Third world development

As left communists whats your perspective on countries such as Nepal which arguably are still feudalistic, i.e. not industrialised with a working class. What do you propose happens to these countries, to help them establish socialism?

Agree with socialist. The starting point for communists is not this or that country but the globe. The global capitalist system became ripe for communism around the beginning of the 20th century, and is now so rotten that its continuing existence becomes a growing danger to human survival. Further capitalist 'development' anytwhere today adds weight to the danger of military and ecological catstrophe, as the 'development' of China shows.

We had a discussion with some maoists on revleft about this some time ago: http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=100760

I will try to add the most relevant parts of the thread to this post soon.

please do leo

agree with Zimmerwald. The principal mode of production in this region of the world was the 'Asiatic mode', which interestingly enough the Stalinists were never happy with, since it posited the idea of the state as the main exploiter.....

please do leo

Actually my bad, i posted the wrong thread and cant seem to find the one i had in mind.

we've looked at this in a recent article:
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/20...e-of-societies

This is the section on the Asiatic mode, but it also looks at primitive communism, slavery and feudalism:

The ‘Asiatic' mode of production
The term ‘Asiatic mode of production' is controversial. Engels unfortunately omits to include the concept in his seminal work on the rise of class society, Origins of the Family, even though Marx's work already contained numerous references to it. Later on, Engels' error was compounded by the Stalinists who virtually outlawed the concept altogether, advancing a very mechanistic and linear view of history as everywhere moving through phases of primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. This schema had distinct advantages for the Stalinist bureaucracy: on the one hand, long after the bourgeois revolution had passed from the agenda of world history, it enabled them to discern the rise of a progressive bourgeoisie in countries like India and China once they had been baptised ‘feudal'; and on the other, it allowed them to avoid embarrassing criticisms of their own form of state despotism, since in the concept of Asiatic despotism, the state, and not a class of individual property owners, directly ensures the exploitation of labour power: the parallels with Stalinist state capitalism are evident.
However, more serious researchers, such as Perry Anderson in an appendix to his book Lineages of the Absolutist State argues that Marx's characterisation of Indian and other contemporary societies as forms of a definite ‘Asiatic mode' was based on faulty information and that the concept has in any case been made so general as to lack any precise meaning.
Certainly, the epithet ‘Asiatic' is confusing in itself. To a greater or lesser extent, all the first forms of class society took on the forms analysed by Marx under this heading, whether in Sumeria, Egypt, India, China, or in more remote regions such as Central and South America, Africa and the Pacific. It is founded on the village community inherited from the epoch prior to the emergence of the state. The state power, often personified by a priestly caste, is based on the surplus product drawn from the village communities in the form of tribute, or, in the case of major construction projects (irrigation, temples, etc) of obligatory labour dues (the ‘corvee'). Slavery may exist but it is not the dominant form of labour. We would argue that while these societies displayed many significant differences, they are united at the level which is most crucial in the classification of an "antagonistic" mode of production: the social relations through which surplus labour is extracted from the exploited class
When we turn to examining the phenomenon of decadence in these social forms, there are, as with ‘primitive' societies, a number of specific characteristics, in that these societies seem to display an extraordinary stability and rarely if ever ‘evolved' into a new mode of production without being battered from the outside. It would however be a mistake to see Asiatic society as lacking in history. There is a vast difference between the first despotic forms that emerged in Hawaii or South America, which are much closer to their original tribal roots, and the gigantic empires that developed in India or China, which gave rise to extremely sophisticated cultural forms.
Nevertheless the underlying characteristic - the centrality of the village community - remains, and provides the key to the ‘unchanging' nature of these societies.
"Those small and extremely ancient Indian communities, some of which have continued down to this day, are based on possession in common of the land, on the blending of agriculture and handicrafts, and on an unalterable division of labour, which serves, whenever a new community is started, as a plan and scheme ready cut and dried. Occupying areas of from 100 up to several thousand acres, each forms a compact whole producing all it requires. The chief part of the products is destined for direct use by the community itself, and does not take the form of a commodity. Hence, production here is independent of that division of labour brought about, in Indian society as a whole, by means of the exchange of commodities. It is the surplus alone that becomes a commodity; and a portion of even that, not until it has reached the hands of the State, into whose hands from time immemorial a certain quantity of these products has found its way in the shape of rent in kind.... The simplicity of the organisation for production in these self-sufficing communities that constantly reproduce themselves in the same form, and when accidentally destroyed, spring up again on the spot and with the same name-this simplicity supplies the key to the secret of the unchangeableness of Asiatic societies, an unchangeableness in such striking contrast with the constant dissolution and refounding of Asiatic States, and the never-ceasing changes of dynasty. The structure of the economical elements of society remains untouched by the storm-clouds of the political sky". [5]
In this mode of production, the barriers to the development of commodity production were far stronger than in ancient Rome or feudalism, and this is certainly the reason why in regions where it dominated, capitalism appears not as an outgrowth of the old system but as a foreign invader. It is equally noticeable that the only ‘eastern' society which to some extent developed its own independent capitalism was Japan, where a feudal system was already in place.
Thus in this social form, the conflict between the relations of production and the evolution of the productive forces often appears as stagnation rather than decline, since while dynasties rose and fell, consuming themselves in incessant internal conflicts, and crushing society under the weight of vast, unproductive, ‘Pharaonic' state projects, still the fundamental social structure remained; and if new relations of production did not emerge, then strictly speaking periods of decline in this mode of production do not actually constitute epochs of social revolution. This is quite consistent with Marx's overall method, which does not posit a unilinear or predetermined path of evolution for all forms of society, and certainly envisages the possibility of societies reaching a dead-end from which no further evolution is possible. We should also recall that some of the more isolated expressions of this mode of production collapsed completely, often because they reached the limits to growth in a particular ecological milieu. This seems to have been the case with the Mayan culture, which destroyed its own agricultural base through excessive deforestation. In this case, there was even a deliberate ‘regression' on the part of a large part of the population, who abandoned the cities and returned to hunting and gathering, even though a memory of the old Mayan calendars and traditions was still assiduously preserved. Other cultures, such as the one on Easter Island, seem to have disappeared entirely, in all probability through irresolvable class conflict, violence and starvation.

