BobKKKindle$
25th September 2008, 04:34
(I wasn't sure whether this should go here, or in politics - my question was inspired by the events which are currently taking place in Nepal, but could also apply more generally to the theory of New Democracy)
According to the theory of New Democracy, in developing countries where the forces of production are not sufficiently advanced to support socialism, the proletariat must create an alliance not only with the peasantry but also with the progressive faction of the bourgeoisie (otherwise known as the national bourgeoisie, as distinct from the comprador bourgeoisie, which is closely tied to the interests of the imperialist powers and so is unable to have a progressive role) because the cooperation of these social groups (which, together with the petty-bourgeoisie, comprise the bloc of four classes) is needed to develop the economy and establish the material preconditions for the successful attainment of socialism.
However, the issue we need to consider is whether allowing the bourgeoisie to exist even after the proletariat has taken power actually supports economic development. Why can't the Nepalese state simply take control of all the enterprises and factories which are currently owned by the bourgeoisie, and channel the profits into beneficial areas such as providing healthcare to the Nepalese masses, and building Nepal's infant industries?
According to the theory of New Democracy, in developing countries where the forces of production are not sufficiently advanced to support socialism, the proletariat must create an alliance not only with the peasantry but also with the progressive faction of the bourgeoisie (otherwise known as the national bourgeoisie, as distinct from the comprador bourgeoisie, which is closely tied to the interests of the imperialist powers and so is unable to have a progressive role) because the cooperation of these social groups (which, together with the petty-bourgeoisie, comprise the bloc of four classes) is needed to develop the economy and establish the material preconditions for the successful attainment of socialism.
However, the issue we need to consider is whether allowing the bourgeoisie to exist even after the proletariat has taken power actually supports economic development. Why can't the Nepalese state simply take control of all the enterprises and factories which are currently owned by the bourgeoisie, and channel the profits into beneficial areas such as providing healthcare to the Nepalese masses, and building Nepal's infant industries?