee (Who were the ones who ran the factory up to '29, according to Cliff).

Also, the fact is that while its wasnt the general prolatariat who controled the Means of productionm in general, it was a priviliged section of the workin' class, the economy was still owned by the working class as a class.

What dominated those revolutions was a new class-in-formation -- a middle class bureaucracy transforming itself as quickly as it could into a new vigorous native bourgeoisie.

For one, I agree with Karl Marx. The Petit-Bourgoise is incapable of creating its own counsince.

For Two, not only is the petit-bourgoise not capable of holdings it own counsince, it defenatly cant be guided by the counsince of a class that has yet to be created !

For third, could you please give a description of this class, this "new bourgoise" ?

Holocaustpulp

7th August 2005, 19:08

I think it is only logical that a revolution is more likely to happen in "Developing" nations than in "Developed" nations (at least under the our contemporary circumstance) for many reasons: a.) the developing nations often have authoritative rulers, and thus have greater political incentive for revolution b.) partially related to the last point, developing nations have not experienced the social and political reforms (bourgeois reforms) that would make them apathetic, less abused, and unaware c.) developing nations naturally have economies that can barely support the masses (if at all) - and also d.) developing nations have felt the brunt of Western imperialism at its worst.

To back up such claims, we can see the past communist guerrilla movements of developing countries such as China and Latin America. Now we can see the movements in Nepal, Colombia, and Venezuela (which is on a more stable road than the other two) as evidence that inequality and imposition have forced the populace of these neglected nations to strive for revolution. Even in Bolivia where a significant communist party is absent we see the masses becoming more and more class conscious and arrive at the revelation that the "leaders" of society are the enemies.

Concerning the success of these revolutions is however another topic, depending on the party carrying out the revolution and organization in general.

I am not saying that revolution in developed nations is an inferior priority or that exploitation is absent in such countries; yet where the developed nations must wade through indifference and prejudice of the population, the devloping nations have been forced to carry through with revolution.

- HP

redstar2000

8th August 2005, 02:12

Originally posted by JC1
And regarding the aside about "white chauvinism" is the fact you admitted that Iraq was an industrial country ... but continued to say the working class of Iraq can't [take power].

But why does that have anything to do with "white chauvinism"?

The handicap for the Iraqi working class is not that they "aren't white" -- it's that they have an extremely backward mind-set. They still believe in family, clan, and Allah.

If they were to seize power, they'd immediately hand it over to a "pro-working class" despot. Who would, over time, turn Iraq into a modern secular capitalist republic -- rather like Saddam Hussein was doing prior to the war with Iran.

Evidence?

As Severian pointed out in another thread, the "comprador bourgeoisie" in South Korea and Taiwan managed to develop those countries inspite of the imperialist domination. Malaysia and Thailand might be added to that list.

I agree that it's rare...but it has happened.

So is the bourgeoisie. And the landed aristocracy.

Yes, that's true. But imagine a "revolutionary regime" after the old bourgeoisie and the landed aristocracy have been overthrown and expelled. Now there are only three forces at work: a small working class, a huge peasant class, and the members of the "revolutionary party"...the leaders of which usually come from the upper classes of the old society.

In the class struggle that follows, which outlook is most likely to "win out"?

But just as an aside, Prachanda's parents were both poor peasants and Comrade Bhattari's folks were industrial workers.

Yes...and Stalin's grandparents were serfs.

But don't forget to look into the possibility of myth-making; the fabrication of "humble origins" for "the leader" are not without precedent.

So which class rules?

A new capitalist class in formation. The despotism of the "revolutionary party" is not stable...it is something temporarily "slapped together" because no class is "fit to rule" in the early years of the new order.

So your question is like asking "which class ruled" under Napoleon III? He was a "pro-business despot" who "stood in" for the French capitalist class until it was ready to take the reins of power itself.

The rise of capitalism almost everywhere is strongly associated with such "pro-business" despots.

