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-proletaria
Comrades, I have been away for a few days and unable to keep up with my email (my
computer was sick). I have been going through the best of my emails and came across
this one, to which I replied (obviously).
Now I see I have missed quite the blow up, one that needs to be put to sleep. I
therefore
> > "The conditions for fascism are not present in Turkey in the year 2000"!
> > Open your eyes Owen.
> >
> > James Tait.
I am not sure what point you are making here, James. It isn't a fascist society in
Turkey anymore than Canada or the US is fascist. But that word is simply a way to let
the bl
better things to do.
DHKC London Information Bureau
-
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: [L-I] Re: DHKC London Information Bureau - Open Letter to
European Left
> I think what you write below really outlines the d
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, wh
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.
OK, I'm listening.
What is then the exact short version definition of fascism ?
I admit that I use the term in a non-marxist meaning, i.e.
about the mentality deriving from an extremely suppressed
and humiliated childhood, cf. Hitler, etc.
Ole
Owen Jones wrote:
> Reply to secr (MG!), at [EM
- 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
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 (h
