http://int.tkp.org.tr/ , mailto:int@tkp.org.tr

Contribution of the Communist Party of Turkey

International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Johannesburg 2010

by Mehmet Kuzulugil, Member of PB of CC

The Leninist Policy of Alliances, the Need to Build a Front and Turkey

Dear comrades,

One of the fields in which we observe Lenin's political genius the most vividly is the theoretical perspective he brought to the "policy of alliances". I will not elaborate much on the Leninist policy of alliances in a presentation that must be constrained in a strict time limit. However, in view of the fact that the need to contemplate and discuss on the policy of alliances becomes even more in times of great crises, allow me to mark several points that will shed light on the rest of my analysis.

Why and to what extent the crises of capitalism, particularly the crises that have the potential to lead into significant ruptures in the history, which always have political and ideological aspects apart from the economic dimension, call for the need to discuss the policy of alliances? This is the first question that we shall answer.

Comrades,

We are living in the age of imperialism. The crisis that we are going through is not only the crisis of a few capitalist countries, but rather the crisis of the entire capitalist-imperialist order; it is a "structural" crisis we are talking about as addressed in the main title of our meeting. I think that we need to elaborate on this in two aspects.

Firstly, the structural crisis of the capitalist-imperialism implies that we have been living through the major shifts, fluctuations, in the political geography of the whole world capitalist order, of the imperialist hegemony if you will. I do not mean to say that I agree with certain social democrat Western intellectuals who love picking at the shifting imperialist hegemony. Against all odds, the US continues to be epicenter of the present hegemony and it will contiue to be so in the near future. I mean that the ongoing deep crisis intensifies the tendency to foster certain characteristics of imperialism in leaps and bounds, to bring these characteristics to the fore and making them clearly visible to masses.

Among these characteristics, first and foremost, there comes the answer of imperialist centers and bourgeois powers to respond the legitimacy problems that are manifested due to the crisis with an outrageous attack on the working class and popular masses. What we shall understand from the re¬structuring of the political geography is that the escalation in the class struggles intensifies in certain parts of the world. These territories, where imperialism's all out and outrageous attacks intensify, also become the stages of imperialism's endeavor to expand and re-shape its domain of hegemony. Under the conditions of crisis which we are going thorugh, we may observe such intensification in Southeastern Europe and the Balkans, the Caucasus, Southern Asia, Africa and, of course, in the Middle East. The depth of the ongoing crisis can also be measured with the size of the geography where imperialism is waging an all out attack in response to its legitimacy problems.

Of course, this marks the legitimacy crisis of bourgeois political powers one by one in countries lying in these territories. For instance, the local and regional elections held in Greece on 7-14 November marked one of the deepest legitimacy crises of bourgeois political powers in the mentioned parts of the world. A turnout around 60 percent, coupled with the declines in the votes of all bourgeois parties prove that the capitalist government in Greece is rapidly approaching towards a deep legitimacy crisis. The rise in the votes of the Communist Party of Greece both in terms of rates and numbers, which is surely a result of the intensifying struggles in the last year, indicates that there is a vanguard party in Greece that will deepen this state of affairs; a fact that gives hope to us all. I believe that there is no need to give other examples; we all know that it would not be difficult to do so.

Of course, imperialism is faced with a legitimacy crisis even in the US or the major countries of the European Union as we recently saw in France. Class struggles are getting intensified in these countries as well. However, the regions where intensifying class struggles are accompanied by a shift in the political geography are not the imperialist centers. In the parts of the world we address, imperialism, expressing in that ominous term, is in a struggle for building its own East. While imperialism is impairing its attacks in this context, the bourgeois governments and political parties in these territories assume new roles and make their own contributions to the process of re-structuring or re-shaping. We are referring to a comprehensive and multi-dimensional process in this sense.

Imperialism intends to close a page that was opened with the Great October Revolution. It has gained a huge momentum with the demise of the Soviet Union. Though, the operation to change the political geography entirely, to re-shape it in line with the current demands of imperialism has not ended yet. The domains of sovereignty that the presence of the Soviet Union enabled in the past are being eliminated and transfigured by imperialism gradually. To this end, borders are re-drawn, a massive political and ideological attack on the concepts of national sovereignty and independence are waged. This is not merely attack on the economic rights of the toiling masses, but also an ideological attack on the conscience of the masses. Probably, peoples had experienced a period in which religious and nationalist ideologies became so overwhelming only during World War II. This is the first aspect I would like to point out.

