Are Institutional Fascism and One-man Fascism two different things? Distorting the political content of fascism.
This confusion about what fascism is reveal itself in the practice of defining CHP as “institutional fascism” and Erdoğan’s AKP as “one-man fascism” .
Such a distinction finds itself
in a Bundist, anarchist and anarcho-Trotskyite definition that is
self-contradictory and incompatible with the Marxist-Leninist definition of
Fascism.
First of all, such a definition
seems to pave the way for the distorted and anti-Marxist understanding that "one-man
fascism" is not institutional. On the contrary, the primary practice
of fascism—especially fascism that is inevitable and historically focused on
one man— have been and must be the seizure of all the institutions of the state
structure and the creation of the appropriate structure and administrative personnel
for the service of fascism. In this sense, "one-man fascism" is
not only theoretically but also practically the "institutional" form
of fascism.
The practice of
"institutionalization" entails the fact that one has seized power and
is "in power" . Defining a party that is not in power as the
representative of "institutionalized fascism "while the existing power is politically
"fascist", that is, it has already "institutionalized" the fascism,
can neither be a logical explanation nor have any value for the application of
Marxism-Leninism and its Marxist dialectic.
Fascism can be evaluated in its
concrete reality, which corresponds to a specific historical stage of
capitalist development and decay (monopoly capitalism). If we try to evaluate
any given specifics without trying to do a class analysis of fascism, we find
ourselves meeting with two diametrically opposed anarchist perspectives . Of
course, Marxist Leninists do not make any attempt to separate Fascism from its
ancestor - the bourgeois dictatorship. But this does not mean that
Marxist Leninists, like anarchists, do not define all of them as
"fascism" with the narrow-minded understanding that forms of
Bourgeois dictatorship have no significance for the working people and their
struggle for socialism. Bundists in Turkey have taken quite a step forward in
spreading the anti-Marxist understanding that "There has always been
"fascism" in Turkey from the beginning and there will always be
fascism.
To define every bourgeois
dictatorship as fascist, as a result of roteism (learning by rote) and the
failure to understand and apply the dialectic of Marxism, the argument that
there is no difference between fascism and bourgeois dictatorship in the form
of the Parliamentary Republic has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism and its
dialectic.
Lenin in his article, “State and
revolution, Debate with Anarchists says; "yes, for Marxists," as
Engels emphasized, " that in a democratic republic, "no less"
than in a monarchy, the state remains a "machine for the oppression of one
class by another" , and continues with what the “extreme-leftists” ignore in their quotations,;
"However,
in saying this, Engels by no means signifies that the form of oppression makes
no difference to the proletariat, as some anarchists “teach”. A wider, freer,
and more open form of the class struggle and of class oppression vastly assists
the proletariat in its struggle for the abolition of classes in general...” It is extremely clear that our party and the
working class can achieve sovereignty only in the form of a democratic
republic. The democratic republic... is also the specific form of the
dictatorship of the proletariat... "
So in terms of the interests of
the working people and their struggle, they are not the same thing. Fascism is
an expression of the extreme stage of conflict between the capitalist forms and
the productive forces that chain the working masses. It is a specific form of bourgeois system of modern monopoly capitalism
under specific conditions . Fascism is not an "inevitable" form of
system for the bourgeois in general. It becomes "inevitable" with
special circumstances. Likewise - dependent on the disengagement process of the
specific political crisis that made it necessary - it is not a
"permanent" form of system forever.
When fascism fulfills the political purpose of capital, either the
intra-capital contradictions deepen- the way to go as they come is opened, or –
even if it achieves its short-term economic goal to a large extent – it will
collapse as a result of the struggle of the working peoples, as it will
exacerbate the economic problems.
The way and process of fascism's
coming and going depends on the balance of power and the changes in the balance
of powers..
The only general and absolute
correct definition of fascism is its class base assessment that; it is "
specific to monopoly imperialism " which "in the face of any
economic-political crisis, at least some of the capital cannot continue its
policies with the existing system form and are obliged to introduce a new
system that is even more oppressive " . The obvious difference between
bourgeois dictatorship and Fascism is that Fascism basically works with the
method of PRESSURE and FORCE as well as deception. Bourgeois (dictatorship)
Democracy, on the other hand, shows itself primarily in its work with the
method of deception, as well as coercion
.
The confusion in the definition
of fascism is generally due to the fact that the emergence of fascism is
analyzed by disconnecting from the dialectical connections of economic,
social, and ideological factors or- it
is attempted to be evaluated only on the basis of its practices reflected in
social life.
