[Marxism] Re: Kyrgyzstan 'Regime Change' Masterminded By West
ian at ianpace.com
Fri Apr 1 18:33:57 MST 2005
----- Original Message -----
From: <davidquarter at sympatico.ca>
To: "activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Re: Kyrgyzstan 'Regime Change' Masterminded By West
> On 1 Apr 2005 at 12:22, eg577 at columbia.edu wrote:
>> I concur with Louis' objections. Here's an additional "why", supplied by
>> viewpoints from Turkey.>>>
> To What? To my opposition to U.S. "intervention" in Russia? To his
> for a "nuanced" understanding of the situation? To Lou's principled
> "neutrality" on
> White supremacy in Zimbabwe?
>> Short background first: Since the worst economic crisis of Turkey
>> back in February 2001 (its dynamics had been unfolding since 1999, but
>> that's another story), a reactionary, fascist, but loose and yet weak
>> coalition of political organizations emerged in Turkey. This coalition is
>> comprised of so-called "Kemalist-left" organizations (led by the
>> pro-Army, "scientific socialist" Workers Party), fascist parties like the
>> Nationalist Action Party and the more Islamist Grand Unity Party, and
>> various other smaller nationalist associations. A number of retired Army
>> officers (and probably some active ones, too), a score of right-wing
>> strategists and columnists, and a good number of academics from
>> conservative Anatolian universities supply ideological ammunition to this
>> coalition. Basically a secular-nationalist attitude against EU and US
>> imperialism, enmeshed with anti-Kurdish, anti-Armenian and anti-Arab
>> racism, reinforced with a pan-Turkist ideology (sympathetic to Turkey
>> Turks' "racial brothers" in ex-Soviet republics, not to mention in
>> Iraq) unites this loose coalition. The Left has dubbed them the "Red
>> Coalition", after the Turkish racist myth where the desire for
>> of all Turkic tribes in the world is represented by the Red Apple.
>> These organizations are also (to varying degrees) affiliated with the
>> "Eurasian Movement", in pursuit of a Turkey which is, against EU and US
>> imperialism, to be made part of a "Great Eurasia". Especially the Workers
>> Party (the category "national socialist" eerily fits them) respect the
>> writings of figures like Alexander Dugin (see:
>> Immediately after the Kyrgyzstan coup, these fascists began to spin
>> "Western involvement" stories from their wicked perspective, not paying
>> attention to the inner dynamics of the region. My point is not about
>> blindly solidarizing with the topplers of the petty tyrants of Turkic
>> republics (yet personally, I would love to see that other psychotic
>> asshole, Sepermurad Turkmenbasi, dictator of Turkmenistan, go down in
>> flames). But one needs the facts and as Louis was saying, one's own
>> to make sense of the facts.>>>>
> Can you extrapolate the above to your analysis of Kygyzstain, U.S.
> encirclement of
> Also Are these groups you mention representative of the entire communist
> left in
> Turkey, are they are better or worse than the current rulers? Can you,
> despite this
> alliance, clump all of them into one ideological grouping? Did Stalin make
> a pack
> with England, western Europe? Did that make Stalin a capitalist, or vise
> versa ?
It placed him (albeit temporarily) in alliance with the forces of Western
imperialism, after an equally cynical pact with fascism, in this context a
particularly vicious maverick variety of bourgeois imperialism, and
demonstrated how easily bourgeois politicians (amongst which I count Stalin)
of whatever complexion can come to agreements (given the vile bourgeois term
'realpolitik') about carving the rest of the world up between them.
> Cuba alligns itself with capitalist states (e.g., through trade) with
> records of human
> violations as long as the U.S., does that make Cuba ideologically the same
> as these
> states...ANd should Cuba have not taken these alliances..?
Cuba is not an imperial power. In the past it may have been acting in the
interests of Stalinist imperialism directed from the USSR, which should make
us question the nature of its alliances while recognising the necessity of
such alliances for such a beleaguered country.
> And should we then
> oppose Cuba's right to defend itself against U.S. attack?
Why does that follow as a corollary from the above?
> Also given the well
> documented records of human rights violations taking place in Cuba (let's
> be real
> here) does that make Cuba fascist?
I sometimes wonder if the term 'fascist' has become irrevocably tainted by
its misuse by one bourgeois state opposing another. Though I wouldn't by any
means want to go as far as the ultra-ultra-leftists of the International
Communist Current who deny the significance of any differences between, say,
imperial Western powers and Nazi Germany. However, 'fascist' as a term
should surely be preserved to signify something more specific than simply a
regime guilty of human rights violations.
> And therefore should marxists opposes Cuba's
> right to defend itself against western attack?
No, and this is where Trotsky's ideas seem relevant (though questionable as
> Should we oppose the Iraqi resistance b/c there are elements within it
> (it's probably
> fare to say, most of the resistance) that ascribes to a form of clerical
> fascism? And
> for this same reason, should we oppose the right of Hamas, Islamic Jihad
> other islamic liberation groupings in Palestine) to defend themselves
> against Israel?
We need nuanced and dialectical positions on these various groups that
recognise the rights and aspirations of the working people they sometimes
represent whilst also engaging with the flaws and reactionary tendencies in
their leaderships. If one thinks that unqualified support should be given to
Hamas, then why not also to Al-Qaida (who are fighting a much bigger enemy)?
> What are proposing, that these groups distance themselves from making
> with fasicsts on principled grounds...Have many principles will be left
> after they
> they're all be slaughtered ?!
These arguments reduce the positions to be taken to simple support or
opposition towards empirically existing groups, in a manner which is
profoundly undialectical. Some forms of engagement with such groups, or more
importantly their supporters, even when they contain deeply questionable
elements, is necessary in the interest of trying to build genuine socialist
oppositions to imperialism.
> Kind of like how different sections of the left in Germany, pre Hitler,
> seemed more
> intent on combatting each other than with forming alliances between
> and with bourgeois elements opposed to Hitler...
This is ridiculous - many bourgeois elements themselves ended up entering
into a rapprochement with Hitler. The left in Germany realised this
possibility very strongly - it's easy with hindsight to expect them to have
known in advance exactly which bourgeois elements were sound or otherwise in
this respect. Where the German left seemed to fail badly (and modern-day far
leftists similarly) was in their underestimation of the extent to which
their own anti-bourgeois propaganda could be cynically distorted and
appropriated opportunistically by the Nazis in a manner which was quite
distinct from the other bourgeois parties. This enabled them to appeal to
some of the same core constituency, seeming anti-bourgeois and
anti-communist at the same time. Modern far-right parties understand this
very clearly - to locate them simply further along the political spectrum
from the mainstream conservative parties is a highly inadequate strategy for
understanding the basis of their appeal. The far right in Britain, America
and elsewhere can, for example, demonstrate as implacable opposition to the
war in Iraq as most of us would, using some of the same arguments. It is for
the same reasons that progressive anti-Zionist voices such as those of
Finkelstein and Shahak will appear on far-right websites for anti-semitic
propaganda (and thus giving increased credibility to the hardened
pro-Zionist position that 'there is no essential difference between
anti-Zionism and anti-semitism - the former almost always contains the roots
of the latter'). It's necessary, I feel, to be as explicit as possible about
the socialist and internationalist motivations behind anti-bourgeois and
anti-imperialist positions, if one isn't going to play into the hands of the
> I imagine also the way that the
> Russian communists had intially opposed making alliances with the
> liberals? Right?
For all I dislike liberals, it's not surprising to me that the Russian
Stalinists found it easier to form an alliance with the fascists than with
More information about the Marxism