Header Ads

Header ADS

Election results and what they proved

The first of the most important facts that the election results proved is that it was a slap to those organizations and  petty-bourgeois intellectuals who hide behind the mask of "extreme left", whose number is decreasing, becoming insignificant, and whose utopianism is revealed both in theory and in practice, who pursue passivity with the slogans of "either revolution or nothing", and thus playing the role of fascist AKP's crutch in the final analysis.

In the article titled "Should We Participate in the Elections" I emphasized the following;

"I do not believe that opposing a revolutionary "parliamentary" struggle in a country like Turkey, where 60 percent of the population (I may be wrong) is reactionary and more than 90 percent have hopes for the Parliament - that is, where subjective conditions do not exist - is compatible with Marxism-Leninism".

The elections and the votes received by both religious and racist reactionaries not only confirmed my prediction, but also proved that this rate was even higher. Lenin was saying;

"How can one say that “parliamentarianism is politically obsolete”, when “millions” and “legions” of proletarians are not only still in favour of parliamentarianism in general, but are downright “counter-revolutionary”!? It is obvious that parliamentarianism in Germany is not yet politically obsolete... Parliamentarianism is of course “politically obsolete” to the Communists in Germany; but—and that is the whole point—we must not regard what is obsolete to us as something obsolete to a class, to the masses.” (1)

Again, if we look at the election results and especially to the turnout for elections, 90% turnout proves the fact that the masses still expect hope from the parliament. Now, under such conditions, how realistic and Leninist can the calls for a "boycott" and "revolution" be? Isn’t that the denunciation of the democratic struggle and the tasks, and being disconnected from it? These are false cries of anti-Leninist anarcho-Trotskyism, which is not compatible with Leninism.

Let alone the question of whether the objective conditions of the revolutionary situation exist or not (I will talk about it in a moment), in the same article, considering  the "period" Turkey is in and comparing with the following evaluations of Lenin, a deeper knowledge can be obtained about the subject. Let’s give the following quote from Lenin regarding the period of the revolutionary situation.

"A few weeks before the victory of the Soviet Republic, even after this victory, participation in a bourgeois-democratic parliament, far from harming the revolutionary proletariat, allows it to make it easier for the backward masses why these parliaments should be dissolved, and ensure the success of this dissolution and the political liquidation of bourgeois parliamentarism." We Bolsheviks participated in the most counter-revolutionary parliaments, and experience has shown that this participation, especially after the first bourgeois revolution in Russia (1905), to prepare the bourgeois revolution (February 1917) and then to prepare the socialist revolution (October 1917) was not only useful but necessary to the party of the revolutionary proletariat.”

The passivity that hides behind this ultra-left mask, and in this particular one, takes it upon himself the function of playing the crutch of Fascism. In essence, on the anarcho-Trotskyites' claims of "parliamentary opportunism", Lenin said in the same article;

"It is very easy to express the "revolutionary feeling" by simply condemning parliamentary opportunism and refusing to participate in parliament. But because it is so easy, this behavior cannot solve a difficult, very difficult problem.

The harshest, most ruthless, and most uncompromising criticisms should not be directed against parliamentarism or parliamentary action, but against leaders who do not know how to take advantage of parliamentary elections and parliamentary seats as revolutionaries, and especially against leaders who do not want to take advantage of it.”

While criticizing these genres in my article “works for Alliance and , efforts of the Left and Right to thwart”, I had stated that the “Left deviances who undermine the works for alliance and try to disrupt these works, confuse the masses with left-wing chatter and phrases, while doing this, they confuse the concepts and context of “principle” and “tactics”. Thus, it is they who violate the “principles” in theoretical and practical reality” and continued;

The general (maximum) problem in Turkey is not the overthrow of the AKP government alone, it is the overthrow of the capital together with the form of it’s political system. However, the concrete historical situation reveals the aim of the current (minimum) struggle as the overthrow of the autocracy. In other words, the "alliance" issue on the agenda is a "tactical" issue that will not only address the issue of "elections" but also the issue of democratic struggle and duties. Every step taken in this direction – even with its mistakes and shortcomings – is a step that needs to be supported.

