If bureaucratic capitalism would own merely one leg…!
And this is what (however denying) UOC (Colombia) stands for!!!
Semi-feudal and Semi colonial/colonial arrangement gives rise to imperialist “creativity” which
generates bureaucratic capitalism in oppressed countries. So, bureaucratic capitalism walks
with two legs: semi-feudalism+ semi colonial/colonial. Imperialism is its evil soul or its pumping
heart.
One cannot merely walk with one leg, and if ever is willing to make a “walk”, that is only a
staggering.
Such is the situation of those analyzes who uphold that: Venezuela, is a semi colony, but, does
not uphold its semi feudal character, and “denies” it in favor of pretending it a capitalist
country. They try to do this, and they do this to fight Maoist thesis on “Bureaucratic Capitalism”
Genuine Maoists always have argued that: if ever there has not still occurred a transformation
towards a New Democratic Revolution, then the conclusion is nothing but a bureaucratic
capitalism, which is fascist corporatist in character. This is what Chairman Gonzalo and the
various documents of PCP teach, and this is what Chairman Siraj Sikder thought in Bangladesh,
and what Comrade Charu Mazumdar taught in India. In our own case, in Afghanistan, Chairman
Akram Yari had also taken the genuine Maoist stand on bureaucratic capitalism, and had
pointed out its fascist corporativist character. We see much more similarity between Gonzalo’s
teaching and Comrade Akram Yari’s Thought. Let us see how Chairman Akram Yari puts the
issue forward:
“Will the development of such a corrupt and degenerated capitalism {the bureaucratic
“capitalism} which comes from the situation of world imperialism, triumph over
feudalism in the “long run? Is imperialism able to grow its Embryo (the capitalism) in this
form in this country (in “Afghanistan)? {Without relying on a corrupt form, which is
bureaucratic capitalism}
1
“The answer to this question, according to our stand, is absolutely negative! First, the
development and “growth of free market capitalism, which plays a second role in such a
circumstance, is prone to defeat “in international situation of imperialist capitalism. This comes
from greedy tendencies and hegemonic “expansionism of imperialism, especially socialimperialism which creates obstacles and prevents the “development of this domestic capitalist
class {the national bourgeoisie}. Secondly, the growth and “development of bureaucratic
capitalism which is mixed with oppression, disarrangements and feudal “discriminations, and
contaminated with corruptions, hierarchy of privileges, and at the same time, “fascist religious
dictatorship is also inseparably annexed to it( to bureaucratic capitalism), and is the “only form
which has emerged in all countries under the domination of capitalism{ imperialist}, in such “a
degenerated form{ which is bureaucratic capitalism}, and this not only does not develop
capitalism in “such countries, but rather it reinforces and strengthens the remnants of
feudalism, and is instrumental “to save feudalism within its boundaries, and by such a
{degenerated development of capitalism} it “keeps the imperialist world market stable. So, the
thing which imperialist market place brings to such “countries, which calls it “modernization” is
a corrupt half-tailed capitalism, which is rotten and “degenerated rather than progressive, and
is older than anyone can assume { and this is contrary to the “claims of its apologies who argue
for its modern character}, and this is more than its “modern” “character, relying on rotten and
old {prerequisites and old infra and supra structure}.”
Comrade Lenin, even in 1905, in his famous and important book: two tactics of social democracy in
Democratic Revolution had already formulated that the proletariat is more hurt by an undeveloped and
under developed capitalism rather than by a developed one. So, a deformed or an “ill mannered”
capitalism, which is scientifically called a bureaucratic capitalism, is a “capitalism” that imperialism raises
on very foundations of a rotten feudalist infra-structure. Such “capitalism” is fierce than a market
capitalist enemy of classical western style. Such a “capitalist” country exploits the workers and the
peasantry much fiercer.
After great Lenin, it was Chairman Mao, who formulated the thesis on bureaucratic capitalism, which
explains how under direct hegemony of imperialist capitalism, there would be no space for a sound
capitalist growth for those countries who have not seen a bourgeois-democratic revolution yet. So, a
2
degenerated “capitalism” generates in such countries, under hegemony of imperialism and this illmannered and degenerated “capitalism” merely serves world imperialism and its monsters.
