Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 02:01:12 +0100
From: Mauro junior <mauro.jr-AT-iol.it>
Subject: Re: Fascist mullah


At 23.43 17/11/95 -0800, Carlos wrote:

>    Here Mauro gave us the key word: reaction.  The mullah taking over
>    was the counter-revolutionary coup of reaction.  They utilized the
>    fascistic means to do it but cannot be characterized as fascist
>    without doing a simplistic blanket statement about fascism as the
>    means of reactionary forces. 
<Cut>
>    Iran is, and was, an oppressed semicolony (unles you think they are
>    an imperial power, and economically independent at that) and its
>    reactionary mullah political movement the expression of the Bazzar
>    bourgeoisie which reacted both against its own working class and
>    tried to confront imperialism from a national bourgeois             
>    perspective.  
Mauro jr:
I reply with delay for I'm quite busy with my actual "political" activity.
We find in Carlos reply to my post a good example of the old diamat values.
What does it mean semicolonial when colonies do not exist any more since the
II Worl War (a parte from some residuals in Africa)? The fact is that
imperialism (which is not a politics nor one/some countries) is an epoch or
-better- a form of beeing of the capitalist mode of production which implies
the real domination of capital in every corner of the world (if not
socialist, and no socialism existed and exists today).
The colony was the country dominated by a capitalist power which let the
traditional mode of production and the traditional social formation in order
to extract raw materials, some products (of the same mode of production) and
labor forces. The presence of farmers and, sometimes, some industrial
entrepreneurs from the metropole does not change the very nature of the
economy of the colony.
The typical capitalistic contradictions were not working in the colony, with
the same importance of the dominant power.
Then, imperialism, as always capitalism, is characterized by the different
levels of accumulations in the different countries: we have stronger
countries and weaker countries, very rich social formations and very poor
economies and countries.
Italy is far weaker than Usa and far richer than Nigeria, but Usa Italy and
Nigeria are capitalist countries in the imperialistic period.
 To establish a scale of richness or strenght of the world countries is not
important at all, in outlining the international revolutionary strategy. It
is much more important to recognize that the capital is everywhere the
dominant mode of production and is the only enemy of the proletarian forces.
But Carlos goes on:

>    Being able to differentiate between reaction and fascism; between
>    nationalism of the imperialist nations and nationalism of oppressed
>    nations is vital to develop an strategy.  On tactical moves by 
>    Maxists, though, we opposse both reaction and fascism with similar
>    methods and the only complication may emerge if the dominant        
>    imperialist power enter into an open war with the reactionary and,  
>    yes, fascistic semicolonial movement.
>    
>   

Carlos, as many other subscribers to this list, talk about "oppressed
countries". With this approach they'll always find some oppressed country to
defend from some oppressor, letting aside (for the moment - they always say)
the class struggle.
Thus the republics of the former Yugoslavia were oppressed by Serbia;
conclusion: let defend Bosnia's "people" (read bosnian ruling class, made by
the same bastards who were ruling Bosnia as representatives of Communist
League). And we could go on in the past times, with Vietnam, Cambodja,
Algeria, Angola, Mozambique ***.
Right, Carlos. You say "the only complication may emerge if the dominant
imperialist power enter into an open war with the reactionary and, yes,
fascistic semicolonial movement".
We have seen such complication at work during the Gulf war: Saddam is surely
not *** democratic and until the war many leftists were used to call him
fascist. When the Usa attacked the problem arose: to defend Usa? (orrible)
to defend Saddam? (unpleasant an a bit impolitical). Conclusion: the
leftists divided themselves in two camps: one camp criticizing the so called
West for his imperialistic defense of *** oil, without supporting Saddam,
but "the Iraki people; the other camp supporting straight Saddam as an
anti-imperialist fighter. The workers of the world standed watching the TV
war games and believing the simple truth of Bush and Powell: much easier to
understand than the sophisticated discussion about oppressed/oppressor
nations, which never take in consideration the same working class.
As everyone can see the main problem I responded here is not whether the
mullahs are fascist or simply reactionary. In this sense, the discussion is
of "goat's wool" (as we say in Italy for to say meaningless).

Carlos:
  Did people in this group ever discussed bonapartism? That will be
>    interesting.
>
Mauro jr:
 the discussion on fascism started (again) exactly from the discussion on
bonapartism, i.e. from a good report by Louis on the "18th Brumaire..."
Rev. greetings
Mauro Junior
Tel  (-39)02/35.51.275 fax (-39)02/33.200.101



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------