To play the issue and not the man, I would say that Sabri Oncu is incorrect in seeing the divisions he gave in April in this reference
http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/ALL35MLCP%28TURKEY%29GA2000.HTM as >mostly >psychological/personal stuff, although the ones involved would >argue otherwise. It must be extremely difficult for radicals or revolutionaries in Turkey to know how to struggle, what the main target should be and with whom to unite. Especially when there will have been agents provocateurs and other dirty tricks. But these are real dilemmas of great magnitude in the real world. There are bound to be contradictions: the question is how to avoid the contradictions being antagonistic. The conclusion of the article seems to me to be the central point on which the authors are wrong. Yet it is put in a sober and psychologically stable way: >The experience of the MLKP has confirmed the fact that, there can be no >common and middle ground between those, who are >for Marxism-Leninism and those who are for opportunism and revisionism and >between those who are for bourgeois >democracy and those who are for the dictatorship of the proletariat and >Soviet power. Any attempt to hold or bring these two >antagonistic parties together, will not only be futile, but will also lead >to reactionary results ideologically and politically. IMO the struggle against opportunism and revisionism needs to accept that these are abstract concepts that have to be handled in a complex concrete context in which any one individual, psychologically balanced or not, could make opportunist errors to the left or right. To the extent that the struggle to apply marxist ideas in a concrete situation is helped by a struggle against opportunism and revisionism, IMO that struggle is best firmly located in the context of practice and building up a wider unity with a large measure of latitude for trial and error on everyone's part. Other members of this list are likely to disagree for reasons that have a long history in marxism. The issues are big. The "psychological stuff" should focus on whether the contradictions have been handled inappropriately antagonistically and in an inflammatory manner. Inappropriate, that is, for the arena concerned. But the contradictions certainly exist. They are a reflection of the contradictions in the external world. Chris At 28/04/02 17:14 -0700, you wrote: >Chris writes: > > > I suspect it is the reason why the Trotskyist > > political groups to the left of the French socialist > > party cannot unite in a single party: they won't accept > > each other's leadership. > >I don't know about France but this used to be/is the case in >Turkey, as I mentioned a few times. Take a look at this to see >how bad the situation can get: > >http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/ALL35MLCP%28T >URKEY%29GA2000.HTM > >Actually, it was/is much worse than what you will see in the >above. These divisions are not ideological, they are mostly >psychological/personal stuff, although the ones involved would >argue otherwise. > >Best, >Sabri
