Results 41 to 60 of 500
This wouldn't make my analysis correct. It would only make sense to speak of the Maoists as being "counter-revolutionaries" if we were already living under socialism and they wanted to revert back to capitalism, or if, under capitalism, they aimed to restore feudalism - neither of which are true. I view the Maoists as primarily a peasant movement, led by a section of the intelligentsia. I think that this is true not merely for India, but for Maoism in general, as a political phenomenon. In the case of China, by the time the CPC came to power, it was estimated that 93% of party members had joined since the outbreak of war, and 90% of the recruits were of peasant origin, whilst the leadership were drawn either from the ranks of the intelligentsia or other sectors of the middle-class, such as the professions, and even several merchants, such as Zhou Enlai. I've actually quoted those statistics before, but you didn't respond to them. In light of those statistics it seems reasonable to conclude that the CPC was not a party of the working class unless you believe that it is possible for an organization to represent the interests of a class and enable that same class to emancipate itself from oppression, despite having no organic connection with it. I hold that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself and not the act of an organization that claims to act on behalf of the oppressed, be it a guerrilla band, or an occupying army. This does not mean I reject organizations, but if organizations play a major role in the overthrow of capitalism, they must have an organic link with the mass of the working class, which has never been true of a single Maoist organization.
Now, as for your analysis of India's class structure. I've no doubt that most of the people who live in the countryside endure conditions of terrible poverty of the sort that most people in the developed world and most middle-income countries can't even imagine, let alone have to deal with during the course of their daily lives. One thing you didn't mention that tends to figure quite heavily in most accounts of the Indian countryside is that the prevalence of debt and the falling price of most agricultural products has, in the past decade or so, led to rising numbers of suicides amongst peasant families, often as a result of farmers consuming pesticide - as many as 182,936 during the period 1997-2007 according to some estimates from both Indian and foreign sources, most of these deaths being concentrated in five states, including Maharashtra, where Mumbai is located, and encompassing entire families, not just individuals. However, I'm slightly unsure as to what purpose your analysis of the peasantry was aimed to serve. You seem to have mistakenly assumed that what determines the revolutionary potential of a class is the degree of impoverishment and insecurity, which is why you believe that the peasantry can serve as the driving force behind the overthrow of capitalism in India. However, it was Marx who argued that this assumption is associated with the utopians, e.g. Babeuf, and has nothing to do with a materialist analysis of capitalist society, as, in summarizing their views, he asserted that "[only] from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for them", by which he meant that the only reason that the utopians considered themselves partisans of the proletariat, insofar as they did, was that they regarded the proletariat as the class that endures the most suffering under capitalism, such that, if there was a class that endured even greater suffering, like the peasantry, they would abandon the proletariat, and associate with the members of that class instead. Marx's view is very different from this. He contends that what makes the proletariat the only class that can introduce socialism is not the fact that it is uniquely impoverished but rather the strategic position that it occupies in relation to the means of production and the ruling class as a result of capitalism's historic development. The development of capitalism has led to a situation where workers are concentrated together in large units of production like factories and offices and are engaged in social production, by which I mean a type of production process that relies on large numbers of people working together and communicating with each other, making use of tools and machinery that need to be combined in order to produce whatever it is that the workers happen to be producing, be it a car, or software. It is because of the social nature of capitalist production that workers have an interest in the social ownership and control of the means of production, by means of the abolition of private property. Their spatial concentration and the key role that the working class plays in allowing the bourgeoisie to accumulate capital and sustain its material privileges also means that workers have the unique ability to challenge the class domination of the bourgeoisie directly, by refusing to sell their labour power, and, if the class is sufficiently advanced, seeking to wrest control of the economy away from the bosses. When the proletariat succeeds in expropriating the bourgeoisie, that is what we call a socialist revolution.
