red-rebel schrieb:
> 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.
[this is one crucial point: in Turkey there are different trade unions
operating legally, though not as freely as under full fledged bourgeous
democracies in the imperialist countries. Nothing like that everexisted in any
of the historical fascist countries.This means that the TC does not
suppresss a n y forms of wiorking-class expression]
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)
[once again: British colonialism uses extremely harsh measures against the Irish
nationalists, but this doesn't make Britain a fascist country. The same measures
were employed by France in Algeria and many others of her colonies, or by the
Netherlands in Indonesia. If you call all these countries fascists, how would
you then ecxplain the obvious difference between postwar France (for a certain
period with PCF-ministers in the government) and Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's
Italy?]
>
> 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.
>
[the problem here is that I would not fundamentally question the correctness of
the facts your Turkish/Kurdish comrades tell about their country, but knowing
that almost the entire Turkish/Kurdish left is arch-stalinist and/or pupulist I
don't give much for their theoretical insight]
> 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.
[the difference between the counterrevolutionary bourgeois democrates and the
fascists is that the bourgeois democrates, the SPD included, would sometimes
suppress the revolutionaries, while the fascists suppresses the entire workers
movement, the reformist SPD and the ADGB included. The reformists (politically
bourgeois counterrevolutionaries)defend bourgeois democracy and the right of the
working class to have its own organizations within the bourgeois state,
while the fascists smashes boths. The 'theory' of socialfascism while
emotionally understandable parallyzed the entire workers movement and opened the
door to fascism proper (of coure the later right turn of the Stalinist, the
popular front was just as bad. While the 3rd pewriod was ultraleftist
sectarianism, the populat front was right wing opportunism making the working
clkass a tool of the allegedly progressive wing of the bourgeoisie. regards A.
Holberg].
> 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
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
