Final Declaration of the 4th Conference of the TİKB

Final Declaration of the 4th Conference of the Union of Revolutionary Communists of Turkey (TİKB)

The 4th Conference of TİKB has ended. Our conference, unfortunately, resulted with a separation. Ideological, political and organizational problems spreading over long years have been discussed in a resolving manner. As we approached the end of the conference a liberal right liquidating group whose factionary actions were proven by written evidence broke away from our lines.
All of the members of this liberal right group involved in the factionary action were leading members of our organs. Factionary practices originating right from the center/nucleus are known to be very rare in history!

The representatives of this rightist intellectual opportunism who ignored Leninist frontier political activity for a militant proletarian socialism have lost their privileges to talk in the name of TİKB and its values from the moment when they were doomed by delegates twice their number.

Ideological-political disagreements with the representatives of the rightist intellectual opportunism with whom our roads have diverged are not limited to one issue only.

There are great and deep differences between us regarding a bunch of strategic issues such as; interpretation of the changes experienced in the world and in Turkey after 1980, differentiation in Turkey’s regime, comprehension of the socialist revolution under the light of the structural changes occurred in the working class, evaluation of our past and perception of the party and so on…

These people follow a NEOBERSTEINIST approach under what they call as “New Opinions” that perceives the course of restructuring of the imperialist neoliberalism as strengthening of the capital and making it more advantageous.

NEO BERNSTEINISM

This opportunism, right at the beginning, started off with the assumption stating that “in capitalism the revolutionary movement has dealt with the crisis and elements of crisis so far, but the essential issue is the development/advance of the producing power”. What other strategic assumption can directly and openly describe its Bernsteinist character? This assumption considers capitalism only from the aspect of development of the forces of production, but in a one-sided manner neglecting the fact that even this is achieved at the expense of destructing a vast majority of the forces of production. This one-sidedness hasn’t ever refer to the structural sickness and dilemmas of the system, sharpening of conflicts, reality of crisis and probabilities of crisis. They only see that neoliberalism postpones the obstacles that arise in the course of capital accumulation and that this in turn favors bourgeoisie, but they hide and defer the fact that the system would be falling into more severe crisis due to its nature.

Capitalism as a rotten and a parasitic system can not free itself from structural crisis. Neoliberal reconstruction has been shaped by the bourgeois front as a strategy in the course of seeking a “solution” to the problem. According to the new Bernsteinism this reconstruction was the “GREATEST TRANSFORMATION IN THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM AFTER THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION”. Due to this effect the “SYSTEM has evolved into the stage of SHORT TERM AND EVEN MID TERM STABILITY”. As far as the class struggle is concerned, this stability period is foreseen to last for 25-30 years minimum.

The new followers of Berstein have clinged to the theory of “scientific-technological revolution” which the Gorbachovists carry as a flag. Their fundamental claim is that imperialism has changed its character and that we are in a new and a different stage of imperialism. In their so calleed “Great Transformation Analysis” it is possible to track down the significant thesis and claims of the new betrayal era theory that tries to guide the bankrupted revisionism. The “Great Transformation Analysis” does the job sometimes by taking direct quotations from the “scientific-technological revolution theory”, and sometimes by twisting and bending the concepts. Instead of saying “scientific-technological revolution”, they play with the words and say “technological transformation at a revolutionary scale or level”. This is done to cover up facts and reality.

The neoliberal reconstruction attack of bourgeoisie has caused forgetfulness and a short sighted comprehension regarding communist and revolutionary movements and their impacts on the working class and the masses. According to the “great transformation” perception of these Bernsteinists, capitalism is a system which has not historically come to an end yet: “THE SYSTEM IS GETTING RAPIDLY CLOSER TO ITS HISTORICAL END.”

The above quoted sentence can not be considered as a simple slip of the tongue. It means a total denial of the Leninist analysis of imperialism and all the revolutionary interpretations derived from this analysis stating that imperialism is the final stage of capitalism when corruption and parasitism hit to the top and peaks up. At the same time it also means the denial of actuality of the proletarian revolution and socialism. As a matter of fact they defended this very openly.
According to these rightist intellectual opportunists, who act as the keenest socialist revolutionaries whenever it suits them, it is wrong to comprehend socialism as a concrete and a current (up-to-date) chance and to act accordingly under the existing circumstances. According to them such determinations are over-simplified and politically narrow sighted, because “they mis-evaluate the objective conditions and as a consequence of this wrong evaluation subjective implementations can not be directed to correct points”. What is actually meant by the “correct points” is the insignificant “theoretical research, studies and analysis” which spread over the years with no hurry.

