According to many, it is, “unfortunately” or “fortunately,” not
possible. After all, in order to achieve this goal, it is
necessary to carry out radical transformations in economic,
social, and political relations, i.e., to make a revolution. And
apart from the difficulty of making a revolution, none of the
revolutions to date could enable people to make all kinds of
decisions about themselves freely by themselves. The steps and
achievements toward this goal could not be made permanent. There
is no guarantee that future attempts will be any more successful.
Friedrich Engels, one of the founders of Marxism, wrote in 1895:
“The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of masses lacking consciousness is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in on it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are fighting for, body and soul. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that.”1I think the history of the last 128 years has taught us this again and again. If the direct participation of the masses in social transformation processes cannot be ensured, i.e., if their involvement cannot be raised above passive support or consent, “conscious minorities” will not be able to advance social transformation processes, and the concern to preserve past gains (e.g., political power) can take precedence over everything else.
Some see the solution in the initiation of local self-government. They argue that all social relations can be transformed by spreading practices of local direct democracy. But, in a country where a very large portion of social resources belongs to a tiny minority, that minority will decide for what purposes these resources will be used. Moreover, individuals who make up the majority may have to support or accept decisions that serve the interests of the minority, in order to survive or maintain their living standards. Without an economic transformation that brings social resources under the control of the majority, it will not be easy for people to make all kinds of decisions about themselves freely by themselves. In order to raise local self-government to a national level, it is necessary to gain the power to change the existing relations of property. The seizure of political power is therefore crucial. If this is not or cannot be done, the achievements that can be attained through local self-government will be limited, and therefore, the willingness of the masses to participate in decision-making may gradually weaken. After all, people do not see participation as an end in itself.
Some others, who formulate radical demands in order to seize the political power, suggest abandoning the goal of revolution. However, the seizure of the political power (political revolution) is important because, and to the extent, it can pave the way for radical transformations in economic and social relations (social revolution). A political power that does not serve a social revolution may have to serve the interests of the capital owners, no matter through which radical demands it has been seized, as countless examples have proven.
In this book, drawing on the experiences of struggle after the collapse of the socialist system led by the Soviet Union, I will discuss how revolutions that are the work of the masses themselves can be made today.
Undoubtedly, every revolution is the product of certain local and concrete conditions. Discussions on the goals and methods necessitated by a revolutionary struggle cannot be carried out independently of local and concrete conditions.
Past experiences also show that those waging a revolutionary struggle may adopt very different goals and methods:
(1) Overthrowing the present government by waging armed struggle, taking over the state completely (establishing a one-party regime), and initiating the process of social revolution. (For example, the Chinese and Cuban revolutions).This list can easily be expanded by considering other details and possibilities.
(2) Overthrowing the present government by waging armed struggle, coming to power, and using this power as an instrument of the process of social revolution in a multi-party regime. (For example, the Nicaraguan Revolution of 1979.)
(3) Taking the lead in a national liberation struggle against occupying forces and achieving success, taking over the state, and initiating the process of social revolution. (For example, the Albanian and Vietnamese revolutions at the end of the Second World War.)
(4) Struggling, armed or unarmed, for the independence of a certain region and initiating the process of social revolution when this is achieved. (For example, the successful independence struggle of the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front against Ethiopia.)
(5) Taking over the state completely and initiating the process of social revolution, thanks to the intervention/support of a socialist country. (For example, the establishment of the German Democratic Republic [East Germany] after the Second World War.)
(6) Taking over the state completely through a military coup and initiating the process of social revolution. (For example, the coup of the Free Officers Movement in Egypt in 1952.)
(7) Overthrowing the present government through a military coup and establishing a multi-party regime that offers the possibility to come to power to revolutionary parties as well. (For example, the Carnation Revolution of 1974 in Portugal.)
(8) Taking over the state completely (establishing a one-party regime) thanks to the overthrow of the present government by a people’s (or working class) uprising (armed or unarmed), and initiating the process of social revolution. (For example, the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia.)
(9) Coming to power through elections immediately after the present government is overthrown by a people’s (or working class) uprising (armed or unarmed), and using this power as an instrument of the process of social revolution in a multi-party regime. (For example, the 2006 Nepalese Revolution.)
(10) Overthrowing the present government by a people’s uprising (armed or unarmed) and abolishing the state immediately thereafter; initiating people’s self-government. (Anarchism’s goal, which has no concrete example yet.)
(11) Coming to power through elections and using this power as an instrument of the process of social revolution in a multi-party regime. (For example, the process that started in Chile with Allende’s election as president in 1970.)
(12) Coming to power through elections and using this power to take over the state completely (establishing a one-party regime). (There is no complete example yet.)
(13) Rejecting the goals of coming to power and taking over the state, fighting for a process of social revolution that will gradually render the state irrelevant. (For example, the Zapatistas in Mexico.)