One way or another, the necessary conditions for modern capitalism must be developed -- and if this task is beyond the rising bourgeoisie, then they will pick a despot to "do it for them".

The revolutionary rhetoric that surrounds the state-monopoly capitalist path of development obscures what is really going on...the gradual but certain formation of a new bourgeoisie.

[The workers' committees] were the ones who ran the factory up to '29, according to Cliff.

I don't think that's true. My impression is that the factory committees were largely powerless from the time that Lenin insisted on "one-man management"...say 1918 or so.

...the economy was still owned by the working class as a class.

You are mistaking form for substance. As a citizen of the United States, I "own" everything the U.S. government owns. But I have no control over "my" property at all.

Whatever the legal fiction, I am, in fact, property-less. As was the working class in the USSR.

The Petit-Bourgeoisie is incapable of creating its own consciousness.

Marx did not say that; he said that petty-bourgeois consciousness was torn between the consciousness of the ruling class and that of the working class.

...not only is the petit-bourgeoisie not capable of holding it own consciousness, it definitely can't be guided by the consciousness of a class that has yet to be created!

Why not? The people in the leading circles of the Bolshevik party were running the show. There was no big bourgeoisie "holding them back". Their aspirations were "unfettered" and "free to expand" indefinitely.

In what other direction could petty bourgeois desires grow if not towards the goal of becoming a fully developed bourgeoisie itself?

... could you please give a description of this class, this "new bourgeoisie"?

Look at the gangster capitalist class in Russia today...all composed of guys who were once paid-up members in good standing of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks).

Their roots go way back.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Social Greenman

8th August 2005, 02:34

Look at the gangster capitalist class in Russia today...all composed of guys who were once paid-up members in good standing of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks).

Their roots go way back.

Yipper!

Le People

8th August 2005, 02:45

Now and days, it seems like that it doesn't matter! Globalization is leading to world wide economic ruin, so it will be an international revolution of the whole world. As to which nations have the best chances of becoming socailist nations, I'll say degenerate worker's states, particalurly those in which imperialist corporations invest in. The people are explotied, yet they do have socailist construction, so it is all a matter of prolitarian democrationzion.

JC1

8th August 2005, 03:40

The handicap for the Iraqi working class is not that they "aren't white" -- it's that they have an extremely backward mind-set. They still believe in family, clan, and Allah.

Base/Superstructure. You admited that the Iraqi's have an Industrial base, but there "realm of idea's and culture" lags. There is no reason why the Iraqi Working Class could not tow the lag, so to speak.

And regarding Family; not a class in the world has broken from that bullshit. Clan; I dont think there is evidence of a strong Clan base in Iraq. And regarding Allah ; The US is on the verge of Christian Theocracy, whereas the Iraqi's are just using God as a flag to rally around.

If they were to seize power, they'd immediately hand it over to a "pro-working class" despot. Who would, over time, turn Iraq into a modern secular capitalist republic -- rather like Saddam Hussein was doing prior to the war with Iran.

Like I said, If the working class of Iraq took state power, they would quite easily tow the lag of counsince. The base is there.

As Severian pointed out in another thread, the "comprador bourgeoisie" in South Korea and Taiwan managed to develop those countries inspite of the imperialist domination.

Those are quite extrodenary circumstances. Both country's had the benifit of Communist led Land Reforms, and Taiwan had the benifit of Natinolist immigrants from mainland China. Also, it should be pointed that in both those countries, the standard of living ain't that great, AND the Capital of those countries is forign owned. Indeed, southern Korea is occupied by half a million US troops.

Yes, that's true. But imagine a "revolutionary regime" after the old bourgeoisie and the landed aristocracy have been overthrown and expelled. Now there are only three forces at work: a small working class, a huge peasant class, and the members of the "revolutionary party"...the leaders of which usually come from the upper classes of the old society.

