re: "Classic" revolutions

[Louis N Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, James Devine wrote:

> Now it's true that the USSR-type revolutions have helped _create_ a
> proletariat, by pushing industrialization. But that's something that
> capitalism does too.
>

This is the central feature of 20th century revolutions: They tend to
occur in peasant nations and they are caused by the miseries of
colonialism and neocolonialism. Once the comprador bourgeoisie is
overthrown and the imperialist bourgeosie is beaten back, the Communist
Party embarks on an development path that stresses industrialization as
rapidly as possible. This has led some Sovietologists to conclude that the
CP is a bourgeoisie.

The problem is that the bourgeoisie generally lacks the political will to
move the development process forward. It capitulates under pressure from
imperialism. In the entire 20th century, there has been only nation in
Latin America that has successfully broken the cycle of underdevelopment
and that is Cuba. Castro's economic program in 1959 was not markedly
different from the statist development schemes of a thousand different
caudillos. Cuba moved forward because the capitalist class was liquidated
and a revolutionary party begand to sink roots in society. The July 26th
movement, as opposed to the Bolshevik Party, became less bureaucratic and
more revolutionary the longer it stayed in power.

The only course available for backward countries has been revolutions that
overthrow the capitalist class. The workers in these countries tend not to
be in the leadership because industry is underdeveloped. For example,
China had fewer than 3% of the nation employed as true workers in 1947.
And the overwhelming majority of these were employed in small shops in
light industry.

So it fell to the peasants and the Communist Party to overthrow
capitalism. And they did.

If Jim doesn't want to award the Chinese Revolution the title of
"proletarian", that is his privilege. Meanwhile the capitalist class knew
full well that Mao's Red Armies were a threat to their class rule. The
march toward socialism does not take place in a straight line. It is
altogether likely that the peasant-led socialist revolutions can no longer
succeed. That is the opinion of people like Victor Tirado, the
disillusioned Sandinista leader.

At any rate, much of this sort of discussion tends to have a very abstract
quality. I have been through it three times on the Spoons List and have
just turned down an invitation from the leader of Communist Voice, an
insignificant sect, to debate it once again. I have reached the point
where I tend to accept the differences around these questions that all
good socialists will have. "State capitalism" is no litmus test for me.

Louis Proyect