Election results and what they proved
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of course “politically obsolete” to the Communists in Germany; but—and that is the whole point—we must not regard what is obsolete to us as something obsolete to a class, to the masses.”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
Notes
(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
.jpg)
No comments