dhkc schrieb:
> In their postings, both A. Holberg and Owen Jones make a number of
> statements. Since it provides an opportunity to expound DHKP-C views, here
> is our response to them.
>
> Both of them deny that Turkey is fascist. There is the MHP (Nationalist
> Movement Party). This party is a member of the current governing coalition
> in Turkey. Would it help if we mentioned that the alternative name of this
> party is the "Grey Wolves"? The MHP seeks a Greater Turkey stretching over
> 1,000 miles from present-day Turkey all the way to the plains of Central
> Asia where "the Turkish race" began. Even before it joined the governing
> coalition, the ranks of police, gendarmerie, special anti-guerrilla teams,
> senior civil servants, army officers and so on were filled with MHP members
> and sympathisers, or sympathisers of other fascist groups like the BBP
> (Great Unity Party) or the Ulku Ocaklari (Idealist Hearths). Our comrades
> confront fascism in the streets, in police interrogation rooms and in the
> prisons (when an attack on left-wing prisoners is planned, and at present
> there are more than 1,000 DHKP-C prisoners in Turkey's jails, the normal
> prison guards are often taken away and replaced with others who try to
> provoke the prisoners by giving the fascist salute).
[nobody ever denied that the MHP is a fascist party and that fascists are
much too numerous in Turkey.Furthermore nobody denies that the way the
reporessive organs of the state deal with all sorts of opponents is identical to
the way fascists do, and many of the police etc. in Turkey are of course
fascists. This however doesn't make the state a fascist state, I think.A fascist
state according to the definition I employ is a totalitarian
bourgeois dictatorship based on a violent mass movement of the fascist ruling
party used to smash not only the revolutionaries but the workers movement as a
whole. In a fascist country there are no other legal parties, there are no trade
unions (even of the most reformist kind). In a fascist country a party such as
HADEP would not only be suppressed in various ways on the local level but would
not exist legally and would certainly not be represented in any parliament etc.
Turkey certainly was a reactionary military dictatorship in theearly 80s and it
makes sence to discuss whether this dictatorship was fascist then, but I don't
think that it's useful to call every form of a reactionary state and governement
fascist.
>
> The MHP was heavily involved in the Maras massacre (December 1978) in which
> members of the minority Alevi branch of Islam and "godless commies"
> ("allahsiz goministler") were slaughtered. Even in 1978 Turkey had the
> second-largest army in NATO, well-equipped with vehicles from German and US
> sources, but for some reason it took this large and well-equipped NATO army
> three days to arrive and stop the pogrom. The official death toll at Maras
> was 111, the real death toll was several times higher. In the 1980s, Alevis
> from the Maras region emigrated in large numbers to Europe, and many support
> the DHKP-C and have no trouble with the concept of Turkey being a fascist
> state. We think they know better than Holberg and Jones what fascism in
> Turkey is.
>
> We have a detestation of fascism in Europe, not least because its supporters
> often attack people from Turkey, but we were intrigued to note how much
> publicity was given to Haider's accession to power in Austria as part of a
> coalition and how little mention there was when the MHP did the same in
> Turkey. Either the imperialist media did not report it because they wanted
> to cover it up, or they did not report it because they knew that the system
> was already fascist and MHP government ministers were merely the icing on
> the cake.
>[Here I agree totally, but I think that the Austrian case makles clear that the
existence of fascists (if the FPÖ-leaders are) in a government does not
automatically make a state fascists.]
> Among the left from Turkey and Kurdistan, there is a close connection between
> militancy and calling the system fascist. The far left parties and groups
> all call the system fascist. The groups that do not are basically reformist.
>
[this is largely true,but it is no prove for the correctness of the analysis. It
rather points to different mentality. Besides, don't you perhaps agree that the
development of the PKK shows how empty the namecalling 'fascist' can be, when
that party - as a major victim of fascism - suddenly discovers the beauty of the
same fascist state's democracy, and strives to becpome a legal party in a state
which yesterday it called fascist and genocidal?]
> Stung by our charge of pessimism, Jones presented a long litany of his
> political activity and asked if we were satisfied. No, we are not. He has,
> in a sense, protested against the DHKP-C. But in his long list he never
> mentions protesting against the regime in Turkey - not even in support of
> Abdullah Ocalan. He calls Turkey "imperialist" but not "fascist" - a
> confused formulation. We maintain that the system in Turkey is fascism
> backed by imperialism.
>
[I'm not here speaking for Comrade Jones, but since I got worse answers from one
of your fans than he got, let me tell you that I have participated in numerous
demonstrations against the regimes in Turkey and in favour of Kurdish self
determinatio, and I have also collaborated actively with Turkish/Kurdish
leftists in the past writing leaflets for them etc. etc. But frankly spoken,I
don't think that all these activities make my present arguments any better or
worse]
> He asks where we get the idea from that imperialism is afraid of revolution.
> Well, we think deepening US involvement in Colombia is one example. Our
> statement on that was greeted as "spam" in some quarters, but really it was
> very significant. Most projections we are aware of point to a deepening gulf
> between rich and poor throughout the world over the next decades. Even
> half-serious revolutionaries ought to find plenty of material there to work
> with. But they have to believe in themselves and what they are doing. Even
> in the imperialist USA, there are currently almost two million people in
> prison. Not a sign of a confident society. And NATO was not only not closed
> down, it had its functions and scope expanded. Does that sound like our
> rulers are calm and self-assured? No, they are trying to prepare for future
> threats. The "end of history" rhetoric died away some time ago.
[ again I agree though I have probably a different view of the class position
of the FARC than you have]
>
> Jones enlarges on his problems with "individual terrorism", which he thinks
> we practice. In fact, one of our key slogans is "Only revolution will sweep
> away this filth". What he calls "terrorism" (mouthing the rhetoric of his
> own ruling class) is in fact people's justice.
>
> Here's an example. On May Day 1989 a Devrimci Sol sympathiser in Istanbul, a
> teenager named M. Akif Dalci, was killed by a traffic cop named Kazim
> Cakmakci. Cakmakci was a fascist. He saw the May Day march and decided to
> shoot a "red". He knew that no court in Turkey would hold him to account.
> The killing was televised, however. Devrimci Sol found out who he was and
> where he lived, and early in 1990 Devrimci Sol shot him dead. Naturally the
> police and media called it terrorism, when it was really justice in a land
> where there is no justice.
>
> Or a more recent example: in March 1998 four DHKP-C people in Izmir were
> abducted, tortured and murdered, and their bodies were made to "disappear".
> In a larger sense, the system some people will not call fascist was
> responsible, and this is why the DHKP-C strives for its revolutionary
> overthrow, but it did track down one of those involved in the disappearances
> and he was punished with death. We will not wait for the revolution to
> settle scores, our sense of justice demands that those we can get our hands
> on now will pay the price for what they have done.
>
[from a moral point of cview I don't have no problem with what you did in these
circumstances.I can howevernot really judge how the working class reacts to
these activities, and this is a major factor.]
> Now, as to Holberg: we have already dealt with why we think Turkey is
> fascist. Interestingly, Holberg admits that Turkey is "crisis-ridden" after
> saying it is a delusion to think the left can challenge the existing order.
[I didn't mean this in general but for the time being. There is of course the
crises of the bourgeoisie,but there is as muchthe crises of the politucal
leadership of the proletariat. I have seen the Turkish left in Germany from the
late 70s on, and I don't think that you will denie the fact that it has
practically collapsed. Well, Germany is not Turkey of course though the
situation in Turkey would surely reflect on the situation within the largely
proletarian Turkish/Kurdish community in Germany. But I think I have also seen a
decline of revolutionary forces in Turkey. In fact I don't think that the PKK
would have capitaluted as it did would the Turkish left not have been so weak.
This is to say the PKK of course basicallycapitulated because of its
politically) bourgeois and hence nationalist character, but for tactical reasons
it's leadership would certainly have acted otherwise with a strong and militant
working class in the back.]
> But it is precisely because the system in Turkey is crisis-ridden that
> revolutionaries have a chance. In cities like Istanbul, even small left-wing
> protests (say, in support of the prisoners) encounter massive police
> repression, often just a short distance from where the tourists are sunning
> themselves. There has been no reduction in the scope of torture techniques
> in Turkey. Clearly the authorities remain afraid of something. Turkey is by
> far the most unstable NATO country, and if it gets into the EU it will be
> the most unstable EU member.
>
> When Ceausescu was killed in 1989, Turkey was indeed one of the few places in
> the world where pro-Ceausescu demonstrations took place. Devrimci Sol took a
> prominent part in these. One of our militants, Ali Riza Kurt, organised such
> protests among prisoners while he was in jail. In 1995 he broke out of
> prison, was recaptured by police and murdered. A policeman took a photo of
> him just before his murder. He is lying on the ground with his hands cuffed
> behind his back, but if you look closely at his hands you will see he is
> giving the revolutionary victory sign.
>
> According to Holberg, Ali Riza Kurt and people like him are "lunatics" for
> the line taken on Ceausescu. We realise that the imperialist media called
> Ceausescu a monster but then this is the same media that, for example, kept
> very quiet about the nature of the MHP. Under Ceausescu, Romania had
> followed a relatively independent policy. For example, it was the only
> Warsaw Pact member that did not join in the invasion of Czechoslovakia in
> 1968, and there were fears at the time that this would lead to a Soviet
> invasion of Romania also. This was a period when the West courted Romania.
> For example, Ceausescu received a visit from Nixon in 1971. Later, Ceausescu
> resisted perestroika, and in the emerging New World Order's eyes displaying
> independence is the worst crime you can commit. That is why he and his wife
> were killed. If the killers had nothing to hide, why did the prosecutor who
> subjected them to a "trial" commit suicide shortly after? We consider
> Ceausescu to have been a victim of an imperialist plot and we have always
> been one of the most anti-imperialist organisations in the world. If that
> means we are lunatics, then we do not wish to keep company with the sane.
>
[In short:I don'Ät believe that the position 'the enemyof my enemy is my friend'
is a Marxist one.Whatever positions Ceaucescu might have taken for nationalist
reasons to my understanding he was an enemy of the Romanian and hence
international working class (a fact which of course does not make his
enemies,killers and successors less enemies of the working class)]
> Finally, Holberg mentions the "liquidation of comrades from a breakaway
> faction". What he is referring to is the darbeciler or "putschists". In
> September 1992 they kidnapped our leader Dursun Karatas and tried to take
> over Devrimci Sol by means of a putsch. Dursun Karatas escaped after some
> weeks and exposed the putsch attempt. The darbeciler killed some of our
> people, either directly or by betraying them to the police in Turkey. For
> example, the student Ugur Yasar Kilic was abducted and tortured by
> darbeciler in 1993 because he supported Dursun Karatas. A few weeks later,
> he and another comrade were murdered by police while they were preparing
> banners for May Day. We also punished some of the darbeciler with death.
> There are still a few darbeciler left in Germany, and they are involved in
> the drugs business under the benevolent supervision of the German police.
> They do not have a different ideology from us but are mainly motivated by
> hatred of the DHKP-C and Dursun Karatas. They do not constitute a political
> faction at all. The darbeciler proved the correctness of Stalin's statement
> that fortresses are best conquered from within - they did more damage than
> most of our other enemies.
[well, I'mnot defending the 'darbiciler',but if you refer to Stalin's statement
this was of course his pretextr to murder almostthe ewntire Bolshevik leadership
of the October Revolution. It is in fact rather rare in history that a party
whose leadership consists overwhelmingly of 'fascist agents', as Staslin and his
henchmen used to call their victims, was able to organoize the first and only
workers socialist revolution. I know that this is not a sufficient argument on
Stalin and Stalinism. But to analyse this there is no place here,and it would
probablymake little sence to try and do this with people who still seem to
believe in the 'proofs'of the Moscow-trials. Let's make this clear: while I
sometimes make a difference between people who hold a certain opinion and their
opinion, I hold Stalin and Stalinism for counterevoluionary and the grave digger
of the world Marxist movement.]
> In her statement, Heikki Sipila is correct. The book "Turkey Unveiled:
> Ataturk and After" by Hugh and Nicole Pope, a bourgeois history of modern
> Turkey (published 1996) noted that in the mid-1990s, Turkey was one of the
> few places in the world where a significant body of the young were attracted
> to the Marxist-Leninist ideology. Despite intense police surveillance of
> schools and universities, that remains true. We are indeed one of the
> strongest communist groups in the world. The revolutionary left from Turkey
> have some of the most militant traditions of the left anywhere, we have the
> memory of our martyrs, and the system in Turkey is so flagrantly unjust that
> it almost forces decent human beings to join the revolutionary cause,
> despite the very real risk of imprisonment, torture or death.
>
> In the DHKC Information Bureaus, we act in support of the struggles of our
> comrades in prisons both of Europe and Turkey - such as our comrade Fehriye
> Erdal in Belgium - as well as the wider struggle. Our time for discussions
> with people via e-mail whom we may or may not convince is limited. If anyone
> is seriously interested in our work and our views, rather than simply
> sitting in judgement on us from afar, they are welcome to come to our
> Information Bureaus for discussions.
>
> Hakliyiz Kazanacagiz (We Are Right, We Will Win)
>
> Kurtulusa Kadar Savas (Fight Until Liberation)
>
> DHKC London Information Bureau
>
>
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