You can understand what does it mean that the third world is not a separate planet and rather than its future lies with the whole capitalist mode of production - i.e. it cannot advance because the capitalist phase is decomposing. For example, lets think about the LA latin american barrios and black ghettos, which seem like micro third worlds. Does it mean that these "ghettos" can somehow advance the modes of production and have "national liberation".

Just to say that the bourgeoisie's public/private division of the workers is also very strong in Britain and France. The former is supposed to be "priviliged" and is often posed against the latter. In Britain for some months now, and particularly leading up to the coming attacks on the jobs, wages and pensions within the state sector, the bourgeoisie has been flogging the line that the "featherbedding" of the state sector cannot continue. They always talk about high wages and high pensions in the state sector, which they are for the elite, but for the vast majority of workers they are a pittance.

Nepal is a backward capitalist country with some features of feudal vestiges. But the maoists insist that it is "semi-feudal" (ie, feudal) to assert its "bourgeois-democratic" (ie, counter-revolutionary) program.
Nepal cannot "industrialized" itself and it cannot reach the process of industrialization as what happen in advance capitalist countries in 19th century.
As what happen to all under-developed countries.
The saturation of the world market in decadent capitalism, the intense rivalries of all countries for market, are the "objective" hindrance for any backward countries to be an advance country or industrialized in imperialist epoch.
In short, the solution of backwardness is to destroy world capitalism. State capitalism as what happen in Nepal is an expression of acute crisis and will further push it to more dependence to others like China or India.