Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 64: Line 64:
===Bahian socialism===
===Bahian socialism===


Because the Asalewan Section came to power, and Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism was developed, during the [[Red Surge]], when other {{wp|left-wing}} movements came to power throughout the {{wp|Global South}}, including [[Bahia]], comparative historians of ideas have most frequently analyzed the ideology in comparison to the {{wp|African socialism|Bahian socialist}} ideologies of other left-wing Bahian governments during this period, such as the government of [[Vudzijena Nhema]] and [[Yemet|Abner Oronge]]. Though the ideology does share some similarities with Bahian socialism, including a synthesis of Pan-Bahianism and socialism, a strong rejection of the {{wp|comprador|comprador bourgeoisie}}, and, in power, a strong emphasis on {{wp|economic development}}, the two ideologies differ in important ways. Most notably, while Bahian socialists frequently rejected {{wp|class struggle}} and {{wp|Marxism|Nemtsovism}}, the Asalewan Section regarded, and still regards, Nemtsovism and class struggle as central to its ideology. As such, while in power many Bahian socialist governments sought to accommodate themselves to indigenous aristocratic, national-bourgeois, and middle classes, maintaining a {{wp|mixed economy}} under a {{wp|developmentalism|developmentalist}} framework, the Asalewan government did no such thing, waging thorough class struggle that resulted in the near-total collectivization of the economy by the late 1950s.
Because the Asalewan Section came to power, and Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism was developed, during the [[Red Surge]], when other {{wp|left-wing}} movements came to power throughout the {{wp|Global South}}, including [[Bahia]], comparative historians of ideas have most frequently analyzed the ideology in comparison to the {{wp|African socialism|Bahian socialist}} ideologies of other left-wing Bahian governments during this period, such as the governments of [[Vudzijena Nhema]] and [[Yemet|Abner Oronge]]. Though the ideology does share some similarities with Bahian socialism, including a synthesis of Pan-Bahianism and socialism, a strong rejection of the {{wp|comprador|comprador bourgeoisie}}, and, in power, a strong emphasis on {{wp|economic development}}, the two ideologies differ in important ways. Most notably, while Bahian socialists frequently rejected {{wp|class struggle}} and {{wp|Marxism|Nemtsovism}}, the Asalewan Section regarded, and still regards, Nemtsovism and class struggle as central to its ideology. As such, while in power many Bahian socialist governments sought to accommodate themselves to indigenous aristocratic, national-bourgeois, and middle classes, maintaining a {{wp|mixed economy}} under a {{wp|developmentalism|developmentalist}} framework, the Asalewan government did no such thing, waging thorough class struggle that resulted in the near-total {{wp|nationalization}} and {{wp|collectivization}} of the economy by the late 1950s.


Furthermore, while many Bahian socialists justified their policies as a return to the [[Sâre|Sâretic]] system, the Asalewan Section, though admiring Sâre as a form of {{wp|primitive communism}}, draws very little inspiration from any pre-colonial Bahian social systems. Rather than seeing its socialist project as a return to Sâre—whose vulnerability to [[Irfan|Irfanic]] conquests the Section considered a sign of inherent weakness—the Asalewan Section's goal was, and remains, establishing a thoroughly modern [[council republic]] modelled after the modern, industrial powers of [[Valduvia]] and [[Chistovodia]].
Furthermore, while many Bahian socialists justified their policies as a return to the [[Sâre|Sâretic]] system, the Asalewan Section, though admiring Sâre as a form of {{wp|primitive communism}}, draws very little inspiration from any pre-colonial Bahian social systems. Rather than seeing its socialist project as a return to Sâre—whose vulnerability to [[Irfan|Irfanic]] conquests the Section considered a sign of inherent weakness—the Asalewan Section's goal was, and remains, establishing a thoroughly modern [[council republic]] modelled after the modern, industrial powers of [[Valduvia]] and [[Chistovodia]].

Revision as of 09:05, 25 February 2023

Icon-Under Construction.png This page or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this article has not been edited in several days, please remove this template.
Clockwise, from top left: Yuri Nemtsov, Kostyantyn Tretyak, Adelaja Ifedapo, and Edudzi Agyeman, the four thinkers whose ideas form the basis of Nemtsovism-Adelajism-Edudzism.

Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism, frequently referred to simply as Adelajism-Edudzism is a Nemtosvist and Councilist ideology developed by the Asalewan Section of the Workers' International that synthesizes Nemtsovism and Councilism with Tretyakism, Pan-Bahianism, various anti-colonial ideologies that proliferated in Coius, and the theories of the Asalewan Section's historic leading figures Adelaja Ifedapo and Edudzi Agyeman. Ideologically, Nemtsovism-Adelajism-Edudzism departs from Nemtsovist and Councilist orthodoxy in that it embraces Pan-Bahian nationalism, a limited role for a post-revolutionary vanguard, Tretyakist ideas favoring militarism, and the peasantry, not just the proletariat, as a potentially-revolutionary class. Though named after Yuri Nemtsov, Konstantyn Tretyak, Adelaja Ifedapo, and Edudzi Agyeman, and drawing subtantial influence from their ideas, the ideology differs from all the personal beliefs of four thinkers, particularly Nemtsov and Tretyak. Traditionally, the Asalewan Section has regarded Adelajism-Edudzism not as a universally-applicable development of Nemtsovism and Councilism, but rather a specific application of those ideologies to Asalewan and Bahian material conditions, and thus an ideology needing constant ideological development and advancement in response to changes in those material conditions.

Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism traces its origins to the synthesis of Nemtsovism and Pan-Bahianism practiced by the early Asalewan Section in the 1910s, a synthesis primarily formalized through the writings of Adelaja Ifedapo. In the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, Adelajism-Edudzism became substantially modified by Ifedapo and Edudzi Agyeman as the Asalewan Revolution turned its focus to the peasantry and hunter-gatherers and as self-reproducing hierarchical military and party structures led to an increasingly authoritarian and quasi-Equalist turn. Later in the 1950s and 1960s, the mass militarization of Asalewan society caused the Section to adopt of Tretyakist ideas, and the collapse of the United Bahian Republic and Protective-Corrective Revolution returned Councilism to the center stage and introduced the theory of Perpetual-Cyclical Revolution to the ideology.

History

Principles

Nemtsovism

Councilism

"Managed Councilism"

Militarism

Collectivism

Progressivism

Feminism

Pan-Bahianism

Perpetual-Cyclical Revolution

Comparisons to other ideologies

Bahian socialism

Because the Asalewan Section came to power, and Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism was developed, during the Red Surge, when other left-wing movements came to power throughout the Global South, including Bahia, comparative historians of ideas have most frequently analyzed the ideology in comparison to the Bahian socialist ideologies of other left-wing Bahian governments during this period, such as the governments of Vudzijena Nhema and Abner Oronge. Though the ideology does share some similarities with Bahian socialism, including a synthesis of Pan-Bahianism and socialism, a strong rejection of the comprador bourgeoisie, and, in power, a strong emphasis on economic development, the two ideologies differ in important ways. Most notably, while Bahian socialists frequently rejected class struggle and Nemtsovism, the Asalewan Section regarded, and still regards, Nemtsovism and class struggle as central to its ideology. As such, while in power many Bahian socialist governments sought to accommodate themselves to indigenous aristocratic, national-bourgeois, and middle classes, maintaining a mixed economy under a developmentalist framework, the Asalewan government did no such thing, waging thorough class struggle that resulted in the near-total nationalization and collectivization of the economy by the late 1950s.

Furthermore, while many Bahian socialists justified their policies as a return to the Sâretic system, the Asalewan Section, though admiring Sâre as a form of primitive communism, draws very little inspiration from any pre-colonial Bahian social systems. Rather than seeing its socialist project as a return to Sâre—whose vulnerability to Irfanic conquests the Section considered a sign of inherent weakness—the Asalewan Section's goal was, and remains, establishing a thoroughly modern council republic modelled after the modern, industrial powers of Valduvia and Chistovodia.

Councilism

Equalism

Netaji Thought

Sattarism

Tretyakism