The spatial concentration of the working class in India and other undeveloped countries is especially acute as these countries receive the most modern technology and facilities as a result of their being the major destinations for foreign investment from the countries that comprise the imperialist core, including the United States. The Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, for example, employed 9,000 workers at a single site before it was shit down after the disaster, and was thus larger in terms of the size of its workforce than most enterprises in the developed world, with the exception of a few industrial plants. On this basis it is not fair to say that the working class of India is somehow impotent just because large numbers of workers happen to work in sectors that do not support unionization and collective action in the same way as the industrial sector, and it is also worth noting that in India, as with other countries around the globe, the size of the working class increases with each passing year, as more individuals are forced out of the ranks of the middle class, or are forced to move to the urban areas from the countryside in order to gain paid employment and support their family members. According to this article, as many as 8 million people quit farming between the two censuses of 1991 and 2001, with a large proportion of this number becoming urban residents, and according to the figures of the Indian government, the net addition of population in urban areas was 70 million during the period 1991-2001, with a growth rate of 31.2% for that decade, and no indication that growth is likely to slow down in the future. This further affirms that the Indian working class is becoming more powerful as a social force. There is however the matter of why the peasantry cannot take the place of the working class, thereby lending legitimacy to the strategy that is being pursued by the Maoists. The key factor that makes the peasantry incapable of playing the revolutionary role that Marxists have traditionally allocated to the proletariat is the fact that the peasantry is, by definition, located in the countryside, such that the most important resources as far as the peasant is concerned are the land, followed by the tools that are used to till the land, such as agricultural machinery, and seeds, amongst other things. This is important because it explains why peasants have historically supported the division of property that is currently concentrated in the hands of landlords and other elements who have an interest in preserving the status-quo in the Indian countryside, thereby creating a class of small-scale farmers, each with their own property, and hostile to socialization. As I noted above, the division of property is impossible for the proletariat, because it is impossible for all of the people who are employed at a factory to divide that factory into individual components for each individual to use on their own - the only way a factory can be made to function and produce goods is if it is managed collectively by all of the people who work there. Trotsky concluded on the basis of the above analysis that whilst it is important for the peasantry to be won over to the side of the proletariat in order to carry out a revolution in a country like Russia, this alliance can only take the form of the peasantry being subordinate to the proletariat, due to its inability to play an independent revolutionary role. The Maoists make the mistake of assuming that a proletarian revolution can be carried out by a class that is not proletarian, and, even in the case of that class, i.e. the peasantry, their approach is based on an elitist divide between the party and those whose interests it seeks to represent.
hureeey! it would be perfect if India could became a communist state, but not like china.. but a real socialist state
Todos los socialistas, todos comunistas!
Los que son nacionalistas, esos son los fascistas
One last thing - I don't believe for a moment that strikes in India are failing because some Trotskyist party who no-one has ever heard of and yet apparently has impressive representation in parliament is deliberately leading those strikes astray. If strikes are as widespread as you say they are and if there is a tendency for them to lead to confrontation instead of staying within legal channels then that just strengthens what I said above about the Indian working class being a viable source for revolutionary change (the only viable source, in fact) as well as affirming Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, which holds that, in underdeveloped countries, where the bourgeoisie is unable to carry out democratic tasks, the pursuit of democratic gains by the proletariat will inevitably threaten the interests of the ruling class, whose reaction will force the proletariat to threaten capitalism itself.
You fail to see again that after the Russian revolution, their can be no successful revolution without the working class providing the leadership.
And any instance of emerging capitalism(as in present China) has to be through a counter-revolution that defeats either a new-democratic or socialist revolution. Also, in the third world, the size of the industrial proletariat is RELATIVELY small compared to the overall population. Plus, the seizure of power directly by the proletariat(i.e. the socialist revolution) requires capitalist economy at the first place, accompanied by some amount of bourgeois democracy. This is absolutely absent in the third world.
Since the general class-tendency of even the lowermost stratum of the peasantry would be to acquire land and make its way through the feudal hierarchy, the peasantry as a whole cannot lead the revolution(It is largely transformed into the proletariat in the course of the revolution). That is why the proletariat forms a united front with the all the revolutionary classes to overthrow feudalism and imperialism through the new democratic revolution.
The various parliamentary communist(?) parties of India who preach that Stalin's line was correct, have somehow managed to make themselves believe that the revolution in India must be a socialist one and must be made by the working class and no one else. Hence they have devoted themselves to "prepare" the working class for this socialist revolution, and have been enthusiastically "preaching" about some revolution for the last six decades. This is nothing but Trotskyism in essence.
There was a similar situation in brazil in the 60s/70s.
There were insurgent groups and an authoritharian government.
They set up a similar system, called SNI, but it involved less technology and more indocrination of civilians for the creating of an intelligence network.
