INTERVIEW WITH THE REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF TURKEY (TDKP) - 2
It is being argued that "communist theory has failed and collapsed" following the collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Is this view right? If it is right, how would you explain the collapse of the theoretical system represented by the "Eastern Block"? How does your party respond to the thesis that communist theory has collapsed?
I have briefly touched upon the process through which the Soviet Union and Eastern European socialist countries were transformed into bourgeois-capitalist countries from mid-1960s and collapsed towards the end of the 1980s. Let me emphasise one point related to what has been said: just as the collapsed and disintegrated 'Eastern Block' countries were not socialist, the theory that has failed was not a communist or Marxist-Leninist theory either. The theory whose internal inconsistency, powerlessness and feebleness were exposed with the collapse of the economic and political system in those countries is the theory that deviated from the communist (Marxist-Leninist) theory about 40 years ago. It is a bourgeois modern revisionist theory that has become 'systematical' in the process of theorising for the monopolist state capitalism and bourgeois-revisionist regimes.
Titoist, Kruschevite, Brejnevite, Euro-'communist', Maoist and Gorbachevite theoretical fractions of the last 40 years are all bourgeois-revisionist, bourgeois-imperialist. They are not communist, on the contrary, they are enemies of communism. The experience of the last ten years has not only proved the bankruptcy of the modern revisionist theory, but also made public its anti-communist nature.
Those who treated the modern revisionist theory and its various currents as a 'communist theory adapted to new conditions' cannot make any judgement about the communist (Marxist-Leninist) theory unless they accept this fact. That is why, those self-styled 'socialist' and 'socialist intellectuals' are proving nothing but the fact they are either too blind to see the actual facts or renegades who kneeling down to salute the pseudo victory of the capitalist bourgeoisie.
Even in today's world where howlings are uttered on the 'victory' of capitalism and the 'collapse' of socialism, there is no natural or social phenomenon that repudiates historical materialism and the communist theory, that could prove that historical materialism and the communist theory are a failed 'utopia'. As we have indicated before, the only pseudo 'proof' that is being presented to prove the 'collapse' and 'bankruptcy' of the socialist system and the communist theory, is the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and the events in China. In actual fact, the collapse and the events are the proof of failure and bankruptcy on the part of one of the two rival theoretical currents. One of these is pseudo liberal (imperialist) and the other is modern revisionist (pseudo socialist, but in fact social-imperialist). In addition, the contest that has been going on for three decades between the USA and the Soviet Union as leaders of two imperialist block was, in fact, not a conflict between theoretical currents. It was a contest between the economic, social, political and military forces of the two camps of the international bourgeoisie. The contest between the liberal-imperialist and the revisionist-social imperialist theoretical currents were only a reflection and a special context of the struggle between the material forces indicated above. The collapse of one of the two imperialist blocks - that of the Soviet Union - could only prove the bankruptcy of the modern revisionist and social imperialist theory. And this is what happened. The monopolist state capitalism that was established in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the 1960s, after having gone through crises and failures, had to inevitably yield to classical capitalism based on private ownership. The modern revisionist theory served as a theoretical justification for the monopolist state capitalism and the political regimes that it supported. It is a theory of liquidating socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, of re-organising the dictatorship of new bourgeoisie on the basis of the monopolist state capitalism. It is also the theory of the problematic 'evolution' towards a bourgeois dictatorship based on classical capitalism and private ownership. Just as the bourgeois capitalist economic and political regimes went through this problematic process of 'evolution' by experiencing crises, collapse and destruction, the bourgeois-revisionist theory too - like all bourgeois theories - evolved towards its final collapse by incorporating inconsistency and antagonist conflicts and by eventually becoming a dogma. This theory was developed to deceit the proletariat and the people under the disguise of 'socialism' and 'communism', to distance the proletariat from communism, communist theory and socialism. While fulfilling this function, it has also built the process of self-destruction because it became redundant as it had prepared the masses to embrace the classical bourgeois - liberal imperialist - ideology. The revisionist theoretical current meant 'denouncing' the communist theory and 'revitalising' the bourgeois-imperialist propaganda - in a sense a theory of 'transition'. With the collapse of the monopolist state capitalism and social imperialism for which it served as a theoretical basis, the antagonist conflicts that it contained became pronounced and it eventually collapsed. This is the essence of the recent 'turmoil' that has been experienced in the area of theoretical contest in the capitalist world.
We must also indicate that the events observed in the arena of theoretical contest prove not only the collapse of the bourgeois-revisionist theory, but also the impasse and bankruptcy of the international bourgeoisie and imperialism in the theoretical front. That is because the revisionist theory, despite its 'socialist' rhetoric, borrows its fundamental theses not from dialectical and historical materialism and communist theory, but from philosophical idealism, from the metaphysical understanding of the society and the nature, and from the bourgeois-liberal (imperialist) theoretical current. And the factor that has determined its theoretical bankruptcy is this philosophical idealism and bourgeois-imperialist content. This fact explains why all bourgeois theories are bound to be unscientific and collapse no matter what demagogic material or empiricism it employs. The collapse of the modern-revisionist theoretical current also indicates that the process of collapse and decay has reached a new stage so far as capitalism and bourgeois ideology are concerned. Irrespective of the extent to which bourgeois-imperialist propaganda is fortified this fact cannot be concealed for ever. This is so irrespective of how well the adherents of the collapsed revisionism may try to applause the bourgeois-imperialism and bourgeois theory. The conditions for the communist and Marxist-Leninist theory to command an inevitable authority in the eyes of the proletarian masses are much more suitable than ever before and they are improving.
Does the Marxist-Leninist or communist theory have some theses and a definite position concerning the process of the last four decades?
Of course. Dialectical and historical materialism and communist theory have always taught and is still teaching the proletariat that socialism is a transitional historical period lying between capitalist residues and communism, that class struggle would continue and become more demanding during this period, that capitalist restoration would be possible if the proletariat could not display the necessary talent. In fact, dialectical and historical materialism and communist theory did not only warn the proletariat about the possibility of capitalist restoration. It investigated the restoration process experienced in the Soviet Union in late 1950s and 1960s and explained that process on the basis of empirical evidence. It also pronounced that the type of capitalism that became hegemonic in the 'Eastern Block' would evolve into a classical western capitalism through crises, conflicts and collapse if the proletariat could not stem it through new socialist revolutions.
The Soviet Union and the 'Eastern Block' collapsed and became disintegrated. This collapse and disintegration confirms nothing but the theses of the communist and Marxist-Leninist theory. What can be said then about western capitalism and imperialism, claimed to be the 'victor' that managed to overcome its antagonist conflicts and become a 'universal system of welfare'? Did it attain a victory and a social context that would condemn the communist theory and make it redundant? How can one answer these questions in the affirmative today when capitalism and imperialism are reproducing the proletariat and oppressed peoples; when the bourgeoisie and reactionary forces accumulate their wealth by impoverishing the proletariat and the people, when they create new areas for conflict, rivalry and hegemony; and when they increasingly destroy the productive forces?
Do not the ever increasing class antagonism in the capitalist society, national and class-based clashes and wars, and the increasing incidence of hunger and poverty indicate that capitalism and imperialism is becoming outmoded? Do these evidence not suggest that the 'victory' it has won against the 'Eastern Block' is an 'ephemeral victory'? We have already elaborated on the type of life that capitalism could provide now and has provided in the past forty years for humanity. We think what has been said up to now is enough to prove that the capitalist experience of last forty years has not disproved the communist theory. On the contrary, it has only confirmed its validity. Let me limit myself to say only this: proletarian ranks are increasing at greater rates and capitalism is exhausting the advantages that it has gained as a result of the proletariat's shortcomings and the support of the revisionist reaction. The contemporary situation is a proof of the fact that the world and humanity are now coming nearer to socialism and communism than ever before. It is obvious that any one who fails to observe and comprehend this situation cannot be considered as socialist. Ant one who tries to cover this fact, on the other hand, is nothing but an imperialist servant no matter what other adjective he/she would like to be identified with.
One thing is certain: communist theory has not limited itself only to study of the contradictions of the western capitalist-imperialist system or the capitalist restoration in the 'Eastern Block'. It examined the whole process of the last forty years together with its contradictions, clashes and relations and it developed clear theses and positions concerning current consequences of that process. It is clear that this fact is being covered up by many circles. This, however, would not be beneficial to any body. Also, it is incompatible with scientific ethic and would contribute to the socialist struggle.
In that case, how can you explain the weakened appeal of the communist or Marxist-Leninist theory for proletarian masses and world public opinion?
This is true: the bourgeois-revisionist camps headed by the Soviet Union and the modern revisionist theory it represents have, for the last 35 years, been presented as the 'socialist' camp and the 'communist' theory. This presentation has attracted a general acceptance within the community of intellectuals. The reason for this, as indicated before, can be explained simply: the capitalism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was not established as a result of a classical counter-revolution that destroyed the socialist system. It evolved as a result of degeneration during the 1950s and 1960s, realised by a new bourgeoisie. It was a monopolist state capitalism that maintained some degenerated socialist forms. In addition, both revisionists and capitalists, i.e. all reactionary forces, have blamed socialism for all the faults associated with that degenerated system and marketed the countries associated with it as the 'socialist camp'. The bourgeoisies of both the revisionist 'Eastern Block' and the imperialist west have deliberately maintained this campaign to discredit socialism and communist theory - as a social system and social theory, respectively. This huge and long-standing campaign has created an illusion among the proletariat, the people and intellectuals. It laid the basis for the emergence of a conviction that, although temporarily, implied that 'socialism was unfeasible' and that 'communism was a utopia'. That is why the revolutionary proletarian movement as well as anti-imperialist popular uprisings have been weakened in spite of an increase in spontaneous proletarian movements and national uprisings during that period. But now this came to an end. While the capitalist world is proclaiming the establishment of a 'universal system based on peace, welfare and human values' many events proved just the opposite. What else do events such as the war in the Middle East; reactionary clashes in the Balkans and Caucasia; the poverty and hunger that affected hundreds of millions of people in the last decade; the deepening crisis in the so-called 'welfare states'; intensifying social conflicts; the inter-imperialist struggle for hegemony which took a new turn with the establishment of new armies; etc. indicate?
That is why proletarian ranks and intellectual community are becoming increasingly sceptical about the 'new world order'. There are clear signs of this trend every where. It is not possible to go through all these evidence. It is, however, possible to indicate this observation: international bourgeoisie, bourgeois economists, theoreticians and ideologues themselves do not believe in demagogies which assert that 'socialism is dead' or 'communist theory has failed'. That is global reactionary forces are forced to spend billions of dollars on their theoretical and political demagogy campaign against communism. How else could they manage? Communist theory is the theory of the proletariat - the grave digger for capitalism. And capitalism could do nothing but to reproduce and increase the number of its grave diggers. The world capitalism, while heading towards a new stage of its general crisis, is inescapably preparing the proletariat for socialism and communism. Proletarian revolution and communism will continue to be the 'spectre' that haunts the bourgeoisie. Is there anything else that the bourgeoisie, who lacks a scientific social theory, could do apart from expensive campaigns of deceit in a period when capitalism is increasing the number of its grave diggers and creating the conditions that would put them into action? No matter what the bourgeoisie would do, no matter how much it intensifies its anti-communist propaganda, the socialist hope and the scientific directions of the communist theory would eventually prevail - given the poverty and hopelessness that capitalism imposes on the proletariat and the people. That is the reason behind the bourgeoisie's desperate anti-communist campaign.
Some people talk about scientific-technical revolution. They develop new theories which argue that the conditions brought about by this revolution enables capitalism to overcome its contradictions and become a universal system for humanity. Communist theory is a scientific theory, but it is going through a stagnation despite the development in science and technology. How would you explain this situation?
It is a given fact that a development that can be described as revolution in science took place, especially after the World war II. But there is something wrong about the thesis put forward in relation to this issue. What I have in mind is the thesis that it is the bourgeoisie and capitalism that realised this revolution in science and technology, and that the scientific-technological revolution has transformed capitalism into a universal system. With a certain level of abstraction, we can see that development in science and technology and successive scientific-technological revolutions are products of creative human and social activities and the evolution that is characterised by such activities. As far as the development of the scientific-technological revolutions are concerned, modes of social production (as determined by techniques of production) can either prepare the suitable ground and expand the possibilities of development or they can play a destructive role and slow down that development. Modes of social production based on a class society, including the contemporary capitalist mode of production, play both destructive and constructive roles with respect to scientific-technological development. This is true even when they go through their historically revolutionary periods.
The imperialist stage of capitalism, on the other hand, is characterised by hindering the development of productive forces and, consequently, that of science and technology. This stage of capitalism is no more compatible with the development and flourishing of productive forces. The reason why the class- and exploitation-based modes of social production hinder the development of science and technology as the products of creative human activities and evolution is that science and technological knowledge is put to the service of the ruling class and it is rendered subject to the monopolist ownership of capital. That science and technology develop in spite of hindrance and destruction during the stage of monopolist capitalism is not due to the latter's positive impact. On the contrary, it is a result of conflicts, factors and dynamics that underly capitalism. It is impossible to derive any conclusion that validate monopolist capitalism, bourgeois political regimes of bourgeois theories so far as scientific and technological development or revolutions are concerned.
The following question and answer will be sufficient to understand the 'scientific and technological revolution' that has been abused in the last decade to confuse the proletariat and the people. Had humanity been living under socialism rather than capitalism in the last four decades, at what stage would the scientific and technological revolution have been? There is no logical or theoretical obstacle for any reasonable person to answer this question by saying that it would have been at a stage one hundred and maybe one thousand times higher. But we shall be more concrete and look at the evidence. As it is well known, before the October proletarian revolution, Russia was at leat one hundred years behind the western countries as far as science and technology was concerned. In addition, the available industry and technology was devastated during the civil war. This country, however, managed to become one of the most advanced countries in economy, industry, natural and social sciences, and technology by the end of the 1930s in spite of being blockaded and devoid of any scientific and technological cooperation. It was enough for this country to overcome the backwardness of one hundred years in ten years. It is plain that this development was not a 'propaganda' device. That the Soviet Union managed to compete with the western capitalist world for forty years after the World war II was due the unprecedented steps taken in science, technology and culture until mid-1950s. And this achievement was in spite of the destruction caused by the World war II, the seizing of the power by the revisionist bourgeoisie in the 1950s, and the destruction that the latter caused in science, economy, technology and culture.
It is obvious how the socialist Soviet society succeeded in achieving these extra-ordinary results under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin in science, technology and culture: it was sufficient to destroy the hegemony of the capital (which is the main source of alienation) on the material and cultural lives of the proletariat, to enable it establishing its own rule, and introducing the communist theory, science, technology and culture into its life. Freed from the hegemony of the capital, science, technology and culture entered into the life of the proletariat and the people, fused with their practice and were regenerated through the revolutionary action of the working people. The Soviet science, technology and culture sprang from the bosom of the proletariat and the people and surpassed the science, technology and culture subject to the hegemony of the international bourgeoisie. In addition, the Soviet science and technology had contributed to the development of science and technology in the west - although it also meant a negation of the capitalist world.
Let me restate briefly: contemporary capitalism, let alone being a revolutionary factor contributing to the development of science and technology, is a fully destructive and reactionary system. Contemporary capitalism is the enemy of scientific, technological and cultural development. The new scientific revolution that took place in the last forty years was due to the factors and forces (dynamics) as well as contradictions that would negate capitalism. In fact, science and technology is a dynamic, a force that negate (in other words, that is in contradiction with) capitalism.
That capitalism is against science, that it is reactionary vis-a-vis scientific and technological development can be seen clearly when one looks at the social theory it is guided by - i.e. the bourgeois ideology. The bourgeoisie is fully against science and technology in the area of social and natural theory. This is in spite of the fact that it has to comply with or employ scientist complying with dialectical materialism in the laboratory and the process of experiment making. It also has to comply with scientific and technological development even though it tries to put its results under its monopoly. It is extremely clear that bourgeois political economy, philosophy, epistemology and natural history, etc. that form the theoretical elements of the bourgeois liberal and imperialist ideology have nothing to do with scientific approach. Bourgeois philosophers, economists, historians, and natural as well as social theoreticians have repeatedly shown and are showing through their 'contributions' that they are being directed by bishops, propaganda experts, rentiers, speculators and swindlers. Look at the social theory that is claimed to 'renew' itself at the basis of the revolution that has been experienced in the capitalist society in the last forty years: in spite of revolutionary findings, the only 'scientific' theoretical knowledge that the bourgeois social theories could provide is the knowledge of agnosticism and 'helplessness' of the individual. In spite of the destructiveness of capitalism, human beings and human society are re-discovering, reproducing and re-shaping the nature and the society in a continuous way. In spite of this, bourgeois liberals and revisionists, and all bourgeois theories of nature and society conclude that the individual and society can neither know nor transform the natural and social reality. Also, they all conclude that the individual is too impotent a creature with no future and bound to nature and capitalist society. Bourgeois philosophical schools, epistemology, schools of political economy, historical views, in the final analysis and in reality, arrive at bourgeois 'religious dogmas and spiritual (divine) laws' - no matter how much they refer to contemporary scientific and technological developments. The contradiction between creative human action and the spiritual (divine) laws (speculations) arrived at by bourgeois social theories is a reflection of the fundamental contradiction in the capitalist society. It is also an indication of irrationality, non-scientific approach, and being bound to failure. The flock of bourgeois philosophers, theoreticians, historians and economists - let alone developing new theories and making the communist theory 'redundant' - are doing nothing but to repeat the same themes that their ancestors had stated a century or one-and-a-half centuries ago. Also, capitalist-bourgeois theories are not only against science and technology, they are hostile to their developments as well. This, of course, is nothing but theorising the hostility and reactionary position of the capitalist bourgeoisie vis-a-vis scientific-technological revolution.
The question was about the stagnation faced by the communist theory. Does your analysis imply that such a stagnation is not existing?
No, it does not. I shall try to answer that part of your question too. Let me, however, begin by stating this: social theories in class societies emerge as a reflection of the class struggle and play a significant role in directing that struggle. They, therefore, become a special (ideological) area of struggle. The emergence of capitalism and modern proletariat lead to the development of two major social theoretical currents in capitalist society, both of which are antagonistic to each other: bourgeois-capitalist social theory and communist (proletarian) theory. Beyond these major theoretical currents, the petit-bourgeois theoretical currents do exist, but not as 'independent' theories. They emerge and remain as elements of the bourgeois theory and they have always been in struggle with communist theory.
Bourgeois theoretical currents emerged in a period when the bourgeoisie was in a revolutionary position against feudalism. These currents, therefore, relied on the findings of the scientific-technological revolution and contained a crude and mechanical understanding of materialism, even though coexistent with idealism. As the proletariat began to act as a class against the bourgeoisie, a new theory was born. The historical origin of this theory is the theories developed on behalf of the oppressed classes. It explains and represents the destruction of capitalism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the emancipation of humanity. This theory is the communist theory based on dialectical and historical materialism.
The formation of the communist theory corresponds to the process whereby the bourgeoisie began to become reactionary and the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat began to emerge. As a result of this objective situation and the theoretical battle that the communist (Marxist-Leninist) theory has waged, the scientific claims of all bourgeois and petit-bourgeois theoretical currents have been thrown into the bin. In the period when capitalism evolved towards monopolism and became reactionary, the bourgeoisie and bourgeois theoreticians have broken all their relations with science and scientific approach. They only 'renewed' the theory that proclaimed capitalism as an 'absolute', 'universal', and rational system by basin it upon pure idealism and degenerated metaphysics. Like all reactionary theories, the bourgeois social theory has fallen completely out of natural and social sciences. It has become, simultaneously, both more refined and cruder - evolving into speculations and dogmas. In contrast to this orientation of the bourgeois social theory, communist (Marxist-Leninist) theory - as a theory based on economic and social evolution, scientific and technological development and the struggle between classes - has developed and matured as the theory of the proletariat and asserted itself by removing the bourgeois theoretical currents from the ranks of the proletariat and working people. During that process, the theory of the proletariat was engaged in a life-and-death struggle with bourgeois theoretical currents and proved its scientific capacity as well as supremacy in many areas. The communist theory is in line with and derives its these from the socio-economic evolution. Therefore, it had developed until mid-1950s ad managed to explain the developments as well as direct the proletarian and popular movements. Dialectical and historical materialism (communist theory) has been the major factor and catalyst affecting the scientific and technological development.
Let me now return to your question. As indicated before, there is no natural, social or scientific phenomenon that disprove the communist theory. On the contrary, all phenomena have confirmed it. But despite this, the communist theory experienced a stagnation in the last three to four decades.
Nevertheless, this was not due to the 'unscientific', 'utopian', or 'dogmatic' nature of the communist theory. The most important reason for the stagnation of the communist (Marxist-Leninist) theory over the last four decades, as indicated above, is the monopoly established by the bourgeois modern-revisionist current over the proletariat and the people. This monopoly was established by dressing itself with a 'communist' rhetoric and exploiting the prestige of the communist theory as well as the advantages associated with the huge economic, political and military achievements of socialism. The defeat inflicted upon the proletariat by the capitalist and modern revisionist new bourgeoisie and the period of decline that ensued afterwards are the most important reasons for the temporary stagnation faced by the communist theory. The other reason was the failure of the communist parties that were established during the period of modern-revisionist hegemony to establish a new theoretical platform upon which the communist theory would flourish and to develop the Marxist-Leninist theory by utilising the possibilities provided by the scientific and technological development as well as the new class struggles and relations. Let us not forget that communist theory could develop only in conjunction with scientific and technological development and as a result of the individual's struggle who adopts the revolutionary theory as a guide for action. Also, it is the communist parties that could develop the communist theory.
Communist theoretical struggle is one aspect of the proletarian struggle and it constitutes one of three form of that struggle. The historical and international defeat suffered by the proletariat as a class in its fight with the bourgeoisie can prove neither the rationality or scientific character of the bourgeois theoretical currents nor the 'failure' of the communist theory. It can only cause a temporary deterioration and dilution in the conditions and possibilities required for the development of the communist theory. As it has been argued and repeatedly proved over the last one-and-a-half century, communist theory is not a speculative, 'closed' and frozen theoretical system. It develops, progresses and becomes richer by examining and re-discovering the natural and social phenomena and their nature as well as their inter-relations. In other words, the communist theory follows the praxis, tests the knowledge against this praxis and improves itself with the scientific and tested knowledge of that praxis. In short, communist theory does not develop on its own or through speculation. On the contrary, it develops as a result of the individual's search for and appropriation of the knowledge required in the struggle for changing the world and the society - the individual who is equipped with Marxism-Leninism in his/her approach to events and facts. In fact that is why it is a revolutionary theory. It is not a closed and frozen theory. On the contrary, it is a theory in need of development through new scientific discoveries, social facts, and political changes within the process of social and natural evolution and dynamism. This is the principle of the dialectical and historical materialism and communist theory.
Briefly stated, the temporary stagnation experienced by the communist theory is neither the result of shortcomings in its scientific nature nor is it due to the weakening of the social dynamics on which it is based. On the contrary, the scientific-technological development and the social contradictions continuously generated by capitalism have once more confirmed the scientific nature and the social dynamics of the communist theory and developed them further. The responsibility of the stagnation you have indicated is on our shoulder - i.e the shoulder of the communists and communist parties who failed to develop the communist theory under the conditions of the temporary defeat by drawing on its own dynamics and capacity.
It must be indicated that history has always borne witness to the fact that reactionary ruling classes could win victories over the revolutionary oppressed classes, that they would try to organise campaigns for eradicating the historically-revolutionary theories. But as we all know, history has also borne witness to the fact that the defeat of the revolutionary oppressed classes would be temporary, that revolutions advance through defeats and recoveries, that the historically-revolutionary theory (ideology) would regain the upper hand over reactionary theories, and that it would be transformed into a material force through the movement of the oppressed masses. Indeed, the human and social progress is a result of the victory won by revolutionary classes and theoretical currents over the ruling and reactionary theoretical as well as political campaigns of the reactionary classes. The dialectics of history and society is still dominant - even in a more pronounced way than it was the case in the past. The bourgeois 'supremacy' vis-avis the proletariat is a supremacy that contains the seeds of the former's destruction. It is a 'supremacy' based on politics and not theory. As far as the area of theoretical struggle is concerned, the only advantage that the bourgeoisie have over the proletariat is its monopoly over the means and channels of propaganda. When proletarian mass action begins - even though in a spontaneous way - it will be seen that that supremacy does not count for any thing at all. Like all other reactionary classes and theoretical currents, the bourgeoisie and its theory will also be thrown into the history's litter bin. The victory of the proletariat and communist theory will definitely assert itself. We should remember that discrete development is the law of motion. Due to many factors, it is also the law of theoretical development. Let nobody entertain some fantasies or expectations on the basis of the alleged 'stagnation' of the communist theory. Otherwise, they would only knock their heads on a granite rock.
You have indicated above that the communists and communist parties have failed to establish a 'new platform for theoretical struggle' since mid-1950s. Why do we need a 'new platform for theoretical struggle' and what, do you think, the communists and communist parties have failed to do that?
At the beginning of our conversation, we have briefly touched upon very important changes associated with both the revolutionary process that evolved to a new stage following the October Proletarian Revolution of 1917 and the battle between the revolution and counter-revolution. In brief, these changes can be summarised as follows:
a) the realisation of the socialist construction in the Soviet Union in the second half of the 1930s and the transformation of the Soviet society into a socialist society - even though it contained some capitalist residues.
b) The break-away of some part of the world capitalist market from the capitalist world, the emergence of the socialist market and the evolution of the socialist system into an international system after the World War II.
c) The emergence of a radical change in the power relations between the socialist and capitalist worlds and the conditions that caused the world imperialism to deploy all its resources and engage in life-and-death struggle with socialism.
d) The emergence of the US as the master of the imperialist world and the conditions that enabled it, for a long period, to unify all the imperialist powers and form a united front against socialism.
e) The emergence, in the 1950s and 1960s, of a new scientific-technological revolution that was determined by various factors.
f) The formation of a new colonial system that co-exists with changes in the structure of oppressed as well as oppressing classes as a result of changes in the scientific-technological revolution and the changes indicated above.
It is also possible to mention other developments and changes. However, it is possible to conclude that the new world situation and the conditions of the global struggle between revolution and counter-revolution were, by the 1950s and 1960s, characterised by these developments. It is also necessary to indicate that those changes and developments did not emerge suddenly. They were spread over the period between the late 1930s when socialist construction in the Soviet Union was completed and the decade following the World War II. Many of their manifestations were even extended to later years.
Of course, those developments and changes did not imply that imperialism or the principles of the struggle between capitalism and socialism had undergone a fundamental change. What is clear, however, is the fact that those changes were the most important and radical changes experienced after the October Revolution. In that sense, those changes and developments forced the battling hostile classes and forces to expand, improve and renew their theoretical platforms, to rebuild all of their organisations and reformulate their political tactics accordingly - irrespective of whether the changes provided advantages or disadvantages.
