Reply to Haluk!

Robert Malecki malecki at
Fri Jun 21 06:13:40 MDT 1996

>Hi everyone. I've been reading postings for about a week. here is my
>first posting. In advance i have to apologize because of language
>On Wed, 19 Jun 1996 Malecki wrote:
>)Turkey is hardly a third world country!
>Is it possible to have a list of third world countries from you? If a
>country less then thousand dollars income per capita cannot be considered
>a third world country, what makes a country *third world* or

Hi Haluk,Welcome to the list...In the above paragraph you obviously say no
and in the next paragraph yes. Which way do you want it for Turkey?
>)Turkey is a country with a powerful army and has its own imperialist
>)pretentions and interests in that part of the world.
>It is true ruling classes of Turkey have some interest in this part of
>the world just like Armenians, Iranians, Iraqis, Greeks etc. have. But
>that does not make those countries *imperialist*, at least in the Marxist
>sense of the term. Turkey is being pushed to play certain roles in the
>Middle East, Caucasia and central asia in the name of big powers, mainly
>the United States. It seems the Kurdish problem in the Middle East is
>very closely related with that role. The U.S. wants Turkey to give
>certain autonomy to Kurds inside Turkey. That's ok... The second part of
>the scenario is dangerous: Turkey moves into Iraq, invades northern oil
>fields. Kurds in Northern Iraq donot oppose invasion, since they choose
>to have more minority rights under the umbrella of Turkey than they have
>under Saddam rule. Am i making up this scenario? If you think so, you
>should read latest Rand Corporation reports written by ex-CIA officials
>all presented as *middle east experts*.

The poor little Turkish imperialists being *pushed* into something just
doesn,t bite here.Nither does the poor little "welfare state" of Sweden. As
if the ruling classes in these countries were more progressive then the G7
countries. If the above was the case, which is ridiculous, the United States
would certainly not leave the question of oil over to the Turks or anybody
else for that matter if push came to shove. And in fact the above is a cover
for your future defense of one side or the other in who controls the oil..
>Also on Thu, 20 Jun 1996 Malecki wrote:
>)What i was implying was that Turkey just as Sweden is as imperialist as
>)the G-7 countries. The main enemy is at home. And this sub-imperialist
>)stuff leaves door open for all kind of opportunist behavior like the
>)maoists and the progressive third world countries and democratic
>)revolutions etc. against the *real* imperialists.
>Showing Turkey and other underdeveloped countries as imperialist as the
>G-7, fits well into the capitalist agression against nation-states in
>this era of post-fordist global capitalism. For ideologues of globalism,
>number first enemies are underdeveloped nation states and *third
>worldism*. You are joining this agression in the name of Marxism by
>labeling North/South problems/conflicts as *opportunism* --although your
>sincere intention may not be this--.

No i,m not. You are trying to turn the "North-South" conflict into a cover
for supporting your own bougeoisie against the *real* imperialists. You are
being sucked into nationalism and the preperations for the next war. Only
buy building a communist International with parties in all these countries
whose goal is to turn the guns around or class against class will solve this
problem..Naturally if the United States in *fact* invades one of these
countries revolutionaries would condemn this action as in Irak. However we
would in no way support the bougeoisie in these countries and fight for the
overthrow of the government in these countries and replacing it with a
proletarian dictatorship..

Warm Reagards
malecki in exile

Read the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara,Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list