First of all, youre projecting a political organism as a class. Secondly, im not all that sure the Reveloutionary party's leaders are overwhelmingly Middle class. That may be true of the Russian and Cuban contexts, but just look at Mao. Poor peaseant. Tito, Factory worker, Enver Hoxha,ect cet era.

And the Rank and File of these party's, once again are overwhelmingly Working Class and peaseantry.

But don't forget to look into the possibility of myth-making; the fabrication of "humble origins" for "the leader" are not without precedent.

Thats true, but I have yet to see any evidence that there just telling stories.

One way or another, the necessary conditions for modern capitalism must be developed -- and if this task is beyond the rising bourgeoisie, then they will pick a despot to "do it for them".

The revolutionary rhetoric that surrounds the state-monopoly capitalist path of development obscures what is really going on...the gradual but certain formation of a new bourgeoisie.

Thats funny, a regime witch expopriates the class it represents property ?

This development curve you describe has never occured. The value used to make the labour aristocracy that took power in the Soviet Union, was derivied from trade with peaseantry and forign markets inwitch prices were inflated, erby alowing kickbacks to go to this section.

don't think that's true. My impression is that the factory committees were largely powerless from the time that Lenin insisted on "one-man management"...say 1918 or so.

For one, the return of a manager didnt take place till 21', and for two, even then he didnt have a monopoly on manegment.

Whatever the legal fiction, I am, in fact, property-less. As was the working class in the USSR.

But how was it that a Party Worker in the USSR owned a factory, let alone how did the Labour Aristocracy own the Economy as a class ?

Marx did not say that; he said that petty-bourgeois consciousness was torn between the consciousness of the ruling class and that of the working class.

Uh-huh. The Petit-bourgoise tails the Class that has the line that serves them at that time. Indeed, the petit bourgoise dosent act as a class, but a series of sections. And its constanly vaciliating. Therefore, how can it develop its own counsince.

Why not? The people in the leading circles of the Bolshevik party were running the show. There was no big bourgeoisie "holding them back". Their aspirations were "unfettered" and "free to expand" indefinitely.

In what other direction could petty bourgeois desires grow if not towards the goal of becoming a fully developed bourgeoisie itself?

Uh-huh. You have yet to establish the Bolshivik's were petit-bourgoeis. Indeed, by the thirties, the majority of CPSU Party Clubs, were orginizied on a workplace basis.

Look at the gangster capitalist class in Russia today...all composed of guys who were once paid-up members in good standing of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks).

We misunderstand each other. I was refering to the the class under Socialism you have yet to explain.

redstar2000

8th August 2005, 17:20

I confess I am finding your arguments increasingly difficult to follow. Do we have a language problem here?

Originally posted by JC1
Base/Superstructure. You admitted that the Iraqi's have an Industrial base, but their "realm of ideas and culture" lags. There is no reason why the Iraqi Working Class could not tow the lag, so to speak.

I have no idea what you mean by "tow the lag" in this context. Because of the backwardness of the Iraqi working class, they will, if given the chance, place their hopes in a "benevolent despot" -- just as Russian workers placed their hopes in Lenin.

And those hopes will be disappointed in the same way.

And regarding Family; not a class in the world has broken from that bullshit. Clan; I don't think there is evidence of a strong Clan base in Iraq. And regarding Allah; The US is on the verge of Christian Theocracy, whereas the Iraqi's are just using God as a flag to rally around.

No, that's clearly wrong.

The evidence of family/clan domination of politics throughout the Arab world is overwhelming -- and that very much includes Iraq. Nor do I see any reason to regard the importance of Islam in Iraq as pro forma -- when the quisling government says that it wants to make the Qu'ran the basic foundation of Iraqi law, I think they mean exactly what they say.

Your point about the U.S. is irrelevant to this discussion...except in one aspect. The domination of working class politics by superstition in the U.S. is a major barrier to any possibility of proletarian revolution here for a very long time to come.

It is very difficult to make any forward progress at all when your brain is full of shit.

First of all, you're projecting a political organism as a class.

