Structure of Power

Bourgeois and Proletarians

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank the period of the bourgeoisie, however, has a distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great classes directly facing each other Bourgeoisie and Proletariat

Modern Bourgeois

The discovery of America, the East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonization of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolized by closed unions, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets The manufacturing system took its place Thus division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop The Markets kept growing the demand ever rising The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois Modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country-no indigenous industries he intellectual creations of individual nations become common property-world literature It compels all nations, to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property

Free Market Economy

The feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class Modern bourgeois society is no longer able to control the economic system it has created For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule How do the bourgeois get over the crisis? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones

Development of the Proletariats In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is

developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital. These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a

Clash of Classes
The

growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes workers begin to form combinations (Trades Unions) against the bourgeois Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by

 Of

all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is really a revolutionary class the proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority The struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie The Proletarians have to be ready for a revolution

The Concept of National Development

Since

the 16th Century there has been a debate how to augment the wealth of the kingdom and take steps to maintain and enhance wealth Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations in 1776, attacked the notion that government could best enhance their wealth by placing restrictions on foreign trade The tension between a protectionist approach and free trade stance is

Wilsonism Vs Leninism

Wilsonism was a clasical Liberal-everyone acts on rational self interest, everyone is eventually reasonable hence peaceful and reformist practice is possible He applied the theory of individual to the whole nation state Self determination of nations Lenin pursued the same goal with a completely different slogan He based his work on Marx theory of classless society Marxism-leninism was moving from its origion as a theory of proletarians insurrection against the bourgeoisies to the new role of anti-imperialism Both Wilsonism and Leninism thus emerged as rivals although they did share the same theme of self determination of nations Both these doctrines favored what later came to be called the decolonization

Road to Self determination

Wilson

preferred what was known as the constitutional Path Leninist came to favor the revolutionary approach- independence was taken rather then given These differences should not be exaggerated ,they both were not averse to each others ideas The real debate was who was to lead the struggle for self determination?
Wilsionian saw the intelligentsia and bourgeois leading the struggle Lenin saw this struggle in the party /movement

What of decolonized practice?

Some states considered themselves pro western others considered themselves part of the progressive camp that included USSR Also there were a few who were part of the Non alignment movement The reality was much different than what the propaganda suggested Most of the economies were either one party government or they were under military rule Pro western states had more liberal foreign policies ang in the more progressive states foreign investment was dealt with much more consciously

AID

Aid in form of both loans and grants Most of the 3rd world nations received aid from the OECD Countries (organization for economic cocorporation and development) This aid was there to fund so called development projects What was common with these nations was that fact that they wanted to catch up to the industrialized nations by increasing wealth of the nations and by modernization Common feature
Both were optimistic about this objective Both agreed that this objective could be achieved by full participation in the interstate system

Both Lenin wilsonian ideology of self determination was accepted as the operational program of the political movement of the peripheral and semi peripheral zones of the world systems

Success Story
USSR

was the first test case for the validity of the workability of the recommendations The post revolutionary state was formed with federations of states and each state with its autonomous power Lenin launched the logo Communism equals soviet with electricity he was putting forward national(economic) development as the prime objective of this policy The Soviet Union was very optimistic about catching up with the United States The greatest boast for USSR came in 1930s at the time of world economic depression , there was not only no unemployment in USSR but there was also a program for rapid development

Possibilities of National Development Growing Stronger the possibility of national After 1945

development grew stronger Rapid reconstruction of Western Europe and Japan 3rd world nations was also developing partly through self help and party through the assistance of the more advanced developed nations 1970 was the official as the development decade Development studies became the new intellectual organizing theme Modernization theory was brought forward which was countered by the Marxist theorys- updating on Lenin-

1945-1970

Conscious efforts to expand the means and levels of production around the world GNP and GDP per capita become the principle measuring tool The amount of growth varied around the world but the figures were upwards everywhere This period was also a period of political triumphs for a large number of movements in the 3rd world This suffered two shocks
The worldwide revolution of 1968 The worldwide economic stagnation from 1970-1990, economic failure for almost all the peripheral and semi peripheral zones and the collapse of the so called socialist states

Although states which did abandon the Socialist slogan for the free market as it also did not see any significant improvement in their standard of living in the 1980s

Revolution-1968
The

2 main themes common to all the uprisings

Protest against the US hegemony in the World Systems Protest against the inefficiency of the so called Old Left movements( social democracy in the west, communism in the east national liberation in the south)

The significance of 1968 was whether both LeninWilsonisanism had in fact

Downturn in 1970-1980s
The

world economic situation worsened

OPEC oil prises rose in 1970s The debt crisis of the 1980s

What

happened to the world surplus funneled through the oil producing countries?

National development program for the oil producing countries Heavy luxury consumption in oil producing states The remaining money was put in US and European Banks-given out to the 3rd world countries as aid

Debt Crisis in 1980s

Economic

difficulties for the peripheral and semi peripheral countries

Discontent with the existing regime The hard financial face of the OECD
They had to face the harsh IMF conditionalities

Elegy and Requiem

The

elegy is for the LeninistWilsonian ideal of self determination of nations Both Wilsonian - Leninist were dependent on each other The process was in two stepsfirst the decolonization then the economic development Thus wilsonian ideology was dependent on the Lenin ideology