I said that the re-shaping of the political geography during the times of crises lead certain regions and countries to become the major scenes of class struggle and mark rapid shufflings in the economic, political and ideological positions of masses. This is the second aspect I would like to point out.

Immiseration, unemployment, degradation in working conditions, attacks on the gains of the toiling masses etc., these are the principal characteristics of the "usual" functioning of capitalism, which become even more explicit in the world after the Soviet Union. Yet, with the current crisis, we observe an enormous rise in these "usual" attacks without any pursuit of legitimization, without any concessions and efforts towards reaching a compromise. Such untethered and totally illegitimate attacks render popular masses, whose standards of life deteriorate so rapidly , more open to new pursuits, to the demand for a new order; hence expand the elbow room of the revolutionary subject.

I have already mentioned that imperialism's efforts to re-shape the political geography have a significant counterpart in the ideological sphere. One aspect of the fast transposition in the stances of the masses is related with this issue. In large parts of the geography we are talking about, even the weak and eclectic historical gains brought about by the bourgeois revolutions in the popularization of national independence and the ideology of enlightenment are at stake. The capitalist attack on the achievements of laboring classes is going along with a severe pressure of religiosity and nationalism. Realizing that the masses could be deceieved into the transformation required by the current needs of imperialism the most effectively through religion and nationalism, the bourgeois governments, on the one hand, decay toiling masses by imposing these ideologies on them and, on the other hand, shake the old status quo on behalf of building a new one, which in turn lead to the risk of losing certain sections of the very same masses.

I believe that we should apply some theoretical properties of the Leninist policy of alliances right at this point. Allow me to quote a not-too-short paragraph from what Lenin said in 1922:

"One of the biggest and most dangerous mistakes made by Communists (as generally by revolutionaries who have successfully accomplished the beginning of a great revolution) is the idea that a revolution can be made by revolutionaries alone. On the contrary, to be successful, all serious revolutionary work requires that the idea that revolutionaries are capable of playing the part only of the vanguard of the truly virile and advanced class must be understood and translated into action. A vanguard performs its task as vanguard only when it is able to avoid being isolated from the mass of the people it leads and is able really to lead the whole mass forward. Without an alliance with non-Communists in the most diverse spheres of activity there can be no question of any successful communist construction." [Lenin, V I., "On the Significance of Militant Materialism", Collected Works, vol. 33, Progress Publishers, Moscow, p. 228]

There are several points I would like to underline in what Lenin wrote.

Firstly, it is essential in the Leninist policy of alliances that the communists fulfill their vanguard mission to lead the whole mass forward. In other words, the Leninist policy of alliances is very much related with the connection between the communist vanguard and the working class. In the paragraph I just read, this is stated clearly: The Leninist policy of alliances is a mean of the communist vanguard, which represents the historical interests of the working class and translates them into practical political action, to organize the mass movement in accordance with these historical interests.

Secondly, and in relation with the first, the program of the vanguard party of the working class must lie at the heart of the Leninist policy of alliances. Making concessions from this program would imply losing the opportunity to lead the mass movement forward. Yet, the Leninist policy of alliances means the ability and flexibility to translate the set of historical interests and principles written in the program of the vanguard party into political action. The assurance that prevents such flexibility from becoming a breakdown, or in other words the assurance that prevents revolutionary politics from becoming revisionism, is the ability of the vanguard party to reproduce its bonds with the social class it represents, i.e. the working class, at the political level.

Having noted these two points briefly, we may now turn to the relationship between the discussion in the beginning and the Leninist policy of alliances. Please allow me to address this relationship in the context of my own country, Turkey.

Turkey is one of the countries that have been influenced from the crisis of capitalist-imperialism the most. I believe that this argument cannot be elaborated merely by means of simple economic indicators; we need an analysis going further than that. But even if we look at simple economic indicators, provided that we avoid any sort of superficial analyses, we can verify the depth of the effects of the ongoing crises on Turkey. However, I will leave this aside for the time being and I would like to stress on how Turkey's positon in imperialism have been changing with the crisis.

