Fascist mullah

CEP iwp.ilo at ix.netcom.com
Sat Nov 18 00:43:12 MST 1995


You wrote:
M
>Mauro jr.
>Who mantain that fascism has been and is the reaction to the
un-victorious
>struggles of the working class and the fear of the bougeoisie for
them,
>well, the mullahs of Iran are properly fascist.

    Carlos Replies:

    The mullahs did, in fact, destroyed the shoras and attacked the
    workging class, liberal and leftist organizations.  They did it
    utilizing physical attacks in a pure "fascistic" way.  However,
    fascism is not just the means but also the economic and social
    forces behind it.  Classic fascism as we knew it in Germany and
    Italy were the arm of big financial capital.

    Mauro wrote:

 Do you know anything about
>the workers struggles in Iran until february '79?  The workers went up
to
>build the councils! The role of the Tudeh has been worse than the role
of
>the PSI in 1920 (occupation of the factories in Italy). There was no
>revolutionary party to take the political lead of the struggles and
the
>workers have been defeated by the reaction in the shape of the black
mullah.
>This is not rubbish, Adam; this is the history of the Iranian
proletariat
>and the properly fascist reaction.

    Carlos replies:

    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.  Some other contributor to this list
    also mentioned Pinochet.  Again, Pinochet (and the Argentinian
    dictatorship worse than Pinochet) smashed the left, tradeunions and
    liberal sectors of bourgeoi parties with "fascistic" methods.  But
    the financial capital was not there nor were there the imperialist
    interests and expansionism which were the key component of the
    social and economic drive of fascism/naziism in the 1930s in
    Europe.
    Pinochet, the Argentinian dictatorship and the Uruguayan and other
    Latin American dictatorships were national reactionary bonapartist
    regimes which utilized "fascistic" means to defend and maintain
    the interests of different sectors of the national bourgeoisie on
    behalf of US imperialism.
    As oppossed to Hitler or Mussolini, the Latin American bourgeosie
    dismantled national industry, attacked nationalized means of
    production and paved the road of deeper penetration of imperialist
    capital.  Fascism and Naziism represented in Europe the interests
    of defeated imperialist bourgeoisies which were the expression of
    imperialist nationalism.
    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.  In spite the fact that hey tried, and continue to
    try, to export its ideological fundamentalist muslim ideology is
    by no means an attempt to build a rival imperialist power to that
    of the US or Europe.
    That was the distinction between reactionary political movements in
    the semicolonial world and imperialist nationalism, better known as
    fascist movement in advanced countries.  Maybe the fact that both
    utilize brutal, "fascistic" means may confuse some people.  After
    all, confusing forms and content was always the most common of all
    confussions.
    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.

    Did people in this group ever discussed bonapartism? That will be
    interesting.

    Comradely,

    Carlos

    PS: Hey, Adam, don't give up.


>Rev. greetings
>Mauro Junior
>Tel  (-39)02/35.51.275 fax (-39)02/33.200.101
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



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

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



More information about the Marxism mailing list