After World War II, imperialism lost substantial power, but managed to escape a total collapse. Also, under the objective conditions of change and development mentioned above, it managed to make use of the conditions that implied advantages for itself and disadvantages for the proletariat. It endeavoured to develop and encourage new allies among the ranks of the proletariat and the oppressed peoples on the one hand, and renew the theoretical, political and organisational bases of its rule on the other. Right after its initiation of the 'cold war' with crude demagogies, it began to develop 'new' bourgeois theories aimed at checking the proletarian revolution. It also introduced the social state and social justice 'system' as channels for political 'renewal'. Of course, those initiatives were carried out hand in hand with the threat of imperialist armament and war. The imperialist campaign of aggression and destruction raged against the Proletarian October Revolution and socialist construction in the Soviet Union, after having gone through the period of fascist dictatorships and World War II, was once more transformed into a life-and-death struggle in the 1950s and 1960s deploying all types of means available,
That was because the post-war international conditions, whilst forcing the global imperialist reactionary forces to 'renew' their system of rule in both theory and practice, also enabled them to engage in a life-and-death struggle at many fronts.
The new situation mentioned above, the new conditions just indicated and the accompanying major changes in the proletarian and socialist front, represented a new and an unprecedented stage in the process of world revolution and the struggle between revolution and counter-revolution. Under this condition, developing the process of world revolution and neutralising the comprehensive imperialist onslaught were only possible by developing a new theoretical and practical platform that would have prepared, re-organised and re-positioned the international forces of socialism and proletariat.
The re-positioning of the international communist movement, the world proletariat and the socialist countries in accordance with the new conditions and on the basis of a new theoretical and practical platform were only possible by developing a theoretical and practical platform denouncing the theoretical basis of the capitalist-imperialism's post-war hegemony and explaining the international construction of socialism and the proletarian movement. This theoretical struggle had to be in the form of a struggle that, on the basis of new evidence provided by the new scientific and technological revolution (i) criticised and condemned the 'new' bourgeois philosophical trends, the bourgeois political economy, history, epistemology and culture as well as art that formed the theoretical basis of the imperialist capitalism's hegemony and (ii) developed the experience of the historical proletarian struggle as well as the construction of socialism. In other words, that theoretical struggle and attack had to be in the form of (i) denouncing the theoretical basis of the 'liberal-social state' which represented the political and organisational re-institutionalisation of the post-war bourgeois rule and (ii) defending and proving the relevance of the dictatorship of the proletariat under those new conditions. Without a theoretical struggle and onslaught that challenged the theoretical basis of the imperialist bourgeoisie's rule, it was impossible either to re-organise and prepare the forces of the proletariat or to re-plan the political and organisational tasks of the new stage of the world revolution under the conditions of the post-World War II period. We know that no revolutionary practice is possible without a revolutionary theory. Communist theory, as the theory of the final victory of the proletariat and full emancipation of humanity, was not developed in a way that would meet the demands of and deploy the opportunities provided by the intensifying struggle between the revolution and counter-revolution. Consequently, under these conditions, it was not surprising that bourgeois and revisionist theories had found enough scope for existence.
That is why 'the new platform for theoretical struggle' mentioned above was both necessary and mandatory. Also, it had to possess the content indicated above and constitute a frontal attack on bourgeois, revisionist and opportunist theories of the period.
You have asked why communists failed to display the required talent in developing that theoretical platform and attack. Let me first of all make one point clear: communist parties and communists, the international and Soviet proletariat had defended the communist theory until the death of Stalin - one of the great teachers of Marxism-Leninism unique leaders of the proletariat. They were successful in utilising the theory as a guide for action. It is impossible to examine Stalin's genius contributions to communist theory. But let me state only this: Stalin had always identified and emphasised the changes associated with the new conditions of the world revolution that essentially crystallised after World War II and opportunities as well as the dangers posed by those changes from 1930s until his death. Nevertheless, some consequences of those changes (the consequences of the scientific-technological revolution, economic, social and political implications, etc.) - even though beginning to emerge after World War II - became fully fledged and matured after Stalin's death. It is an established fact that theory develops by examining the practical changes and events. People appropriate the knowledge of change and phenomena and begin to explain them when they face them. In a scientific theory, there is no room for speculations or interpretations not backed by evidence. Stalin treated the communist theory as a science and developed it as such. That was why imperialism and capitalism had suffered heavy blows, the proletarian movement became stronger, and socialism became a great international power while Stalin was alive.
We have by now elaborated enough on the defeat suffered by the proletarian movement and socialism in the second half of the 1950s and the failure in establishing a new theoretical platform so that the communist theory could be used as a revolutionary weapon. That is why we should now talk about the failure of the communist movement - of which we are a part - since the 1960s in developing and renewing the theory. The most important reason behind the international communist movement's failure in developing a new theoretical platform was its limitation only to defend communism, the achievements of the proletariat and Marxism-Leninism against the attacks of the international capitalist and revisionist bourgeoisie. What was necessary, however, was to establish a new theoretical platform based on the international developments as well as phenomena against the renewed theoretical basis of the capitalist and imperialist bourgeoisie. The communist theory could only be developed from such an assertive theoretical platform.
The failure of international communist movement to go beyond the 'resistance platform' in theoretical struggle was largely due to the hegemony of revisionism over the proletarian movement and the lack of organic ties between communist groups and parties on the one hand and the proletariat on the other. This situation led to the emergence of a narrow intellectual style in the analysis of events and phenomena within the communist movement. Whilst weakened ties with the progressive sections of the proletariat had contributed to the emergence of that intellectual style, the latter itself - which became more widespread - had seriously obstructed the development of the dynamics of a forceful theoretical attack. So much so that the perspective concerning the character of the proletarian revolution, the world revolution, the renewal of the theoretical basis of the world revolution, and the development of the communist theory had gradually waned.
What we have said above, however, should not lead to the conclusion that the international communist movement had been remote from a revolutionary position in the last three-four decades so far as theoretical struggle is concerned. On the contrary, the theoretical platform and struggle of the international communist movement were revolutionary and represented a revolutionary struggle - although the attempts at carrying the theoretical struggle and developing the communist theory had been less than what was necessary. During the whole period of revisionist and bourgeois hegemony until mid-1980s, the platform of defending Marxism-Leninism was a revolutionary and communist platform, even though it remained dented with serious shortcomings. This is a fact that cannot be denied in any way. And if our party is calling today for a new and assertive theoretical platform and a new theoretical struggle against the theoretical basis of bourgeois liberalism, this is a natural result of the development of the international communist movement and its revolutionary theoretical struggle. In this context, the contributions of comrade Enver Hoxha, the most sincere defender communism, cannot be forgotten in any way - especially those contained in his Imperialism and Revolution.
But this clear too: under current conditions determined by the collapse of revisionism, the hegemony of bourgeois liberalism and trade-unionist parliamentarism over the international proletarian movement, the communist movement would never be able to play a revolutionary role in defending and developing the communist theory unless it manages to realise the renewal concerning the platform for theoretical struggle. This is a definite reality. We believe that the international communist movement will succeed in expanding its theoretical platform to a new level centred on the criticism and denouncement of the theoretical basis of the imperialist rule. That level will be raised and improved by renewing (purifying) the historical experience of the international proletariat and especially its progressive elements in the light of the current historical knowledge. Under current conditions implying a new stage in the general crisis of capitalism, The communists will inescapably understand that the most significant task in the renewal of the theoretical basis of the world revolution and international proletarian movement and, therefore, the revolutions in each country, is the establishment of a new assertive theoretical platform. We believe that the communist theory, together with the proletarian movement, is entering a new stage of assertion and development.
You have elaborated upon the problems of the international communist movement. Nowadays, there are suggestions that all socialist and communist parties should come together and bury the old differences. Is it possible that the International Communist Movement of which your party is a part and those parties described as revisionist could come together or form some union at either national or international level? What is the position of your party on this matter?
I think it would be appropriate to begin with answering one part of your question first: it is not possible for the truly communist parties that constitute the International Communist Movement and the old revisionist, bourgeois or petit-bourgeois 'socialist' parties to come together or form a unified 'socialist' movement or organisation at either national or international level. That is because the ideological differences between the truly communist parties and the revisionist parties as well as the petit-bourgeois socialist currents are not artificial differences arising out of 'historical sectarianism' or 'mistakes'. On the contrary, they are related to the substantive differences between proletarian socialism and bourgeois or petit-bourgeois socialism. They correspond to the social contradiction between the proletariat on the one hand and bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie on the other. These social contradictions and ideological differences cannot be accommodated within the political party of the proletariat. As far as national or international experience is concerned, these contradictions and differences are not declining or weakening. On the contrary, they increasing and becoming more pronounced. Therefore, the period in front of us is going to be a period when an intensive, strong and comprehensive ideological struggle is carried out between the forces that represent the proletarian or bourgeois and petit-bourgeois socialism - let alone rapproachment and unification.
We know that, over the last year, there has been an international 'revival and increased activity' concerning the relations between the old revisionist parties representing the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois socialism and some allegedly socialist or communist parties representing the petit-bourgeois reformist and revolutionary movements. This 'revival and increased activity' went hand in hand with the emergence of a bipolar concentration at the international level. Its most obvious mission is not to remove the 'differences' between 'socialist' fractions, but only to paper over the cracks. One of these groupings involve the 'communist', 'socialist' or 'popular' parties from Europe, Asia and Latin America and some old or new parties from the old 'Eastern Block". It is based on the thesis of defending socialism in China, North Korea and Cuba. The second of these groupings is reflected in meeting announced by Euro-'communist' parties or parties supporting the old Soviet Union - parties that disintegrated as a result of Gorbachevite period and re-shaped along Kruschevite-Brejnevite lines.
These two international 'socialist groupings' constitute a heterogeneous formation in both ideological and political terms. There is no indication that these groupings have any future as they essentially represent an attempt by the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois socialism to organise internationally and provide an alternative to the proletarian and popular movement. Both groupings are in an ideological and political mess and lack any principle. Parties involved in these groupings accept each other 'as they are' and many of these parties find themselves participating in each of the groupings. In all its aspects, it can be clearly seen that these international groupings has no future whatever.
It is a known fact that the majority of these parties and groups have been going through a period of stagnation and deterioration. The united attack of capitalism and revisionism and the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have led to turmoil and divisions in the ranks of almost all revisionist and petit-bourgeois 'socialist' parties. The main factors that explain the recent 'increased activity' in Europe and elsewhere are (i) the decline in confidence for the 'new international order' following the developments in the capitalist-imperialist world and the slowing down in the intensity of the imperialist and reactionary offensive, and (ii) the intensification of efforts by China, Cuba and N. Korea to cultivate ideological and political support against the imperialist pressures. The process experienced by these parties did not lead to their rapproachment to the proletariat in terms of their political line or organisational life. On the contrary, it led to further deterioration as a result of internalising the defeat and surrendering to imperialist, bourgeois and revisionist attacks. We argue these international groupings have no future because of the reasons stated above and due to the fact that they lack a common 'socialist' line and constitute an unprincipled 'union'.
What can be said about the international communist movement? Although faced with important issues and going through a process of turbulence, the international communist movement is gradually renewing its activities and clarifying its political orientation. As far as the international communist movement is concerned, the period it left behind was characterised by the evolution of the views and positions that caused uncertainty, turbulence and divisions within its ranks into ideological orientations and increased activities. Those orientations emerged from within the movement's ranks and moved away from proletarian towards petit-bourgeois socialism. They were due to the attacks of the international revisionist and imperialist reaction on the one hand and to some historical mistakes and shortcomings on the other. The Troskyite group that emerged within the ranks of the German Communist Party in the 1980s had caused substantial damage, but it had already disintegrated in the previous period. The Spanish Part lost faith in socialism and communism and became the representative of revisionism and separatism within the movement, but it came near to liquidation because of this orientation. The International Communist Movement managed to rid itself of these Trotskyite and revisionist tendencies and the communists of those countries began to re-organise. Also, it became clear in this year's meeting of sister parties that the preponderant majority of the members of the International Communist Movement reject the opportunist orientation that attempts at eroding the fundamental differences between proletarian and bourgeois socialism. This orientation was observed in the ranks of some sister parties and had emerged after the destruction of socialism in Albania - acting with the pretext of 'developing new tactics'. Although the international communist movement had suffered substantial damage in the seven-eight years, it is now in a position to re-inforce its revolutionary stance and extend its position as well as its platform. The current question faced by the International Communist Movement is whether or not it will make use of the existing conditions and fulfil its historical duties.
We have mentioned of three major socialist current: bourgeois socialism, petit-bourgeois socialism and proletarian socialism. Historically, the first two emerged from within the proletarian and popular movement and they are still claiming to be 'socialist currents' based on the proletariat. Their aim is to confine the proletarian movement to the limits determined by bourgeois and petit-bourgeois socialism - i.e the limits imposed by capitalism and capital. It is obvious that the theoretical and practical struggle of the proletarian socialism are more comprehensive: theoretical and practical duties involving the destruction of capitalism, construction of socialism, and eradication of all class divisions. It is obvious that the most fundamental pre-requisite for the proletariat to separate itself from all other classes is to organise and conclude the most comprehensive and effective ideological and organisational struggle against the ideological orientations that manifest activity within or without the proletarian ranks, claiming to represent the 'proletarian movement' or the 'proletarian labour movement'. That is why, the most important aspect of the proletarian socialists' theoretical and organisational activities is ideological battle against the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois socialism that tend to be in a new offensive in the name of 'proletariat' and 'socialism'.
