Voice of Revolution - Issue No.13 (October 2001)
On September 11 and a new wave of attacks by reactionary forces
The 11 September attack on the USA caused the death of
thousands of innocent people. There is no doubt that this attack is indefensible
as far as the peoples of the world are concerned. However, equally clear is the
fact that this attack is the fruit of the situation which has been imposed by
the US-led imperialism onto the peoples of the world, a situation characterised
by hunger, poverty, degrading and inhuman conditions. It is not surprising to
see such actions being reaped by imperialist aggression which has been shedding
the blood and getting the “curse” of millions of oppressed people. The US
imperialism is harvesting what it had sown. Therefore, the people of America
must question the reasons why they had to go through all this, and surely they
will.
With
a mind of an ambitious merchant, the US-led imperialist states are trying to use
terror and sorrow for their own purpose. They considered the 11 September attack
as an opportunity and launched a campaign of a broad offensive and expansion in
the name of “fight against terrorism”. Yet, it is imperialism itself that
feeds terrorism, in such an ironic way that it becomes self-destructing.
In
the aftermath of a short-lived shock and panic, US imperialists first declared
war against an unknown enemy, then launched an investigation to “identify”
it. For the time being, American reactionary forces are using Osama Bin Laden in
order to divide the groupings that had been formed against itself in Asia, thus
have greater influence in the region. The US is trying to take Afghanistan into
its sphere of influence since it is a country which borders the region of a rich
source of energy. It is doing this with the excuse of getting Bin Laden whom it
now holds responsible for the 11 September attack. However, it is a well-known
fact that the US once supported him against Russia, but ironically he got out of
hand later. It seems that Afghanistan on its own does not satisfy the American
reactionary forces, as they make a list of the countries which “harbour
terrorism” in order to attack them.
Although
it may seem that an “international coalition against terrorism” is being
formed through a spinning “diplomatic traffic”, what is in fact taking place
is negotiations with an agenda for redivision. Furthermore, in a matter of a
week, the so-called “fight against the war that had been launched against the
civilised world” has also begun to have an element of the “fight” among
the “civilised world” itself. In this respect “international coalition
against terrorism” is nothing more than a lie. The only “coalition” one
can talk of is the agreement of big imperialist powers on the necessity to
intimidate the oppressed peoples.
The
reactionary forces of Turkey, an American ally and a member of NATO, have
hastily declared their “support” for US imperialism. Turkey can easily be
dragged into the war, not only because of the American base in Incirlik but also
because of it being America’s “trusted friend”, the closest one to
possible “American targets”. The collaborators in our country see the war as
a medicine for their incurable illnesses. However, it is obvious that such an
adventure would only bring suffering to the peoples of Turkey and of the region.
Although a war adventure may seem as a “way out” to the troubled ruling
classes, it would probably worsen their problems, up to the point of their
overthrow. However, it would also help, even if temporarily, to distance the
working masses, who have been suffering in the hands of poverty and
unemployment, from their demands.
Some
of the consequences of the 11 September attack have already shown themselves in
the rising wave of reactionary forces. With their attempts to pass
“anti-terror laws” and restrictions on bourgeois democracy, reactionary
forces, especially in advanced capitalist countries, are trying to gain new
positions.
On
the other side of the coin, however, we see a process of rising sensitivity and
awakening on the part of the workers and labourers of the advanced capitalist
countries. This is a process that they have been pushed into with the events of
11 September. In these countries what is rising is not only the demand for peace
but also the tendency among the progressive forces and intellectuals to
question, in a self-critical manner, their lives and the relations of their
countries with other parts of the world, how they had become accustomed to
injustice, inequality and oppression in the world, and why they had kept silent.
There
is no doubt that the events of 11 September have marked a turning point in terms
of political relations in the
world. Although this turning point is clearly reflected on the concrete forms
that domestic policies of advanced capitalist countries are taking, its
reflection on foreign policy is not as yet clear. What is also obvious even
today is the fact that imperialist aggression will create its opposite, which
will be embodied in the anger and struggle of the peoples.
The
workers and working people of Turkey must intensify
their struggle against the politics of imperialists and their collaborators.
This is necessary to win their demands against imperialist globalisation and to
keep away from the calamities of a war.
Economic crisis in Turkey
Following the latest
financial-monetary crises that emerged in short intervals, Turkey is engulfed in
a general crisis effecting every field of the economy and increasing the poverty
of the working people and the number of unemployed masses.
Capitalism
in Turkey is going through a process of centralisation that brings the control
of movement of capital and commodity into the hands of even fewer capitalist
families who have connections with imperialism.
The
top five families, with their “partnership” with imperialist monopolies,
control the key sectors of the industrial production and the movement of
money-capital through their banks. Undoubtedly, the monopolisation in the
dependent countries has some different characteristics. Turkey, as a “medium
size” capitalist country, is going through a rapid process of appropriation of
millions of small producers and businesses, putting them under the control of
international monopolies and the collaborating bourgeoisie.
In
the last 20 years Turkey has gone through many periods of crisis. The financial
crisis in November 2000 was followed by the economic crisis of February 2001.
The economic programmes imposed by the IMF and the World Bank has worsened the
economy, and crises came one after another. In February this year, the Turkish
lira was devalued 40 per cent against the dollar, as a result of which the
country’s foreign debts increased by 30 billion dollars. Working people’s
incomes eroded 40 per cent. The minimum wage came down to the level of 84
dollars a month. Many medium and small size businesses have gone bankrupt.
Hundreds of thousands of workers were made redundant. Millions joined the ranks
of poverty. Social disintegration and class polarisation gained momentum.
Industrial
production is continuing to drop. Manufacturing industry has shrunk by 10 per
cent. Almost 40 per cent of the budget, which is the equivalent of 95 per cent
of tax revenues, goes to the interest payments for state debts. The rentier and
interest profit is tens of times higher than the production profit.
GDP
as a total has dropped to $185 billion and the per capita GDP to $2,878. The gap
between the richest 20 per cent and the poorest 20 per cent of the population
has become 234 fold. The average income of the poorest 134 thousand households
is $392 per month, while it is almost $92,000 for the top 134 thousand
households.
The
present crisis has not only sharpened the contradictions between the forces of
capital and labour, but it has also deepened the rivalry and frictions in the
ranks of the
reactionary forces, leading to a greater gap between the monopolist bourgeoisie
and the non-monopolist sections.
The
economic crisis in Turkey is taking place in a period of a world-wide
instability and recession. The collaborationist reactionary forces are trying to
overcome the crisis by putting the burden of imperialist impositions onto the
shoulders of the working people. However, this does not mean that its impacts
will disappear in a short time. For all classes and sections, turning this
crisis into a possibility is a question of forces, level of organisation and
struggle.
15
legislations in 15 days
In
order to give the 14.3 billion dollars IMF credit as part of the crisis relief
measures, the IMF, World Bank and the US demanded the Turkish government to pass
new legislations in a short time, opening the path for a further privatisation
and plunder of public assets. The minister responsible for the economy, who was
imported from the US as a saviour, formulated this demand as “15 legislations
in 15 days”. The government has already passed almost all of these
legislations, which, in fact, do not have anything to do with the solution of
the crisis. Thus, using the crisis as an excuse, the government found the
courage to present these laws without much public opposition.
These legislations
allow the selling off of profitable state enterprises, the collapse of the
tobacco and sugar industries which have an important part in exports, the
lifting of state monopoly on the profitable sectors of industry, etc. They
include the following:
• Introduction of a
supplementary budget, bringing new taxes, and cuts in education and health;
• Privatisation of the
public-serving state banks;
• Giving autonomy to the
Central Bank and transferring its control to the IMF, condemning the government
to find private loans with higher interests;
• Privatisation of the
Turkish Telecom, which allows 45 per cent of the shares to be bought as a block
by foreign investors;
• New regulations on civil
aviation, opening the path for the privatisation of Turkish Airlines;
• Lifting of state monopoly
on sugar production;
• Lifting of state monopoly
on tobacco
• Lifting of state monopoly
on gas, the privatisation of BOTAS public enterprise
In 2000, in the
course of the struggle against the government’s efforts to raise the age of
retirement and to liquidate social security, 15 organisations, including all
workers and public employees trade union confederations and professional
associations, came together for the first time and set up a labour alliance
called the Labour Platform.
The
Labour Platform was created as a result of the growing anger of the working
people against the attacks of capital and their rising awareness that they can
repulse these attacks only through a united struggle, also forcing the trade
union bureaucracy to be part of this formation.
Regulations
for raising the age of retirement and the liquidation of social security came on
to the agenda last year, as part of the neoliberal policies imposed by the IMF,
the World Bank and the US. This process witnessed great mobilisations of the
workers and working people in general, including the 500-thousand-strong
demonstration in the capital city, Ankara, against these proposals.
In
early 2000 the IMF, the government and the collaborationist big bourgeoisie came
out with a new economic programme further attacking the working people. However,
it did not take long before it collapsed with the financial crisis in November
that year. It was followed by a general economic crisis in February this year
when the country became 40 per cent poorer in one night and 100 per cent in one
month, while foreign capital, their domestic collaborators and the rentier
sections benefited fully from it and plundered the country.
Formation
of the Labour Programme
Following
the crisis, the Platform and a number of academics came together in late March
for a symposium to discuss an alternative economic programme in line with the
interests of the working people. It was called the Labour Programme and was
declared in early April. This Programme marked one of the most significant steps
for the labour movement towards becoming a united political movement.
With
the demands of the working class at its centre, it embodied the immediate
demands of the public employees, peasants, the unemployed, and even the small
tradesmen, thus united them around the workers and created the labour front
against the capitalist front. It is a programme which formulates, on the basis
of main demands, the tactical platform of the struggle against the attacks of
the IMF, WB, government and big bosses. Among these demands are the improvement
of the living conditions of the working people, an end to the plunder of the
country’s resources by foreign capital and their domestic collaborators, a
fair distribution of national income, protection of labour interests against
capital, regulations to improve trade union organisation, etc.
On hunger strikes and the collapse of a
political line
It
has been exactly one year since a group of political prisoners launched their
hunger strike / death fast in opposition to the introduction of cell type
prisons in place of dormitory system. In this past year the question of prisons
have been on the agenda with its ups and downs. So far, as many as 70 people
died, more than half of them as a result of the hunger strike, and the other
half as a result of the military operation in the second month of the strikes in
order to put it an end and to transfer the prisoners to those controversial
F-type prisons by force. Most of the prisoners have now been placed in these
prisons.
As
a result of these events, general public was deeply shaken. The problems with
prisons had a long history in Turkey; but this time what the public was
questioning was not only the political and legal systems but also the
understanding of “revolutionarism” of some of the political circles and
their “way of practicing politics”.
Particularly
after the 1971 and 1980 military coups, revolutionaries were arrested in large
numbers and prisons became a field of struggle. However, petit-bourgeois
revolutionary groups reduce this struggle down to a conflict between
revolutionary political groups and the armed forces of the state, and put it
before class struggle and its problems. When they do not have much influence
outside, they turn to prisons; and methods like hunger strikes and death fasts,
which may have some effect and meaning in terms of propaganda when used in a
certain way, turn into a means of self-inflicted injury. When these groups lose
their faith in the working class, they convince themselves that they are the
“saviours”, and declare their whereabouts, in this case prisons, as the
“revolution’s stronghold”. This shows how subjective and idealist their
“understanding of revolution” is.
*
* *
The
progression of hunger strikes should be looked at in two stages. In the first
stage, a significant proportion of the advanced, revolutionary and democratic
public opinion paid attention to the repression and violence taking place in the
prisons. It was a stage where solitary cells were acknowledged as a threat to a
humanely life and to the struggle for democracy in the country. The Human Rights
Association, the bar, medical associations, trade unions, various political
parties and worker’s organisations took a stance against f-type prisons
because they were “inhuman”. They urged the government and the Justice
Minister to give a satisfactory response to the demands of the prisoners so that
the hunger strikes could end.
As
a result of this united public opinion the government had to take a step back,
admitting the “shortcomings” of the f-type prisons and postponing their
launch until a public agreement was reached.
Although
these individuals and organisations did not approve death fasts as a method of
protest, they still took action based on personal political opinion, moral and
professional reasons. However, the majority of the circles who were taking part
in the hunger strikes, declared as “enemies” all those who did not consider
this method correct, or who did not support them unconditionally, or who had a
different opinion from theirs. They tried to justify their behaviour with the
argument that “only those on death fast can make a decision on how the protest
was to be ended”. But, it was a well-known fact that those on death fast were
unable to make a healthy decision at the time.
