Dialectics and Maoist class struggle via national question

hariette spierings hariette at easynet.co.uk
Sat May 25 18:49:18 MDT 1996

>At 4:38 PM 5/25/96, hariette spierings wrote:
>>That is to say, they are still a "progressive bourgeoisie" a bit like that
>>which existend in pre-imperialist Europe.  In a People's Republic they would
>>have a chance to grow economically into proper bourgeois, while at the same
>>time their political influence - which alone can make them into a ruling
>>class - would be restricted by the proletarian-peasant alliance's hegemony
>>in the new state. That is why this class is ambivalent towards the
>>revolution, and why under socialism class struggle would not dissapear.
>That was a very interesting post, Adolfo.
>What does this quoted paragraph mean exactly? The PCP would not expropriate
>the Peruvian-oriented national bourgeoisie? You would use them as
>instruments of social(ist) development? Would there be no move to institute
>worker control of enterprises, within the context of a national plan?

Yes Doug: The expropiation without compensation (confiscation) will affect
only the following sectors: Property of imperialist, comprador and
bureaucratic capital, semi-feudal property and land monopoly (land for the
tiller).  As to the national bourgeoisie full protection of their democratic
rights and protection of their non-monopolistic interests is PCP policy.

This is a crucial distinction in relation to revolutions like the Cuban
revolution where the potencial of the national bourgeosie was not used to
help develop the BASIS for socialist tranformation which is necessary
precisely because of the backwardness of the country's economy.  The
national bourgeoisie in Cuba was not for various reasons kept into the
United Front of the revolutionary classes, driving it instead into the hands
of imperialism and creating the schism of the Cuban nation to the advantage
of social imperialism first and now Yankee imperialism.  It is possible that
apart from factors of leadership and the class character of the dictatorship
in Cuba, this outcome was in fact facilitated by the closeness of the USA,
the influence of the comprador and bureacratic ruling classes, the ties of
these to the landwoners, etc., but certainly the policies of Castro also
contributed to this outcome by eschewing self-sufficiency (or a policy
stressing this necessary economic development as the only true economic
basis for a solid socialist development) and relaying instead in economic
"assistance" on the part of the USSR which in turn demanded a distortion of
the Cuban economy which is now bringing home the chickens to roost,
endangering national sovereignity and the social achievements of the Cuban

There must be a copy of the Program of the PCP for the democratic revolution
somewhere on the record in this list. There, this is one of the most
prominent points which merits a more detailed study.



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list