Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism

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-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism.

Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism, sometimes 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 the ideology 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, the ideology 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. The violent, militaristic nature of the Asalewan Revolution and the mass militarization in the 1950s and 1960s caused the Section to adopt 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.

Principles

Collectivism

[In contrast to most aspects of the ideology, glorification of communal childrearing structures and land ownership as vestiges of the Sâretic, primitive communist past, and thus indications of the direction that the communist future ought to go in]

Progressivism and Modernity

When gazing onto the carcass of Bahia, the first thing one sees is her disemboweled abdomen, and, then, the bloody white hands swiftly cutting up her corpse. The case is seemingly cracked, the white hands revealed as the murderer responsible for Bahia's death. But the truth is far more monstrous. Gaze above the abdomen, and one sees the manilla refashioned into a noose around Bahia's neck, and the Golden Stool off which she walked her last step. The white hands are merely vultures feasting off this corpse, and the murder of Bahia revealed as just that: a myth. The death of Bahia was not a homocide at all. It was a suicide.

Adelaja Ifedapo, Houreges and Colonizers: A History of the Sougoulie Rebellion, August 16, 1896.

The young Adelaja Ifedapo's book Houreges and Colonizers stidently argued against pre-colonial Houregic social and family structures as responsible for Bahia's underdevelopment, and influenced Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism's social progressivism.

In concert with the global consensus of the socialist left in the Three Tenets, and with many developmentalist and nationalist ideologies in other late-industrializing or colonized states, such as Sattarism, Imaharism, or National Principlism, Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism presents itself as fundamentally progressive and modernist. However, in staunch contrast with many Bahian socialists, or even paligenetic anti-colonial nationalists, who at some level elevated a perceived pre-colonial past, Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism harshly criticized pre-colonial Asalewan and Bahian formations as responsible in large part for the region's chronic underdevelopment and ability to be subordinated to Euclean powers, and thus called for a total rupture between pre and post-colonial social and cultural structures.

This critique was most famously made by Adelaja Ifedapo in his early Pan-Bahian work Houreges and Colonizers: A History of the Sougoulie Rebellion—whose thesis dominates Asalewan historiogrpahy of Bahian history and is the Asalewan Section's position on the subject to this day—which advanced the notion that the cause of the Sougoulie's failure, and the Toubacterie more broadly, was primarily internal rather than external; he argued that rebels' failure to unite across tribal lines or arouse widespread support amongst the lower classes were the primary reasons for their failure. He also especially, argued that the primary source of Bahia's historic underdevelopment, enabling military conquest in the first place, was the Houregic system; unlike in Euclea, where an emergent bourgeoisie had a strong interest in economic development and industrialization, he argued that Bahian elites' historic dependence on land and slave ownership, particularly the lucrative Transvehemens slave trade, meant they were uninterested in economic development. Adelaja and other members of the Asalewan Section held that the emergent national bourgeoisie, studied through the lens of traders in colonial-era cities and plantation administrators, was also incapable of spurring substantial economic development as that would necessitate confrontation with the Euclean capitalists upon whom mthey depended. Accordingly, their preferred solution to this underdevelopment and geopolitical weakness was in tandem with the rest of the Asalewan Section's political agenda, namely social revolution and intense class struggle against pre-colonial and native elites just as much as against the Estmerish colonial landowning class.

In destroying the socioeconomic structures held to result in Bahia's historic underdevelopment, however, the Asalewan Section held, in accordance with the traditional Nemtsovist model of base and superstructure, that a struggle against preexisting the class base also necessitated a struggle against the reactionary social superstructure that supported and reinforced this class base, and the total destruction of this superstructure just as there must be a total destruction of the class base that birthed it. Nemtsovis-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism's radical modernism and class politics resulted, also, in an equally-radical social progressivism, manifesting itself most prominently in state atheism, Nemtsovist feminism, and advocacy of family abolition.

[Section describing the ways reactionary social structures were seen as reinforcing class struggle and thus Bahia's underdevelopment - cf: The religious functions of rulers and privileged position of the clergy under Hourege, etc.]

Feminism

[Analysis of patriarchal social structures, including patriarchal families, as inherently connected to property ownership and hiearchy more broadly]

Comparisons to other ideologies

Bahian socialism

Bahian socialist Rwizikuran leader Vudzijena Nhema meeting with Asalewan Section leaders Kayode Temidare, Folarin Layeni, and Edudzi Agyeman.

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.

Sattarism

Both Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism and Sattarism emphasize mass mobilization and organization, such as during the Zorasani Rally of the Mothers of the Union.

Though the two movements differ drastically ideologically, some commentators have noted distinct similarities between Sattarism and Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism. Both ideologies share origins in the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial movements of the early-to-mid twentieth century, and anti-imperialist rhetoric thus features prominently in both ideologies and their according political movements. Furthermore, both ideologies view greater South-South cooperation, and more narrowly political unification of their respective regions, as necessary to combat Euclean imperialism, with Sattarists advocating Pan-Zorasanism and Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzists advocating Pan-Bahianism.

In addition to this shared anti-imperialist history, comparative scholars of ideas have also identified both ideologies as strongly collectivist and militarist in character, with the Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzist emphasis on Communalization mirroring the Sattarist emphasis on Ettehâd. In addition to an extensive emphasis on unity in both Asalewan and Zorasani propgadanda and thought, both countries have adopted similar measures at encouraging such unity. While in power, both the Asalewan Section and the Revloutionary Masses Party and National Renovation Front created mass organizations attached to themselves and whose membership comprises a substantial portion of the population, with as the Asalewan Revloutionary Councilist Defence Committees, Junior Workers' League, and All-Asase Lewa Women's Federation mirroring the Zorasani Sar-Parast Aghtar, Young Companions of the Union, and National Renovation Front#Women and Mothers of the Union.

Both the Asaleawn Section and National Renovation Front also regularly stage government-organized demonstrations, in the Asalewan case ideologically justified through the "Perpetual" aspect of Perpetual-Cyclical Revolution and in the Zorasani case justified through the doctrine of Perpetual Mass Mobilization. Mirroring these mass organizations and mobilizations is both the Asalewan Section and National Renovation Front's close links with each country's respective militaries and an emphasis on the mass militarization of society, militarization aimed both at strengthening national security and at further fostering nationalistic and collectivistic sentiment in the people.

However, scholars have also identified key differences between Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism and Sattarism, and more broadly the ruling styles of the Asalewan Section and the Revolutionary Masses Party and National Renovation Front. Most prominent among these differences is the ideologies' differing economic views, as Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism emphasizes class struggle and stridently rejects all forms of private property whereas Sattarism emphasizes class collaboration accepts a limited form of private property, in the Neo-Sattarist case accepting a central role for private property and capitalist markets in the economy. Similarly, Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism's materialist and scientific socialist rejection of religion contrasts with Sattarism's adoption of Political Irfan.

Furthermore, many scholars have also argued that the mass-mobilizing and collectivist aspects of Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzist and Sattarist ideology, while superficially similar, differ substantially in practice, particularly since the Protective-Corrective Revolution. While, under the Sattarist logic of Ettehâd, mass organizations simply advanced the classical totalitarian role of allowing the party-state to control and mobilize the population, these scholars argue that in the Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzist case, mass organizations are conceptualized as, and have indeed served, a dual role, simultaneously expanding the party-state's control and politically empowering the masses as part of a dialectic between the masses and the political vanguard in which the masses are ultimately supreme.

These scholars especially contrast the roles of the Asalewan Women's Federation and League of Labor with their Zorasani counterparts; while their Zorasani counterparts are almost entirely controlled by the state, in the Asalewan case these organizations, or their sub-groups, are semi-autonomous have waged political campaigns in their own right, sometimes coming into conflict with the Section center. Furthermore, since the Protective-Corrective Revolution the Asalewan Section has, in lieu of directly administering the country, instead shared power with the elected governments as part of the broader Asalewan model of "Illiberal Councilism," further contrasting with the Sattarist notion of the party directly controlling the state.