Dialectics and Maoist class struggle via natio
zeynept at turk.net
Mon May 27 20:06:49 MDT 1996
A clarification and a few notes
"Armed Social-Democrats", because the written program of most Maoist groups
is not that different from a good social-democratic program, perfectly
viable within capitalist relations.
It is not meant to insult, because Maoists here, as elsewhere I believe, are
communist revolutionaries. Nevertheless, I believe their analysis of "first
a democratic revolution", then a march towards socialism does not hold, and
is not valid. No longer can one aim to chop of the top of the pyramid of
capitalism in third-world nations, as capitalist relations now dominate
although their articulation with pre-existing social formations does make
third-world capitalism different then capitalism in the first world.
Capitalism is well rooted, the bourgoies class in those nations is a class
for itself. As for it being integrated and dependent on imperalism, that is
the nature of the imperialist system.
Also a note for Adolfo, I think this is really a useful discussion, and I
agree with Louis Proyet in urging you to ignore Quispe & co., at least in
relation to this debate.
I think how the historical process of pre-capitalist societies were
integrated into imperalism and their current status is a very worthy
subject. Attempts by people like Wallerstein, A.G. Frank or Laclau et. al.
to formulate the process in terms unique to imperalist era, are in my
opinion, to a great extent wrong, though useful in some insights, and
outdated as far as how the phenomenon called, but not explained
satisfactorily in Marxist terms, "globalisation" is progressing.
So, let's do go on talking about how capitalism settled and mixed with each
of our countries, and specific, concrete examples.
The bourgoies strata in Kurdistan did not lift a finger for the struggle,
except now they're trying to push the PKK to sit down at the table to give
up arms in Return for a bit more acceptance of Kurdish identity. Kurdish
Marxists in the PKK have taken up the slogan "No to Dirty War, No to Dirty
Peace". (Dirty war is the way the war in the Kurdish areas carried out by
the Turkish Army is referred to). Also, the Kurdish bourgoisie is
economically, well indistinguishable from the Turkish bourgoisie. Only maybe
small shop-keeper petty bourgeois Kurds in the Kurdish areas can be said to
sometimes side with the PKK, depending on the power relations as it always
is with the petty-bourgoisie.
>There is no alternative for the national bourgeoisie but either to be
smashed >by the pro-imperialist big bourgeoisie and its corrup armed forces
and police, >or to come to the side of the people for a New Democratic
Republic in which
>they can play their role. Obviously, the national bourgeoisie, as a class
>enemy of the proletariat is not going to enter this kind of arrangement
>under any other conditions except by the compulsion of events.
Adolfo, reread that quote of yours. Is the proletariat, class enemy of the
national bourgoisie, going to force the national bourgeoisie to power if it
is strong enough to dominate the events so it becomes compulsive for the
national bourgeoisie? Is the national bourgoisie, class enemy of the
proletariat, going to seize power in alliance with the working class which
is not yet strong enough to overthrow it, so is forced to act as an ally, as
it was in all revolutions we name bourgeois democratic?
Also, the below quote is why I say Maoists are revolutionary communists,
because saying this ,
>That is why no one is saying that the National bourgeoisie is a reliable
>ally of the revolution and why unity and struggle towards that class is
>necessary, not only in this period of the revolution - the seizure of power
>for the people and the establishment of popular democratic government, but
>throughout all the period of socialist transformation that is bound to begin
>with the seizure of power itself.
objectively means, the first step you take towards socialist transformation
will mean your unreliable ally is going to turn against you, (if it ever
participated), and if you win this is but a socialist revolution, if they
win, it never was your revolution.
>The proletariat cannot renounce its class aims nor rely upon the national
>bourgeoisie for the necessary SOCIAL transformation. But it certainly can
>come to an accomodation for "buying it off". This course of action is of
>course also full of dangers for the proletariat - rightist dangers - but
>such was also the problem with NEP too.
I don't disagree that the revolutionary government will have to make
concessions, to ensure the revolution survives. But, a proletarian-communist
government (that the right word?) making concessions is not forging an
alliance with the national bourgoisie.
(Zeynep still out. Now she's watching cartoons, reruns of Pink Panther. She
is sure Boddhisatva gets the jazz connection.)
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism