racism, eurocentrism (fwd)

[xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

>The Comintern supported the national bourgeoise
>instead of the indigenous communists.

this is interesting, and I agree with your historical evidences. but one
more point. Turkish Communist Party was a member of the Comintern backed
by Turkish Communists like Mustapha Suphi. the relation between turkish
Communists and the national bourgeois regime was full of tensions because
of this comintern membership. It was also because TKP was offically
recognized in the begining, but then closed when nationalists
began to think TKP exceeded the limits, and moved to the left. .Turkish
nationalists were not Marxists, so they hated Soviet regime from the
begining, oppressing the indigenous communists having connections with
soviets.

>The end
>result was things like the
>support of the
>KMT in China leading to the 1927-8 massacres and the support of Mustafa
>Kemal in Turkey _after_ he had murdered all of the top communists there.

Kemal killed communists because they were members of the Comintern. Famous
socialist author Nazim Hikmet, who was accepted as a refugee to Soviet
Russia and protected by Soviet communists, was denied Turkish Citizenship
because he was a communist. Nazim could not enter Turkey for this reason,
not his death even..

>Kemal murdered Turkish Marxists with weapons given to him by the
>Comintern.

It is true. yes, Lenin, during the national struggle against the
British, gave arms to Kemal (1918-1920).If Kemal went out of his way and
killed communists, which he DID because he was a nationalist bourgeois, I
don't think that Comintern should be blamed for this. Do you have
historical documents of Comintern somewhere?, do they state anywhere "kill
your communists with those guns?". It was obvious that Comintern gave
support to national liberationist movements since they thought that they
could convert them to communism. the same  thing happened with soviet
support to Nasser too.They were stupid and naive, it did NOT happen like
this...Bourgeois nationalists killed their communists with those guns..

in any case, if i were living around those times I would give my support
to Soviet regime and its struggle to block US imperialism and
enlargenment. In the cold war period, i am definetly on the side of
Soviets in principle because they had no other choice but to set off US
agression. If they did mistakes, it should be criticized, but the idea of
offsetting agression forming hegemonic alliences by possible means
available does not seem terribly problematic to me.Somebody previously
mentioned in this list catholic-socialist allience for strategic reasons,
then what happens if soviets allied with nationalist liberationists on the
condition that the purpose must be 1)conversion 2) internationalist
socialist revolution 3)socialism and anti-imperialism.. I am not of course
talking about the present situation, I am talking about the decolonization
period..

Kurdish socialist Party killed its own militants who left the party. so
what? does it mean that it does not have the right to exist?


Mine


>Sam Pawlett