I think what you write below really outlines the different definitions of
"fascism" used by Marxist-Leninists(Stalinists) and Trotskyists.
A suppose a Trotskyist postion would be that fascism is based on a mass
movement of the petty-bourgoisie and the lumpen-proletariat in imperialist
nations, wheras Communists tend to apply the term more broadly to encompass
regimes that Trotskyists may differently label "Bonapartist" and even
societies that have a facade of bourgois democracy such as Turkey. I think
the description of Turkey as Fascist is a correct one. Certainly the actions
of the state in suppressing any forms of working-class expression are those
of fascism. Also the states use of extreme nationalism to tie the masses to
it. I suppose the point here is that all "democratic" states will show their
fascist nature once faced with revolution. (For example, the fascist role of
the British state in occupied Ireland were death-squads, mass internment and
military occupation were the norm)
Really though, since I am not from Turkey I will defer to my Turkish and
Kurdish comrades on the issue since it is they who have the first hand
knowledge of the situation, and I think that most of the Turkish Left does
agree on this.
On the term "social-fascist" and the SPD. I think it was an accurate
description. The SPD had itself used both fascist death-squads and the
state-forces to crush the communists and the working-class. In that sense,
to point out that the "Socialists" were no better than "fascists" was fair
enough. Of course Hitler, having never been in power, was an unknown
quantity at that time. But the suppresion of the revolutionary movement by
the SPD had certainly not been qualitivly much different than that of
Mussolini's fascists in Italy.
regards,
James.
----- Original Message -----
From: "A.Wosni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> While it is understandable that you are carried away by your emotions,
Cde.
> Tait, this is not a sufficient basis for an intervention in a debate on
> (Marxist or other) theory. You ought not criticize cde. Owen for what he
does
> not mention unless it distorts the point he's trying to make.
> There are a few things which seem to me to be definite truth: 1. every
> state is an oppressive organization, 2. history has had regimes more
bloody than
> the Turkish ones and which were not in a scientific sence fascist (among
them
> Stalin's counterrevolutionary dictatorship), 3. calling everything that
you
> righfully reject 'facist' might be a good way to express your horror, but
why
> do you need the 'fascist' form of imperialism (capitalism in the epoch of
decay)
> to really be against it? The incriminate use of the term 'fascist' seems
to me
> to be a left over from one of the two zigzags of the Stalinist epoch,
either the
> ultraleft '3rd period' when even the social democrates were called
fascists, or
> the rightwing 'popular front'-period when the fight against fascism
> was instrumentalized to build a large front together with 'democratic'
> imperialism (the colonial peoples of the time by the way knew better about
> the'democratic' character of their own allegedly 'antifascist'
imperialists).
> The unscientific use of the term 'fascism' thus either serves to mask
> ultraleftist sectarianism or a right opportunistic betrayal of the working
class
> to the 'liberal' bourgeoisie.
> A. Holberg
>
> red-rebel schrieb:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Owen Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Reply to secr (MG!), at [EMAIL PROTECTED], who wrote on the
> > 19/12/2000
> > > 5:23:
> > >
> > > > I think the explanation might be that it's felt hopeless to do
anything
> > > > about such ruthless fascist regime.
> > >
> > > The Turkish regime is certainly reactionary, yes. But by any real
Marxist
> > > definition, it is not fascist (has a movement representing a ruined
> > > petty-bourgeoisie and all those classes above the proletariat seized
power
> > > and usurped all elements of working class democracy in society, are we
> > > looking at the rule of finance capital, etc...?) This is using
"fascist"
> > as
> > > a moralistic characterisation rather than a scientific term. We have
not
> > > really seen fascism in the post-1945 epoch.
> > >
> > > No matter how brutal the terror of a reactionary regime is, one
should
> > not
> > > simply use fascist as a handy swearword or propaganda term. This only
> > serves
> > > to prevent us from making an accurate class analysis of that regime;
in
> > > other words, it deceives, and that can be a dangerous thing. Not only
> > that,
> > > it strips "fascism" of its scientific meaning and renders it useless.
It
> > is
> > > a term which should be used only after very careful analysis.
> > >
> > > I realise a far-Right, extreme-nationalist party is a member of the
> > Turkish
> > > regime; however this is not fascist per se, no matter how reactionary
it
> > > genuinely is. Potentially it can serve as a core for a future fascist
> > > movement, but the conditions for fascism are not present in Turkey in
the
> > > year 2000. Indeed a similar party, the Radical Party of Votislav
Sesijl,
> > was
> > > part of the old Serbian coalition, but that did not make the old
Belgrade
> > > regime fascist in character either. Likewise, I would certainly not
> > describe
> > > the Freedom Party of Haider in Austria as fascist either; a Rightwing
> > > bourgeois-nationalist party whose leadership is not really to the
Right of
> > > the present British Conservative leadership of William Hague, to be
> > honest.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Owen
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> > I think this response from OJ sums up what the DHKC said about the euro
left
> > rather succinctly. Not a word from Owen about the communists being
> > massacred - just plenty of psuedo-intellectual verbiage about the
"correct
> > Marxist definition" of fascism. For the "brit-left" politics is just a
word
> > game. In Turkey it is life and death. But if we look over Owens comments
> > from the past on "stalinists" ("worse than Hitler", "murderers of the
> > workers" etc, etc, ad nauseum) I'm sure we'll understand his lack of
> > concern. Maybe the slaughter of "counter-revolutionary stalinists" at
the
> > hands of "bourgois democratic" cops is a good thing?
> >
> > "The conditions for fascism are not present in Turkey in the year 2000"!
> > Open your eyes Owen.
> >
> > James Tait.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leninist-International mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leninist-International mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
