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 Nemtsovite 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-Tretyakism-Edudzism departs from Nemtsovite and Councilist orthodoxy in that it embraces Pan-Bahian nationalism, a quasi-humanistic interpretation of Nemtsovism, a limited role for a post-revolutionary vanguard, and Tretyakist ideas favoring militarism. Nemtsovism-Adelajism-Tretyakism-Adelajism is also distinct in that it views the colonized peasantry, lumpenproletariat, and hunter-gatherers, not just the working-class, as a part of the proletariat and thus aa revolutionary class. Though named after Yuri Nemtsov, Konstantyn Tretyak, Adelaja Ifedapo, and Edudzi Agyeman, and drawing substantial 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 Adelaja 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

Nemtsovism

The Soravian philosopher and socialist revolutionary Yuri Nemtsov's views and beliefs, including dialectical and historical materialism, and the centrality of class struggle in effecting political change, provide the analytic framework undergirding Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism.

Taking its name from the the ideology's namesake, and influenced by Adelaja Ifedapo and other members of the left-wing Asalewan intelligentsia's experience in Nemtsovite Estmerish political parties, first Social Democracy of Estmere and then the Estmerish Section of the Workers' International, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism views itself as a development of Nemtsovism and correct application of Nemtsovite theory to Asalewan and Bahian material conditions. Consequently, Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism incorporates numerous aspects of Nemtsovite orthodoxy as central to the ideology, including a materialist interpretation of history, dialectical analysis of social relations and transformation, a belief that a society's economic base determines its cultural, social, and political superstructure, and an emphasis on the centrality of class struggle, including the central emancipatory role of the proletariat and support for an international proletarian revolution.

Similar to many other Coian revolutionary movements, however, Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism rejects Classical Nemtsovism, Nemtsov's writings as unmodified from their original forms, and Orthodox Nemtsovism, a body of Nemtsovite thought popular in the early Euclean social-democratic and councilist ideological milieu, including Social Democracy of Estmere and the Estmerish Section, that many founders of the Asalewan Section and early theoreticians of Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism emerged from. Rejecting Orthodox Nemtsovism and many aspects of Nemtsovite and councilist orthodoxy developed by Valduvian Nemtsovologists after that country's revolution, Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism instead embraces a humanistic and pragmatic view of Nemtsovism, inspired by certain theoreticians of Eastern Nemtsovism and Adelaja Ifedapo's own interpretation of the ideology. In his 1938 text Nemtsov in the Colony, Adelaja argues that, rather than being a fixed body of knowledge as in Orthodox Nemtsovism, Nemtsovism is properly understood as maintaining the theory's historical and dialectical materialist core but producing analytic results and knowledge that may differ drastically across time and place.

In the Bahian and Asalewan case, Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzists argue, these differing analytic results include viewing the Bahian, colonized peasantry, lumpenproletariat, and even hunter-gatherers as revolutionary classes on the level of the working-class. While many Nemtsovite parties and movements have historically sought to organize these classes as junior parts of a united front led by the workiing-class, which retains a leading, vanguard role, Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzism is distinct in that views these classes as equal, not subordinate, to the working-class in the revolutionary struggle. Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzists do not disagree with Nemtsovism's view that the proletariat is a revolutionary universal class because it lacks, as a class, any particular interests or attachments to property and hierarchical social relations. Rather, it argues that the conditions of Bahia's colonization were such that all members of colonial-era Bahian lower classes were proletarians.

In Odo, as elsewhere, even where the bourgeoisie and labour aristocracy have not succeeded, as in Azmara and Gaullica, attaching Nemtsovism to fundamentally anti-Nemtsovist, counter-revolutionary forces, there remains substantial confusion as to Nemtsovism's character. There as those who believe Nemtsovism to be like the lake, a vast body of knowledge yet unchanging, staid, stagnant. And there are those who believe Nemtsovism to be like the river, no less majestic and keeping intact the core, the water—the science of dialectical materialism, the politics of councilism—but constantly moving and changing, ruthlessly applying dialectical materialism to whatever material conditions they find themselves in, so that they may better wash away the mud of bourgeois society. Artūrs Ulmanis and the revolutionaries of Valduvia are River Nemtsovites; applying the teachings of Nemtsov, dialectical materialism and councilism, they modified their theory as the conditions change, realizing first that the struggle against the opiate of the masses was the primary contradiction under Valduvian councilism, and second that, during the Great War, the struggle against National Functionalism was paramount. In so doing, they have defended Valduvian councilism and established workers' states in East Miersa, Auzance, and Champania. Konstantyn Tretyak and the revolutionaries of Chistovodia, too, are River Nemtsovites; applying dialectical materialism and councilism, they recognized proletarian elements in the military of an otherwise-bourgeois state, deployed such elements to successfully wage proletarian revolution in Chistovodia, and now foment revolution in the rest of the Asterias. Like Ulmanis and Tretyak, we, too, must be River Nemtsovites. We never deviate a second from dialectical materialism and councilism but must apply them, as they do in Euclea and the Asterias, to Odo and Bahia.

Adelaja Ifedapo, Nemtsovism in the Colony, February 11, 1937.

Such an analysis was partly rooted in materialist arguments about Bahian material conditions under colonialism; particularly in colonial Asase Lewa, the colonial state rapidly reorganized agricultural labor from being done by peasant smallholders to being done by wage laborers on plantations, which Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzists considered the establishment of a rural proletariat, geographically but not sociologically from the urban proletariat of Euclea. However, Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzists expanded upon these arguments to ones rooted in Nemtsovite humanism, as many Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzist theorists, including Adelaja Ifedapo and Edudzi Agyeman themselves, argued that the extreme alienation and dehumanization–that colonial society induced in the colonized—through the psychopathology of violence and humiliation as much as economic proletarianization—violently stripped the colonized, including the Bahian peasanatry, lumpenproletariat, and hunter-gatherers, from any particular interests that might prevent them from becoming part of the universal, revolutionary class of the proletariat.

Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism also shares, with many Eastern Nemtsovites and Nemtsovite humanists, a belief that bourgeois cultural hegemony serves, in both the metropolitan and the colonized societies, as a key force preventing the development of proletarian class consciousness. Though arguing that the naked reality of colonial violence and extraction means that it is much more difficult for the bourgeoisie to impose cultural hegemony in the colony than the metropole, Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism does believe that bourgeois, colonial cultural hegemony is an important force preventing the development of anti-colonial consciousness in the more privileged segments of the colonized, especially the colonized intelligentsia, labor aristocracy, and other elements of the native populations broadly assimilated into colonial society. Consequently, Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzists favor the element of a proletarian cultural hegemony, expressed in the colonized and Bahian world as the development of a distinctly proletarian and indigenous national culture and sense of national community, albeit with little relation to pre-colonial Bahian society, which Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzists disdained as weak and easily-conquered, and tinged with a distinctly proletarian internationalist spirit.

Despite its humanistic and Eastern Marxist influences, Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism does not totally embrace the Nemtsovist humanist tradition. Most prominently, the ideology retains the belief, as in classical Nemtsovism, that dialectical materialism can and ought to be applied to the natural sciences just as much as the social sciences. Even though Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism's primary focus is on the social conditions of Asalewan and Bahian society, this belief has had an important influence on the ways science has been applied in Asase Lewa since the Asalewan Revolution. In addition to substantially applying the Nemtsovist dialectic to scientific inquiry, post-revolutionary Asalewan science has been characterized, in concert with Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzist beliefs in the mass line as key to solving and understanding scientific problems as well as social ones, by an emphasis on "mass science", characterized by an emphasis on science that would fulfill immediate, practical aims, participation of scientists in manual labor, mass peasant and proletarian participation in scientific experiments, large-scale science and technical education, and the limited incorporation of folk knowledge into the broader body of scientific knowledge.

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 her'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 revealed as merely vultures feasting off this corpse, and the myth of the murder of Bahia as just that: a myth. The death of Bahia was not a homicide 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 palingenetic 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 historiography 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 plantation administrators and traders in colonial-era cities, 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 Nemtsovite 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, Nemtsovite 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]

Pan-Bahianism

What is the Bahian? Unlike the Nirali, the Bahian has no common culture; unlike the Dezevauni, no common language; unlike the Zorasani, no common faith; unlike the Shangean, no common heritage. Indeed, the Bahian has nothing in common—neither culture, nor language, nor faith, nor heritage—save for one thing: that he is a slave. But it is not despite, but precisely because, of this fact that his fate, and his decision to unify or not, will decisively determine the fate of humanity, and its decision to become free or remain in chains.

Edudzi Agyeman, What is the Bahian?, September 21, 1950.

In his 1950 text What is the Bahian?, Edudzi Agyeman argued that Bahians had no commonality except for the fact of their oppression, and that this fact made Bahians a universal race or nation, analoguous to the proletarian universal class, whose political unification along socialist lines would create a state with no interests eccept those of oppressed peoples, the proletariat, and humanity as a whole.

With the historical origins of the Asalewan Section of the Workers' International, and by extension Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism, lying within the left-wing of the Pan-Bahian movement of the early twentieth century, and specifically the left-wing minority at the Pan-Bahian Congress of 1907, Pan-Bahianism has played an instrumental role in Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism and traditionally seen as one of the most distinguishing features of the ideology. Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzists, argued that Bahia's political and economic emancipation depended upon Bahia's ability to form a single political community and state. Adelaja Ifedapo and Edudzi Agyeman actively pressed for a Pan-Bahian state's implementation, with both figures, and Asase Lewa as a whole, playing an instrumental role in the formation of the Congress of Bahian States in 1956 and being one of the founding states of the United Bahian Republic in 1960. Even after the United Bahian Republic's dissoluton, the Asalewan Section of the Workers' International and the Asalewan state have remained, at least theoretically, Pan-Bahian, with the ection seeking to forge political unity amongst the Bahian left and the Asalewan state extensively sponsoring left-wing Pan-Bahian political movements, violent or nonviolent, throughout the continent, and otherwise seeking to make greater moves towards Bahian political and economic unification, such as by forming the Bank of Bahia in 1988.

However, although the Asalewan Section and state historically emphasized unity amongst Pan-Bahian leftists and socialists above all else, especially during the run-up to and period of the United Bahian Republic, scholars of nationalism and Pan-Bahianism have identified Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism as differing substantially from most pan-nationalist ideologies, either Bahian socialists within Bahia itself or other pan-nationalist movements, such as Sattarists who supported the creation of Zorasan. Whereas most pan-nationalists, like nationalists in general, have sought to emphasize a common heritage amongst the national community—such as a common language, culture, or religion—Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzists do no such thing, instead arguing that no aspect of the Bahian experience that binds Bahians together save for one: their oppression, colonization, and subjugation. In his seminal 1950 text What is the Bahian?, Edudzi Agyeman went so far as to argue that it was the very experience of subjugation, oppression, and violence that created and defined Bahianness, and that the oppression of Bahians—either through slavery and, later, severe labor exploitation in the Asterias, or through extraction of natural resources and severe labor exploitation in Bahia—constituted, alongside the exploitation of labor by capital, the basis of the capitalist world-system. Influenced by this text, some twenty-first century scholars and theorists, especially amongst the Bahian diaspora in the Asterias, have advanced the theory of Bahiopessimism, arguing that Bahian people's exclusion and oppression is the defining characteristic of modernity and are pessimistic about the prospect of Bahian liberation while modernity remains. These Bahiopessimists are also skeptical of efforts, such as the Asalewan Section's, to achieve Bahian liberation through proletarian internationalism and revolution.

However, Edudzi Agyeman himself, and Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzists more broadly, rejected this conclusion. Instead, Edudzi argued that, in much the same way as the proletariat constituted the universal class, whose interests were identical to those of humanity as a whole because their emancipation as a class could not come without the emancipation of humanity as a whole through the establishment of a communist classless society, Bahians constituted the "universal nation" and the "universal race," whose interests as a nation and race were indistinguishable from the colonized, the proletariat, or humanity as a whole. Edudzi argued that this was the case because Bahians collectively lacked a particular cultural heritage, with all the particular sectional, non-universal interests that implies—with such heritage only being held by Bahian sub-groups (in the same way that the proletariat collectively had no particular interests even if subsections of the proletariat do), and even that heritage having been seriously eroded during the Toubacterie—and because Bahians were, by definition, inherently oppressed under the capitalist world-system, thus having no choice but to agitate against it, at all times and without qualifications.

Edudzi, and Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzists more broadly, thus argued in favor of Pan-Bahianism not on the basis of a common cultural heritage, but as an extension of their proletarian internationalism; they believed that any Pan-Bahian state dominated by the Bahian proletariat would have no choice but to pursue universal and pure proletarian internationalism, even moreso than other socialist countries that, though following broadly proletarian internationalist foreign policies, might sometimes pursue the particular interests of their country's working-class and in that way betray the proletariat and humanity as a whole. With a socialist world government appearing to be only a distant, long-term goal, the Asalewan Section of the Workers' International agitated for a Pan-Bahian state as something that could be achieved in the short-term and have the same proletarian internationalist foreign policy of, and strike directly at the heart of the capitalist world-system in the same way as, a global socialist state. Many academics, such as Valduvian scholar of Bahian and Asalewan politics Algirdas Jancius, have thus argued that Nemtsovism-Tretyakism-Adelajism-Edudzism paradoxically advocates a sort of of "internationalist nationalism," seeking to construct a particular national community precisely because that community's interests would be indistinguishable from humanity as a whole.

However, many academics have also questioned the extent to which the modern-day Asalewan Section of the Workers' International, and Nemtsovist-Tretyakist-Adelajist-Edudzists more broadly, adhere to "internationalist nationalism." These academics, including Jancius himself and the Estmerish scholar of Bahian politics Gary Carter, have argued that the Asaslewan Section and state has, in the wake of the United Bahian Republic's dissolution and the collapse of other socialist Bahian states more broadly, increasingly focused on advancing Asase Lewa's particular interests internationally while increasingly seeking to construct a common national identity domestically, such as by seeking to create a common lingua franca in the form of Asalewan and by increasingly valorizing aspects of Asase Lewa's traditional and pre-colonial culture, especially its folk art and folk culture. While Asase Lewa's foreign policy remains in many ways proletarian internationalist and Pan-Bahian, and while its nationbuilding efforts retain a distinctly anti-colonial and socialist character, such policies do not retain the specific emphasis on advancing only the interests of the universal Bahian and proletarian communities seen in the mid-century Asalewan Section of the Workers' International.

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.