Re: Forwarded from Anthony (on fascism)

[Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Workers World, Chicago Bureau" wrote:

> >No, the petty bourgeoisie are
> >(fundamentally) exactly that: small businesspeople (with farms, shops,
> >etc.).  On the one hand, they have little real power in society and are
> >oppressed and driven out of business by the big bourgeoisie.  On the >other
> >hand, their "social being" as far as their livelihoods is concerned is >tied
> to the market; they dream of becoming large bourgeois; they exploit >labor
> >when possible, although they don't have the capital to exploit very >many
> >laborers.

True. I agree with your definition of petty bourgeoisie. My point was that, in
the final analysis, petty bourgeois is a *bourgeois* by virtue of his/her class
position. S(he) is not a proletarian. A petty bourgeois is not separated from
the means of production as a worker is. Marx says in the Manifesto that petty
bourgeois fluctuates  between proletariat and bourgeoisie and "ever rebelling
itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society" and adds that "as modern
industry develops they will completely disappear as an independent section of
modern society; to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by
overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen".

>
> >Now, when you try to apply these categories to situations other than >fully
> >developed capitalist countries with a mature class structure, I think >you
> >are undoubtedly going to run into problems if you don't make >adjustments.
> >Take Turkey as an example.  I personally know very very little about >the
> >political economy of Turkey at the time of the Kemalist movement, >and
> >probably you can instruct me about it. But my impression is that there >was
> >nothing like a developed industrial bourgeoisie in the country, even >less so
>
> >than in Russia at the time.

True that industrial bourgeoisie was not as developed in Turkey as it was in
Europe or Russia at the time..That being said, however, Turkey entered into a
capitalist phase of development as a *semi-colony* of western imperialist powers
since the 18th century  (British, Germany). So capitalism was taking root since
then. I would hesitate to call Ottoman empire as living under feudal ages, or
largely dominated by asiatic mode of production as *some* Turkish leftists
argued in the 70s in order to distance themselves from Western and Russian
Marxists. Among the couple of capitalist measures taken during the time of
Ottoman empire were construction of railroad companies, cotton factories, ship
industry, .. In the late 19th century, Turkey witnessed significant working
class demonstrations in big cities, such as Istanbul, pressing demands for
higher wages.


> >Therefore I would expect that the proletariat
> >would have been numerically small as well.

I don't have the figures with me at the moment. The proletarian was not
considerably significant, but It was there. Later, the idea that "proletariat
was small" was used by Kemalists to justify the Kemalist bourgeois claim that
"we will create our own proletariat", so socialist organizations were not
necessary.


> >Certainly I would NEVER think of
> <comparing Kemal with a fascist movement;

Yes, it was *not* technically fascist. Turkish marxists who do a "class analysis
of Kemalism* characterize the political economy of Turkey at that time as
"corporate capitalism" (subordination of working class demands to bourgeoisie
through co-optation). I think this characterization is much better than
restricting the definition of the regime to some closet Weberian ideal
construct, such as bonapartism (so I should not in fact have used that term).

Regarding fascism, it was impossible for Kemalism to develop a full fledged
capitalism since the class structure of Turkey at that time had not matured
enough to allow this possibility. However, the regime, at some points, came
closer to defend fascism. Kemalists adopted *labor* laws from fascist Italy.
Period. we still have the legacy of these laws. Moreover, Kemalists invited
German profs to teach eugenics in universities. Although Jews were escaped from
Nazi Germany when they asked the help of Turkish government,  new historical
studies point out the fact that Kemalism's record of Jews was not perfect
either.  In 1942, Kemalists passed _Varlik Vergisi_,  by which they heavily
taxed the Jewish community (small business, shop keepers). The ones who could
not afford to pay it were sent to work in the construction of railroads in the
eastern part of Turkey.