In a similar situation, Lenin said, "Since the present task of the Socialists is to overthrow the autocracy, Social-Democracy must act as a vanguard in the fight for democracy, and therefore, even for this reason alone, must give every support to all democratic elements of the population and win them as allies."( 2)

The indifference of left-deviations to the democratic struggle is the inevitable result of their passivity hidden behind their extreme left slogans and phrases.

 " Can a class-conscious worker forget the democratic struggle for the sake of the socialist struggle, or forget the latter for the sake of the former?" asks Lenin, and continues by answering "No"; " a class-conscious worker calls himself a Social-Democrat for the reason that he understands the relation between the two struggles. He knows that there is no other road to socialism save the road through democracy, through political liberty. He therefore strives to achieve democratism completely and consistently in order to attain the ultimate goal—socialism. Why are the conditions for the   democratic struggle not the same as those for the socialist struggle? Because the workers will certainly have different allies in each of those two struggles. The democratic struggle is waged by the workers together with a section of the bourgeoisie, especially the petty bourgeoisie. On the other hand, the socialist struggle is waged by the workers against the whole of the bourgeoisie. " (3)

Referring at that time to the passive anarcho-Trotskyites of the day hiding behind such ultra-left mask, Lenin said at the Extraordinary 7th Congress of the RCPB,

“We should by no means give the impression that we do not value bourgeois parliamentary institutions at all…. We cannot leave the way open for a purely anarchist denial of bourgeois parliamentarism” (4).

  As for the "pigsty", which these and other rote learners often repeat by saying that "Bourgeois parliament is pigsty; revolutionaries don't work in pigsty”, Lenin said;

“The objective situation, however, was such that on the one hand the revolution was in a state of collapse and declining fast. For the upsurge of the revolution a parliamentary base (even inside a "pigsty") was of tremendous political importance, since extra-parliamentary means of propaganda, agitation and organization were almost nonexistent or extremely weak.” (5)

As you can see, the claims of anarcho-Trotskyites behind this sophistical ultra-left mask have nothing to do with Leninism. Likewise, their attempts to reinforce their nonsense by claiming that the "revolutionary situation" has objective conditions that has nothing to do with Leninism.

The revolutionary situation is determined not on the basis of what is happening in parliament, but in the context of subjective and objective conditions within the country. Lenin said;

 “We should not evaluate the revolutionary situation in the country in terms of what is happening in the Parliament. On the contrary, we must evaluate the problems and events that arise in parliament in terms of the revolutionary situation in the country". (6)

To make this clear, “for the Marxist,” Lenin said, “it is unquestionable that a revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; moreover, not every revolutionary situation leads to revolution”.

Contrary to rote, Lenin said, “The use of one or the other means of struggle depends on the objective conditions of the particular economic or political crisis. Not on any decision that the revolutionaries might have made before. And “every form of struggle requires a corresponding technique and an appropriate apparatus. The features of the apparatus of parliamentary struggle inevitably become more pronounced in the Party when objective conditions make the parliamentary struggle the main form of struggle.

On the other hand, when objective conditions give rise to a struggle of the masses in the form of political mass strikes and uprisings, the party of the proletariat must have an "instrument" to "serve" these forms of struggle, and of course this must be a special "device" unlike the parliamentary apparatus. “(7)

If we leave aside the fact that it is nonsense and anti-Leninist to talk about the existence of objective conditions for revolution in Turkey, where now more than 60% of the population is reactionary and counter-revolutionary, It is also necessary to keep in mind the fact that, even if the objective conditions are ripe, a revolution or its success will not be possible without the existence of subjective conditions.

“Some people,” Lenin said, “are of the opinion that it is sufficient to point out the objective process of extinction of the class in power in order to launch the attack. But this is wrong. In addition to this, the subjective conditions necessary for a successful attack must have been prepared. It is precisely the task of strategy and tactics skillfully and opportunely to make the preparation of the subjective conditions for attacks fit in with the objective processes of the extinction of the power of the ruling class " (8)

As both Marx and Lenin summarized, regardless of the will and consciousness of various individuals, their dreams and theories, the results are due to the objective conditions, because the objective conditions of social life and the class struggle are stronger than "religious" intentions and written programmes.

The degree of class consciousness and organization of the broad masses of the proletariat, which constitutes the subjective condition, is inextricably linked with the objective condition, and only their unity is decisive in the success of a revolution.

