Results 201 to 220 of 500
It is generally an accepted fact, at least among Maoists, that the Russian Revolution marks the beginning of what we call the "Leninist era of proletarian revolutions".
This era is defined by the following factors:
1) Capitalism has reached its highest stage, imperialism.
2) The proletariat has made its first revolution that managed to defeat the subsequent reactionary invasions and introduce a stable government.
Due to these two factors, the national bourgeoisie of every country have seen what is the immediate consequence of a bourgeois revolution. Now, as the goal of each class is to seize political power, the bourgeoisie ultimately gains nothing on the long run if it completes its revolution. That is why, instead of fully breaking with imperialism, after a certain stage in their movement, they collaborate with some form of imperialism to ultimately form a new comprador bourgeois regime, crush the other revolutionary classes and go back to the semi feudal- semi colonial state.
However, if the proletariat leads a united front of revolutionary classes, then a new democratic revolution is possible. Completion of this revolution in some country means that it has broken with imperialism and eradicated feudalism completely. Note that the the eradication of feudalism destroys any further social basis for this country to become a colony again. After this stage, a counter-revolution can be staged by the national bourgeoisie only by infiltrating and destroying the communist party from within. They do not need to subordinate themselves to imperialism in doing this and in the course of this phenomenon they emerge as a powerful class. So the counter revolution takes the country to capitalism and it tends to become an imperialist country itself.
A somewhat weaker argument to justify our stand points out the fact that most of the third-world countries became independent through "peaceful transfer of power" and retained more or less the same state machinery and social system from the colonial times. The impossibility of a new class seizing power in the process follows directly from Leninism.
Very good point. But, there are some problems in the urban uprising. Though, a huge lot of workers are now living in the cities of India, but there are huge amount of petty-bourgeoisie too. Those who are shop-keepers, small businessmen, taxi-drivers, rickshaw pullers (they are free, not working under any company like western countries) and other service providers. The problem with their mentality is something different from western capitalist countries. The very old problems of petty-bourgeoisie is that, he is half bourgeoisie and half-proletariat. India is a backward country and at present, the mentality of these petty-bourgeoisie section is very much REACTIONARY. They know well that don't have sufficient capital to increase the productivity of their production or service. So, they are at present strongly opposing organized labor movement. Their mentality, WE CAN'T HAVE, WHY THEY CAN. As the productivity of the both production and service part of the organized sector is increasing, though most of the fruits have been taken by capitalist, but some part of the increased productivity has been sipped out to the workers in the organized sector. And like most of the workers of the world, they are fighting with capitalists. The petty bourgeoisie section of India at present is a strong opponent of workers struggle from the mentality, which I have told before. Due to this mentality, organizing workers struggle in the cities is tough in India.
Well, let me ask you this, then. If no country can transition from colony to capitalism how then do you explain: South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Finland, etc. All of these countries were colonies in 1917. Today, they are all advanced capitalist countries. The standard of living of some of these countries even exceeds that of the old imperialist countries, like Great Britain. Some countries, like say, Brazil and China, have not merely transitioned from a colony, but have in fact become imperialists themselves, as defined by Lenin's explanation (exporting capital, monopoly capitalism, etc.).
Dogmatism is getting in the way of your understanding of the world. And, it may lead to pursuing an incorrect strategy (though one that may succeed nevertheless).
Well, If there was no REVOLUTIONARY CHINA, there wouldn't be any capitalist Taiwan, without RED North Korea, there would be no South Korea, without revolutionary struggles of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, there would be no capitalist South East Asia.
Actually, these outposts of capitalism is deliberately made by imperialism to prevent the spread of revolutionary ideas. I want to say that, If, in future, there would be a revolutionary India, you can see something like a capitalist Pakistan/Srilanka/Bangladesh etc.
I would like to make some rectifications.
First of all, it is wrong to classify the rickshaw-pullers and taxi-drivers as petit-bourgeois. They constitute the "semi-proletariat". They occassionally own their vehicles, but are slowly being pushed towards losing that ownership. They also earn nothing more than their subsistence. The same goes with hawkers if you refer to them as small businessmen. The semi proletariat is indeed one of the motive forces behind the NDR.
As for the petite-bourgeoisie, this class consists of mainly middle-class students, intellectuals, professional, government employees etc. The lower portion of this class is also being pushed towards a proletarian existence. So they are also a motive-force behind the NDR.
In the recent years both of these classes have sympathized with the NDR, and we now know that people from these classes have actually participated in clandestine activities and strengthened the rural PPW.