I can't help but think that it is exactly what they want to do with this CCTNS, the way they intend to "unite all police forces in india" will most likely be to create a formal command structure and make a counter revolutionary vanguard.
Have I failed to see that? I always thought that was one of the basic principles of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution - that a socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat can only be carried by the proletariat, and that, if the proletariat does enter into an alliance with the peasantry and other class forces due to its numerical weakness in countries like Russian and India, the proletariat must be the leading force, due to the peasantry's lack of independence and coherence as a class. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said that in my last post, as the conclusion of my argument - specifically the bit about the Indian working class being the only viable source of revolutionary change. I'm also unsure as to how you reconcile an emphasis on the leadership of the working class with the strategy that Maoists are pursuing in India, and indeed have pursued in every country where a Maoist party has existed - the strategy of working in the countryside and planning to encircle the cities. The CPC didn't even bother trying to create mass organizations in China's cities (after 1927 of course - before that, the CPC was a major force amongst the urban working class, but we all know how that ended) until they had come under military control, at which point the CPC went out of its way to discourage strikes on the grounds that it would undermine production and frighten the national capitalists whose interests the CPC wanted to protect, and, if I remember correctly, also encouraged KMT officials to remain at their posts in order to maintain public order and deal with any disturbances.
How can China undergo a counter-revolution if it's already capitalist, and always has been? You still haven't explained to me how the events of 1949 can comprise a socialist revolution if the party which came to power during that year contained hardly any people from the urban areas, let alone workers, and if the military victory of that same party did not involve workers seizing control of the means of production or seeking to overthrow the bourgeois state, the apparatus of which largely remained in place. Of course, you will argue that 1949 was just a "New Democratic" revolution but this just introduces further ambiguity as it doesn't tell me much about what China's mode of production was after 1949, who the ruling class was, why it was necessary for the interests of the national capitalists to be protected at the expense of the working class, the point at which China supposedly left New Democracy behind, and how it was possible for China to become socialist without the overthrow of a state.
The Russian working class made up slightly over 10% of the population in 1917 and yet still managed to carry out the world's first and only socialist revolution without having to subordinate itself to the domination of any "national" bourgeoisie. The Chinese working class briefly held power in Canton, setting up their own Soviet, and going against the interests of the "national" bourgeoisie despite the demands of the Comintern that they avoid "excesses" and maintain the opportunist alliance with the KMT, as I noted in the thread in the history forum, which you still haven't responded to. I fail to see how having a relatively small proletariat requires that workers subordinate themselves to a section of the capitalist class, especially when those workers are concentrated together in large units of production, and therefore capable of threatening the bourgeoisie.
India is capitalist, though. So was China when the CPC was founded in 1921, so was Russia in 1905. I know you think that all underdeveloped countries are feudal, but, for us Marxists, feudalism does not simply mean that lots of people live in the countryside, or that the distribution of land ownership is very unequal - it is a pre-capitalist mode of production, under which peasants are tied to a specific employer, and are forced to offer military service to the local landlord in exchange for protection, with bonds based on kinship and obligation assuming paramount importance. None of these features exist in India, whereas wage-labour does, hence India is a capitalist economy.
India is already a bourgeois democracy, so I don't understand why this counts for much. The general experience of the working class in underdeveloped countries however indicates that the bourgeoisie is too closely tied to the state or the remnants of the feudal order to carry out its historic tasks, and that it is afraid of calling a mass movement into being, as such a movement might challenge its own power, as occurred during the 1905 uprising in Russia, and the May 30th Movement in China. This is true even of the so-called "national" bourgeoisie that you see as an agent of revolutionary change, as you'll see if you read my analysis of the May 30th Movement in the history forum. Hence, whenever democratic demands are raised, the bourgeoisie takes the side of the state, and, when the proletariat embarks on democratic demands, it finds itself compelled to shift to socialist tasks in order to defend itself against a hostile reaction from the bourgeoisie.
So there is not a single country in the whole of "the third world" that is capitalist, or a bourgeois democracy? This is basically a justification for your chauvinist line that workers in countries like India shouldn't be allowed to have a socialist revolution now, rather they should "wait" for a while under the rule of the "national" bourgeoisie, and a socialist revolution should only take place when Maoists decide that the workers are ready.