ADDENDUM: Putting aside the goal of revolution; striving for taking power through elections, implementing policies for the benefit of the people, and deepening democracy (“radical democracy”). (For example, Podemos in Spain.)
Additionally, goals and actual results may differ. For example, the Maoists, who played a very important role in the 2006 Nepalese Revolution, had initially aimed to overthrow the government and take over the state through armed struggle, but when they were not able to do so, they agreed to compromise with other opposition forces and become part of a multi-party regime.
On the other hand, changes in local conditions may lead to changes in goals and methods. For example, some revolutionary organizations that had waged armed struggles in countries ruled by dictatorships began to struggle to come to power through elections, when a transition to democracy occurred more or less independently of them. In countries where new dictatorships were established, some revolutionary organizations initiated armed struggle.
Some methods of struggle do not provide much opportunity for mass participation. While preparations are being made to seize power through a military coup, it is almost impossible for the masses to participate in decision-making. A progressive coup can only be planned by a narrow group. Even if such a group succeeds, it will have to find external cadres capable of governing the country and make compromises with a significant part of the existing power centers, i.e., share power with segments that have different interests. And even if the initial goal of the narrow group is to mobilize broad masses for social transformations, the alliance relations that must be established to stay in power will pose an obstacle to this. Moreover, differences in preferences regarding what needs to be done to remain in power will endanger the internal integrity of the narrow group, making it possible for those who completely abandon the initial goal to neutralize others.
A party that comes to power through a people’s uprising or elections will face similar problems if it lacks a sufficient number of cadres capable of governing the country and the support of a sufficiently strong mass movement.
Undoubtedly, those who struggle to take political power in order to pave the way for the social revolution are somewhat unlikely to achieve their goals at an “ideal” moment when all the subjective and objective conditions of the social revolution are sufficiently mature. Moreover, the requirements of waging a struggle for power cannot fully coincide with the requirements of leading social transformations while in power.
But when the links between the struggle for the seizure of power and the goal of social revolution become too weak (or when they are weak from the beginning), the danger of abandoning the revolutionary goals altogether, even before coming to power (in order to come to power) or while in power (in order to stay in power), increases considerably.
In order to minimize this danger, it is necessary to aim, firstly, to have a sufficient number of cadres who carry the lessons drawn from historical experiences of struggle and who can truly lead the masses, and secondly, to create and strengthen a mass movement that actively participates in decision-making and implementation processes (both during the struggle for power and after coming to power).
As I will discuss in light of the struggles carried out after “the fall of the Wall,” I think it is not right to put the cadre-based approach on one side, the mass-based approach on the opposite side, and prefer one over the other. I believe that without cadres, no lasting mass movement can be created, and without a mass movement that actively participates in the decision-making and implementation processes, the cadres’ commitment to the revolutionary goals cannot be maintained.
So far, even though I have quoted Friedrich Engels, one of the founders of Marxism, I have not mentioned Marxism, socialism, and communism. For two reasons. First, our subject of discussion touches not only Marxists and those who use the concepts of Marxism, but everyone who wants the emancipation of humanity. Secondly, “we,” the Marxists, must also draw on the contributions of non-Marxists to the struggles for the emancipation of humanity and on their experiences.
On the other hand, non-Marxists will also acknowledge that Marxists have made very important contributions, both in theory and in practice, to the struggles for the emancipation of humanity. The majority of the experiences of revolutionary struggle to date bear the mark of Marxists. In my opinion, it would be not only unnecessary but also wrong for me to try to deal with these experiences without using the concepts of Marxism.
Since I had shared my general comments on Marxism in my book Your Theorist Was a Revolutionary:* Marxism and Socialism in the 21st Century2 I will not dwell specifically on Marxism itself. I will only write, where appropriate, my views on how to interpret some concepts of Marxism.
The first chapter of the book is about Chile, because the history of revolutionary struggles in this country has provided countless examples that are referred to by those who wage revolutionary struggles in many different countries. The election of Salvador Allende, a Marxist, as president in 1970 and his overthrow by a military coup in 1973 remain among the most important cases in the debates on the “peaceful transition to socialism.” Chile, which had been turned into a laboratory of neoliberalism from 1975 onwards, witnessed a referendum in 1988 that ended the dictatorship of Pinochet, the fascist coup plotter. While the Communist Party of Chile, which followed a relatively moderate line together with Allende before the coup and initiated an armed struggle after the coup, became ineffective during the transition to democracy, the Socialist Party, which followed a radical line before the coup and made self-criticism on this issue after the coup, came to power together with the Christian Democrats and continued neoliberal policies. Then, while the Communist Party of Chile adopted the strategy of entering the government by forming an alliance with the Socialist Party, the mass student protests that began in 2011 led to the emergence of a new leftist movement. On the other hand, the mass protests that began in 2019 led to a constitutional referendum and then to the election of a constituent assembly. In the 2021 presidential elections, the Communist Party of Chile formed an alliance with the new leftist movement, and Gabriel Boric, the leader of this movement, was elected president.
