Originally Posted by RED DAVE
What prevailed was "permanent revolution," the notion associated with Trotsky.
Again, historians have questioned this.

(1) There is no such thing as a "Third World Caesarean Socialist regime." I don't know where you came up with this garbage-dump of a concept, but you had best send in back from whence it came.
At the present time there aren't, but historically there have been opportunities for Third World Caesarean Socialist programs to be implemented, from 1911 Mexico to 1917 Russia itself to 1920s China to South America to pan-nationalist "Pan-African" movements to the modern Indian subcontinent.

You try to cover it up with nonsense like "independent but non-ruling class," but it's clear you're talking about stalinism. (Watch to see if down the line DNZ tries to quibble about whether or not Stalin should be associated, really, with state capitalism.)
Because what you call "Stalinism" was against politico-ideological independence for the working class, from vulgar Two-Stagism to Popular Fronts, not to mention how the regimes handled domestic working-class organization.

Originally Posted by Die Neue Zeit
In fact, they can be at the vanguard of the vigilante, paramilitia/paramilitary, security, and civil-administrative "goons and thugs" (S. Artesian) sent by the regime to liquidate all the "national" bourgeoisie and all the compradors amongst the petit-bourgeoisie.
What you are saying is that the working class should do the dirty work for the petit-bourgeoisie but not be the ruling class. This is really disgusting.
Being at the vanguard of the dirty work doesn't mean doing all the dirty work. All I am saying is that there are ways for proletarian demographic minorities to be politically active, without having illusions about being the ruling class before becoming a demographic majority.

There are cleaner ways, such as building the pre-WWI SPD and inter-war USPD models.

What reality? That there's a petit-bourgeoisie in so-called third world countries capable of being the ruling class for awhile? No shit, Sherlock. That's called stalinism or state capitalism. And lately, if Nepal is any example, there ain't even any room for that. Globalization may well have obviated a crucial role for the petit-bourgeoisie.
Nepal is one tiny country. Which goes down to my final point:

There is, in the Marxist scheme of things, no fundamental class difference between nationalist, non-nationalist, pan-nationaist or reactionary sections of the petit-bourgeoisie. They are all part of the same class. Portions of this class may, to serve its own interest, ally with the working class, but, in the end, this alliance must be run by the working class always under the understanding that it leads to a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Again, you are mistaking a political distinction for a class distinction. In any event, you are advocating class rule over the working class.
My description of a Caesarean Socialist movement encompassing the entire Indian subcontinent as a Pan-Nation was made to highlight the bankruptcy of petty nationalism of the nation-states there and especially of the smaller regions they have within them.