As a class in formation. Classes do not "pop into" or "out of" existence. They emerge, grow, develop, etc.

Secondly, I'm not all that sure the Revolutionary party's leaders are overwhelmingly Middle class.

Middle class or even higher.

Where else are you going to find educated people in backward countries? One is pretty lucky in a "third world" country to have learned how to read and write -- school costs serious money -- both in tuition and in terms of the family income given up by not sending your youthful ass out to find a job.

...but just look at Mao. Poor peasant.

No, Mao's father was a "middle peasant" and probably approached being a "rich peasant".

And the Rank and File of these parties, once again, are overwhelmingly Working Class and peasantry.

Irrelevant. Third world "revolutionary parties" are not controlled by their rank and file membership.

This development curve you describe has never occurred.

How can you say that? It's occurred everywhere. All of those so-called socialist regimes developed modern capitalism (as best they could).

But how was it that a Party Worker in the USSR owned a factory, let alone how did the Labour Aristocracy own the Economy as a class?

I do not grasp why you are using the term "labor aristocracy" in place of the more traditional "party bureaucracy".

But be that as it may, the "big dogs" in the party ran the economy just as if they were the "board of directors" of USSR, Inc.

That being the case, the abstract question of "ownership" is irrelevant.

Therefore, how can [the petty-bourgeoisie] develop its own consciousness?

It doesn't develop a consistently petty-bourgeois consciousness -- which may indeed be impossible. But in the absence of a real bourgeoisie to "hold it down", the petty-bourgeoisie naturally develops a consistently bourgeois consciousness.

What else could it do?

You have yet to establish the Bolsheviks were petit-bourgeois.

At the higher levels of the party? Come on! You've admitted as much yourself earlier in this post.

Once again, where are educated people in a backward country going to come from if not the middle class or even higher???

We misunderstand each other.

Yeah...I'm afraid we do.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

JC1

8th August 2005, 19:47

I have no idea what you mean by "tow the lag" in this context. Because of the backwardness of the Iraqi working class, they will, if given the chance, place their hopes in a "benevolent despot" -- just as Russian workers placed their hopes in Lenin.

What im saying is that the Iraqi Working Class is capable of orginizing itself (Just look at the recent Oil Strike) and the material conditions are there. The Iraqi working Class make up at least 60 % of the Iraqi population.

The evidence of family/clan domination of politics throughout the Arab world is overwhelming -- and that very much includes Iraq. Nor do I see any reason to regard the importance of Islam in Iraq as pro forma -- when the quisling government says that it wants to make the Qu'ran the basic foundation of Iraqi law, I think they mean exactly what they say.

I dont see how the Clan can form a sociatal glue in any urban society. And Iraq is a urban society. And also, like I said, the Islamism is a responce to dire circumstances. Just a few years ago Iraq was, in reality, The Most secular State in the whole middle east.

Where else are you going to find educated people in backward countries? One is pretty lucky in a "third world" country to have learned how to read and write -- school costs serious money -- both in tuition and in terms of the family income given up by not sending your youthful ass out to find a job.

When a reveloutionary party starts out this is true. But it takes a few generations for good idea's to catch on .. and by then the party has become a school.

Irrelevant. Third world "revolutionary parties" are not controlled by their rank and file membership

Yes they are. The CPN (M) has regular popular assemblies and congresses.

How can you say that? It's occurred everywhere. All of those so-called socialist regimes developed modern capitalism (as best they could).

No, in capitalism labour-power is approatied by the capitalist. The value the Labour Aristcracy got was when a profit was made on the Peaseant-Domestic and World markets when the law of supply and demand pushed prices above value. It was this section that restored Capitalism, not a "Red Bourgoise.

I do not grasp why you are using the term "labor aristocracy" in place of the more traditional "party bureaucracy".

But be that as it may, the "big dogs" in the party ran the economy just as if they were the "board of directors" of USSR, Inc.

That being the case, the abstract question of "ownership" is irrelevant.