After Chile, I will deal with the experiences of armed struggle in Peru and Nepal. While the former did not produce brilliant results for the left, the latter showed what kind of transformations those who wage armed struggle may undergo in the course of events.
Venezuela’s “Bolivarian Revolution” was one of the most important developments that revived revolutionary hopes in the world after the collapse of the socialist system. The revolutionary process in Venezuela, which in the recent past has been characterized mainly by its economic troubles and emigration, provides, of course, numerous lessons. One is about how those who attempted to create “21st century socialism” viewed the past experiences of socialism.
In Bolivia, named after Simón Bolívar, a party founded as an instrument of social movements came to power through elections, following people’s uprisings that took place two years apart and forced two presidents to resign. The transformation that this party experienced while in power is a cautionary case for everyone engaged in the struggle for revolution.
The movement of the landless peasants in Brazil and the Zapatistas in Mexico are among the major examples of movements “from below.” The Zapatistas were among the first to use the internet to mobilize international support for their struggle. The achievements of these movements are as important as the limits they have not been able to overcome. Besides, Bookchin, one of the theorists of revolutions “from below,” was among the inspirations for many progressive local governments in different countries, as well as the experience of Rojava in Syria. I will briefly dwell on these.
The Syriza (Coalition of the Radical Left) government in Greece had initially created a wave of excitement, at least on a European scale. Syriza, which managed to come to power in 2015 by leaving behind the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), which for many years had been much stronger and received more votes, could not resist the aggressive policies of the European Union, despite the support of the people. But Syriza’s capitulation did not lead to the rise of the Left Platform, which broke away from it, or of the KKE. Thus, it is necessary to look at what happened in Greece in a little more detail.
One of the parties that tried to ride the wave created by Syriza was Podemos (“We Can”), founded by leftist intellectuals who attempted to put Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s theory of “populism” into practice in Spain. This party, which was organized via the internet, made decisions through online voting, and held primaries, quickly moved away from genuine participation, put winning elections above everything else, and highly centralized its decision-making processes. Both Podemos’ managing to turn into one of the largest parties in Spain within a few years of its foundation and losing its upward momentum deserve attention. The France Unbowed (LFI), founded by Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who drew on the views of Laclau and Mouffe as well, is another populist project that I will examine. I will also discuss whether we can make a distinction between “populism” and “peopleism.”
Can left-wing parties and organizations, which were unable to go beyond being “negligible” for many years, manage to put an end to this state of affairs? The Workers’ Party of Belgium, which had been a Maoist party that condemned the Soviet Union as “revisionist,” managed to become one of the important political parties of its country after the collapse of the socialist system, by changing both its view on the past experiences of socialism and, more importantly, its mode of struggle. The Graz organization of the Communist Party of Austria (KPÖ), on the other hand, had previously made a successful change in its mode of struggle at the local level. I will also deal with the successes of Bernie Sanders, who participated in the presidential primaries in the United States, which can be considered the country remotest from socialism, and those of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which supported his campaigns.
Finally, there is a general discussion, in which I also consider the requirements of the revolutionary struggle in Turkey. Besides, in the last chapter, I share some of my comments on the concrete experiences I have dealt with.
Any revolution, or even just coming to power, is too particular an event to fit into any template, as concrete examples repeatedly show. Thus, I will not attempt to offer a “recipe for revolution.” But if the discussion of how revolutions can be made remains at a purely abstract level (or if this discussion is not held at all), it becomes extremely difficult to draw useful lessons from past successes and failures, to avoid falling back on past mistakes, and to avoid exhibiting past weaknesses (especially if the revolution is imagined as the product of very particular interventions made by a very particular subject at a very particular moment, and the discussions on these are postponed entirely to the future). Therefore, in this book, while discussing “in broad strokes” how revolutions can be made, I also make concrete suggestions so that this discussion does not hang in the air. The extent to which and how such suggestions can be applied to real life depends, of course, on the concrete conditions.
1 Frederick Engels, “Introduction [to Karl Marx’s The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850] [1895],” Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 27, Lawrence & Wishart, 1990, p. 520.↩
* A paraphrase of Nâzım Hikmet’s verse, “Your lover is a communist,” in which the poet refers to himself. ↩
2 Erkin Özalp, Teorisyeniniz Devrimciydi: 21. Yüzyılda Marksizm ve Sosyalizm, Yordam Kitap, 2021 (first published in 2012). ↩
You can find the back cover text and table of contents here.
The e-book is available on Google Play and Storytel
(Physical copies will be available soon.)
ENGLISH MAIN PAGE
Hiç yorum yok :
Yorum Gönder