The “Great Transformation” analysis that is tried to be sold to the organisation by the theoretical fantasy fancier rightist intellectual opportunists under the label of “new opinions” is nothing but a rough version of Bernstein’s 130 year-old opportunist views. Such a state of mind reflects the panic and the feeling of being defeated upon the negative changes occurred against the proletariat and the communists regarding the balances between the classes due to the progress achieved by the bourgeoisie during the course of neoliberal restructuring of the imperialist capitalism after 1980.
Therefore all the strategic conclusions derived by such minds fundamentally comply with rightist liberal contexture.

THE DERIVED CONCLUSIONS, EACH MORE OPPORTUNIST THAN THE OTHER

These people, for example, do not consider the conflicts and the structural factors causing those conflicts in the relations among the imperialists, instead they defend the “ultra imperialist” approach that is based on the unity among the imperialists. According to them “mutual dependence” among the imperialists has become more dominant and significant today. Again according to them you are an “Eurasian” if you say that: even though the USA currently continues to be the most powerful state technologically and militarily, but unlike the 1990’s it has entered a declining stage due to the unequal development law; in the mean time the center of gravity of the world economy is gradually shifting to the Asia-Pacific line and this situation can cause some friction among the imperialist powers due to new demands in sharing the sources.

The new Bernsteinists are trying to present themselves as if they are “unique” regarding these issues, as if this organization has just recently discovered the proletariat and its leading role in revolution and construction of socialism. This, in a way, reveals an ignorance as not knowing our history and reflects a sort of nihilism that claims everything starts with them. But when it comes to deal with concrete issues, this extreme (!) proletarianism happens to become a defender of aristocratic worker policies or a 2nd International type of unionism.

On one hand they draw fictional social portraits composed only from proletariat and bourgeoisie which is impossible to come across even in the most developed capitalist countries; on the other hand they dump even the special elements of the proletariat into a bag of “poors in cities” and thus produce a weird thesis that describe some portions of “poors in cities” as “allies of the class”. And then they accuse others as “being away from the proletariat”, or “being populist”, or “being pro-oppressed”, or “being socially inexplicit”.

According to the “new” opinions of revisionism, which is now in the form of new Bernsteinism, “ the main struggling methods of the proletariat such as strikes and resistances” which are still valid, “have lost their significance and effectiveness”, “are no longer in use” and “the proletariat has come to stage where it does not have its weapon of strike”. This situation fits well with their overall rightist character that stays away from the militant actions and practical approaches to be implemented in the course of the class struggles.
For them, the proletariat, along with the white collars of the past who lost their status in the course of the neoliberal reconstruction of capitalism have become qualified labor types. Their eyes are on them on every issue with top priority. They make up all their strategies and tactics to draw these qualified labor types to their sides in all the works within the class, including organisation of struggles against crisis. Although the qualified labor types have become a part of the class, they still bear aristocratic tendencies because of their features and habits. Neglecting this fact, the new Bernsteinists one-sidedly repeat the importance of this group over and over at every opportunity. On the other hand, they attempt to put quantitatively significant components of the class who have more tendency to become militants, such as unemployed workers, women working at homes, government workers, workers in the sector of information technologies , construction workers into the general category of “poors in cities” (diluting their roles in the class). This situation draws away from the Social Movement Revolutionism that looks for “new social dynamics to compensate the power and status losses of the proletariat faced during the neoliberal restructuring stage”. The new Bernsteinists would not honestly accept and try to rectify this severe ideological error which a consistent proletarian revolutionary would never make. Instead they underestimate the worker comrades who criticize this point and they attempt to call the comrades as “pro-oppressed”.

The working class aristocratism has always produced a lousy unionism and reformism. This law is in effect in our organization as well. According to the so-called keen proletarian, new Bernsteinism “as far as working within the class is concerned, taking possession of the existing labor unions and establishing new ones if deemed so constitute the major issues of concern of the communist party”. Such simple minded type of unionism was not defended at this level even by the opportunists of the 2nd International.
The leap of capitalism after 1980 in Turkey has blown the minds of these people. Disregarding the structural-historical properties and weaknesses of the Turkish capitalism and the integrality of the imperialist-capitalist system and the changes in regional politics and the economical strategies, they could claim that the Turkish monopolistic bourgeoisie and capitalism “has reached to a point at which they are capable of securing their regional interests by all means including the Turkish army”. Theories like “sub imperialism/regional imperialism” which were produced after 1980 by some fantasy lover intellectuals who had no faith in ML and no interest in the proletariat and revolution have risen within us years later.