It is clear and obvious that the question of  "Revolution"  and the cries of "no to the parliamentary struggle" and "immediate Revolution" without a democratic struggle have nothing to do with Leninism.

On the contrary, as evidenced by the election results, this approach is the theory and practice that proposes pacifism and serves as a crutch for the AKP and MHP fascism in particular.

The irrefutable truth demonstrated by the election results is that of a proven fact that Turkey is a country that is not ready for a bourgeois democracy, let alone a revolution, more than 60% of its population is reactionary and counter-revolutionary, and more than 90% expects hope from the parliament. To speak of a "boycott" in such a country, except in exceptional circumstances, is to reject the "parliamentary struggle", to be "stupid" in Stalin's words, and in practical reality to "support" the existing autocratic system.

Before concluding, the much-repeated "both are the same", "there is no difference" rote, being not just anti-Leninist but anti-Marxist claim, it is necessary to touch upon the subject briefly.

As Lenin explained;

“To the Marxist the problem is simply to avoid either of two extremes: on the one hand, not to fall into the error of those who say that, from the standpoint of the proletariat, we are in no way concerned with any immediate and temporary non-proletarian tasks, and on the other, not to allow the proletariat’s co-operation in the attainment of the immediate, democratic tasks to dim its class-consciousness and its class distinctiveness.” (9)

Although the reformist and "extreme left" approaches may seem contradictory, in practice both support and reinforce each other in the service of the bourgeoisie. This is the nature of revisionism.

Behind the mask of being against the reformist point of view, it is an extreme left point of view that turns its back on the democratic struggle with the claim of "pure socialist", deserting the struggle.

Regarding the "class point of view" that "extreme" leftists put forward without even knowing or understanding its content, Lenin said,

"The "class point of view", especially with regard to political struggle, requires the proletariat to provide an impetus to every democratic movement. The political demands of working-class democracy do not differ in principle from those of bourgeois democracy, the difference is quantitative. (10)

In other words, the argument of these sophists that "there is no difference between Autocracy and a Parliamentary Republic" has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism and its dialectic.

Lenin says, "yes, for Marxists," as Engels emphasized, " that in a democratic republic, "no less" than in a monarchy, the state remains a "machine for the oppression of one class by another" , and continues with what  the “extreme-leftists” ignore  in their quotations,

"However, in saying this, Engels by no means signifies that the form of oppression makes no difference to the proletariat, as some anarchists “teach”. A wider, freer, and more open form of the class struggle and of class oppression vastly assists the proletariat in its struggle for the abolition of classes in general...” (11)

"If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power in the form of the democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already shown...."Engels realized here in a particularly striking form the fundamental idea which runs through all of Marx's works, namely, that the democratic republic is the nearest approach to the dictatorship of the proletariat. (11)

These persistently overlooked words of Lenin are actually the clearest answer to this.

“"There is capitalism and capitalism. There is Black-Hundred-Octobrist (autocratic, reactionary) capitalism and Narodnik (“realistic, democratic”, full of “activity”) capitalism. The more we expose capitalism before the workers for its “greed and cruelty”, the more difficult it is for capitalism of the first order to persist, the more surely it is bound to pass into capitalism of the second order. And this just suits us, this just suits the proletariat.

You think I have fallen into a contradiction? In the beginning of the letter I considered the words “realism, democracy, activity” bad words, and now I find them good? There is no contradiction here; what is bad for the proletariat is good for the bourgeois... " “(12)

Lenin explains the tactical content of this approach as well as the final objective differences;

“The more democratic the system of government, the clearer will the workers see that the root evil is capitalism, not lack of rights.” (13)

In other words, "there is no difference between the two", they are both "fascists", so "let's not get involved", let's stay on the sidelines, "wait for the revolution" has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism.

As explained above, the practical end-result of this passive approach has always being the crutch of the current political power.

What lies behind what is done unconsciously is the theoretical inadequacy, confusing the Fascist political system, which is a product of monopoly capitalism, with the "bourgeois democratic" system, which is also based on oppression. This misunderstanding is a dangerous understanding that puts serious obstacles in front of organizing and mobilizing the masses against fascism and forming a front against fascism. “The maintenance of capitalist domination depends on the division of the working class. Therefore, for the bourgeoisie, “the main danger is the united working class front”.

