It is clear that the analysis of the bourgeois state and its different forms is of central importance in Marxist theory. Based on the problems in this field, Marxist circles have over the years conducted debates and took different approaches. The differences in analyses on the extraordinary forms of rule of the bourgeois order create the need for a renewed focus on problems of Bonapartism and fascism, which are of great importance for the struggle of the working class today. The Bonapartist formation of the bourgeois state is not only a historical phenomenon that belongs to the past. Bonapartism is an important reality and a subject of discussion that is an extension of our recent history. In the same way, fascism, as the cruel attack of the capitalist order that once drenched the world in blood and inflicted so much suffering on the working class and toiling masses, is not buried in the pages of history books. Fascism is the counter-revolutionary form that the bourgeois state takes when it faces the threat of revolution in the age of imperialism.

As long as the rule of capital continues, the threat of fascism will persist. When fascism becomes a necessity for the bourgeoisie and when it can afford it, it will again confront the working class and the poor masses, the revolutionaries, with all its mischief. There is no need to go far. The wounds inflicted by the September 12 regime on the workers’ movement and the revolutionary struggle in Turkey have still not healed. The traces of the damage done by fascism to the organized forces of the working class are still around. The working class and revolutionary struggle in Turkey continue to writhe in need of a breakthrough that will allow it to shake off the psychology of defeat and regain its self-confidence on more proper and stronger foundations.

In such periods, it becomes imperative to study the lessons of the past and recent history again and more meticulously, to steel the determination to struggle with the power of Marxist theory. And this should be much more important for revolutionaries living and fighting in a country whose very foundation was marked by a kind of Bonapartism, where for a long period of time military coups were considered “normal” and parliamentary functioning was considered “extraordinary”. From this point of view, in this study, while I have tried to analyse the problem of Bonapartism and fascism in general, I have also dealt with the realization of extraordinary forms of government in Turkey and other salient points of discussion within this framework, in light of Marxism.

France, which stands out as the most important example in the history of bourgeois revolutions, has gifted many concepts to the political literature. The concept of Bonapartism, which is the subject of many debates among Marxists, is one of them. We can briefly define Bonapartism as one of the extraordinary forms of the bourgeois state as it is expressed in the political literature. However, the concept of Bonapartism will only find its true expression in concrete forms it takes on in the course of historical development.

Marx reconstructs Bonapartism as a political concept with a rich content in his unique work 18 Brumaire, in which he analyses the characteristics of the extraordinary form of government established in France by the coup d’état of uncle and nephew Bonaparte. Marx’s analysis of Bonapartism was so profound that it illuminates not only the Bonapartism in France, but all forms of extraordinary rule of the bourgeoisie. Even if the extraordinary political regimes that have taken shape in different episodes of capitalist history, under different conditions, do not resemble each other exactly, they have very important common features for the continuation of the bourgeois order in general.

It is clear that in order to conduct a healthy discussion on the extraordinary political formations of the bourgeois order, it is indispensable to proceed from Marx’s analysis of Bonapartism. Part One of this study is devoted to this starting point. Although Marx’s analyses reflect the concrete conditions of that period, a careful examination of them reveals that they also provide incredibly rich insights for understanding the extraordinary forms of capitalist rule that emerged later on. Without taking an intellectual journey from these insights to the present day, it is not possible to properly comprehend fascism, a new extraordinary form that emerged out of capitalism when it reached the stage of imperialism. For this reason, in the section where I examine the problem of Bonapartism, I have tried to set forth some important conclusions without limiting them specifically to the Bonapartist regime, but rather to give some common features of extraordinary regimes, including fascism, in an inclusive manner.

In the course of the progress of capitalist society, the reality that is meant to be described by the concept of Bonapartism will also exhibit some new features. Therefore, it will be necessary to try to grasp Bonapartism with the new identities it would assume in its historical course. As I mentioned in Chapter Three, the bourgeois revolutions from above and ensuingBismarckian Bonapartism, which shed light on the case of Turkey, are concrete examples of this. However, the examination of the question of Bonapartism cannot end at this historical turning point. For in the years to come, the Bonapartist state formation would appear again, this time with characteristics specific to the period of imperialism.

However, now the political concept to express the extraordinary formations of the bourgeois state has diversified, and the reality of fascism as well as Bonapartism has taken its place on the stage of history. And from now on, it has become necessary both to make a Marxist analysis of the fascist formation of the bourgeois state and to analyse and comprehend these two extraordinary forms of the state in their similarities and differences. In Chapter Two I have dealt with the question of both fascism and Bonapartism from this point of necessity and from the point of view of elucidating the characteristics of the extraordinary political regimes that threaten the revolutionary struggle of the working class in the period of imperialism.