> >I would think that Kemal was more
> >similar to Garibaldi, say, that is, someone carrying out a unifying
> >bourgeois revolution that would make capitalist development >possible - as
> >opposed to someone trying to defend existing capitalism against the
> >proletariat.  Therefore your statement that Kemal was supported by >the
> >"upper middle bourgeois" is exactly what I would expect.
>

Yes, as you say, Kemalism was trying to carry out a bourgeois revolution that
would make "capitalist development" possible. Kemalism was a capitalist project,
and its slogan was "we will join the civilized west one day".  Its rhetoric was
not anti-west (or anti-imperialist). Although Kemalism aimed to modify or
*reorient* existing capitalism (which came from Ottomans), it did *not* aim to
overthrow capitalism, however immature it was. Whether or not this reorientation
was successfully carried out is a completely a different subject matter of
discussion. Some Turkish people  argue that even Kemalism could not successfully
carry out a bourgeois revolution, given its authoritarian nature. My objecton to
these folks is that authoritarianism is already part of the capitalist
development in the semi-periphery of the world system, and this development is
reinforced by western imperialist powers and
their local allies such as Kemalists.

>
> >Also, is it correct to call Kemal a "bonapartist"?  It depends on how >much
> >of a workers' movement there was in Turkey at the time.  A >"bonapartist" is
> >one who gets support from both the organized workers and the >bourgeoisie and
>
> >represents an uneasy class truce between them.  Usually I would >expect to
> >find bonapartist leaders at a time when the class structure and class
> >struggle in bourgeois society has matured to a much greater extent >than in
> >Turkey at the time of Kemal.
>

agreed...

>
> >And similar problems are going to arise when you try to carry over >the
> >concept of 'fascism' into countries under imperialist oppression.
>

As i said, Turkey was not as fully imperialized as Latin America or the Middle
East. Yes, It was economically dependent on western powers, especially the
British, but it was never another Egypt, another Argentina, another India or
Morroco. In fact, the Ottoman empire, sometimes in conflict, other times in
alliance with western powes, imperialized the Middle East. Arabs (Egypt, Iraq,
Syria, etc,,) were under the Ottoman control before they were taken over by the
British. Similarly, the Ottomans entered the W.W.I on the side of Germany to
further increase its sphere of influence.



>
> >>b) in the context of Europe (wasn't the core class
> >>composition of German fascism
> >>upper middle class (big business)?)
>
> >More confusion: why do you equate "upper middle class" with big >business?
> >Why not say "upper class"?
>

I had an upper class in my mind; it was a confusion.

>
>
>
> >Anyway: of course fascism SERVED big business and was supported by >big
> >business.  The whole point of fascism, however, is that it is a mass
> >movement.

Well, Kemalism, during the nationalist struggle, was a mass movement too. Then
It became a cadre movement, after the struggle was over. It was a period of
consolidating  the state power.


> >Most simply, it is thugs who go out and beat up and kill
> >Communists, break strikes, smash in the windows of stores and >houses, bust
> >up public meetings of the left, conduct racist murders and atrocities, >and
> >attend the Nazi meetings (or, in the U.S. south in the 1950's and >1960's,
> >White Citizens' Council meetings).

1) Kemalists killed many leftists who were both anti-capitalist and
anti-imperialist. Mustafa Suphi, a well known leftist figure of the Communist
International, and the founding member of the Turkish Communist Party, was
literally killed.

2) Kemalists are not perfect in racism records either. They took quite
oppressive measures against Kurds, Jews, Greeks, etc,.Their shops were plundered
and livelihood were threatened. In fact,  at that time, *minorities* were petty
bourgeois against whom the nationalist bourgeois (big bourgeois) was taking
oppressive measures on behalf of Kemalists.


3) Sadi Irmak, who was a minister of health in the 1930s, was a Nazi
sympathizer. He was regularly visiting fascist Italy.


I agree with the rest of your comments.


Xxxx


>
>
> >Lou Paulsen
> >Chicago

--

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222



____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now     http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM  1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________