VALUABLE ADMISSIONS OF PROFESSOR MILIBAND (5 of 7)

[hariette@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (hariette spierings)]

UNDER A FLAG OF CONVENIENCE

The bureaucratic bourgeoisie is less cosmopolitan in outlook than the
comprador or mercantile wing.  But this merely in the sense that, being
umbilically linked to the "national state" they do a bit of chauvinistic
flag waving and make superficially "patriotic" noises.
That is nothing but a form of "corporate loyalty" to the "milch-cow" that=
sustains their own parasitic existence.

This bureaucratic bourgeoisie enters the fullness of its class development
precisely by bringing under the control of the state a good number of foreign
enterprises, particularly the old "concessions" which, as survivals of old
colonial un-equal and humiliating practices, from the point of view of sound
profits, needlessly offend in various ways the national pride of the people
of such countries.  This, however, they do by means of "nationalisation"
with payment in cash or in kind, negotiating the financing of such deals
behind a curtain of demagogic "patriotism", directly with finance
capitalism, with imperialism.

The end result of all this "national revolution" is an exponential increase
in the foreign indebtedness of the state, forcing the concession of ever
growing prerogatives for foreign investment and increasing the "feudal"
relationship of the new "nationalised" enterprises directly upon finance
capital.  In this manner, the relationship with the imperialist masters
assumes a directly tributary character unthinkable even under the old
semi-colonial conditions.

Simultaneously, among the acts of "patriotism" and "nationalisations" that=
such a bureaucratic bourgeoisie undertakes is, of course, at one stage, the=
purchase in exchange for capital of the landed states by state corporations
or "state cooperatives". This they achieve by means of so called "agrarian
reforms". This is an essential step in the accumulation of bureaucratic
capital, as we shall see: At another stage, and having "ruined agriculture"
by milking the land several times by means of state spoliation and
administrative pilfering, this is followed by the introduction of
"capitalist" market
mechanisms in agriculture in order to "improve agriculture and economic
conditions".  New "reforms" are introduced, allowing the private sale
of state land assets ("cooperatives" included) to themselves and to their
partners, the former landowners already turned into "industrial capitalists"
on the proceeds of the capital paid in compensation=
for the land formerly "nationalised".

All this, having driven agriculture to ruin, they achieve at advantageous
prices, re-monopolising the land in private hands -privatising it - and
infusing their "kulak" economy with even more pronounced feudal
relationships in the countryside.  This strengthens its symbiotic
relationship with semi-feudalism at the political, military and economic
level and ties this class ever more closely to the land owners.

THE JOLLY ROGER OF BUREAUCRATIC "SOCIALISM"

Therefore, this bureaucratic bourgeoisie, and bureaucratic-capitalism
itself, is in fact a more reactionary and fascist development of the big
bourgeoisie of the Third World. (Such was in fact the path of development
followed by bureaucratic capitalism in Peru - there the "left
wing military regime" of Velasco and Morales Bermudez (1968-80) - in fact
a fascist regime hailed as progressive by "Leftist" quarters in Britain and
other countries - did precisely that.
The "Left-wing" president Alan Garcia, another representative of the same
bureaucratic capitalist regime, is carrying out stage two of this policy,
thus further developing the semi-feudal condition, strengthening imperialist
domination and sinking the people in growing misery.  Other Third World
countries, both under the label of "socialists" and the general
description of "capitalist regimes", are following a similar path).

A TWAIN THAT NEVER SHALL MEET

We are sure Professor Miliband will also now admit that such bureaucratic
bourgeoisie can never grow strong in relation to imperialism, and even less
in opposition to it.  In fact, their dependency upon imperialism is even
more marked and sustained by myriad links, principally financial backing for
the bureaucratic apparatus and for the equipment, training and pay of the
armed forces, the backbone of the bureaucratic capitalist state.

A true National bourgeoisie could never arise from bureaucratic capitalist
greed, their out and out sale of the nation's assets - the state's assets
which "they represent themselves" in appropriating; in other words, it is
the peoples' assets that this section of the big bourgeoisie particularly
specialises in directly plundering!.

Moreover, imperialist domination of countries such as Peru, when coupled=
with the "process of enrichment" of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, can only
deepen due to two important factors:

Firstly, that the enrichment of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie is accomplished=
directly out of the people's livelihood and in a most parasitic manner,
increasing exponentially theimpoverishment of the masses.  And secondly,
that such a process leads directly to a substantial increase in
"revolutionary stirrings" which in turn contribute to compel even more
urgently the big bourgeoisie to follow the path of short term robber baron
spoliation
of those countries resources and implement fascist dictatorship to protect
their landed investments.

Both, comprador and bureaucratic big bourgeois usually take, as a matter of
course and in varying degrees, the bulk of their ill gotten gains to safe
havens in foreign monopoly capitalist banks - in fact, they even do a large
portion of their consumer shopping abroad and in a regular basis - thus
increasing the power and wealth of international finance while further
depleting the national capital of Third World countries such as Peru.

CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER

Miliband continues (confirming our above comments): "In such cases the
relation between economic and political power has been inverted: it is not
economic power which results in the wielding of political power and
influence and which shapes political decision making.It is rather political
power (which also means here administrative and military power) which
creates the possibilities of enrichment and which provides the basis for the
formation of
an economically powerful class, which may in due course become an economically
dominant one.   The state is here the source of economic power as well as an
instrument of it: state power is a "major means of production". =20

In our opinion, this formulation suffers from over elaboration and a
penchant for fascinating the reader with an egg and hen description of
a process that arises in collusion and contention.  A process that is a
direct consequence of the interaction of political power and
wealth in the framework of the definite "capitalist" relations of production
existing is such societies - which, as we have seen above, are semi-feudal
and semi-colonial in character.

However, Miliband's sociological observations are indeed very valuable, and
>from the whole picture painted by him, flows our theoretical definition of
the state in countries like Peru as: The joint dictatorship of the
reactionary classes: big bourgeoisie - comprador (or mercantile) and
bureaucratic - and feudal landowners under the wing of foreign imperialist -
monopoly capital (finance capital) - domination, in the specific case of
Peru, principally US
imperialist capital.

Professor Miliband also points out: "These societies are poorly articulated
in economic and social terms, and therefore in political terms as well. They
are in fact depoliticized...... with the state itself, often under military
rule, assuming a monopoly of political, activities through parties and other
groupings which are seldom more than bureaucratic shells with
very little substance".

This perfectly sums-up the politics of the Peruvian state: its much
trumpeted democracy, its spurious left wing and socialist government
and its counterfeit massive communist parliamentary representations.

We are talking here of a "democracy" under military-bureaucratic and
imperialist control, based upon political parties that bear different
labels in accordance with whoever sponsors them, agencies of foreign
interests - East and West - and different local nabobs. Parties
that are nothing but "bureaucratic shells with very little substance"
beyond an electoral machinery geared to grabbing the bureaucratic levers
of self-enrichment plus the capacity to invest in a succulent
advertising budget come election time.

This applies to all "bureaucratic shells" whether from the "Left" or the
Right.  All are eager servants and defenders of the sacrosanct order of the
Third World-style state, of the Peruvian state: the joint dictatorship of
the big bourgeoisie, comprador and bureaucratic, in alliance with the feudal
landowners and under imperialist domination.

--=====================_833880452==_--





     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---