1) I use labour Aristocracy becuase there was a priviliged layer in the fmr. socialist states that arose from labour and was not unlike the labour aristocracy in Western CP's and Trade Unions.

2) The Leadership of the USSR was not at all like a board of directors. What kinda board of directors is elected by a counstinuency that is overwhelmingly working class and its self rises from the working class ( look at Krushchev, Gorbochev, Andropov, ect ... all from working class backrounds ).

3) The property forms at play in the USSR were working class ones.

Djehuti

9th August 2005, 02:07

Originally posted by resisting arrest with [email protected] 6 2005, 07:34 PM
You all have read Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism where he refutes Marx's contention that only in countries where capitalism is in an advanced stage can a revolution be successful. Well has the revolution ever happened in an advanced capitalist nation? Only what? --- Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, China, North Korea, Nicaragua (briefly) and few Eastern European countries which were vassal states of the Soviet Union. What do you think?

Maybe Venezuela's situation clearly reinforces the idea that the Third World holds the key for the revolution. Hmmmm.
Those where no communist revolutions, Marx spoke specificly about communist revolutions. And yes, I am sure that communist potential is easier to achieve in a well-developed capitalism.

"It's only when a social movement can question the wealth proposed or promised by capital, and not just the poverty imposed by capital, that this movement is able to manifest communist potentials."
Gilles Dauvé & Karl Nesic, Whither the World

JC1

14th August 2005, 19:49

Im dispointed redstar .... I was expecting an unprecendented refutation.

redstar2000

14th August 2005, 23:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 02:07 PM
Im dispointed redstar .... I was expecting an unprecendented refutation.
You must say something that is new and interesting if you want to move a discussion forward.

When people start repeating themselves, I lose interest. Maybe I "shouldn't"...maybe I should be more "patient" and keep trying for different ways to explain the self-evident.

The point for me is not to construct "crushing refutations" -- except insofar as that might help someone see things more clearly.

But whenever someone makes it clear that further argument is fruitless, I don't see any point in badgering them endlessly just to "make myself look good".

You share an illusion that is quite common among lefties in the "west" -- that people in backward countries are going to "leap over" centuries of development and "achieve communism"...and "pretty soon" at that.

And I have attempted to patiently explain to you in this thread why that is a howling absurdity.

To no avail. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

anomaly

15th August 2005, 07:21

Since my thread is going nowhere, I'll engage you here, Redstar. As you know, I do think that people in 'bakcward' nations can achieve communism. Certainly this communism will not be your idea of communism, but rather will be their communism. If the peasants organize and revolt, they certainly have the resources to create a small, workable peasant based commune. This may be primitivist by our Western standards, but it will serve as an advance for the people involved (and that's all that matters). Perhaps such a revolution does not even deserve the title of 'communist'. That, however, is for you to decide. This 'primitivist' communism requires not that the people 'leap' over centuries of development. It simply requires that they stop working within the confines of the state. As I have previously explained, advance does not stop because of this break with the state. If another commune pops up, trade can be initiated between two communes, and so advance can happen. With more communes comes more strength to put down the increasingly suspicious nation-state. Ive argued before that if one commune is formed, it will be quite difficult for the home state to put down the small revolution. If there is a revolution, this means that the people have willed it. So it is extremely popular. It would be incredibly bad PR for the state to visciously destroy this small commune. Now, this assumes that the state will even recognize and/or care that such a small revolution has taken place. 'Defense' of the commune is quite possible.

redstar2000

15th August 2005, 10:21

Originally posted by anomaly
If the peasants organize and revolt, they certainly have the resources to create a small, workable peasant based commune.

No doubt about it...we had a whole bunch of them in the U.S. during the 19th century. How do you think a town like "New Harmony" (Indiana) got its name?

They're all gone now -- even the big hippie experiment in collective farming in Tennessee (called, in all modesty, "The Farm") is now incorporated.

What do peasants want, anyway? How do they perceive what is in their class interest?

While many arguments have been made that some form of cooperation is in the best interests of the peasantry, they persist in their desires for land reform and a free market for their commodities. Even when they do cooperate, they often cheat on their fellow peasants.

The "tragedy of the commons" that capitalists always bring up (with a big grin behind their pretended regrets) is a peasant tragedy.

I sometimes wonder if "western" celebration of "third world" peasantry is not the consequence of some sort of collective nostalgia for rural life on the part of city/suburban dwellers. As if to say "things were better" when most people were farmers and lived in small and tightly-knit communities where people really "cared about each other".

It was a "golden age".

Well, no, it wasn't. It was shit! Even 19th century factory work -- as horrible as that was -- was better than staying "down on the farm". Today, there are hundreds of small towns in the American mid-west that are dying...only old people live there now and very few of them.

Who really wants to live like a peasant if they have any other option?

The only way to make "peasant communism" an attractive idea is by hiding the knowledge that there are alternatives. But you know as well as I that that's not a viable option.

Rural "communism" is only practical if there is an ideological commitment to the idea in advance.

And while it may "pop up" here and there and from time to time, I just can't see any on-going material basis for it to survive.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

viva le revolution

15th August 2005, 13:35

It is much easier for a proletarian uprising in the third world, the first reason would be the lack of media domination over the populace, there is no coherent organization such as fox or cnn based in the third world. The population in the third world sees these organizations as their own.
Institutions such as the UN and the IMF and world bank do not hold much sway over the first world developed nations, thus the legitimacy of these institutions and their exploitative nature is not really as recognized in the first world as in the third world.
Most of the third world bears the brunt of capitalist exploitation in it's most naked form without the embellishments of the welfare system or the NHS, thus the legitimacy of such a system is most doubted in those countries which suffer the most under it. It is much easier for the proletariat of the third world to rise up in revolt against this system than the proletariat in the first world.
Most of the revolts against the system of capitalism have taken place in the third world, thus there is historical precedent for it in the third world.
All these make it easier to envisage a possible proletarian uprising in the third world, much more probable than one in the first world.

JazzRemington

15th August 2005, 19:09

Let us take a look at some aspects of the third world and the developed world before we get into whether or not a revolution will happen more easilly in one or the other.

The Third World - more visible negative effects of capitalism, namely poor medical care, living conditions, etc. but a more likely to resort to military and violent repression.

The Developed World - less visible negative effects of capitalism, better developed propaganda system to the point where actual State repression is largely unneccessary.

I don't think a revolution will be easy in either case. In the Third World, the State actually has teh ability to violently repress individuals and groups better than the Developed World because they lack the well-developed propaganda machine. Since these places generally do not have extensive access to the Media (either through TV, films, radio, etc.), the population is not convinced that everything is alright and fine. Thus, they are more prone to action. The State has no choice but to openly and violent put down these types of people who want to organize against it. But, the Third World does have an advantage: lack of communication. While this also may see like a disadvantage, it can be used to good effect. Since the Third World does not have extensive communications systems, it is difficult to monitor groups or individuals.

On the other hand, the Developed World is quite the opposite. The Developed WOrld generally has extensive and effective propaganda techniques and machines that are quite good at what they do. These enforce, through the fact that access to tht emedia is greater here than in teh Third World, the belief in that everything is fine and OK. Violent repression is largely unneccessary, only used when something gets really out of control. The effects of capitalism is less aparent in this type of world because everyone within an eye's reach (with the obvious exceptions) has a house, car, and clothing and food. This makes the people sedated and OK with whatever is going on because THEY are alright. A revolution in the Developed World is going to be hard because of the constant bombardment of propaganda coming from the State and the capitalists (Situationist theory, anyone?).

So, in summation, I do not think that a revolution will be any easier in either World.

Lamanov

15th August 2005, 19:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 06:27 PM
The Third World - more visible negative effects of capitalism, namely poor medical care, living conditions, etc. but a more likely to resort to military and violent repression.

