Debating serious, informed opposition to TWCS

Finally, cutting out the slapstick humour, some poster finally decided to pose serious, informed opposition to TWCS at its core (the managed multi-party system, not the "strongman"-ism or militarized culture):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/third-worl...html?p=2495680

To which I replied:

Here is so far what I got from so-called "Third World Ceasarism."

First, it is heavily indebted to the economic determinist idea that social classes need to operate within narrowly defined parameters of class struggle: bourgeoisie makes bourgeois revolution; proletarians make proletarian revolution; and the peasants are incapable of proletarian revolution.

WTF? Contempt for the peasantry says that peasants are incapable not just of proletarian revolution, but of revolution period. What I am saying is that the socioeconomically patriotic elements urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie in the Third World are quite capable of a thoroughly petit-bourgeois revolution, and that they are actually in a better position than the proletariat to launch any progressive political revolution in the here and now.

http://www.marxmail.org/archives/jun...rgeois_rev.htm

So the idea to which "Third World Ceasarism" is indebted to is flawed. There is no reason to assume that peasants cannot be equal participants in a socialist revolution.

Again, WTF? I am saying that peasants and urban petit-bourgeois radicals should take the lead in a "socialist revolution" in the Third World.

Second, "Third World Ceasarism" is based on a four party-block managed democracy akin to Indonesia, Angola, or North Korea. Is mentioning this alone enough to discredit the idea? Apparently not. While all three of these closest examples of what is proposed here were (abysmal) failures, its advocates borrow its name (managed democracy from Indonesia) so they must be aware of its failure.

Not at all, Tim. The managed multi-party system is actually derived from Putin's Russia, from a sort of "Left Putinism." That's hardly a institutional failure. Moreover, unlike the above, there's actually electoral competition between the two main parties.

Like in North Korea, they advocate various parties:

There would be a right-wing populist party (economically left-wing) called "The Party of Order", a left-wing populist party called "The Party of Liberty", and a centrist party to stand between the two.

Party of Liberty = Korean Social Democratic Party (petite-bourgeois)
Party of Order = Chondoist Chongu Party

Assume for a moment that both United Russia and Just Russia actually had anti-bourgeois and "socialistic" policies economically. The "Party of Order" would be the hypothetical United Russia (or the Belaya Rus in neighbouring Belarus), and the "Party of Liberty" would be the hypothetical Just Russia. The Left Front would be one of the left formations within the managed democracy.

A proletariat party would exist outside of this and act as a opposition group that would also help harass "liberal opposition" protesters, etc.

Much like ZANU-PF militias that harass pro-democracy protesters in Zimbabwe.

No, I'm looking more at Nashi's direction, but one that supports anti-bourgeois and "socialistic" policies economically. Or, if one looks at neighbouring Belarus, there's the Communist Party of Belarus and the Belarusian Socialist Sporting Party. There is, of course, the Communist Party of Venezuela to consider, relative to the presidency, but unfortunately it wasn't at the vanguard of shutting down RCTV for its role in the failed anti-Chavez coup in 2002.

And we end up with something like India or Angola. Fantastic.

No, that later situation is more similar to some combination of the German Revolution and the 2007 constitutional referendum in Venezuela.

We are talking about people's lives here, not some Age of Empire avatars--pixels on a screen--you need to use, exploit, break down, kill and oppress to advance your narrow and shallow goal: progress for the sake of progress. Because that's what you advocate, shallowly defined progress, nothing more.

This whole idea is ridiculous from the very onset. Fortunately, it will never materialise.

Then the proletariat in the Third World would have no chance in hell of pursuing non-bourgeois but state-capitalist development, would it?

[Just look at Soviet Hungary's civil war with the peasantry that led to the downfall of that brief regime.]

This group seems intersting enough, but i dont get what it's about...

Check out Brosa's thread near the bottom of the usergroup, the one describing what this group is about.