So, because there are lots of reformist parties in India that use the language of socialism to try and gain working-class support, they must be Trotskyists, and Trotskyists throughout the world can be held responsible for what those parties do, since Trotskyists want socialism, whereas Maoists are content with the rule of the "national" bourgeoisie? Don't you think that people may not always be what they say they are?
*****
By the way everyone, here's an article that shows how weak and impotent the Indian working class is:
50 million strike at privatization, Socialist Worker, 2003
What part of "Trotskyism" is it? Where does Trotsky say that workers' parties should "prepare the working class for socialist revolution"- in fact if you read History of the Russian Revolution, you will find out that he held the party often fell behind the demands of the working masses, and stressed the dialectical relationship between the two. The causal relationship leading from the party to the workers is an invention of Stalinism.
And where, most importantly does he say that workers' parties should enter government and put themselves at the head of capitalist exploitation- as the CPI (Marxist), a Maoist party, did in West Bengal and Kerala?
Throughout your posts you have stated that China was already capitalist during 1921, which is certainly not the case, as feudal economy complete with warlords and smaller feudal lords was well established in rural China at that time. Needless to say that the peasant was, indeed, tied to land.
As for India and other third world countries, I will again emphasize on the fact that they are not capitalist right now. In my earlier post I did mention that rural India is largely under feudal lords. Feudal relations of production are very much present and are upheld by a rigid caste system. In India feudal lords re called "jotdar" , "bhumihar", "zamindar" etc.
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k1/asia/india.html
http://www.sos-arsenic.net/english/intro/jotdar.html
There are numerous strikes called by the parliamentary parties. These strikes have participation from all the classes of the society, and the peasants and workers are either forced or brought after promising them a meagre sum. That is not class struggle. Also, the numbers reported are highly exaggerated.
http://www.rediff.com/money/2003/may/19strike.htm
The one you are referring to was organized by the CITU, the labor union of CPI(Marxist), the leading revisionist and undoubtedly one of the most corrupt parties in India. To find out more aboutthem, google with the keywords "singhur", "nandigram" and "lalgarh". It is interesting to note that all the organizers of these so called "strikes" actually support the notorious SEZ bill, which legalizes seizure of land from peasants, forming workers' ghettos and abolishing all labor laws inside the ghettos. These parties have used the anti-SEZ sentiment of workers and peasants only for electoral benefits. So far Indians have not witnessed a single nationwide open workers movement to oppose this bill. It is a safe assumption that had the indian proletariat been strong enough to organize these massive strikes, the SEZ bill would be the first thing to be attacked.
Needless to say, the only political party strictly following a nation-wide anti-SEZ programme is the CPI(Maoist).
Last edited by red cat; 25th September 2009 at 17:40. Reason: minor edits
So it sounds like the Maoists' urban support is nothing but a support structure for...the Maoists' rural guerilla tactics.
Actually I think that was exactly Bobkindles' point.
It certainly is a weird quirk of history that Maoists - who are essentially aligned with Russia's S-Rs in the way they envision revolution (attacks on officials, propaganda of the deed leading to mass revolt), and the class basis they believe it will have (peasantry) - identify themselves ideologically with the Bolsheviks, those merciless opponents and critics of every aspect of S-R ideology and strategy.
Russia 1917:
Population - 60 million (Russia) - 175 million (Russian Empire)
Industrial working class - 1 million (Richard Pipes) - 3 million (Sheila Fitzpatrick)
Industrial WC as a % of total pop -
3m/60m = 5%
1m/60m = 1.7%
Peasantry as a % of total population - 80%
India 2009:
Population - 1.2 billion
Industrial working class - 63 million
Industrial WC as a % of total pop - 5.3%
Service sector working class - 147 million
WC (Industrial AND Services) as a % of total pop - 17.5%
So, counting only industrial workers as workers, and using the highest estimate of the size of Russia's 1917 working class, and dividing it only by the number of Great Russians (not the much larger number of Russian Empire subjects), you still get an Indian working class in 2009 that is 5.3% of the Indian population and a Russian working class in 1917 that is 5.0% of the population.