Volumes have been written on the historical phenomenon that took its name from the counter-revolutionary movement in Italy under the leadership of Mussolini and, with the example of Germany that followed, became known in the literature as classical fascism. However, the majority of these are bourgeois interpretations that try to explain fascism in terms of the diseased mental makeup of people like Mussolini or Hitler, thus distancing the problem from the foundations of capitalism and reducing it to isolated historical events. However, fascism can be comprehended neither on the basis of the psychological analysis of fascist leaders like Hitler nor on the basis of the psychological analysis of the petty-bourgeois masses they dragged along with their demagoguery. Because the real factor that pushes maniacs like Hitler to the stage of history or mobilizes the petty-bourgeois and lumpen masses into a hostile psychology against the working class is the extraordinary crisis conditions that the capitalist system has fallen into.

Fascism is the counter-revolutionary attempt of the bourgeois order when it is on the offensive against the organizations and revolutionary struggle of the working class in revolutionary situations which usually occur under such extraordinary crisis conditions. Starting from this basic point, it is necessary to see that fascism is not limited to classical examples such as Italy and Germany.

In the examples of fascism that emerged after the Second World War, although there was not such a deep system crisis as the one between the two imperialist wars, the fascist attacks of capital are nevertheless related to the crises that deeply shook the bourgeois order in those countries. When it comes to the examples of fascism such as Chile and Turkey, one must not forget the fact that such countries, with a medium level of development, constitute the weak links of the imperialist system. It is clear that fascism does not have a “uniform” line of progress, i.e. organizing the anger and despair of the petty-bourgeois masses in a fascist party, in a sense carrying out a bottom-up counter-revolution and coming to power via a civil fascist party.

Since the Second World War, fascism has taken the form of military dictatorships in various countries, for example in Greece, Chile and Turkey. In order to take the right attitude regarding these examples and to realize that a fascist government could very well take place in the form of a military dictatorship, it is necessary to settle accounts with the false views on this subject that have been put forward in the name of Marxism for years. In the chapter on the question of fascism, I have tried to present a general approach to this and similar controversial issues.

The Comintern congresses of the Lenin era, convened in the midst of the deep economic and social crises into which the capitalist system was plunged, made important analyses on fascism. A great effort was made to equip the revolutionary working class and its revolutionary vanguard with a correct understanding of struggle and the right tactics against the raging fascist onslaught of capital. But unfortunately, after Lenin’s death, with the domination of the Stalinist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, both Marxism and the revolutionary roots of the world communist movement were dealt heavy blows. For this reason, on the question of fascism, as on many other important questions, the nightmare of Stalinist domination overtook the tradition of struggle adopted by the Comintern leadership of the Lenin era. There is no continuity between the official communist movement shaped under this domination and the revolutionary Comintern tradition of the Lenin-era, but on the contrary a decisive rupture based on the denial of the latter.

The existence and practices of Stalinism, which had nothing to do with Marxism and socialism, provided opportunities for open attacks on Marxism from the bourgeois front for many years. In addition, academics, who are very keen on directing so-called criticisms of Marxist theory seasoned with Marxist oil, used Stalinist falsifications as an excuse for themselves. Thus, for a long historical period, during which Marxism has been pushed to withering away, the theoretical front of the workers’ struggle was either “fed” with the falsifications of the official communist movement, or the vacuum created by its lack of sophistication was filled with the “glossy” looking studies of bourgeois writers and the “contributions” of pseudo-Marxist academics.

The literature of this nature, which has been created in the name of analysing the question of fascism or, more generally, the question of the state, is a very concrete example of this situation. The meaning of this reality before us is that the revolutionary workers’ movement is muddied with non-Marxist approaches and views that are tried to be injected from different sides. Since each and every one of such mudslinging by “Marxist” academics with a reputation in the study of Bonapartism or fascism cannot be dealt with and exposed separately here, only Poulantzas’ theses on this subject will be discussed as a prominent example.

I think that in order for the discussions on the extraordinary forms of the bourgeois state, including the concrete examples that have taken place in Turkey, to be conducted properly, it is imperative that the problems be illuminated starting from the basics, that is, from our Marxist roots. Regarding the problem of Bonapartism and fascism, much wider analyses can surely be made and many more concrete examples be presented. Nevertheless, as I remain open to criticism, I must state that my main aim in framing my work and determining its limits is to fulfil the obligation mentioned above.

For the revolutionary forces of the working class, the need for an accurate and enlightening analysis of the extraordinary forms of rule of the bourgeois state does not stem from academic curiosity. This need is an expression of the necessity to know the enemy better and to wage a more accurate and stronger struggle against it. As in the case of fascism, what can be achieved in the struggle against the raging attacks of the capitalist order depends on which class will establish hegemony. As with the supreme law applicable to all fronts of the struggle against the ruling class order, the flags must never be mixed in the struggle against fascism. In the name of creating broader fronts, all policies (the examples of the Stalinist popular front and similar watered-down alliances) that have led the working class to collaborate with the bourgeoisie and thus handed the leadership of the struggle for democracy to the bourgeoisie on a golden plate have inflicted many bitter defeats on the working class throughout history. This historical reality must never be forgotten.