The Developed World - less visible negative effects of capitalism, better developed propaganda system to the point where actual State repression is largely unneccessary.
That is just a temporary situation. Developed World will not stop developing. I.E: by 2030 centers of industrial development (W.Europe and N.America) will hit the number of 86% urban population. That's one huge "indurstial reserve army" and huge competition on the labour market, and thus a very high level of industrial exploatation.

Besides, these centers will acquire "objective contitions" with further high development of productional forces and the means of production.

Problem is that the "Third World" revolutions will not be proletarian. They can't be. At least not yet.

JC1

15th August 2005, 19:54

Bottom line is that 3rd world reveloutions dont go anywhere without help from 1st world reveloutionary states. HOWEVER, most "3rd world" country's are not overwhelminingly peaseant. Just look at Pakistan, southern Korea, Jordan, Lebenon, et cet era. The New 3rd world has large prolatariats and leninism is still very appealing in these countrys, indeed, becuase the Workin Class has Democratic Tasks to carry out.

anomaly

16th August 2005, 08:13

Originally posted by redstar2000+Aug 15 2005, 04:39 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Aug 15 2005, 04:39 AM)
anomaly
If the peasants organize and revolt, they certainly have the resources to create a small, workable peasant based commune.

No doubt about it...we had a whole bunch of them in the U.S. during the 19th century. How do you think a town like "New Harmony" (Indiana) got its name?

They're all gone now -- even the big hippie experiment in collective farming in Tennessee (called, in all modesty, "The Farm") is now incorporated.

What do peasants want, anyway? How do they perceive what is in their class interest?

While many arguments have been made that some form of cooperation is in the best interests of the peasantry, they persist in their desires for land reform and a free market for their commodities. Even when they do cooperate, they often cheat on their fellow peasants.

The "tragedy of the commons" that capitalists always bring up (with a big grin behind their pretended regrets) is a peasant tragedy.

I sometimes wonder if "western" celebration of "third world" peasantry is not the consequence of some sort of collective nostalgia for rural life on the part of city/suburban dwellers. As if to say "things were better" when most people were farmers and lived in small and tightly-knit communities where people really "cared about each other".

It was a "golden age".

Well, no, it wasn't. It was shit! Even 19th century factory work -- as horrible as that was -- was better than staying "down on the farm". Today, there are hundreds of small towns in the American mid-west that are dying...only old people live there now and very few of them.

Who really wants to live like a peasant if they have any other option?

The only way to make "peasant communism" an attractive idea is by hiding the knowledge that there are alternatives. But you know as well as I that that's not a viable option.

Rural "communism" is only practical if there is an ideological commitment to the idea in advance.

And while it may "pop up" here and there and from time to time, I just can't see any on-going material basis for it to survive.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
As you correctly note, peasant life now is shit. That's exactly why 'peasant communism' should be attempted by peasants in the third world! It would certainly make their currently shitty lives far 'less shitty', if you will. The idea of having to wait generations for 'true' communism is simply not attractive to current peasants. I am not drawn to any allure of peasant life, but rather am drawn to the allure of making their lives as materially good as possible without resorting to state capitalism. If it can be done, I say do it. Technological advance can, however modestly, begin when trade between two or more communes is initiated. I think this idea is certainly worth looking into in the third world (where peasants still exist in large numbers).

JC1

17th August 2005, 00:37

You share an illusion that is quite common among lefties in the "west" -- that people in backward countries are going to "leap over" centuries of development and "achieve communism"...and "pretty soon" at that.

Why not ? There [The prolatariat] the only poeple to do it. And the workin' class is strong in most country's, just look at Pakistan or Iran or other Semi-Fuedal country's. Most country's today outside of Afghanistan, Nepal, and Africa are atleast 50% Urban. And in these country's that are Developed, and at the same time Semi-Fuedal (EG Iran,India,Pakistan) and/or Neo-Colony's (EG Israel,Turkey,Iraq), Leninism is still very appealing. Indeed, Leninism is very appealing in most first-world country's. There is a Developed Peripherary in today's imperialism, A qauntitive difrence from both Marx and Lenin's time, In that countries dont have to accumulate capital before they construct Socialism.