I have already mentioned that imperialism has been re-shaping the geography which includes the Middle East, the Caucassus and the the Balkans, and that the capitalist classes and bourgeois parties of several countries have been playing part in this process. The capitalist class in Turkey and its most powerful political representative today, namely Justice and Development Party (АКР) is one of the most important actors in this genre. The role assumed by the Turkish bourgeoise and the АКР cannot be deemed separate from the transformation of Turkey herself. For this role or mission requires the Republic of Turkey to get divorced from certain characteristics she possesses owing to the fact that she is a country established as a result of a war waged against imperialist invasion. In the so-called "Greater Middle East", imperialism needs another agent that complements Israel's mission; namely a strong moderate Islamic state to be utilized as the spearhead of intervening the muslim world from within. However, this implies the complete abolition of the conception of secularism that has prevailed in the Republic of Turkey roughly for eighty years despite all its weaknesses and eclecticism. Similarly, this mission implies that any remnants of sovereignty would be cast away in order to satisfy the ambitions of the Turkish bourgeoisie, which has always looked for a breathing space by chasing the tail of imperialist countries. Finally, this transformation implies that, in the middle of a region which imperialism shatters into pieces through ethnic nationalisms, as an open supporter and sponsor of these separatist policies, Turkish capitalism itself will become the object of the same ethnic divisions. In other words, while searching to expand its zone of influence in the region by, for instance, supporting the US invasion in Iraq through spronsoring the Northern Iraqi Kurds, Turkish capitalism leaves the doors wide open to the accumulation of energy in its own fault lines.

We may summarize all these as the end of the First Republic in Turkey. The Republic, which had secular and independent properties, is finished and replaced with an expansionist, Islamist Second Republic that is on the brink of falling to bits.

This transformation process, which gained a huge momentum with the crisis, have led to rapid transpositions in the economic, political and ideological stance of toiling masses in Turkey. Even though the new hegemonic ideology and politics of the Second Republic find its strongest expression in the АКР, they are by no means limited to the АКР. The transformation program belongs to the capitalist class in Turkey and to all of its political parties.

Yet, it is not possible for such a comprehensive and staggering transformation is met with some form of resistance from the laboring classes. There are now social sections reacting in various diffrent ways to the АКР, to sects and religious communities that become more and more influential everyday, to religious and nationalist ideologies. Even though these social sections include some parts of the Kemalist middle class, essentially they consist of important parts of the working class and the poor peasants of Turkey.

For the time being, these sections, such as the Alevis who cannot come to terms with political Islam, the youth who have no hope about future, the poor peasants who are faced with the concrete outcomes of the plunder of country's land and resources, the urbanized sections of the Kurdish poor etc., are politically in a void, hence open to be gathered under the roof of a genuine socialist alternative. As we all know, there is no place for long-term voids in politics. The task of the communist vanguard is to fill the void that is caused by the rapid transposition in the political stance of masses due to the transformation I mentioned and the strong hegemony established by the АКР. То this end, there is a need to build a front that would unify the reactions and the resistance under a common goal, i.e. a socialist Republic. The aim of building a front is to transform the reactions into strongholds of resistance against imperialism, capitalism and reactionism.

For this purpose, the Communist Party of Turkey calls all of these social sections, the youth, the unemployed, intellectuals, the poor peasants, the Kurdish poor, to build a front so as to organize the resistance against the АКР and its Second Republic all over the country. Certainly, different parties and organizations in the left in Turkey, whic are still diffuse, are also among the primary addressees of this call.

Dear comrades,

At the essence of the the Leninist policy of alliances there lies the ability of the revolutionary vanguard to reproduce its bond with the social subject of the revolution, i.e. the working class, at the political level. This bond could be entrenched as the working class is politicized and as it is rallied according to its class interests. This, in turn, can be achieved as the working class is backed by broader working masses, as it achieves self-confidence with the support of these masses,- a confidence that would ultimately lead the working class to demand the political power. This is why we need to build a front in our country.

Comrades,

We believe that our party should transform itself in this process,- our party should lead the masses forward while learning from them. We believe that a strong and revolutionary challenge to the attacks of imperialism and capitalism that have gained great pace with the crisis could be organized as we prepare the masses while preparing ourselves better. I believe that our meeting will make important contributions to these preparations and I salute you with my revolutionary wishes.