29 avr 2014

Akram Yari on bureaucratic capitalism

Submitted by Anonyme (non vérifié)

What is bureaucratic capitalism ? The understanding of this social form is in the very core of Maoism. According Maoism, there is two kind countries: imperialist ones on one side, and oppressed countries on the other side. These oppressed countries are semi-colonial, semi-feudal.

In the capitalist countries, the free market has triumphed and annihilated the feudal remnants. This is not the case in the others countries, where the bourgeoisie was too weak to face the imperialist hegemony, and where feudalism didn't exist in a developed version, the country's economy being based on traditional economy of local self-sufficiency.

Because of this, capitalism was on one side not able to abolish feudalism organized from above by imperialism, on the other side not able neither to develop itself frankly.

This brings to the situation where capitalism is degenerated form, existing on one side in submission to imperialism, and on the other side in close relationship to feudalism. There is indeed a contradiction between the bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie, and therefore the bureaucratic bourgeoisie supports feudalism against the national bourgeoisie and its will to generalize capitalism.

For this reason, no “modernization” can really take place, because feudalism blocks each development; even if it is apparently weak, it maintains itself through different forms. Let's see here what teaches us Akram Yari through the Afghan example:

“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}

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 social-imperialism 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}.”

This is the classical Maoist lesson. According revisionists (of the Soviet social-imperialist kind or the Hoxhaist version), the national bourgeoisie is able to take power or at least to influence the society.

Maoism teaches us that it is not the case. There is not only a bureaucratic bourgeoisie, there is also a bureaucratic capitalism, there are not only feudal forces, there is feudalism. A semi-colonial semi-feudal country is not only a country where a bureaucratic capitalist class and feudalism are present, it is a country which reality is shaped by them.

Pretending to change from the inside this reality is, in fact, to modernize both bureaucratic capitalism and feudalism, forms which are not “from the past” but produced by imperialism; there is imperialism on one side, semi-colonial semi-feudal reality on the other side: this is the dialectical form of this aspect of reality.