Obviously, I sympathize with the plight of India's peasantry - as I would have sympathized with the plight of Russia's peasantry at the turn of the century, for whom official, legal "Emancipation" meant anything but. But that doesn't change my analysis of objective class abilities and orientations. As Bobkindles has pointed out: the proletariat has an ability far exceeding its numbers (because of its strategic location wrt the MoP); and the proletariat is oriented differently than the peasantry, towards collectivization of industry rather than towards distribution of land.
I'll respond to your other points another time or let someone else respond, but the point about feudalism is important. You and other Maoists are making the mistake of assuming that the word "feudal" can be basically used to describe any country where the majority of the population still lives on the land and is engaged in agricultural production, instead of understanding the term as Marxists so, which is to acknowledge that feudalism is a mode of production that preceded capitalist society, and does not exist anywhere in the world today. Feudalism is characterized by a number of features that distinguish it from capitalism. It is centered around the production of agricultural goods by peasants, but what makes this agricultural production different from agriculture under capitalism is that the peasants do not sell their labour power to a member of the landowning class, nor do they sell the goods that they produce through the market, i.e.they do not engage in commodity production. Instead what occurred is that peasants worked on land that they did not formally own yet nonetheless had the right to use, and, as a result of physical coercion, they were made to hand over part of their produce to the person who owned the land, i.e. the local feudal elite, who theoretically held the land as a gift from the monarch, with the peasants being allowed to keep the remainder of their produce for their own personal consumption, perhaps with a small amount being sold at a local market, depending on locality, and time of year. It should be evident from this description that whereas capitalism involves the extraction of surplus value through economic relationships alone, with the role of the state basically being limited to enforcing contracts, and protecting the property of the ruling class, under feudalism there is a direct convergence of political oppression and economic exploitation, and yet at the same time the role of peasants is different from that of slaves because they are not considered the private property of the ruling class, merely individuals who are legally tied to a particular member of the elite, as I noted in my last post. The obligations of the peasant also extended to performing uncompensated labour on the personal land of the local lord for a set number of days each year as well as providing military service when required, in return for which peasants would often receive protection during periods of hardship, as well as other benefits, such as the right to use local forests for firewood and game, or use the lord's mill to grind their corn.
Urban areas did exist in feudal societies, and yet the legal ties between peasants and the land prohibited large-scale migration between rural areas and the towns, and it was not until the bourgeoisie swept aside the power of feudal elites, and peasants were deprived of access to common lands during the 18th and 19th centuries, that migration began to occur on a large enough scale to provide the growing bourgeoisie with access to a cheap and flexible labour force, at which point it is correct to say that capitalist relations of production had well and truly come into being. The same can be said of India today because the people who do still live on the land are totally enmeshed in commodity production, at least in the case of peasants who are not limited to subsistence farming, and land can be bought and sold freely, with finance capital becoming increasingly important, and there are no coercive apparatuses that force peasants to work for one landowner in particular and remain in the countryside - as is evident from the figures indicating the size of rural-urban migration quoted in one of my previous posts. On this basis, there is nothing feudal about India. The same has been true of China for much longer, as land has been bought and sold freely as a commodity in China since the Qin Dynasty, established in the 2nd century BC. According to Brugger (Brugger, 1981, B&N) China's urban population had already reached 10% of the total by 1900, and of those who remained on the land, an increasing number were engaged in what was effectively wage-labour for small-scale employers, either as agricultural labourers, or as employees of rural enterprises, such as silk looms, porcelain factories, and so on.
If you disagree with my definition of feudalism, then, by all means, explain why your own definition - which seems to basically consist of saying that there are warlords, and that lots of people live on the land - is analytically preferable. By the way, I don't see how the content of the links you provided - the UN saying that the Indian government has a poor human rights record, and farmers dying of poisoning - proves that India or China are feudal in their mode of production.
Even if India is feudal, by the way, which it isn't, there is also the question of why this requires that the working class subordinate itself to the class domination of the "national" bourgeoisie under New Democracy, which you also have not explained.
I suspect you will find that this view owes more to Kautsky or Tony Cliff than Marx. I do not recall any text in which Marx makes that argument
Aren't the Maoists a terrorist organization in India? Whats the real news on them? Good or bad? Mixed? It seems like they're another Shining Path.
Can you tell me the source please. It's beyond my knowledge.
No, these countries were all predominantly feudal. The greater part of the surplus labour was extracted by the landlord class not the capitalist class.
