“A section of the capitalist class, they claimed, would play a progressive role in this necessary first stage. The function of the Communist party leadership was thus to secure an alliance with this progressive section of the so-called ‘national bourgeoisie,’ and to bring the pressure and support of a mass movement behind it. In this way, the Stalinist bureaucracies could bargain with the ruling elite around the globe, calling off strikes and supplying mass electoral support in exchange for favorable diplomacy and trade deals.”

“Like Mao, Aidit concluded that the tasks of the Indonesian revolution were national and democratic in character and not yet socialist, and like Mao, he examined each of the classes in Indonesian society and drew a distinction between the comprador and national bourgeoisie.”

These quotes do not accurately represent the ideas of Marxism, and neither Lenin nor Trotsky would have agreed. As Lenin argued in Imperialism and Trotsky argued in Results and Prospects and Permanent Revolution, the national bourgeoisie runs into economic limitations forced upon it by the international system of nation-states. Just as members of the aristocracy, and even royalty, (most notably Lafayette, a wealthy nobleman by birth, who fought both for the American and French revolutions, having become a major general in the Continental Army at the age of 19, and married royalty; also William Alexandar, a general who George Washington humorously addressed as “my lord” in letters after a public battle in England for recognition of his title) [1] participated in the British Commonwealth and the French and American revolutions against aristocracy and monarchy, so will the dispersed bourgeoisie of nations small and large seek to participate in the international workers’ revolution. The idea that no member of the ‘national bourgeoisie’ will ever approach the revolutionary movement seeks to mask petty-bourgeois opportunism, which Marxists must unmask in order to fight.

Lenin and Trotsky argued that the bourgeoisie could participate in the revolution, and as members of the ruling class, could escape the oppression associated with the revolutionary cause. Still, Lenin and Trotsky argued that their contribution must come at a high price, since these additions to the revolution bring with them bourgeois ideology, which runs contrary to proletarian ideology, determined as they are by their class relations. Proletarian and bourgeois revolutionary ideology diverged most clearly in their determination, the first leading on the masses and the latter trailing behind, the first taking risks while the other vacillates. Lenin prepared for the revolution by drawing a clear line between his side’s Bolshevism and his opponents’ Menshevism, the refusal to accept discipline from a party leadership elected by the majority of the membership and the refusal to accept as binding the resolutions of revolutionary congresses. This attitude towards party responsibilities, justified in the name of defending individual intellectual freedom, threatened to paralyze the entire revolutionary movement. The separation that Lenin demarcated between Bolshevism and Menshevism, at its base meant a separation of the proletarian revolution from bourgeois organizations to save the revolution from domination by the bourgeoisie and their so-called individual freedom.

Please study these issues more carefully and revise your positions on the national bourgeoisie. As they stand, your positions serve to prevent, at least in theory, any engagement with the national bourgeoisie who volunteer to participate. In the end, this actually leaves the revolutionary party unprepared when they eventually approach. It solidifies counter-revolutionary and reactionary movements, Stalinism and Fascism, within the bourgeoisie by allowing them to organize openly while silencing the revolutionary who would distribute revolutionary propaganda systematically among the bourgeoisie or at least speak up even when outnumbered. Dividing the bourgeoisie and providing them with positions within a revolutionary party openly would prevent a secret alliance between party bureaucrats and the bourgeoisie, as had occurred before Trotsky’s eyes within Stalinist bureaucracies, especially in rich countries like the United States and countries in Western Europe.

Reference:

1. https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/07/honorable-lords-and-pretended-barons-sorting-out-the-noblemen-of-the-american-revolution/