Dimitrov "Hakki Alacakaptan" <nucleus at superonline.com>
Chas.:|| You still have not made an
|| argument as to why "open
|| terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most
|| chauvinistic and most
|| imperialist elements of finance capital " is not a splendid
|| definition .
Hakki: I see you're really serious about this. Here goes. 1 - Where's the finance capital behind the Ustashi, Franco, the Iron Guard, the many fascist and protofascist groups in France like Croix de Feu, Cagoulards, etc, the NSDAP when it was first founded up to 1931, when it became part of the German right wing, etc., etc. You're the one who's going to have to dig it out.
^^^^^^
CB: The Dimitrov position is not that these gangs are agents of finance capital when they first started, although, of course secret support would by definition would be hard to find. It is their taking state power that is the point of connection with the ruling class. Note he says "fascism IN POWER", not as street gangs. The fascists didn't take state power in France until the German invasion.
If you are focussed on the specifically "_finance_ capital" aspect of the definition, it is true that Lenin's discussion is mainly of imperialist powers in reference to finace capital. But Dimitrov's essays substitute "the bourgeoisie" in parts. So, he is saying that in the lesser than imperialist fascist countries it is the bourgeoisie, though perhaps not fully finance capitalists in the imperialist sense , who are the ruling class.
As to what you say about Turkey in 2002, Dimitrov's discussion of concreteness should make it clear that he didn't claim that his definition was eternal. I mean isn't that abundantly clear from his discussion of the need for concreteness ( Leninism is the concrete analysis of the concrete situation). What I said was Dimitrov's defintion was real good for the fascism of the 1920's and 30's. The open terrorist dictatorship part of the definition, and most reactionary sector part seem to be helpful even in the situation you describe in Turkey.
^^^^^
Right now, the Turkish fascist party is a senior coalition partner and finance capital is opposing it with uncommon energy, especially considering the same party tried to assassinate the head of the second most powerful capitalist family in Turkey (they got his brother instead) because he wanted the war against the PKK to end. Capitalist support just ain't there until the fascists prove they're major players. Mostly, it's the petty bourgies, the landowners, the peasantry, the military, and even aristocracy if there is any, that root for the fascists. 2 - Capital is rational, its motive is profit, not jew-baiting or witch hunts or epic wars. Capitalist class consciousness has no place for fascist irrationalism. It does not need fascism except in times of extreme crisis. But fascist movements continue to exist, like plague-carrying rats, within bourgeois democracy until the conditions are right for an outbreak. A lot of finance capital in Europe was Jewish, for petesake.
^^^^^^^^
CB: Dimitrov says " ELEMENTS" of finance capital. Not all finance capital. Finance capital is the merger of industrial and finance capital in Lenin's defintion. If you are not familiar with Lenin's thesis , you will not get the Dimitrov analysis fully.
^^^^^^
3 - Corollary: Fascists don't have to seize power to be fascists, so including a form of government (dictatorship) in the definition is dumb.
^^^^^^ CB: Read what Dimitrov wrote again. He says "FASCISM IN POWER". That means he is only talking about fascists who have seized state power.
Dimitrov: "Comrades, fascism IN POWER (emphasis added CB) was correctly described by the Thirteenth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International as the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital."
4 - What is "the most regressive, the most reactionary" finance capital? Since when are some bankers regressive and others progressive?
^^^^^^
CB: "Finance capital" is the merger of finance and industrial capital ( See _Imperialism_ by Lenin). The idea that the whole ruling class of a country has uniform politics is not accurate.
^^^^^
What could they have meant: Tthe Grameen Bank vs Chase?
^^^^^^
CB: Since finance capital is the merger of finance and industrial capital, Henry Ford was a finance capitalist. He gave money to the Nazis. Roosevelt didn't. Whatever. Yes, not all finance capitalists have the same politics.
^^^^^^
How can a marxist - especially a stalinist - even think of the same material infrastructure producing "regressive" and "progressive" ideologies? This phrase is the most damning evidence of the kludginess of the Dimitrov thesis. Dimitrov could hardly have defended the thesis (and lived) that the superstructure has a relative autonomy.
^^^^^^^^
CB: Here you are caught on your own klunky version of how Marxists, even Stalinists, think. The answer is that Marxists are not as vulgar materialists as you thought. You falsely attribute a way of thinking to Marxists and then when they don't think that way, you are surprised. Duh. Looks like you are going to have to give up your version of the way Marxists think. Read Engels famous letter to whathisname ( I'll get it if you want it) on the relative autonomy of superstructure. Marxism-Leninism is not vulgar materialism,surprise.
^^^^^^^
|| Nor do I recall you providing a different
|| defintion.
Nobody asked. I'll oblige, but not just now. Got a syllabus to prepare for the coming term.
Hakki