Well, so far about my little knowledge of Marxism, the class identity of any person isn't related to how much he earns, but RATHER HOW HE IS ATTACHED TO PRODUCTION OR SERVICE. Petty-bourgeoisie means, those who have to give their labor but have owned the right to take decision about when and where he can give his labor. A taxi-driver and rickshaw-puller have the right to take decision when and where he will go. While, worker i.e. proletariat doesn't have the right to take any decision about his/her labor.
On his book "who are the friends of the people and how they oppose social democracy", V.I.Lenin clearly marked those "semi-proletariat" as "little dacoits". On contrary, a Govt. employee (which at present constitute most of the organized worker section in India) don't possess any right when he can start his work. He had to attend his office or place of duty in scheduled time and have to perform as per the order of his/her superior. So, in no sense, a Govt. employee can be taken as "middle class" or "petty bourgeoisie".
Here, in the leftist section of India, the term "middle class" is often very confusing to me. Because it relates to persons income rather how is related to the production/service process. IN MY OPINION, THIS IS VERY MUCH UNSCIENTIFIC/UNMARXIST. It totally ignores the productivity question. As per this terminology, there is very few worker in India in the organized sector. Because, those who are working in the organized sector have earned well, at present more than what an average Indian can earn, as salary. BUT, DOES THAT MEAN THEY HAVE BECOME "MIDDLE CLASS" AND AREN'T NOW BELONGING TO THE WORKING CLASS AT ALL? In contrary, the impoverished position of taxi-drivers and rickshaw pullers are due to their incapability of increase the productivity of their production/service. This is a very common feature of the petty-bourgeoisie, because they often lack sufficient capital to increase the productivity of their production and service.
I cannot really recall exactly where Lenin says that in his book.
For a detailed description of the petite-bourgeoisie, see Mao's "Analysis of the classes in Chinese society". Mao clearly refers to the "lower" categories of government employees etc. which means that rank and income also matter. We can surely not put the lowest ranked government employee who support the Maoists and the top bureaucrats who are waging war against Maoists into the same category.
Also, if handicraftsmen can be considered as the semi-proletariat, the term is much more applicable in the case of vehicle-drivers. Rather the latter are much closer to the proletariat.
And by your logic, as in some cases fixed working hours are applicable for managers of big companies too, they also become a part of the proletariat.
While analyzing the class of a person, you have to take into consideration both how and how much he earns.
I will try to analyze the situation of each of the countries you mentioned, as far as my knowledge permits.
Czech Republic:Czachoslovakia declared independence in 1918. Here I will make a rectification, i.e. the Leninist era probably started a bit later than 1917, may be after the civil-war ended. That is why I mentioned the factor of defeating the subsequent reactionary invasions and establishing a stable government.
Ireland: Same
Finland: Soon after the capitalists declared independence, there was a proletarian revolution in Finland in 1918. Finland became fully capitalist after that was crushed.
New Zealand: Look at the local population: it is all white. They are not the original inhabitants of New Zealand. A portion of the imperialists actually stayed there and based their capital in New Zealand itself.
Australia: Same as New Zealand.
South Africa: I am not sure what it is. If it is capitalist then the argument used for New Zealand applies.
Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea: I am not precisely aware of the class compositions of these countries. But yes, we hold that they are semi-colonies too.
There is probably a good deal of truth in what you say. Nonetheless, certain colonies I think would very likely have become industrial capitalist societies, such as Korea and Singapore. The RoK's level of development owes, I think, more to its proximity to Japan and the diminishing return on investment there than it does its proximity to the DPRK. After all, the DPRK was more industrialized and had a better economy than the RoK until the mid-70s, which was a period of general decline for global capitalism. Singapore owes its development more to its location than anything else, sitting in the middle of the Straits of Malacca.
Nonetheless, accidents of history do not mitigate the fact that it is possible for colonies to become capitalist. And you yourself admit that they can become capitalist if the imperialist states invest in them sufficiently, which means you admit that colonies can become capitalist.
I would also keep in mind that proximity to revolutionary states doesn't necessarily translate into a booming economy. Consider Thailand, the Philippines, Southern Italy, Turkey, Greece, and so on. All of these areas are very important strategically for the containment of the USSR and PRC, yet, they aren't that developed economically.
red cat,
First, I'm a little disturbed at your explanations for New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa. There's nothing inherent in whiteness that makes capitalism automatically successful. Europe and much of the colonial world is filled with white countries that aren't all that well off. Let's take the example of Ireland.
Now, Ireland did get some sort of independence in 1921, The Irish Free State. Nominally, however, it was still part of the British Empire, and basically still a colony. I'm old enough to remember when Ireland's chief export was people. That wasn't that long ago. The population of that country only started going up for the first time since the Great Potato Famine in the 1990s. It would be hard to mistake the Irish (even the "Black" Irish) as anything other than White. Ireland, as a member of the EU, benefited from the equalization payments, so there was a net inflow of investment.