Firstly, I don't regard that as evidence of feudalism, because the share of surplus value being derived from wage-labour in urban areas was steadily increasing as a result of rural-urban migration and capitalist relations of production being in place, and secondly that statement conceals an important point, which is that there was significant intersection between rural and urban elites in the sense that individuals who owned land in the countryside were also likely to employ workers in the cities, to the extent that, when the party passed a new law concerning land reform in October 1947, legitimizing seizures for the first time, and provoking a wave of unrest on the part of poor peasants and landless labourers in the countryside, it had to explicitly forbid the peasants from pursuing landlords into the cities and confiscating the property they held there as well - compelling evidence both of China's capitalist character (at that point, and well before) and the centrist nature of the CPC.
As an Indian, I will be very very pleased if capitalism is established in India. WHY? BECAUSE IT IS A FEUDAL STATE. Let's taken for granted the fact the Stalin in USSR and Mao is China have developed a capitalist country. Still, probably for that reason, a Stalin or a Mao is very very urgently needed in India now to turn this huge outpost of feudalism into a capitalist one. That will be a great service to the Indian people in general and to the mankind.
CONTRADICTORY? NOT REALLY. IT IS DIALECTIC MATERIALISM. HOW? VERY SIMPLE. This is the age of degredation of capitalism. A veyr essential condition of US and west european capitalist-imperialism the status quo in the tthird world countries i.e. they should remain in their undeveloped, underdeveloped, primitive, feudal phase. By turning them into a capitalist nations, we will just increase the burden on the moribund capitalism and eventually it will sunk under its own burden. How? As the new capitalist countries will try to venture in their way to capitalism from feudalism, they will find that the old imperialist countries have already blocked all possible markets of the world. And I hope you, possibly every marxist know that market is an essential condition for capitalism. So, therefore, due to lack of sufficient market, the capitalism in the new capitalist countries wouldn't flourish and the capitalist there should have to go into confrontation with the imperialist forces and new proletariat will rise from this confromtations.
My dear Trotskyte comrades, so far the time and resources you have spent to fight "Stalinism", "Maoism", if you ever tried to spent a fraction of that even to establish capitalism in the less developed part of the world. You will contribute much more to human civilization than you have so far contributed(!).
mainly the CIA world factbook numbers: http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/i...a_economy.html
for total population, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India
You confuse social formation with mode of production. Any given social formation typically is a combination of modes of production.
You express a Hegelian essentialist view of history as linear succession of forms one after the other.
Reality is more complex.
What distinguishes modes of production is not the historical time period in which they exist but the specific form of extraction of surplus labour.
The specific form of extraction of surplus under feudalism is groundrent, either in kind, as labour, or as money.
This is surely not sustainable. Do you really contend that in for example 12th century France there was no commodity production?
Commodity production has existed under slavery, feudalism and capitalism. It is not a distinguishing feature of capitalism.
You are right. The primary criterion for any economic system to exist are the production relations that define it.
From the links I posted:
"To the small farmers who cultivate the unclaimed lands to produce ‘Aman’ paddy there, the bands of lathials prove to be a scourge. It is them who act as mercenaries for the jotedars to forcibly take away the crop cultivated by the toil of the small farmers. Thus the jotedars add to their huge stocks of paddy they harvest from their own lands. The lathials –themselves poor people-- play in the hands of the big landowners against their own class of people."
"Caste violence continued to divide the impoverished state of Bihar. There, the Ranvir Sena, a banned private militia of upper-caste landlords that had been operating with impunity since 1994, waged war on various Maoist guerrilla factions, such as the People's War Group (PWG). These guerrilla groups advocated higher wages and more equitable land distribution for lower-caste laborers. The cycle of retaliatory attacks claimed many civilian lives."
In India the peasants are tied to the land by the use of force and charging high interests on loaned money. This has been the primary tactic of the ruling class since the middle of the nineteenth century.
However, capitalism does not encourage capitalistic development worldwide. After it has saturated the markets in its own country, it expands beyond that and finds its way to other countries and changes into imperialist capital. Development of national capital in these countries would overthrow imperialist capitalism. Hence it stops the development of national capital in the colonies through economic and military force.
The working class leads the united front. It does not subordinate itself to the national bourgeoisie.