As can be understood from the
discussions in the Comintern, Fascism, unlike the characteristics of all the
oppressive regimes that emerged before, it is a "new authoritarian"
system specific to monopoly capitalism, which encompasses all areas of social
life by creating a "new ideology" dominant and following various
layers of society and directing them towards their own political goals.
Fascist systems aim to implement
the "new policies", to make the "new ideology" dominant, when
the bourgeoisie deems necessary, both in crises that arise as a result of the
unequal development of the economy in any country (the example of Brazil and
Turkey), or in any specific situation where economic crises are experienced in
general. It is a form of system that bourgeoisie puts into practice when it
finds it impossible to rule by “democratic” methods and “means”.
As we have seen, from the point
of view of Marxist Leninists for the interests of the laboring masses and of their
struggle , the Fascist form of the Bourgeois dictatorship and the
bourgeois-democratic form are not the same thing .
To claim that a party that is not
in power and has no influence in any state institution is the representative of
"institutionalized Fascism" means inevitably inferring that
"one-man fascism" is an "un-institutionalized fascism".. In
a way, this distinction leads to a strange and absurd understanding that shadows
the relationship between the state and capital, as if institutionalized and
non-institutionalized Fascism exists independently of each other at the same
time.
Fascism is the political power, the
form of the system of the most reactionary section of the capital in developed
and developing countries . One of its most important tasks (as in Germany and
Italy) is to soften the contradictions within the capital and to bring harmony
between them. In other words, it is not
possible to talk about more than one fascist "institutionalization"
against each other at the same time under fascism. Especially, creating the false
image of "one-man fascism" as "un-institutionalized
fascism" (Let's not forget that Fascism is generally focused on one man) cannot be compatible with Marxism-Leninism.
Preparing a theoretical cover for
boycotting the elections based on such strange and self-contradictory
definitions cannot be compatible with Marxism-Leninism. As I emphasized in the
article I mentioned above;
“The irrefutable
truth shown by the election results; It is a proven fact that Turkey is a
country that is not even ready for a bourgeois democracy, let alone a
revolution, more than 60% of its population is reactionary and
counter-revolutionary, and more than 90% expects hope from the parliament.
Except in exceptional circumstances , to speak of a "boycott" in such
a country, to reject the "parliamentary struggle" means
"stupidity" in Stalin's words , and in practical reality it means
"supporting" the existing autocratic system ."
If we repeat the words of Lenin;
“The use of one
or the other means of struggle depends on the objective conditions of the
particular economic or political crisis. Not on any decision that the
revolutionaries might have made before. And “every form of struggle requires a corresponding
technique and an appropriate apparatus. The features of the apparatus of
parliamentary struggle inevitably become more pronounced in the Party when
objective conditions make the parliamentary struggle the main form of struggle.
On the other hand,
when objective conditions give rise to a struggle of the masses in the form of
political mass strikes and uprisings, the party of the proletariat must have an
"instrument" to "serve" these forms of struggle, and of
course this must be a special "device" unlike the parliamentary
apparatus. “Lenin, The Crisis of Menshevism
Lenin wrote, in his article “Boycott”
“The principal
difference between revolutionary Social-Democracy and opportunist
Social-Democracy on the question of boycott is as follows: the opportunists in
all circumstances confine themselves to applying the stereotyped method copied
from a specific period in the history of German socialism...The revolutionary
Social-Democrats, on the contrary, lay chief emphasis on the necessity of
carefully appraising the concrete political situation....it would be ridiculous
to shut our eyes to realities. The time has now come when the revolutionary
Social-Democrats must cease to be boycottists.”
And Lenin likewise says in the
Third Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.;
“"active
boycott, as the experience .. has shown, is correct tactics .. only under
conditions of a sweeping, universal, and rapid upswing of the revolution,
developing into an armed uprising, and only in connection with the ideological
aims of the struggle against constitutional illusions arising from the
convocation of the first representative assembly by the old
regime;..........the tactics of boycott could be appropriate only provided our
efforts to convert the trade-union upswing into a revolutionary assault were
successful."
Stalin's proposals are also very
clear and unambiguous, addressing such boycotters on September 2, 1946;
" A boycott
makes sense when it causes elections to fail-prevented. Otherwise, a boycott is
stupid."
Now, let alone the democratic
task of overthrowing the autocracy, which is urgent on the agenda, I think it
would be futile to ask whether there is a possibility of “failing-preventing
the elections” in a country where 90% of the population participates in the
elections. Neither “institutionalized” fascism theories nor any other sophistry
can hide the fact that the boycott tactic, under the current conditions, will
meet the final result of being a crutch for AKP fascism .
Erdogan A
25 May 2023
Vietnam
.jpg)
No comments