It would not have been a problem if the exaggeration regarding development level of capitalism and the capital’s acquisition of superiority would have stayed within the curiosity of petit bourgeoisie on fantasies and exaggerations. But this curiosity was attempted to be presented as a strategic presumption to be a base for establishing politics and tactics.
For example, naive analysis have been made claiming that the society consists of proletariat and the bourgeoisie only, a case that can not be observed even in the most developed capitalist societies. Even the Middle Asian Republics, mostly agricultural societies where feudal relations are still dominant, were classified as “societies where the proletariat is socializing and the societies are becoming proletarian”.

While analyzing resistances against the occupation forces and events happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, we were accused of “not understanding the dynamics of the working class and the necessity of heading to socialism in those countries” and we were also accused for being “as middle class revolutionaries who still could not recover from old habits and National Democratic Revolution approach”

DIFFERENCES REGARDING THE TYPE OF THE REGIME

Regarding the changes experienced in the regime of Turkey, the new Bernsteinism defends the same fundamental thesis the “Second Republicanism” does. It claims that “fascism has disintegrated and replaced by bourgeois liberal democracy”. This is a striking and an obvious indication of drifting away from the ML and the Leninist analysis about imperialism and entering into the attraction zone of neoliberalism.

According to it, this change has been maintained by “the change in the needs of the capital”. Before anything else this means that “a progressive role” is attributed to the bourgeoisie even in the imperialist era and consider it to be “democratic”. Liberal democracy is one of the two main modes of the class dictatorship of bourgeoisie, therefore adding some prefixes at liberal democracy would not be sufficient to conceal the swinging to “the Second Republicanism”.

Besides which social and political changes have been brought by this democracy that is claimed to be activated? The fascist Constitution of September 12 is still in force. And the state and its organisations designed as per that constitution are still valid. Some minor additions are made under the name “independent top councils” whose decisions can not be argued. Those councils, compatible with nature of the neoliberal restructuring, are in fact directly dependent to the imperialist monopolies and to the monopolist bourgeoisie, even though they are named “independent”(!). Aside from bringing bits and pieces of democracy to the society, the laws passed and put into force by the fascist regime of September 12 such as the Labor Unions Law, the Strike and Lockout Law, the Political Parties Law, the Elections Law, the Press Law, the Criminal Law, Law on conducting Assemblies and Demonstrations, the Enforcement Law and the law regarding the administration of prisons made the conditions even tougher. The general trend is in the direction of centralizing the power instead of distributing the power and this sets up a severe conflict between liberal democracy and fascism. The society is being held under a drastic control by means of advanced technological facilities. Since all these are being implemented as matters of solid facts, then where is the democracy that is claimed to be transferred into and how is it implemented and in which areas? And who has brought in this “democracy”?

The claim “Fascism is disintegrated and Turkey is transferred into liberal democracy” at the same time means being a yes-man for EU in a covered/concealed manner. The hard boiled 2nd Republicans declare this very openly anyway. They say that “the internal inadequacies are being compensated by the external dynamics”. Once the dependency to the EU is taken into account in exports/imports, common investments and loan agreements, then the basic dynamics that “disintegrates fascism and brings liberal democracy to Turkey” becomes obvious. According to them that basic dynamics is the “change in the needs of the capital”. This economic determinism, which is mixed with Marxist materialism but in fact has nothing to do with it, appears to be a bad copy of the 1970’s structuralist approaches and analysis, as happened to be the case in the hegemony theories’ issue.
The new Bernsteinism that defends the same thesis with the “Second Republicanism” regarding the restructuring of the bourgeois state and changes in the regime, tries to consolidate the issue totally into a scholastic frame by asking “is there a change in the regime or not?”. During a course in which every thing is changing from economics to politics, nobody with a clear mind can claim that the regime in Turkey stands still without changing.