However,
it was unrealistic to expect these groups to see and understand this wide
opposition against the prison policies. This is because they have had a
patronising attitude throughout the political course of their lives, putting
themselves at the centre of the world, considering the existence of everyone
else as something to be used as a logistic support. They shelter under the
consciousness of the public, and cause destruction and division. Therefore,
these groups did not even hesitate to make degrading accusations on the members
of the delegations who went in to see the hunger strikers in prison conditions.
As a result of this narrow minded political opinion, these groups have in fact
helped the government, which they so opposed, to achieve its goal. They isolated
themselves, and the government regained public support.
At
this stage the opinion of the progressive public on prisons was divided. After a
while, the political parties and representatives of mass organisations came to
the conclusion that they “could not do anything with these groups”.
Consequently, they took a backward step and thought it satisfactory just to
reach a solution “without any deaths” and “as soon as possible”. The
narrow mindedness of these groups caused a division among its allies and brought
their isolation. Subsequently, without much public support, they became an
easier target for the government.
The
public opposition that had been built against the introduction of F-type prisons
was dispersed; as many as 70 people died and dozens were injured. It is not
known how many of those who are still continuing their death fasts will die or
become permanently disabled. Moreover, the transfers to f-types have taken place
much faster than the government had expected. Thus, a prolonged problem of the
government has at least been solved on the surface.
These
actions had no benefits for the people, on the contrary they have left deep
scars on the consciousness of the public. Those groups presenting these actions
as an “epic of heroism” and “victory”, on the other hand, are trying to
hold together their supporters with the rhetoric of heroism, and with the fetish
of “martyrdom”. Their political understanding is based on individual
terrorism, and they try to impose upon the revolutionary ranks methods like
death fasts and suicide bombings as “revolutionary methods of action”.
Naturally,
revolutionary struggle requires various forms of sacrifices, including serving
time in prison or not hesitating to give up one’s life, when necessary. Under
the present conditions, if a large number of revolutionaries are putting their
lives in line for a struggle in the prisons for one demand or another, and if
they take it to the point “we will either die or the government will accept
our demands”, then it must be considered as a “suicide action” rather than
a sacrifice, if there is no misconception that the bourgeoisie and the
government would “take a step back because their conscience will not allow
them to see the prisoners dyeing. Likewise, the action of “setting fire” at
one’s self as a way of protest cannot be considered equal to a revolutionary
risking his/her life during the course of revolutionary struggle.
In
the end, this mentality has turned into a slogan, and the supporters outside the
prisons turned the struggle and death itself into an objective, chanting “long
live our death fast struggle!” Death, in a mystical way, has been symbolised
as a sacred activity on its own rather than a support for saving those left
alive or furthering the struggle. While the death fast is a controversial action
in itself, the way it has been exalted and turned into a slogan does not only
bring the action itself under questioning but also the ideological-political
line that use it and worship it.
When
we look at the publications of those political groups that are participating in
the “death fasts”, we can see that for these circles the problems of the
working class, the demands of the masses or the labour movement no longer exist.
Their mystical death-worshiping literature is full of articles on “death
fasts” and “f-type prisons”. For them, all that exists is their
“revolutionarism” and “heroism”! For this reason, their literature is
very self-centred, constantly revolving around praising themselves and what they
do, as if there are no other problems in the world. This shows to what extent
they are drowned into a subjective idealism and narcissism, another dimension of
it being reflected in their “voluntarism”.
These political groups which
consider “death fast” as their main form of action, which overtly praise a
revolutionarism independently of the requirements of the workers’ movement
have in fact transformed into a kind of cult and become isolated. Their praise
for suicides and deaths in mass also point to an “end” ideologically and
politically. For this reason, what has been taking place reflects, among other
things, the sad collapse of this ideological-political line that involves a
number of political groups.
On the Armenian question and
reactionary-chauvinist campaigns
As a response to two significant “external” events of
the last couple of years -events with roots in prolonged domestic problems- the
ruling classes of Turkey did everything to mobilise the people onto the streets
for their own reactionary aims. The government and its institutions launched
hysterically nationalist campaigns, first against Italy, based on the Kurdish
question, then against France, on the question of Armenian genocide. These
campaigns went on for some time and involved reactionary incitements and various
forms of action such as demonstrating in front of the embassies and consulates
of these countries, boycotting and burning the goods produced by them, even
banning education in their languages, etc.