The debates and decisions on the question of fascism in the Third and Fourth World Congresses of the Comintern, which were convened under Lenin, are still an important point of departure for the revolutionary workers’ movement today. However, due to the era of Stalinist domination that intervened between then and now, this Marxist root of our tradition has been left to withering away. We have to revive these roots and carry them into the future. After Lenin’s death, the political existence of the Bolshevik leaders who tried to keep the revolutionary tradition of the Comintern alive, was tried to be swept away with them into the dark abyss of history. Trotsky’s analyses on fascism, which shed light on the present day, and the line of struggle he tried to build were the target of fierce attacks by the Stalinist bureaucracy. Today, without reflecting on these realities, without reflecting with revolutionary sincerity and honesty on what is right and what is wrong, it is not possible to take a path worthy of the revolutionary struggle of the working class on any issue.

Another issue which, although not a problem of the same gravity, nevertheless requires clarification in terms of strengthening the revolutionary stance, is the weaknesses of Trotskyism. It is necessary to distinguish between Trotsky and Trotskyism. Trotsky is undoubtedly a great revolutionary and part of our revolutionary Marxist tradition. Trotskyism, on the other hand, split into dozens of fragments after Trotsky’s death, became open to non-Marxist influences due to the vacuum of revolutionary authority and most of the fragments degenerated over time. That is why today, whichever important question concerning the struggle of the working class we address, between us and the real Trotsky, who tried to be a follower of Lenin, and his ideas, are many distortions created over the years by the popes of Trotskyism.

Trotsky may have erroneous positions and misjudgements that we can criticize. But no revolutionary Marxist is exempt from this kind of criticism. Beyond this, the real problem is dividing Marxism into separate parts such as Leninism and Trotskyism. The crisis of the revolutionary leadership of the world working class can only be resolved by entrenching Marxism, not by creating fragmented isms. All revolutionary leaders who have made significant contributions to the revolutionary struggle of the working class to one degree or another must be embraced as a common source that enriches Marxism. The problem is not to glorify or denigrate this or that person, but to appraise the struggle and ideas of those who have left their mark on the history of the working class on Marxist grounds and come to a conclusion.

First, we can recall Stalin as an example from the reverse. Here, too, the problem is not a question of a “person”. It is the question of Stalinism as a social phenomenon and a political current that has caused great damage to the revolutionary struggle of the world working class and has dynamited the revolutionary foundations laid by Marx, Lenin and other revolutionary leaders. We can also remember the positive examples that illuminated the path of the revolutionary struggle. Revolutionary leaders such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Rosa, Trotsky are our roots, which we need to pour into the same revolutionary pot taking their valid elements, not to create a unique political current from each of them, but to revive the common tradition of revolutionary Marxism. Especially in today’s world, where overcoming the crisis of the revolutionary leadership of the working class is a vital problem that will determine the future of humanity, the effort to rebuild and entrench our Marxist revolutionary tradition in all its richness must be above all else.

In order to take the right position on crucial problems such as fascism or imperialist wars, which directly concern the conditions of life and struggle of the world working class, it is necessary to draw a thick line of demarcation between our Marxist tradition and the Stalinist tradition which openly violates it. On the other hand, as in the case of Trotskyism, a determined struggle against the distortions that prevent the strengthening of the Marxist tradition of the revolutionary proletariat cannot be neglected.

A striking example of the bourgeois influence that seeps through the gaps in the revolutionary workers’ movement and seeks to paralyze it is the debate on the current danger of fascism. There can be no attitude more wrong, dangerous and harmful for the struggle than to think that the scourge of fascism of the past century cannot be revived because it has already exposed the madness of capitalism. It was the incredible economic and social crisis that hit Europe between the two imperialist wars of division that gave life to German Nazism. Such crises go beyond the usual cyclical crises of capitalism, they are deep and shake the system to its very foundations. As long as the capitalist order exists, there will continue to be imperialist wars, the revolutionary struggle of the working class and therefore fascism.

Whatever adjectives those who look at the escalating tensions between the imperialist powers today, at the wars of redivision that are bloodying their spheres of influence and still claim that there will never be a third imperialist war of division deserve, the situation is the same with fascism. As long as the fire does not reach their own homes, the arm-chair intellectuals in Europe and the so-called socialists who follow their lead can deceive themselves by chanting the refrain “never again” as they watch the world from their comfortable chairs. But while they are thus distracted, could it be said that in today’s world, which the imperialist powers have turned into a boiling witches’ cauldron, the danger will not gradually approach their own homes?

Although fascist parties are on the rise to some extent in some European countries, it is true that fascism has not yet reached the level of an actual threat in these countries. But who knows what will happen tomorrow? In today’s world, which is reeling from economic crises and wars of redivision, where xenophobia and racism are on the rise, one can never underestimate the fact that the capitalist system, when it is in dire straits, can again unleash the scourge of fascism. It should also not be forgotten that the world is not limited to Europe. Whether it is Turkey or various Latin American countries, the effects of the great damage given to the revolutionary workers’ movement by fascism in these weak links of the imperialist system stand before us as a living history. Moreover, fascism today is preparing to open new paths for itself under the new label of “clash of civilizations” disseminated by the ruling imperialist powers, with plans to divide the working people on the Muslim-Christian axis and make them slaughter each other.

August 23, 2004