At this point the most imperative thing is to perceive the nature and the direction of the change and the factors causing the change. This is important from the ML point of view, because results derived from this theory will determine the strategy and the tactics. Therefore the way the issue is handled and the method become very significant.
In trying to analyse the projection of the world-wide implementation over Turkey, the new Bernsteinism uses the same method and in a way repeats itself as it deals with the neoliberal restructuring of the capitalism. It looks at the issue only from the capital’s point of view of capital in a one-sided manner with an extreme shallowness.
When it deals with the structural changes in Turkey’s regime, it does not consider the general trend in centralisation of power in politics like the power centralisation in economics, the intensification of reactionism in the finance capital in the era of imperialism and the desire for maximum hegemonic extension to satisfy the greed for maximum profit. And it attributes the mission of “disintegrating fascism” to the capital (and the imperialistic bourgeoisie that stands behind it) where no suitable conditions exist for the working class, the working masses and  for a revolutionary democratic national movement.

At the end of the neoliberal restructuring courses hegemony of the bourgeoisie as a class became more complex. Political hegemony has taken its place at the nucleus of the issue and the restructured bourgeois state sees the existing mechanisms and regulations as a hindrance and heads for a more oppressive and a despotic regime.

At this point two factors have a distinctive character: One of them is the needs of the finance capital in general, especially the needs of the imperialist capital. This factor determines the “structure” of the world wide hegemony of bourgeoisie as a class. The other specific factor which determines the course is the “9/11 syndrome” which turned the “security” anxiety of the bourgeois states to a paranoid fear. In these days this syndrome is being refreshed in an effort to keep it alive in a cyclic determinant that includes a long span of time.

In the imperialistic era, being the last stage of capitalism, when parasitism and corruption  of the capital hit the top, it is most absurd to claim that the bourgeois liberal democracy could still exist as it had existed during the birth and rise of capitalism. In order to understand the existing mode of class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, it would be sufficient to consider the laws put into force and relevant implementations made in the USA and England after 9/11. In the same context “personalisation of the political power” in France, Germany and Italy -the states known as the “craddle of the liberal democracy”- has to be kept in mind. Recent developments and changes in the political power implementations in these states have to be evaluated correctly. Apart from those states, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are meaningful examples of how that “democracy” can swing to fascism “whenever needed” where it ends up with millions of immigrants, isolation camps and tens of thousands of deaths.
The determining cause of this situation is found in the structure of imperialism:
“…specifically imperialism, the era of bank capital, the era of huge capitalistic monopolies, transition of monopolistic capitalism to monopolistic state capitalism, extraordinary increase of power in the mechanism of state either in monarchies or in the most free republican countries mean the enormous growth of both military and bureaucratic oppression devices to be used against the proletariat” (Lenin, State and Revolution).

Even though fascism and bourgeois democracy are particular forms of the class dictatorship of bourgeoisie, it can not be said that the differences between them are minor or insignificant. There are major and significant differences between them as class struggles go on. Therefore the strategy and tactics used by the proletariat and its communist pioneer also bear important differences depending on the above said regimes (fascism or bourgeois democracy). However, the historical goal of the proletariat in establishing socialism as a first step to the classless communist society by abolishing the class of bourgeoisie does not change in any of the two regimes. But the new Bernsteinism, having a distorted understanding of socialism, limits struggle against fascism to struggle for democracy. According to it, struggle for socialism is impossible if there is fascism. Under every circumstance, there are important differences regarding the strategy and tactics to be implemented by the proletariat and its communist pioneer covering issues like urgent demands, alliance policies, organization and struggle types and methods depending on whether there is fascism or bourgeois democracy in a country.

WHERE DO THE ROOTS OF OUR DIFFERENCES LIE?

Those liberals have lost consciousness in such a way that they forget the fact that the historical life of capitalism as a system has come to an end with its move to the era of imperialism. About less than 4 years ago, those same liberals had anticipated that there would be an era of superioriy and stability which would last for at least 25-30 years. Thus they stood on the same grounds with “great transformation analyses” and “2nd Republic liberals”. Differences in opinions with these liberals are not limited to the above mentioned issues. We have ideological differences in opinions regarding other fundamental ideological and political issues as well.

But the most significant point of diversion with the new liberals and us lies in the perception of the mission of the communist leadership to the proletariat and understanding the revolutionism based on that leadership.

This difference can not be seen simply as different approaches to political-tactical issues. The difference -covering the above mentioned aspect as well- is mainly the difference in ideological attitude consisting of intellectual, spiritual, ethical and practical aspects. This difference is a difference of political existence and philosophy. It is a difference in the understanding of revolutionism of the proletariat on the basis of ML and the role of the leadership to the class in the context of ML. It is a difference in the perception of revolution and socialism and how these issues are absorbed and practiced.