Chairman Gonzalo found out that this very thesis of Chairman Mao is of a very significant importance,
and is vital to analyze the situation in most of the Asian, Latin American and African countries.
So, a Maoist scientific tradition of analysis was fully developed within the framework of Gonzalo
Thought. Like Chairman Gonzalo, Comrade Akram Yari also says that:
“only form which has emerged in all countries under the domination of capitalism {imperialist}, in such
“a degenerated form {which is bureaucratic capitalism}, and this not only does not develop capitalism in
“such countries, but rather it reinforces and strengthens the remnants of feudalism, and is instrumental
“to save feudalism within its boundaries, and by such a {degenerated development of capitalism} it
“keeps the imperialist world market stable. “
Our organization (Organization of the workers of Afghanistan) upholds the very scientific analysis of
classical MLM which still bears validity under current world circumstances. We believe that: any
deviation from this very analysis inevitably pushes us towards abandoning the strategy of PPW
as universal. So, when we analyze the situation of a country like Venezuela, it is not possible to
escape from analyzing and introducing its class structure, which is semi-feudal. It is not
sufficient to argue merely its semi- colonial status. Such a narrow minded analysis, which UOC
(Colombia) has recently upheld, is only in favor of abandoning the very Maoist thesis of
bureaucratic Capitalism. Why has this organization taken such an erroneous stand? Because, he
thinks that: upholding, defending and applying the Maoist analysis of bureaucratic capitalism
may also infect their analysis of class nature of Colombian revolution. Therefore, they have
gone toward denial of this very Maoist thesis that has a full scope of validity.
Colombian comrades can develop and defend their analysis of class nature of their
country,(whether their analysis be true or false), but they are not in authority to abandon a
Maoist foundation, the very thesis of bureaucratic capitalism on behalf of saving their own
analysis of Colombia, as a capitalist country. Such an analysis would make them deviate
towards an opportunistic trend, which reconciles them with Hoxaist analysis of countries like
3
Venezuela. Any deviation from classic MLM on this issue creates revisionism in the long run. So,
we ask Colombian comrades to revise their non-Maoist and subjectivist stand.
What is the source of illusion for Colombian comrades so that they have replaced “advanced”
bureaucratic capitalist states with capitalist state and have called them capitalist? (And
consequently, as the Hoxaists do, they are also inevitable preaching a socialist revolution for
such countries)
According to presidente Gonzalo, when bureaucratic capitalism more develops and ripens, it
transforms as monopoly state capitalism (and still bureaucratic in nature), and this paves the
way to New Democratic Revolution. Colombian comrades (and so the Guevarists and Hoxaists)
do not see this. Instead, they assume such ripen bureaucratic capitalist countries, as being
capitalist. This comes from their “walking with one leg” analysis of such countries. Some
comrades have called such analysis as being such “ a glass half full half empty” as Colombian
comrades see the semi colonial state of Venezuela, but they fail to see semi feudalism, and this
“not seeing” comes from a denial of bureaucratic capitalism by Colombian comrades. Such an
analysis of “a glass half full half empty”, in one side, denounces Chavez, but it cannot fully
expose it as fascist based in analysis of bureaucratic capitalism as fascistic and corporatist. So,
such a denounce lacks a firm reasoning.
Colombian comrades announce that: the blind glare of the reforms blinds and take away the
people from the path of revolution”, but these comrades cannot prove it how and why such
“blind glare of reforms” takes away the people from the path of revolution. But genuine
Maoism ways that: reforms are obstacles that prevent the masses going toward people’s war,
and these reforms only strengthen the bureaucratic capitalist state, and does not allow the
masses to think out a revolutionary path, a path toward New Democratic Revolutionary, by
waging protracted people’s war, smashing old state of bureaucratic capitalists, and establish
the new power. So, denying bureaucratic capitalism is nothing more than reaffirming oneself in
old state. Indeed, indirectly, Colombian comrades, have sided the apologists of old order in
have taken stand in favor of bureaucratic capitalism (however by formally “denying” the very
phenomena of bureaucratic capitalism”).