The main objective for these campaigns was to incite the
Turkish people with reactionary-nationalist prejudices and win them over to the
establishment ideology, rather than to harm those countries economically or
politically. In this way, the ruling classes would not only attain social
support for their reactionary theses, which lack fairness and historical
correctness, but they would also draw the attention of the working people to
artificially created external problems, making sure that they support or at
least keep silent about domestic problems, undemocratic and repressive practices
and economic plunder. And, it did not take long before the organisers of this
reactionary campaign held hands with the Italian and French imperialists.
What
was the cause for these campaigns and for the worsening of the relations with
France?
In
January 2001, France officially recognised the genocide suffered by the
Armenians in 1915.
It
must be noted that the recognition of the genocide by French government was to
do with its short and long term political interests rather than its sympathy for
the sufferings of the Armenian people. With this recognition, it would secure
the votes of the Armenian population in France as well as the support of Armenia
in the fight for hegemony in the Caucasus. It was an irony that French
imperialism was concerned with the Armenian genocide when it has a shared
responsibility for dozens of massacres and genocides all over the world such as
Rwanda where one million poor and defenceless people lost their lives.
However,
all this does not invalidate the problems experienced in Turkey in the past.
In
1915, during the First World War, an Armenian genocide took place in Anatolia,
the responsibility of which lies on the reactionary and nationalist ruling
classes of the then-collapsing Ottoman Empire and on the imperialist powers
behind them.
At
the beginning of the 20th century, German imperialism was one of the rising
powers of the world. It was engulfed in a fierce competition for hegemony with
the British and French imperialists, especially over the strategic regions.
Caucasus
was one such area. The main competing powers were the British-French imperialist
alliance on the one hand, and the German imperialism on the other. But the
peoples of this region were being used as pawns, and it was their blood that was
being shed. The Ottoman Empire, in a state of regression and break up, chose to
cooperate with German imperialism.
In
the wars between 1878 and 1918, the Ottoman Empire lost 85 per cent of its
territory and 75 per cent of its population. The last one hundred years before
its collapse had been a period of continual regression and break up. The First
World War was considered as a chance for revival, which led to a voluntary
submission to German imperialism. The Armenian political movement was, on the
other hand, being used by the French and British imperialism for their own ends.
The Sultan Abdulhamid ordered his army to massacre the Armenians. This was
followed by the attacks of the clandestine organisations of the Unity and
Progress Party, the pawn of German imperialism, on the civilian Armenians in
order to suppress the Armenian political movement. In the meantime, however, the
Armenian Tashnak militia, the pawn of British and French imperialism, killed
thousands of Muslim civilians. The response of the Ottomans to this was the
genocide and displacement of hundreds of thousands of Armenians.
As
is the case with all imperialist reactionary fights, it was the people who
suffered.
The
Armenian question has been used as a tramp card by the imperialists against
Turkey. The US and France inflame the question of genocide for their own
advantage, and for the disadvantage of the two concerned peoples. They use it to
pressurise Turkey for further concessions in times of disagreement, and to get
the Armenians onto their side. Turkish ruling classes, on the other hand, have
been following a policy of denial and trying to conceal this prolonged question
behind nationalist howls.
What
is needed to resolve this question, to invalidate the tramp card in the hands of
the imperialists, and to put historical facts right is for the real
representatives of both peoples to settle the problem without any imperialist
intervention. This cannot be done by Turkish or Armenian bourgeois governments
who collaborate with imperialism. An ultimate solution will be the work of the
political power of the workers and working people who have no responsibility for
the genocides of the past.
Turkey’s
relations with its neighbours are at present based on generating tension and
incitements, and the threat of using force. Its foreign policy is dominated by a
collaborationist spirit that it can even risk a war with its neighbours, if that
is the requirement of the interests of US imperialism in the Balkans, Middle
East or the Caucasus. Recent examples of this were the creation of tension with
Iran, and the visit to Azerbaijan. It is obvious that such policy has no use to
the people of Turkey, and that it facilitates imperialist tricks on Turkey.
The only way of
putting an end to such tricks is to take the country into an anti-imperialist
position. It must have policies that allow a friendly solution to the problems
with its neighbours; it must become an independent country that can generate the
basis for an anti-imperialist struggle in the region. Otherwise, it will
continue to be in the service of the imperialist powers who use its problems, be
it the Armenian question or something else, for their own interests.
.jpg)