The mentality with which our road has diverged today claimed that capitalism and the bourgeoisie had maintained a world wide superiority and consistency which would not “decline in short and even in mid term”, for years ago. During the conference it based its arguments on this prediction in the discussions about determination of duties and priorities of the organization regarding the class struggle. This understanding tried to keep away from producing a revolutionary program in the organisation and due to its nature gave blood to rightist intellectual opportunism by refraining itself from a militant revolutionary and political practice. It produced an insidious and fatal spontaneity, provided continuity and legitimacy to liquidation. In spite of its shortcomings and weaknesses TİKB has been recognized as a militant communist organisation by TDH (Turkish Revolutionary Movement). The above mentioned understanding has displayed a determining role in having TİKB question its existence and lose its characteristic features. Influenced senselessly by a post-modernist “renewal” concept, it fabricated a denying and a volatile theory called “continuity in breaking off” that dared to break TİKB from its revolutionary past, historical values and traditions.

An approach that reads the current historical phase as “a stage of consistency and stabilization” on the account of bourgeoisie will naturally fabricate theories about all issues, including class struggle -leadership responsibilities, strategic preferences, context of politics and tactics, prominent staff and relevant criteria and perception of the party, etc. which would all naturally be in compliance with that approach. Attributing a minimum of 25-30 years of stability period to the capitalistic imperialist system, means an apparent ideological-political surrender. Such rightism produces politically a sneaky “wait and see” spontaneity. It would be a mistake to expect a sound political stance from it, except a rightist pacifism and fiddling around.
Our differences with the new Bernsteinism which does not have any objection to go along with the 2nd Republicans are radical differences one of which is in relation to socialist revolution and socialist revolutionism, the other difference is the approach to our history which constitutes a point of intersection that is not limited by comprehending history.

DIFFERENCES IN UNDERSTANDING THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION

Turkey is in the stage of socialist revolution. Failure in modifying our strategy about this issue in the late 1980’s is a serious historical mistake on our part.
The factionist opportunism still tries to present us as if we have a shaky and a vague position regarding this issue. But, in reality they are the ones who stayed way behind in these issues. Besides there are still serious differences between us and them about the understanding of social revolution and its implementation.

The approach to actuality of proletarian revolution and socialism comes at the top of the differences. This difference has a deterministic character on all differences regarding the whole stages and fronts of the struggle.
Another basic point of our difference lies in the understanding of the socialist revolutionism. Along with defending the socialist revolution, in the Turkish Socialist Movement we differ from-famous right wing-, the revisionist TİP (LABOUR PARTY OF TURKEY) tradition, the Trockist environment, the Birikim Group of the 1970’s, and todays SEH (SOCIALIST LABOUR MOVEMENT) and TKİP (COMMUNİST WORKERS OF TURKEY) groups. We differ from them with our understanding of a MILITANT SOCIALIST REVOLUTIONISM including the PRACTICAL ASPECTS. It is our top strategic aim to elevate the TİKB to that understanding.
The socialist revolution understanding of new Bernsteinism is nothing but an inside out version of populism. The most striking reflection of their character regarding this issue is their claim on the change in the type of the regime which became their identification mark. This inverted traditional pro-MDD (National Democratic Revolution) perception has a plain logic that foresees an automatic democratic revolutionary strategy during the existence of fascism in different forms. That is why they feverishly cling to the “2nd Republicanist” thesis of “disintegrated fascism being replaced by liberal democracy”. Otherwise it is impossible to make a change in the strategy of revolution and it is impossible to defend socialism!!!
As a continuation of this narrow perception of political revolutionism limited with the superstructure only, says the revolution can only be a democratic revolution under the conditions where there is a need for struggle for democracy and independence. It does not comprehend that democracy and independence issues can evolve in a way radically against capitalism and there would be a possibility of a socialist revolution under the leadership of the proletariat.
The Bernsteinism that stands against us today as a “keen socialist revolutionarism” shares the same mentality. Basing their typical MDD (national democratic revolution) logic on their claim about the change in the type of the regime, they say “if we talk about fascism, we can not talk about socialist revolution”. Such a statement reflects their superstructural narrow sighted political views.