4
Colombian comrades claim that: “In fact the “Bolivarian revolution” has left intact the old
bourgeois state and the old social relations, and intact the relationship of dependence on
imperialism, even towards American imperialism, which still has the privilege of the exploitation
and the trade of oil. The “imperialist” and “anti-capitalist” speech of “XXI century socialism” is
verbiage to fool the labor movement and, in that sense, it is wrong that the Communists join
their coryphaei, when their duty is to expose them and fight them as false socialist and
communists.”
If such a bourgeois ( and not a bureaucratic capitalist) state really exists in Venezuela, and still is
“intact”, then how such an “intact” bourgeois state, however in an “intact relationship of
dependence on imperialism, even towards American imperialism”, still is not a bureaucratic and
comprador in essence? This is where the reasoning of Colombian comrades ceases to exist.
Paradoxically they claim for a bourgeois state, in Venezuela (assuming by them not to be a
bureaucratic capitalist state), but still claiming that: that state is dependent to imperialism,
even to Yanki imperialism! Why such paradoxical paradigm is has been put forward by
Colombian comrades? It is because that they see the trees but they do not see the forest. They
see the “dependence of bourgeois state of Venezuela to imperialism” but still they do not see it
as “bureaucratic capitalist comprador state”. This is the weak point of UOC which has pushed it
backward toward abandoning a correct line.
Here, UOC finds common language with Hoxaists and Collective Odio De Clase who claim that:
Chavez is a bourgeois reformist. UOC (Colombia) also calls him a bourgeois reformist. But still
Colombians are ahead and many steps forward than Communist Party of Philippines who has
falsely argued that: Chavez is a champion of the Venezuelan masses.
UOC formulates Chavis “socialism” as nationalism+ Bolivarism. What is the meaning of such a
claim? It means that: contrary to Chairman Mao’s analysis, imposing Kemalist modeling, there
still can be a bourgeois state in oppressed countries, which may not be a bureaucratic state.
Such a conclusion, opposes the very formulation of New Democratic Revolution, as part of
world proletarian revolution, a formulation which is one of the most brilliant achievements of
Chairman Mao Tse Tung for oppressed people of the world.
5
UOC (Colombia) truly says:” Neither the “Bolivarian Revolution” in Venezuela, nor the “Citizens'
Revolution” in Ecuador, neither the “Sandinista” one in Nicaragua, nor their counterparts in
other countries, can break the chains that enslave the toiling masses to exploitation and to the
dictatorship of the exploiters. All these deceptions reformists are as worst as the others
bourgeois regimes like Santos in Colombia Santos or Piñera in Chile. All are essentially a class
dictatorship of the exploiters over the exploited.” But still this organization, has not asked from
himself why such organizations mentioned in above piece, are not able to “break the chains
that enslave the toiling masses”? it is because, that such organizations are the representatives
of reactionary old state of bureaucratic capitalists. If they were the representative of
progressive bourgeoisie, there would be no need for New Democracy. New Democratic State,
only necessitates when bureaucratic capitalism, as the only form of a “capitalist” hegemony in
oppressed countries, rules. This is what Chairman Mao says. Neglecting this very point, means
falling to Kemalism. If UOC (Colombia) truly believes that Venezuela is an old reactionary state,
then it cannot be a bourgeois reformist. Bourgeoisie in oppressed countries, according to Mao,
is never able to lead the masses, is not able to come to power. According to Maoism, it is
merely a bureaucratic bourgeoisie, which leads the bureaucratic capitalism, which “leads” the
masses, but towards subjugation to imperialism, and in reconciliation with remnants of
feudalism. So, this “bourgeoisie” is part of old state, the bureaucratic state of a comprador
arrangement.
Maoism says that: in this epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, bourgeoisie no
more reforms and it is only bureaucratic capitalism, which through fascist pragmatism, claims
“reforms” to prevent the people’s war and the genesis of new state of oppressed masses.
At the end of its recent document, UOC (Colombia) concludes that: only the people can save
the people. Here to, these comrades “forget” to explain that: to save the people from ills of old
state, which, according to MLM cannot be but a bureaucratic capitalist state!
Organization of the workers of Afghanistan (MLM-p-M)
3/24/13
6