In addition, countries such as Japan (not a colony, but still), Korea, Taiwan, etc., are most definitely not White. The ruling class of Brazil is white, but Brazil is mostly a Black country. The same with South Africa.
I'm sure you didn't mean that in a racist fashion, but I'd shy away from any explanations by skin color.
I'll write about the Czech Republic and Finland after I get back from the bank.
Cheers comrades!
What I mean is that in countries like Australia, New Zealand etc. the whole white population migrated from countries where capitalist developments were taking place. So a portion of the imperialist capital might have set up its bases in these colonies where the original inhabitants were few in number, lived in very primitive societies, and were pushed to corners of the land. In this case what we observe is that a portion of the imperialist capital redefining its national identity.
Brazil declared independence in 1824. But given the amount of US economic and political intervention in Latin American countries, I doubt how much capitalist Brazil really is.
Capitalism is a world system, of course there are oppressed nations but that does not somehow make them pre-Capitalist.
As for the Indian mode of production, it's an extremely complicated subject that I don't think can be confined to a few paragraphs, I'll try to summarise some time later.
In case of managers, you forgot one fact. THEY RETAIN THE RIGHT TO TAKE DECISION. It is a very key factor. So far, some top level management stuff I know, in reality don't have fixed working hours.
Well, they are semi-proletariat means they are semi bourgeoisie too. I hop you too will agree on that fact.
Last edited by pranabjyoti; 29th October 2009 at 02:13.
Most of us consider management to be a middle class.
Almost all the Asian, African and Latin American countries exhibit pre-capitalist relations of production. China and Japan are among the few exceptions.
Power and priviledges increase as you go up the ranks of government employees as well. The lowest level being almost comparable to the proletariat while the topmost level stands next to their imperialist masters.
The question of whether or not pre-capitalist relations of production exist in a country is irrelevent. Pre-capitalist relations of production exist even in imperialist countries. Slavery, for example, is alive and well in the United States, despite it being completely illegal (except as punishment for a crime). Feudal relations of production continue to exist in parts of Europe. Capitalism, however, is 99% of the economy.
Even in cases where the capitalist sector of the economy is a minority of the whole economy, such as in Russia in 1917, it can still be the most important sector. In most of the world, capitalist relations of production dominate, private property, wage labor, and commodity production are the rule, not the exceptions.
In all the third world countries the vast majority of the population is connected to the agricultural-sector, which displays semi feudal- semi colonial characteristics.
As for the industrial sector, it is mostly comprador capitalism that is prevalent in the cities. So the bourgeois relations of production are not applicable there.
In Russia, the national bourgeoisie was powerful enough to stage its own revolution. This is far from the situation in third world countries. Here the pre-conditions of the proletariat directly organizing and seizing power in the cities are not present. That is why the proletariat must create a united front with the peasantry and first seize power in the countryside, and then liberate the cities only at the last stages of the revolution.
Well, as you have said, pre-capitalist relation may exist, but they are not overwhelmingly dominant. The may exist like a vanishing species. But, in the Asian countries, they are very dominant. As for example, does anybody know that Govt. employees in India are still not regarded as workers/employees, as per the constitution of India, they are "servants" i.e. they don't have the legal rights of a workers. They can not form an union, they can not take part in any kind of political activity and even can not stand as a candidate in any kind of election. How can anyone call this country a totally capitalist country?
This is true, since it is the definition of a Third World country. Yet it is clear that certain countries which were once third world are no longer. South Korea and Taiwan both have majority urban populations. China, became a majority urban population in the last decade (give or take a year).
Comprador capitalism is still capitalism. Just because the cars made in Mexico are owned by imperialist corporations doesn't stop the people working in those factories from being proletarians, it does not mean that capitalist relations of production don't dominate the economy. It simply means that capitalist production is developed in the interests of other countries' capitalists rather than for the purpose of developing a national market.
This is absolutely wrong. The role the Russian bourgeoisie played in the 1905 and 1917 revolutions was to come in after the workers had made the revolutions, and claim them for themselves. It was the workers who made all three revolutions, 1905, February 1917 and November 1917. As Trotsky pointed out (one of those times he was correct), the Russian bourgeoisie was too weak to carry out its world historic task of abolishing feudalism, that the task must be carried out by the workers.
Now, I'm not going to tell the Indian comrades how to make their revolution. I'm not arrogant enough or stupid enough to do so. They know their own conditions better than I. I doubt the Indian comrades would listen to me regardless.
Looking at India though, it would seem to this outsider it would be easier to win the cities than the whole countryside. The workers are there, at least 70 million of them, probably hundreds of millions more. They are concentrated at the site of production. The conditions in India seem more favorable to me for proletarian revolution than Russia of 1917.