It must be indicated that obscuring or eradicating the ideological difference between proletarian socialism and other 'socialist' currents (i.e. revisionist, reformist and opportunist socialism) is always nothing but a betrayal of proletariat and socialism - especially in the current historical period. That is because such an act of commission implies deforming and replacing the proletarian socialism by bourgeois and petit-bourgeois versions. It also means the liquidation of the independent proletarian movement and the transformation of the proletariat itself into an appendage of the bourgeois classes. The 'union' activities of the old revisionist parties, the remnants of the parties that used to support the currently disintegrated Soviet Union, and the bourgeois 'socialist' liberal currents have no other meaning or substance, This is true so far as the centres representing the contemporary bourgeois and petit-bourgeois socialism are concerned as well. Our Party and the International Communist Movement - to the extent that it emerges - are against rapproachment or unification with other socialist currents and they are committed to an increasingly expanding and deepening ideological and organisational struggle with them irrespective of whether or not they manage to emerge as a centralised entity. This fact must be emphasised: the reformist bourgeois socialism attempting at 'centralisation' in Europe, the bureaucratic and bourgeois and petit-bourgeois socialism trying to unite around N. Korea, Cuba and China, and the proletarian socialism represented by the International Communist Movement are in fight for establishing their respective hegemonies over the proletariat's life and its movement that increasingly accumulate new experiences. Therefore, they are struggling to eliminate one another from the proletariat's theoretical and practical movement. Every contemporary development points out the fact that the struggle for mutual elimination and establishment of hegemony over the proletariat's movement will become increasingly more comprehensive, serious and deeper. Our Party believes that it is impossible to argue for ideological friendship, rapproachment and party unity between proletarian socialism and bourgeois and petit-bourgeois socialism without opening the door for opportunism and bourgeois liberalism and committing betrayal.
Because of its stance that we have tried to explain, our Party will be and is being criticised by some circles both in Turkey and abroad for being 'sectarian', 'dogmatic' or 'orthodox'. We, however, strongly believe that the current situation, - i.e. the weakness of the proletariat that is due to the long-standing and heavy defeat - will come to an end. Our party will never enter into an ideological compromise with the allegedly 'socialist' currents that condemned the proletariat to defeat and weakness in the past and are poised to condemn it to defeat and disarmament in the future. Having been involved in an honourable struggle with bourgeois and petit-bourgeois socialism for the last forty years, it is necessary, correct and natural that the International Communist Movement rejects such a compromise irrespective of what is going to be said by others and no matter how great the difficulties are.
Inevitably, a question springs to mind here. Do the International Communist Movement and sister parties possess the potential, strength and dynamism required for overcoming the difficulties and establishing hegemony over the proletarian movement?
It is natural that such a question springs to mind under the current power relations within the struggle between socialist currents to establish hegemony over the proletarian movement. As every one knows, our sister parties are relatively small when compared to other 'socialist' parties in Europe where, especially, the communist party ought to be strong. Also, at the international level too the parties belonging to the International Communist Movement - with some exceptions - are relatively 'small' and command little resources. This is the reality of our times.
Nevertheless, the reality does not consist of this mathematical situation: the major parties, as well as the large majority of other participants, that are engaged in attempts at 'uniting' the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois socialism and imposing it over the proletariat at the international level are responsible for the proletariat's heaviest defeat in its history. To impose on the proletariat a theoretical and practical line that had led to the heaviest defeat, caused the loss of all past achievements, and brought about humiliation constitutes the most serious dilemma and contradiction faced by these parties - especially when this political line is also made more reactionary by incorporating into it the 'liberal virtues' of the imperialist capitalism. In contrast to this, the history of the International Communist Movements and the parties of which it is constituted is the history of defending proletarian socialism as well as the achievements of the proletariat and peoples under the most difficult conditions. In addition to that, the parties that defend revisionism and bourgeois or petit-bourgeois socialism are essentially detached from the proletariat in moral and political terms, Irrespective of their means and resources, therefore, they have lost their dynamism due to bureaucratic stratification. However, parties belonging to the International Communist Movement, in spite of their small size, constitute the most dynamic, energetic and morally as well as ideologically sound forces of the proletariat.
In order that the question is appreciated fully, it is necessary to emphasise the following: the progressive proletariat is experienced and matured enough to differentiate between proletarian socialism and all other socialist currents and evaluate the history of its movement as it frees itself of the illusion prevailing in its ranks and its movements assumes a socialist character. Also, as the nationalism characterising the movement of the oppressed people and nations is eradicated and the anti-imperialist feelings rise again, there will remain no means of stopping the bankruptcy of the bourgeois 'socialist' parties, most of which have been imperialist, collaborationist or reformist and committed collaborationist crimes against the people. When the proletariat and the people weed out the alien elements in the history of socialism, the anti-imperialist struggle and the proletariat and the people themselves in their own ways, it is doubtless that bourgeois and petit-bourgeois socialism will be among those to be weeded out. To doubt this is nothing but to doubt the historical inevitability of socialism.
In spite of this undeniable fact, it is common knowledge that the hegemony of true communist parties over the proletarian life and struggle will not be realised in a spontaneous manner. In order to embrace the proletarian masses and transform the proletarian movement into a revolutionary political (socialist) one, the International Communist Movement and true communist parties must, in addition to objective developments, realise the following two tasks in a consistent way. The first one is to underscore the dividing line between proletarian socialism and other 'socialist' currents; to extend into an assertive theoretical platform the struggle against currents such as bourgeois liberalism, social democracy and others (including Maoism and Trostkyism) that claim to be proletarian movements - so that they can be thrashed and their impact on the proletariat and the new generation of intellectuals can be neutralised; and to improve the communist theory on a scientific basis and place it above all other theories. The intensification and extension of the theoretical struggle against petit-bourgeois socialism that claims to represent proletariat and socialism does not necessarily mean that we should not pursue the most flexible tactics with respect to involvement in political cooperation and tactical collaboration with these 'socialist' forces with the aim of improving the class struggle and uniting the actions of the proletarian movements of the working people. On the contrary, the contemporary political line of the true communist parties is determined by an compromising and sturdy stance with respect to theory and ideology as well as theoretical and ideological struggle, and the most flexible stance with regard to the daily political struggle as well as tactics. And that is what we have in practice. For example, ideological compromise with the bureaucratic bourgeois socialism of Cuba or Korea is considered by our party as a mistake and ideological opportunism. But it is also considered as a duty in our struggle against imperialism to support the resistance (to the extent that it exists) of the governments and people of those countries against the imperialist aggression and blockade. The ideological struggle with the Cuban or N. Korean socialism and the tendency to impose it on the proletariat should not be treated at the same level with being in the same front with these countries against imperialism. This fact has been forcefully underlined by parties representing proletarian socialism. That is because they know that opportunism emerges as a result of confusing the issues of principle with tactical issues, thereby undermining the principles.
The second of the tasks mentioned above is to renew, transform and change the work of the party in theoretical, political and organisational terms. It was inevitable that the detachment of the proletarian socialism from the proletariat and the attraction of the experienced sections of the proletariat and talented intellectuals into the bourgeois and revisionist orbit since 1960s would affect the life and work of our parties that were then going through the process of formation, only to be established afterwards. As we have indicated before, we must rebuild the professional party work on a Leninist basis and rectify the defects in organisational and working methods as well as proletarian life style that emerged as a result of (i) infiltration into the movement of petit-bourgeois elements during the period of weakened ties with the proletarian and (ii) the limitation of the movement's theoretical basis only to the task of defending Marxism-Leninism and emphasising its relevance. If we take into account the fact that imperialism and bourgeoisie have behind them the experience of defeating a party such as the Bolshevik Party, we can clearly see that it is necessary to get rid of the disorders associated with being a small party or a party of opposition for a long time. This can be done only by rebuilding the party organisation and adopting a new working style that would enable us to embrace the awakening forces of the proletariat as well as the working people, the intellectuals and the youth.
Let me also indicate another point. In contrast to all other 'socialist' currents, our party and sister parties are upholding a unity with the new forces generated by the proletarian movement as well as intellectuals, young workers and intellectuals who are truly linked to the people and socialism, and not a unification with forces that are responsible for the defeat of socialism and proletariat and whose bankruptcy has been confirmed. This policy line, obviously, does not preclude the possibility of collaboration and attempts at forging unity on Marxist-Leninist principles with the 'socialist' workers groups that emerged after the collapse of the revisionist parties in various countries as well as the party or currents emerging in the 'Eastern Block' with an approach that defends the Stalin period and depicts the 1956 Kruschevite Congress as the turning point in the restoration of capitalism. This is the line adopted by the international communist movement and the preponderant majority of the sister parties.
We believe that the 'small' communist parties of today will embark on the road to becoming the alternative parties of the proletariat and mass proletarian parties with the required strength for power to the extent that our party and sister parties take the necessary steps for the realisation of the tasks that we have tried to indicate above. International proletariat and proletarian socialism have been defeated and lost initially in Western Europe and then in the Soviet Union. A new process would ensue for the proletarian and socialist movement when truly proletarian parties achieve victory in one or several countries of Western Europe or Eastern Europe (including Turkey and Russia). That process would be characterised by two aspects: the historical experience of the proletariat, its organisational skills and revolutionary initiative would determine the international developments and (ii) the new stage in the proletarian revolution will influence the oppressed nations and peoples as well as labouring classes and strata beyond the proletariat. The International Communist Movement and sister parties possess the perspective, potential, energy, accumulated experience, moral values and courage that would enable them to manage and organise this process. It is not possible to know in advance the ways in which this process would unfold and what other concrete tasks the communist parties would have to shoulder in their intervention into it for establishing their hegemony. However, there is no obstacle to prevent us from arguing that they possess the main resources required for establishing their hegemony in the proletarian movement.
Finally, we would like to ask one more question in relation to the organisation of the international proletarian movement: Is the International Communist Movement a Communist International? What do you think about the establishment of a new Communist International?
Even though some would attempt at downgrading the international character of the proletariat, there is a general agreement that the proletariat is an international class, that its theoretical and practical movement is an international one, that proletarian revolution is international in character, and that socialism is an international system. It must be indicated that this agreement is not only the result of the fact that scientific socialist theory has formulated the proletarian internationalism. More importantly, it is due to the international character of the historical proletarian movement and the establishment of international proletarian organisations. As we know, the First and Second International and the Comintern (we are not going to elaborate on the special case of the Cominform here) emerged as the centralised organisations of the International Communist Movement and the proletarian movement with which it was associated under ceratin historical conditions. Also, they emerged as the international administrative centres (world proletarian parties) of the world proletarian movement. These (international) organisations of the international proletariat and world proletarian revolution, in terms of their programmes and organisational forms, were formed under and shaped by the conditions of their periods. The First International became outmoded and dysfunctional. Therefore, it was replaced by the Second International. The Second International became ineffective too. Its leadership and most of its members betrayed the proletariat. The Third International (Comintern) was born in the period following the imperialist war and the 1917 Proletarian October Revolution. As a result of the extraordinary growth of the international socialist movement of the proletariat and the complex conditions brought about by the World war II, it was replaced by the Cominform and the platforms of solidarity between sister parties. The transformation of the communist parties in the Soviet Union and Europe - with the exception of the Party of Labour of Albania - into bourgeois parties led to the disintegration of the International Communist Movement. Most of the proletarian parties degenerated into tools of the revisionist bourgeoisie.
We know that there has been no international organisation implying an international administration of the international proletarian movement (in other words, a world proletarian party) since 1943 when the Comintern was dissolved. Leaving aside the special transitional period between the dissolution of the Comintern and the second half of the 1950s, the main reason for the lack of an international organisation was due to the deterioration of the proletarian movement into trade-unionism and the influence of the revisionist and social-democratic currents which were defending the imperialist interests of their bourgeoisies. This situation, however, cannot and should not be interpreted as the collapse of proletarian internationalism. The Party of Labour of Albania and other Marxist-Leninist parties established in the 1960s and 1970s did not surrender to revisionism and social imperialism and they formed the International Communist Movement in line with their struggles maintained under difficult conditions. They kept the proletarian internationalism alive and represented it.
For the last forty years, the International Communist Movement has not had an international organisation implying centralisation of the world proletariat's socialist mass movement and a centralised administration of the international proletarian movement. First of all, the proletarian movement is not transformed into a socialist movement that affects its direction in any (or some) countries and the sister parties have not yet succeeded in essentially embracing the proletarian movement itself. Secondly, the platform established by the International Communist Movement and sister parties do not constitute a centralised organ of administration. It is only a platform of international solidarity with and assistance for each other's efforts to advance the revolutionary struggle in their countries and in relation to mutual exchange of experience and views. Sister parties are independent in their decisions and running of their organisations. Proletarian internationalism has been and is being shaped under the conditions of the last thirty years in this format and content. The discipline of the movement is ensured by ideological and political unity and strengthening it.
Our party considers this format of the proletarian internationalism as compatible with current conditions provided that it is developed, perfected and stabilised. Our party, however, does not preclude the possibility that the world proletariat would be in need of a democratically centralised international organisation (in the sense of world party of the proletariat) when and as the current conditions change as a result of the proletarian movement being transformed into a socialist movement in one or several major countries. It is obvious that this international entity will not emerge as an organisation of the distinguished political representatives of the minority of the international proletariat. It will emerge when revolutionary communism is integrated with the large masses of the proletariat in one or several major countries and the authority of the international entity is consequently justified in the eyes of other sections of the world proletariat and oppressed people. We think it is only reasonable to indicate that the emergence of such an organisation would not be an 'imitation' of the past Internationals of the proletariat and that it is going to be largely shaped by the conditions under which it would emerge. This is the essence of our party's opinion on the issue of a new International. Our party does not and will not take seriously those who were exalting the 'proletarian internationalism' in the past and are inclined to declaring it to be 'dead' today. It does not and will not take seriously those who dream about and attempt at a bourgeois and petit-bourgeois 'socialist international' either.
.jpg)
