Looks like we need another definition with links to threads again, DNZ

I'll take a crack at trying to explain this, but it's up to DNZ to correct any mistakes, go more in-depth, add things I forgot, post links to other threads, etc.

The question of a revolution in a third-world country, where the proletariat represent a minority of the population, is especially hard. Many have proposed different solutions to the problem, such as advocating permanent revolution, new democracy, the joint dictatorship of the peasantry and the proletariat, etc. but Third-World Caesarean Socialism sees the itself as a solution beyond permanent revolution, new democracy, and the joint dictatorship of the peasantry and the proletarian.

According the TWCS, the proletariat should rally behind a leader and institute a breakthrough military coup, institute a people's war, follow a focoist military strategy, etc. After this, the bourgeoisie and it's allies would be suppressed and a dictatorship of the pan-national and national petit-bourgeoisie with the support of the proletariat would be instituted. A state-capitalist economy with the absence of the bourgeoisie would be instituted. A cult of personality behind the leader would be propagated to get the support of the peasantry along with a form of progressive militarized society. The ruling party really has the power rather than the leader and liberal opposition parties would be suppressed in a form of managed democracy. Along with this, communal power would be propagated. The autonomy of these communes would be dependent on material conditions, but too much autonomy (such as arguing for "states rights" or "municipal rights" would be frowned upon) would not exist. There would be a right-wing populist party (economically left-wing) called "The Party of Order", a left-wing populist party called "The Party of Liberty", and a centrist party to stand between the two. A proletariat party would exist outside of this and act as a opposition group that would also help harass "liberal opposition" protesters, etc. Eventually, the TWCS state would lose it's progressive character. When this happens, when the proletariat make up a majority of the population, the proletariat are faced with 2 main options. Either the proletariat could make a revolution to overthrow the now reactionary state or the proletariat could hope to make a constitutional overhaul with massive proletariat support (violent protests, etc.). Here, think of Daniel DeLeon's SLP campaigns.

Let's see first if TGU can find the old threads and move them here.

I recall a reference thread for links, a humour thread, and a thread on presidentialism, among others.

The humor thread.

Well put, quite a few good points there. But it seems a bit specific and at least in my opinion implementing a system of pseudo parties in the third world makes it very easy for the outside world to influence the system.

That was not the one I was thinking of, comrade. I was thinking of the one where I mocked the liberal-humanist hysteria of two banned members re. the "authoritarianism" of TWCS. One of them was quoted in my album pic depicting Chavez and Lukashenko. This was the guy who inspired my "goons and thugs" discussions, hence:

While I haven't given this theory the intellectual attention it deserves (I am too hungover to right now, but I will later), if I remember correctly (from the thread where Q kinda called you out to explain it DNZ) I could potentially live out my dream of participating in geurilla warfare (I am only half kidding)?

NRZ, my musings on TWCS can be sent in the PCSSR work-in-progress I sent you. For convenience, it's also the other thread in this group so far: People's Histories, Blocs, and Managed Democracy Reconsidered.

[Not to mention the Theory thread was replicated as an Article and as a Blog.]

As for the question, that depends if the movement pursues Focoism and/or People's War as its takeover option, as opposed to Breakthrough Military Coups.

While I understand, DNZ, of why you wished to come up with a theory for the 3rd world, as opposed to permanent revolution or maoist bloc of 4 classes, but do you not think that any successful revolution will rely on quickly spreading across the globe? Proletarian revolution would undoubtedly need 1 or 2 highly industrialized countries and given that any 3rd world countries would be able to share resources with them, would it not make the necessity for twcs obsolete? I could be wrong, but that is just what came to mind.

^^^ Well, there could be a wave of TWCS "Marches on Rome" across the Third World that might be able to develop without First World interference. That's why I wrote about Pan-Nationalism being a superior tool for TWCS than mere nationalism.