Bourgeois democracy basically apply persuasion (you perceive it as manipulation) as a prior practice, but does not hesitate to apply pressure when necessary, Fascism on the other hand,  considers oppression and forced  intimidation as its basic practice.

In terms of struggle fields and possibilities for the working masses and the revolutionary struggle, It is clear that those who cannot see the difference between the two form of systems, cannot have any knowledge about either Marxism-Leninism or the application of the dialectic of Marxism.

The utopian baseless approach of "both are the same" or "all are the same", "all or nothing" cannot see the difference as far as the interests of laboring masses and their struggle. On this subject, Lenin says:

In politics utopia is a wish that can never come true—neither now nor afterwards, a wish that is not based on social forces and is not supported by the growth and development of political, class forces.

The less freedom there is in a country, the scantier the manifestations of open class struggle an4 the lower the educational level of the masses, the more easily political utopias usually arise and the longer they persist.” (14)

Such anarcho-Trotskyite approaches (which are gradually disappearing and doomed to extinction) in Turkey are either conscious revisionist views, or they are views arising from imagination due to theoretical ignorance. The election results proved once again that this is "utopia".

In Turkey, those who live or have lived in Europe and (in a secret but platonic way) in love with European democracy, try to satisfy their petty-bourgeois intellectual egos and sell themselves as intellectuals by using terms they don't even understand. There are such "authors" (who knows, maybe also supported by the system) that are not few in number.

Unfortunately, it is not a coincidence, some of them are trying to sell all kinds of revisionist ideas such as Euro-communist, anarcho-Trotskyite, Bookchinist as "extreme left" views, using the names of Lenin and Stalin. It is not difficult to grasp that the source of their theories are European bourgeois Liberal and anti-Leninist writers, not Lenin and Stalin, with the exception of a few memorized slogans.

Their attitudes against the alliance of Labor and left forces, -which were tried to be formed in this election period and consequently formed despite all their shortcomings, and their participation in the elections- were enough to see their true face and the tail-winging practices of fascism.

The criticism of the approach towards parliamentarism cannot and should not remain only as a criticism of the reformists. The reformist approach can be easily seen by anyone with a basic knowledge of Marxism-Leninism. But the most important and most dangerous ones are those with the hidden Leninist mask, and  their "attractive", "glamorous", "extreme-left slogans" appealing to petty-bourgeois sentiments, yet in deed the pacifist, anarcho-Trotskyite approaches hidden behind these phrases.

Although it has not been seen historically that these people and organizations can take root among the working masses, it has also historically proven that with these extremist slogans they managed to confuse a lot of well-intentioned young workers, and especially petty-bourgeois intellectuals.

This election process and its results proved that their approaches and practices are not Marxist-Leninist, on the contrary, it is an approach that turns them in to the crutch of fascism in the final analysis.

It is a proven fact that Turkey in where more than 60% of its population is reactionary and counter-revolutionary, and more than 90% expects hope from the parliament, is a country that is not ready for a bourgeois democracy, let alone for a revolution,.

If we repeat the words of Lenin;

“The features of the apparatus of parliamentary struggle inevitably become more pronounced in the Party when objective conditions make the parliamentary struggle the main form of struggle.

On the other hand, when objective conditions give rise to a struggle of the masses in the form of political mass strikes and uprisings, the party of the proletariat must have an "instrument" to "serve" these forms of struggle, and of course this must be a special "device" unlike the parliamentary apparatus. “


Erdogan A

15 May 2023


(1) Lenin, Should We Join Bourgeois Parliaments?

(2) Lenin, A Protest of the Russian Social Democrats

(3) Lenin, Petty Bourgeois Socialism and Proletarian Socialism

(4) Lenin, Extraordinary 7th Congress of the RCPB

(5) Lenin, The Mistakes of Our Party

(6) Lenin, Workers' Group in the State Duma

(7) Lenin, The Crisis of Menshevism,

(8) Lenin, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

(9) Lenin, Reply to Criticism of Our Draft Programme

(10) Lenin, Political Agitation, and the Class Perspective

(11) Lenin, State and revolution, Debate with Anarchists

(12) From Lenin to Maxim Gorky

(13) A Caricature of Lenin, Marxism, and Imperialist Economism,

(14) Lenin, Two Utopias

No comments

Powered by Blogger.