This inside out version of populism artificially draws a line between democratic missions and socialist revolution and calls it as “a struggle in the axes of freedom, independence, socialism”. When talking about the strategy of socialist revolution, they say “we are passing through a very special stage where democratic and anti-imperialist missions are intensified” and add on “democratic and anti-imperialist missions have to be closely tied to the socialist mission of the proletariat and to the basis of fundamental conflict”. After a short period of time such as three months, they felt the need to make the quoted notification, “even though we had made a change in our strategy, we are not excluding democratic or anti-imperialist missions and we are not in an approach that under-estimates their importance” (June 2007 correspondence)
The “socialist revolutionism” that is not left to anybody else, in fact, could not been digested properly.

OUR STRATEGIC AIMS – OUR ASSERTION FOR THE FUTURE

After a long and a wearisome Conference course which ended with a separation that we have not desired, there is a very difficult stage with increased responsibilities ahead of us.
We have lost a lot of power and blood. We have contracted dreadfully and hit the bottom regarding resources. We can not under estimate and ignore all these. However all these can be recovered at the end. For the last ten years as the TİKB we experienced a very deep erosion in our values and a spiritual and mental weariness. Some perceptions and habits that never suit our militant revolutionary organisation sprung up and spread over us somehow in different scales of intensities. We will be facing real problems in the course of recovering from the damages happened until now and after the Conference. However, we can overcome all the inadequacies to the extent we succeed in increasing our output within our organisation, retain our traditional line of perception and habits, upgrade our social and personal relations towards communism which is our historical aim. Collective labour which is really collective in practice not in words, collective reason, cumulation and potentials can beat all difficulties and knock out all barriers!
That is why it is our top strategic priority to “maintain TİKB as a communist militant organisation as it was before and ourselves a militant communist party member” thus experience a “rebirth”. Our first step is focused on “becoming a revolutionary communist organisation and getting TİKB on its feet again”.

Our second strategic priority will be to concentrate on working in the class in the line of a militant proletarian socialism. We shall spend utmost effort to come together with our class in a massive scale. This priority will not be waived even it costs some negligence in some areas. We shall proceed to “CONSTRUCT A NEW PROLETARIAN REVOLUTIONARY IDENTITY” more strongly based on consideration of militant socialist class mind covering its culture and values and the life style.

Composing a program will constitute our third strategic priority. Composition of a program is important in overcoming the direction-less cyclic revolutinarism as well as overcoming the narrow introvert revolutionism. The program will be significant step towards the construction of a party. The distinguishing character of this construction will be the fact that writing the program will not be an activity for some individuals but it will be a collective process in which everybody will contribute.
Composition of the program will be considered together with the perspective of construction of a militant communist party by becoming a meaningful physical power within the class!

We shall try to realize our strategic aims with the understanding of a new revolutionary leadership in line with militant communism and proletarian socialism!

How should a 21st century party and an understanding of revolutionary leadership formed and which fundamental criteria have to be taken into account in this formation considering risk/opportunity dialectics?
1) The last 30 years have shown once more that while the fundamental characteristics basicly retained, some infrastructural and superstructural changes occurred in the capitalist imperialist system. With the claim of being the revolutionary leaders to proletariat, the ML communists have to derive the following strategic results as a first lesson:
It is a must to possess a dynamic leadership that will never allow immobility in theory, in practice, in thoughts or in action. Never allow the party to lose its “sense of reality” and its internal revolutionary dynamism. In all works keep close contact with the class and the masses especially during works regarding organisation, determining policies and tactics.

2) At every opportunity Marx indicates that the future of socialism depends on the struggle of the working class in all aspects. The revolutionary leadership of the 21st Century should always keep this in mind.
The scope and the scale of the relations between the class and the masses is not a simple matter of growing larger and increasing in numbers. From the historical perspective point of view, the ideological-political context is far more determiningeven though increasing in numbers provide power and some advantages. Revolutionism, knowing that “survival of the proletariat will be realiased by the proletariat” and “revolution can be achieved by the masses” has to see that the organisation and acceleration of the revolution totally depends on winning the class on its side and organising it.

Thus the level of relations with the class has a determining property whether the proletarian revolution and socialism is concieved as an actual practical aim or as something to be achieved in an unknown future with no idea as to when and how. The speed and pace of construction of socialism primarily depend on development level of consciousness and organisation ability of the proletariat. Therefore it is an indication of insufficiency and shallowness in understanding the socialism, if the “leadership” considers only “responsibilities and issues of the current moment or very near future” in its activities. In order to see the historical results of such shallowness and the problems faced, it will be adequate to look at the practice of socialism in the Eastern European countries.