The problem with this disscusion is not it is lacking "something that is new and interesting " but that you are ignoring the new and interesting evidence provided. You say Iraq is so backard that they still beleive in clan, I ask you how can Clan exist in a urban enviroment, you refuse to ansewer.

Youre framing youre entire method in the context of the introduction to "Critique of Political Economy" (Witch Marx made look Deterministic to fool the censor's).

Lamanov

17th August 2005, 01:04

That illusion stays an illusion.

You still have to be developed to the point where means of production can support the transformation of society. You said it yourself - 3rd World working class cannot acieve anything without it's "western" counterparts.

Preface to the Critique of Political Economy is the essence of Historical Materialism.

redstar2000

17th August 2005, 15:09

Originally posted by JC1
You say Iraq is so backward that they still believe in clan, I ask you how can clans exist in a urban environment, you refuse to answer.

In all the accounts of Iraq that I've ever run across, the contemporary importance of clan is heavily emphasized.

It is an observable fact!

The question of "how this can be" is one to be answered by a detailed study of the social history of Iraq in particular and the Muslim middle east in general.

We know very well that family and clan were of crucial importance in the Arabian peninsula before the rise of Islam -- indeed, they were the only forms of social organization that the Arabs had. Clearly, the Arab conquest of the middle east after the death of Muhammad acted to reinforce the importance of family and clan...the whole question of the "legitimate caliph" is tied to this issue.

The net effect of this history in Iraq today is that Iraqis are not "autonomous" in a "western sense"...their economic and political views are severely constrained by loyalties to family and clan in a way that "western" peoples outgrew many centuries ago.

Such constraints are almost inevitably conservative...thus making a communist outlook extremely difficult for a contemporary Iraqi to grasp.

You're framing your entire method in the context of the introduction to "Critique of Political Economy" (which Marx made look Deterministic to fool the censors).

I have never heard anyone suggest that Marx ever tailored any of his serious works to "fool the censors".

People have often expressed their discomfort with the deterministic tone of Marx's outlook.

That can't be helped; he was a determinist.

So am I.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Lamanov

17th August 2005, 17:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 02:27 PM
So am I.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
:P

So is Historical materialism.

OleMarxco

17th August 2005, 19:22

Well, what can I say? ;)
It's both Historical-Materialism AND Determinism. I don't put much stock in either o'rem...'Spartakist' :wub:

slim

17th August 2005, 20:39

The third world needs our help. People there are dying in their millions because capitalism is flawed. I will not die an old man knowing that i live my daily life so well and blessed due to the blood sacrifice of others.

JC1

17th August 2005, 21:26

all the accounts of Iraq that I've ever run across, the contemporary importance of clan is heavily emphasized.

It is an observable fact!

The question of "how this can be" is one to be answered by a detailed study of the social history of Iraq in particular and the Muslim middle east in general.

Where is the proof ? Youre statements sugguest there is a strong family/clan unit in Iraq. Well, for one, Clan's tend to be very anti-Women. This in a country that was the freest for women in the whole Mid-East (Israel not withstanding).

People have often expressed their discomfort with the deterministic tone of Marx's outlook.

That can't be helped; he was a determinist.

So am I.

Material conditions dont develop in a straight line. Look at what would have happend it Lenin lost the Civil War. In Bolshevisied area's, Development would pick up becuase of Land Reform, and in un-Bolshevisied regions it would be bussinis as usaul.

Think of the ramifactions on world history becuase of that.

Or what if Germany became Socialist ? Socialist Russia could have broken the stranglehold the peseantry put development in in that country.

Or what if Napoleon spread bourgoise revewloution to Russia ahead of time ?

et cet era et cet era ...

Point is, history dosent move in straight lines.