Therefore the party of the 21st Century can not limit itself with the current or very near future issues only. While managing the current issues, it has to consider successes/failures, advantages/disadvantages, possibilities/impossibilities in the course of organisation of the revolution and the construction of socialism. All the means and methods used for the main purpose mentioned above should have strong ties with the class and its movement. Enver Hodja describes the strategy and tactics of the art of leadership which distinguish it from creepers, as “looking ahead in preparation of the best historical conditions for the next stage at every instant of the movement”… This approach of not dealing only with the existing situation, but to consider the next stages complies very well with Lenin’s determination stating “revolutionary socialist policy will definitely fail if it is not integrated with the class in all aspects and it does not attract the attention of the class.” Therefore a far-sighted part of 21st century should follow the above mentioned principles throughout its activities.

3) At this stage the importance of revolutionary practice and political tactics come up as the fundamental means of conscious intervention to historical developments. Thus the revolutionary practice attains an educative and inspiring character in the transformation course.

In these days when the class and the class movements are trying to recover all over the world and search new ways and methods of organisation, any approach or thought that ignores the significant role of the revolutionary practice means, underestimating revolution and the responsibilities of  revolutionary leadership. It also means to refuse the significance of a party to be based on a new model considering all aspects.

Unlike the 2nd International parties, that said very right things in words, but forgot those words when it came to implementation, the party of 21st Century has to be the party of revolution in real terms!
4) As a rising political and practical focal point, the party should make the class feel its power and abilities. And with said properties it should succeed in being seen by the class and masses.

While trying to recover from the long lasting severe historical defeat by neoliberalism, the party should be conscious about the circumstances faced in determining the future properties of the class movement and its line of development. While experiencing the pains of rebirth in their own ways, the socialist movement and the labor class movement, should both unite in the line of revolutionary militant socialism, complement each other and catch the “spirit of time”.

Should the communists and the revolutionaries fail to see and miss this historical opportunity, then they would be nailing their own coffins in Turkey as well as everywhere in the world. And they would already take the historical burden on their shoulders by leaving the proletariat and the future of the proletarian movement either into hands of the unwise and narrow-minded friends of the class as in Latin America or even worse leaving it into the hands of new type of fascism and a reactionary regime.

5) The laws regarding the analysis of capitalism with extraordinary competence and set forth by Marxism have proven to be right and imperialism that temporarily succeeded to postpone the structural crisis by implementing neoliberal accumulation policies stumbled once more. We have stepped to a new platform where we frequently hear even from World Bank and TÜSİAD ( The Association of Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen) the phrase “Nothing will be the way it was before”. This sounds very similar to the declaration of 1990’s: “This is the end of history”. Issues like the formation of this platform, the direction it will take, its typical features and like will completely depend on the attitude to be displayed by the proletariat and the labor front at the worldwide scale. This attitude can be effective in the formation of history only if the insufficiencies in the revolutionary subjective factors are eliminated.

The communists and the revolutionaries, first of all, have to free themselves from the residuals in their minds and hearts deposited by the neoliberalism in order to manage the historical responsibility correctly (can be considered as an opportunity at the same time). In managing the current facts and courses the concepts and criteria of 1990’s even 2000’s can no longer be taken as references! Even “a consciousness that depends on conjuncture” can not do and sustain that. At this point a new breakaway is a must. This breakaway must have a revolutionary character heading towards to an understanding of a militant socialism!..

This experience, at the same time, should constitute a historical lesson to us on becoming free from cyclical dependency both in thought and in practice and placing the historical aim of communism on our focal point. The lesson also teaches to look at the current issues and relevant developments from that focal point!
Our strategic aims are closely connected with the answer to question of what fundamental properties should be possessed by the party of the 21st Century.
The answer to that question can not be given only under the light of lessons derived from negative experiences of the 20th Century socialism. Along with these, the basic starting point should cover the historical communism aim of the proletariat, properties of the social structure and human individuals in communism and all of the other features to be retained by a militant proletarian organisation that fights against the bourgeois power and capitalism in the path of revolution.

This basic understanding should not stay as a philosophy regarding existence, proceedings, party programs and policies, political strategies and tactics. All these have to be materialised along with the systematic of relations, operational mechanisms, staff composition and staff formation, methods applied, etc. All these, as a whole, should be managed so that the party would be a source of pride and attraction for proletariat.

Taking 20th century in consideration, any organisation that claims to be communist and stands up for “writing socialism on the 21st Century” should give great importance to the above, especially when disappointments, embarrassments, suspicions and mistrusts experienced not only by the allies of the class, but by the class itself.

This organisation should not act in a narrow pragmatic way which considers this as an advantage and a means of propoganda. “Any progressive step in practice is much more effective than a dozen of perfect programs in theory”. This advice of Marx should be kept in mind. The organisation should break away from weariness due to lack of power, from acting in a sponteneous way and tailing which take place during neoliberal ractionary years. It should determine a basic ideological criteria of action and behavior that will distinguish itself from any random kind of socialism and revolutionary movement and must display a corresponding stand in any front of the class struggle.

Along with the above, the party of 21st Century should possess the following characteristics.
I- It has to be a collective organism before anything else. Democracy in the party should be given the most significance and should be exercised extensively and effectively except when there is a threat to security and secrecy, during civil war or junta. For the effective and extensive implementation of democracy in the party:

All the basic organs and the staff of the party should regularly be informed at least once a year about the concrete position of the party, the direction of development, problems faced and the possible strategic approaches to be implemented. Information about the real and exact situation of the party has to be shared with the all of the sub-organs and members. Auditing and criticism channels should be kept open to all levels of the party. Extensive participation has to be maintained in establishing policies and taking strategic decisions, as well.

All the channels should be kept open for participation and using initiative under binding principles and rules, irrespective from the wishes or preferences of the ruling organs and members in those organs. The courses have to be made democratic, especially in determining fundamental policies and making strategic decisions regarding the development line of the party. The ruling organs of the party, including the MK (Central Committee) being at the top, might modify the application methods and ways as per the conditions, but can not eliminate the core of it under any condition.
No mission or role should be treated as privileged within the party. The bylaws regarding this issue have to be updated under the light of the experiences observed during implementations. A vast participation has to be maintained in the updating procedure and this can be utilised as a means of ideological-political education/training covering all the elements of the party considering their interpretations and opinions, as well.

The party can become a “collective organism and willpower” when all these are seen and absorbed as the basic elements in forming the structure of the party.

II- The party has to stay away from arrogance and alienation that cause to look at the class and masses from the top. It should not enter a stage of illusion by claiming that “correctness” is under its monopoly. It should not act as a “teacher” (teaching body) only, but it should be receptive “to be taught” by the class, masses and life.
III- The mission of “leadership” should not be considered as a permanent status and a tag to be possessed forever. It should function as a guide for the proletariat and the working people on the way to communism as a historical aim. No immunity should be recognized for any organ, mechanism or person who fails to accomplish what is expected from them.
IV- The party of 21st Century should be sincerely and consistently internationalist!.. It should always keep in mind that it does not belong to any country, state or national society, but it belongs to the proletariat of the world and it is a part the communist movement of the world. All activities and approaches have to be carried out with the consideration of the interests and ideals of the international proletariat!

V- The party of the 21st Century has to be a “technological instrument”! But technology should not be allowed to have a higher rank than ideology and politics. The role of technology, especially the facilities maintained by the communication technology, should not be taken as a means to provide security only during the pre-revolution stage. It, also should not be taken only as a tool to be used in production that aims to meet the demands of the society much easily after the revolution. Along with the above, it should primarily be utilised in the democratic functioning of the party, as well as in its relations with the class and the masses to allow their participation to activities and auditing. In short, technology should be utilised to maintain a more advanced and functional socialist democracy and proletarian dictatorship.

VI- Giving the top priority to the principle of forming an underground organisation, the party of the 21st Century should adopt the properties of a Leninist Party. The party of the 21st Century should also take lessons from the implementations of all parties, revolutionary practices as well as opportunist practices of the 20th Century. These should be done without seeing only the failures in its history, but considering its historical revolutionary acquisitions as well.
***

Defeat, always has a tendency to disrupt unity and power. However, the ones who succeed to overcome this can strengthen unity and power and proceed towards the free world of communism.

In the near past, we could not succeed this thoroughly. Because we could not sort out issues properly among us, could not renew ourselves from bottom to top and postponed efforts to eliminate our historical structural vices since long years.

Emotional obedience and personalization (depending on persons) have taken precedence over settling up the issues since we could not succeed to deserve to become a revolutionary communist organisation. That is why we could not get over and quit measures and habits of our self conscious revolutionarism as an organisation.
At this stage we have to break the loop we are in as per our historical responsibility’s instruct. In fact this loop has been forced and weakened to a great extent by standing against the elitist intellectual fraction who thought they were the gods. Now we shall walk ahead with the power we attained in the 4th Conference!

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir