Go on Your Own Way!..

A big game is in play in the USA since the end of Bush era and start of Obama era, which is meant to mislead the masses. As if after the troubled days capitalism is now to find a way out to well-being and the world is to see an era of peace and progress coming! By this way they seek to conceal the evils created by capitalism which is engulfed in a profound crisis, and keep the system alive, a system which has completely turned into an empire of lies. It has become the actual tactic of capitalist system presided over by Obama to pretend that the working masses are offered carrot while the reality is that they are repressed by the stick.

This tactic is imposed on the masses along with the propaganda that the world has entered a new era with the presidency of Obama. Those who know the essence of the matter are well aware that a new period has not begun and that the system crisis of capitalism is to continue in a more intensified way. However, despite these realities, it is clear that all bourgeois parties and all pro-system forces, left and right, in all countries will be trying to deceive the masses by means of various lies in the interests of capitalism.

This situation in fact enormously increases the importance of right and revolutionary answers to what kind of historical period is being passed through. But what is required is of course to wage a consistent and patient revolutionary struggle to change it, and not to be content with interpreting the world. This is the fundamental question of the day. And while the fact that this question demonstrates the importance of organised struggle, it also poses before revolutionaries the burning necessity of an accurate and clear class line to be taken on organisational questions.

Realities of the capitalist world

In order to change the world in the interests of the working masses in a revolutionary way, one must first thoroughly understand the concrete circumstances in Marxist terms. Therefore we repeatedly try to dwell on the profound crisis of capitalism and various problems emanating from this crisis. In fact our effort to understand the day goes back to a historical turning point when we analysed signs of the developing system crisis.

In the introduction of one of our works we wrote when the “Soviet Union” of Gorbatchev was still in existence, we explained the unfolding process and its explosive character involving conflicts: “The period of cold war, which has been a result of the Second World War, is coming to an end.… As in every historical turning point pregnant with colossal turbulence and transformations, we are witnessing, and will be witnessing more, the eruption, with severe crises, of contradictions accumulated and deepened through long years and their world-wide effects.” (Elif Çağlı, In the Light of Marxism)

The intervening years since then have proved this analysis while refuting those who have been seeking to base their political line on the diametrically opposite views. Remember that in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, among the themes of the bourgeois propaganda were claims such as that socialism has become history and that capitalism is now crisis-free and has entered a peaceful era of globalisation. Although these arguments were highly popular owing to the circumstances of those days, they were actually hallmarks of renegade, opportunist and reformist leftism of various kinds which had essentially no “merit” other than tailing after the ruling class ideology.

While all philistines and deniers who fail to understand, or do not want to understand, the characteristics of imperialist-capitalist system fell into dizziness of “peace,” many parts of the world were thrown into flames of hot wars as part of the rivalry for hegemony among great powers. This proved the argument that with the fall of the Soviet Union a “Cold War” era ended and that a new era has begun. But the unfolding “new era” was not to be an era of global welfare and peace for capitalism, but of one with hot war, economic collapse and political instability.

There is an explicit reality today. As suggested by many symptoms capitalist society is at a dead end. The economic system of the bourgeoisie which it calls and praises much as “global economy” now exhibits a weak inner dynamic and a tendency of growing historical exhaustion. All bourgeois forces are actually deeply troubled by the fact that the capitalist system is in a state of stagnation for a long time. While this is the general tendency, some sporadic industry-specific recoveries remain transient and partial phenomena. It is obvious that such recoveries could not lead to a recovery and improvement in the general course of capitalist system taken as a whole.

This worldwide crisis is an outcome of the fundamental laws of operation of capitalist mode of production as explained by Marxism. For example, the stubborn long-term recession gripping the advanced capitalist countries in the first place and the historical tendency of average profit rates to fall are concrete manifestations of these laws. What’s more, capitalist system exhibits the kind of a historical course in which economic revivals are short and periods of regression and recession tend to be longer. The system of credit and public expenditures that have been implemented for a long time to revive the economy are worn down and have lost their former efficiency.

In short, those mechanisms that are considered factors reviving the economy have now become kind of sources of new problems. And more importantly, capitalism is unable to find new improving mechanisms in place of them. At this hour this decrepit system has no chance to create serious innovations and breakthroughs. Essentially the history of imperialist stage of capitalism demonstrates that in times of seriously accumulated problems and deep crises a new revival can only be achieved by the method of “demolish first, build after”. Even thinking of this method of “revival” alone would be enough to understand the nonsensical and irrational character of capitalism as a system in terms of the interests of the masses.

In the past when daunting falls appear in average profit rates throughout the whole system, a significant rise could be achieved only in the aftermath of widespread imperialist wars of division called world wars. The destruction of forces of production and human life caused by these wars was dreadful. Therefore an economic revival accomplished through the “destroy-build” method, a characteristic of capitalism, has no positive value historically. Also, to lay hopes on a new economic recovery on a capitalist basis driven by the “destroy-build” method and to serve to help make masses take it as normal would be to do the job of devil’s advocacy. Besides, there is another reality which is certain as a physical law. Every big crisis of capitalist system develops with more destruction than the previous one. And when capitalism is spared the chance to live on, on account of the weaknesses of revolutionary struggle, then the system sets out to brew a new crisis period.

This law alone gives an idea in terms of the possible consequences of the third big crisis of capitalism which is now being lived through. The US, who came out of the previous system crisis as the uncontested hegemonic power of the capitalist bloc, is now grappling with growing economic problems. The hegemonic position of this superpower which was left uncontested after the fall of the Soviet Union is now seriously shaken which is unprecedented. But the US is still the biggest power on earth in economic, political and military terms.

While other power centres such as the European Union, Russia, China or Japan are in diverse economic relations with the USA, they have, in varying degrees, their eyes on its hegemonic throne. Actually, capitalism cannot live on without a cutthroat competition between big powers. Thus there will be no lack of this monopolistic competition and of conflicts between these imperialist powers. But, for the moment, none of the powers mentioned has enough power to replace the USA. This situation makes the present system crisis much deeper and more aggravated, since the present hegemonic power of capitalist system has no ability to easily save itself and other countries, nor there is a new hegemonic power in horizon to do that.

Because of these concrete conditions the USA imposes its hegemonic position on the world essentially on the basis of political and military games. Inevitably, an intense ideological war accompanies these moves. That the basic arguments of this ideological war seem to have changed by the change from Bush to Obama should not be misleading. In the present world which is full of tension on many levels and of prospects for conflict, the general strategy of the superpower of capitalist system has not changed. What was intended was no more than presenting a false image of, or touching up the make-up of, the USA which has transformed into a war machine threatening the lives of the peoples in those regions of the world that are subject to carve-up. This is revealing the real situation the capitalist system is in. Today the USA in particular and capitalist system in general has no capacity to create a detente in the political climate, for instance, to calm down the masses by the carrot tactic, which show signs of struggle against the system! Thus, through the bourgeois ideologues, they pretend that they will change to the carrot tactic; but the true nature of the so-called “new” policies of Obama period is the tactic of “iron hand in a velvet glove”.

Because of the severe crisis capitalist states rolled up their sleeves to help out big capital. In their “crisis programmes” in relation to workers we have articles such as price hikes on basic needs, worsened working conditions, lengthening work hours, falling wages, new cuts in social benefits, rising unemployment and growing housing problem. It is obvious that the offensive against the working masses is not limited to the economic sphere going further to include the most basic democratic rights, and that repression of the masses is stepped up. Apart from backing up their ideological apparatuses, capitalist states are fortifying their diverse apparatuses of coercion, their armed forces with new means and methods. As a result of military expenditures and escalating production of war equipment, our planet has turned into an arsenal proper. On the other hand, these arms do not stand still but they are consumed by spilling death on the poor popular masses. Militarism is rising with an unbelievable speed all over the world.

Almost everywhere in the world the rise of militarization and reaction on the part of the bourgeois order is complemented by racism and xenophobia being geared up in full swing. The consciousness of the working masses is blunted by poisons such as nationalism spread out by capitalism, and their united mass struggles are tried to be prevented on a national and international level. Capitalist powers are unable to inculcate any positive expectations about future in the masses due to the circumstances of a multidimensional crisis being experienced on a global level. As this problem gets deeper, the bourgeois order, mobilising all ideological means, the visual and written media, steps up its efforts to create artificial agendas and stories about fake enemies. By means of spreading various motifs of fear the rulers are making a paralysing effect on society, numbing the ability of masses to think and stepping up mysticism and belief in superstitions.

Another reality that is being experienced on a world scale is that the ruling capitalist powers cannot find out substantial solutions to their crisis, not only economically but also politically. If you think it through you can see that the whole world has actually turned into an arena for political instability. Bourgeois politics and politicians keep being discredited in the eyes of the masses. The alternation of bourgeois parties with titles left or right, liberal or conservative, etc., in government results in no substantial change. And the masses begin expressing this fact soon after every general election. In today’s world, differences between the programmes of various bourgeois parties have been lessened and it has become increasingly insignificant to call them right or left.

In terms of the operation of the bourgeois democracy certain differences between capitalist countries are getting less in favour of the general tendency towards reaction. For instance, while accession to European Union is welcomed as a hope of democratisation in a country such as Turkey which has been under despotic repression throughout its history, which suffered the grievances of fascism in its near history, and which still suffers from problems caused by a military tutelage regime, the boundaries of bourgeois democracy is getting narrowed in European countries. So, leave aside the question of whether Turkey can be a member of the EU or not, and of whether this prospect would bring democratisation or not, the fate of the European Union itself is uncertain. All these facts that we briefly touched upon here reveal the fake character of the veil of optimism which is intended to cover the harsh realities of the system with the presidency of Obama.

A clear class line must be drawn

Against these striking realities, a mass blindness and a period of eclipse of mind is intended through the work of the bourgeois ideology. Bourgeois ideologues and all sorts of academics, intellectuals, left liberals etc. in their wake are trying to putting into circulation the lie that a proper global operation [of the system] is only now beginning and that this will bring wellness. Bourgeois economists seek to deceive us with the foolish lie that today’s distresses are actually symptoms of transition to a really global system and that eventually these distresses will come to a happy ending in wealth. They propagate the idea that the era of Cold War is only now coming to a proper end. By doing this they cover up the reality of hot war that has been in place for a long time.

It is obvious that the bourgeoisie cannot rule through coercion alone, it needs at the same time to appease and win over the masses. However, as they are unable under present conditions to offer a proper social betterment to achieve this, they desperately cling to “ideology” and “ideological bombardment”. Therefore, revolutionary Marxism which tries to reveal the truth and rip apart this game will once again be proclaimed “outdated” by bourgeois ideologues. Those who believe in the revolutionary mission of the working class and strive to change the world accordingly will once more be branded as “dinosaurs” by new renegades and liquidators who are to emerge out of a possible new tide.

Of course we cannot expect from the bourgeoisie and bourgeois forces to hang themselves and disclose the truths threatening capitalist system. So, we must know that lies produced by bourgeois ideological apparatuses will never stop! But confusing ideas coming from the side of those who are ostensibly dissidents will be more important. Therefore, for instance, one should not forget that the liberal left is a pro-capitalist force despite the fact that their stance against the military tutelage regime is a positive thing. Similarly, when the revolutionary upsurges of the masses against the system come up, reformism and opportunism will surely seek to play their sinister role as happened in the historical examples. Besides, one should not disregard the damage done to the militant struggle of the working class by those political currents and groups, which appear to be revolutionary while on the other hand persistently remain on the air in terms of having a working-class base.

It would be useful to emphasise a few points in the first place that are very important in the political struggle of the working class. The concept of revolutionary has acquired different meanings throughout history depending on different class interests. As explained by Marxism, it is for sure that petty-bourgeois revolutionism and proletarian revolutionism are separated by bold lines both in terms of political attitudes and conceptions of organising. Marxist attitude requires that such differences should not be covered up and that different conceptions of revolution and organisation that flow from different class positions should not to be mixed up.

This is the fundamental starting point that answers to the question of what to do in the face of burning realities of today’s world, what political and organisational line to be taken should be sought in the first place. It is quite obvious that all groups that are to determine their political line under the impact of the bourgeois left or liberal left will be drifted in the wake of the lie that a new and positive period is being opened with the presidency of Obama. To the extent revolutionism gets away from proletarian class base and becomes petty-bourgeois, the tendency to liquidation will be strengthened in ideological and organisational life. As a consequence of this, all groups that have not internalised Marxism properly and organised on proletarian revolutionary class lines, will be faced with disarray and confusion.

Such unstable elements did not make any contribution to revolutionary workers movement yesterday, nor will they do today. On the contrary, they will turn a totally deaf ear to organised working-class forces that try in the light of Marxism to grasp the conditions the capitalist system is in and new problems coming out of it. The dose of unfounded accusations against those forces trying to get organised within the working class on the basis of revolutionary class line will be increased and harassments will be much baser.

Those who strive to make a revolutionary conception of party predominate within the class will be facing, as in the past, touters who find Leninist conception of party “out of date”. While there is no substantial ground in terms of revolutionary organisation of the working class and this is the most burning problem, once again, the idea of building the revolutionary organisation will be obscured by those keen on setting up unfounded roofs. It is not a prophecy to foresee these things. There is no doubt about what road is to be taken by those tendencies that are unable to base their conception of revolutionary struggle and organisation on a working-class line (they have actually never occupied themselves with such an idea).

What’s more, this question goes beyond national scope. To give an example from Turkey, it should be stated that most of the so-called revolutionary aggregates have been in fact far away from the conception of conducting work within the working class. Historically the revolutionary movement in Turkey has been weak in terms of its working class base, and it has become much weaker with the offensive of 12 September 1980 military coup in particular and later with the offensive of the world bourgeoisie in general. As a result, we now have the conception of “revolutionism” detached from the working class as one of the most burning questions. For instance, that many “revolutionary” groups shouted cries of “victory” in regard to the question of Taksim Square and the recent May Day demonstration is an object lesson in this regard.

Retreated to such lengths, this kind of “revolutionism” is an explicit acknowledgment of trampling the most fundamental principle of revolutionary Marxism, that is, “emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself”. In a nutshell, most of the Turkish left, regardless of being called reformist or revolutionary, have revealed how far away from Marxism they are. Apart from such general weaknesses, there are other particular issues such as that majority of those who claim to conduct work in the working class and lay claim to proletarian revolutionism have so far proved unable to take a correct and meaningful road in terms of organisational strategy. Yet, one of the most urgent issues in terms of strengthening the revolutionary struggle of the working class today is a clear stance based on class line on the conception of organisation and the way you conduct work.

Principled attitude on organisational questions

The revolutionary organisation of the working class, from the scale of a vanguard organisation that is yet less than the level of party to the scale of a revolutionary party that has begun to win over the mass of the class to a certain extent, is actually the form of the revolutionary existence of the working class. Revolutionary organisation, regardless of its scale, is not an end in itself but an imperative and inevitable means for the revolution. Therefore the theory of organisation is in fact inextricably bound with the worker’s revolution and the Marxist conception of it and that it means nothing when separated from it.

In his works such as Where to Begin, Letter to A Comrade, and the most famous and comprehensive What is To Be Done, which are very important in terms of organisational questions, Lenin laid down a theoretical basis on how the revolutionary party of the working class should be, how to build it, and the way to work within the working class. Not to be perceived as a dogmatic or caricature model, the conception of revolutionary organisation and the theory of organisation as its expression is actually the most important component of revolutionary Marxism, or, in other words, its sine qua non. Viewed from this perspective, the Leninist conception of party is still relevant as the chief instrument of the political forces that aim for the worker’s revolution.

As is the rule in many realms of life, those who are in real need and who have good intentions know where to look and what to learn and where from. The theoretical foundation on organisational questions laid by Lenin and essentially the concrete practice of Bolsheviks led by Lenin is still the principal historical example to look into, learn from and implement. Both in Turkey and the world, anyone who seriously and sincerely wants to see the revolutionary organisation being built and a correct way of carrying on work based on the working class being established must keep sticking fast to Leninist conception of organisation.

As is known by those who want to learn the truth and essence of the matter, the importance and accuracy of basic principles laid by Lenin in relation to organisational questions is not at all bound by the past time and space. Limited and peculiar aspects of the matter that are related to the past or special conditions of particular countries such as Tsarist Russia are already pointed out by Lenin himself. At Comintern congresses in Lenin’s time general issues that are matters of principle on organisational questions were distinguished from particular and temporary factors. Thus the historical legacy draws the framework of principles on organisational questions that are to be followed. In this context, due to the importance of the matter, it will be useful here to reiterate certain issues we touched upon in our writings.

The principles marking the Bolshevik political organisation (an organised and disciplined functioning on every level, based on democratic centralism) are cornerstones of the Leninist conception of party. The goal of such a party is essentially to arm vanguard workers with communist consciousness, and try to drive the working class into struggle. Building revolutionary kernels within the working class that able to adapt to any circumstances, organising workers’ circles with various functions under the leadership of vanguard workers, making the revolutionary workers movement organised even at the level of sympathizers… all constitute the essence of the Bolshevik way.

The revolutionary party of workers from its central kernel to all its arms is a disciplined and organic whole waging struggle based on the will of organised units. Establishing revolutionary discipline and a way of work to respond to the burning needs of class struggle are key elements to success in every level of revolutionary proletarian struggle. A revolutionary organisation worthy of its name can only rest upon a build-up of militant cadres who voluntarily abide by the rules drawn from the revolutionary experience of class struggles. Bolshevik propaganda and organising involve elements such as organised contact, persistent communication and patient approach. Organised efforts along the road to building the revolutionary organisation and patient approach to workers surely take time and require careful labour. However there is no other way to achieve success and the time and labour spent on this way will never have turned out wasted. Since communist unity built around a revolutionary programme is not a unity of a handful of intellectuals who allege that they know everything, but a unity of workers who have undergone a revolutionary transformation which is a patient and laborious task.

The essence of the Leninist conception of party is consisted of organising the vanguard capable of leading the class in the revolution and preparing this vanguard for the revolution. This organisational approach undoubtedly involves the necessity of the class having its mass organisations on a number of levels and forms. These kinds of organisations are definitely encouraged. Those who erect worshipping unorganised masses or loose types of party against Leninist conception of organisation seek to obscure the fact that life abhors void. It should not be forgotten that revolutionary consciousness does not emerge spontaneously from among the class and spread out. Unless the class is brought revolutionary consciousness thanks to revolutionary organisation, a variety of bourgeois political agents carry other types of consciousness to the class.

It is not easy to create an organisation capable of providing leadership to the working class. This hard task demands a lot from those who lay claim to it. For once, there should be a firm attitude on revolutionary principles and also skill for tactical flexibility. Besides, revolutionary struggle of the working class requires commitment to revolution, non-conformance with the bourgeois order. And the most important thing is to sincerely embrace the requirement of organisational discipline. Those elements that fail to rid themselves of bourgeois intellectual individualism are far from having these requirements even when they appear to embrace Marxism. Organisational discipline appears to them as unnecessary and a humiliating shackle. Therefore these elements are a source breeding reformist tendencies. Individualist intellectual mindset generates opportunism when it gets involved in revolutionary workers struggle.

The conception and structure of party developed by Lenin involve principles such as drawing the differences with other left political currents clearly instead of hiding them, rejection of unprincipled compromises, and, in cases where unity is needed, not letting flags of struggle be mixed up. The unity of revolutionary kernels that agree on organisational matters and fundamental principles of Marxism must be advocated in this framework. A desire for unity strengthening the revolutionary struggle of the working class is not a matter to chatter about. The political trend that is characterised by making “calls for unity” all the time as a way of saving the day is incompatible with revolutionary Marxist attitude. While desire and struggle for healthy unities is right, it is wrong to go over the limit on this issue and compromise on matters of principle. To conclude, a clear separation of ranks must be accomplished between those who adopt internationalist communist tendency, also considering proletarian revolutionary organisation its unavoidable requirement, and those who insist on looseness, legalism and opportunism.

As can be understood from these outlines, today we have everything to establish the revolutionary theory on organisational matters and guidance of historical experience on a firm basis. But in order to be able to solve the problems we face in a correct and revolutionary way it is imperative to have a sincere faith based on the working class, an understanding and a point of view of struggle flowing from it. Therefore one cannot as well expect to see correct and satisfactory answers for serious questions such as revolutionary tradition and building of revolutionary organisation being produced on the part of those who set out to carry on a “revolutionary” politics without basing themselves on the working class. It must be known that such elements capable of doing this can flow from among those who immerse themselves in the class in a principled, determined, and consistent way striving to wage an organised revolutionary political struggle. Those who cannot comply with these criteria, regardless of the labels they attach on their chests, inevitably fall far from the revolutionary line of the working class and become attracted towards bourgeois and petty-bourgeois left tendencies.

It is clear as day. The damage done by the type of revolutionism detached from the working class is enormous in today’s Turkey in a variety of examples. This type of revolutionism sneers at the revolutionary theory in the name of “action,” cannot endure a patient and planned work within the working class. Therefore it is impossible for these political tendencies to develop tactics advancing the working class movement and carry on a revolutionary mass work on the basis of the working class. It is obvious that those groups whose general logic and ways of political struggle and mass work are marked in the last analysis by petty-bourgeois revolutionism cannot create a type of party required by revolutionary workers struggle.

This group of tendencies is surely not the only one that prevents the working class from the road of revolutionary struggle that has to be taken. Another group is consisted of those political circles that fail to break away from tailing the bourgeois left while at the same time not giving up posing as socialist. These kinds of political tendencies are fed mostly from “educated” elements as a social layer and their “socialism” is similar to what Marx and Engels described long ago as bourgeois socialism. The consequences of dominance of such elements in the leadership of a workers’ party are demonstrated by a variety of historical examples. One can remember how the German Social Democratic Party which had risen to the level of such a big force made up of millions of workers was drawn to the quagmire of legalism and reformism by elements keen on intellectual leftism which is far away from the conception of revolutionary struggle and organisation.

Revolutionary movement, call it socialist movement or Marxist movement, has never been, and can never be, homogeneous. For instance, splits in the Marxist movement are based on differences of fundamental nature such as strategy of revolution or organisational conception. Such differences are rock solid facts and one cannot resolve organisational crises by simply skipping over them. So it is not possible for the revolutionary struggle to take a significant step forward by hollow desires for unity or ambitions for a “united party”, which, from the outset, are obvious that they are placed on air. Set aside the results of a number of experiences of past years, the ÖDP (Freedom and Solidarity Party) experience in Turkey is a striking example that leaves no space for words. Those groups and tendencies who seek to find an umbrella under which they hope to keep their political identities alive, rather than to create the revolutionary organisation of the working class, have always approached the question of party from the standpoint of their narrow group interests. That was the reason why they ambitiously stood for a party like ÖDP.

There is another aspect of the question at stake in relation to the revolutionary struggle of the class. The struggle of the working class against capitalism does not only require a vanguard revolutionary party, but also a diversity of other types of organisational forms. Besides, the struggle against the existing political order involves a broad spectrum including different class forces, movements of oppressed nations etc. In this respect, it is required to form unities in action on various levels and also it cannot be denied that this is a burning need for the revolutionary interests of the working class. So, in the framework of these debates, we need to draw a clear and solid distinction line between the revolutionary party that would lead the class and formations of fronts and blocks that would express a unity in action of different opposition forces. It is also extremely important to make a distinction between those blocs in the form of “workers’ front” that are formed by organisations of the working class and those blocs that bring together a broader diversity of forces. And these two levels should never be confused.

In brief, there is a principled approach of Marxists on such important questions and this is exactly what we defend. Apart from the general debates on organisational questions, the aforementioned issues of principle also bring light to the particular question of the attitude to be taken regarding the so-called “umbrella party” debates. Let us try to put this last point in a bit more explicit way. If it is not to remain on the level of hollow words, and dilute or obscure the need for the revolutionary proletarian party, then it is surely a positive thing that such broad unities are formed in action against the bourgeois order. Moving from this framework, it may not be categorically wrong to establish an umbrella party which is in fact an expression of a unity in action and a bloc in the struggle against the existing order, no matter it is called a party.

But a fundamental question still remains unanswered from the perspective of the revolutionary proletarian struggle. The principle question is: in an intended umbrella or bloc organisation that would be the expression of unity in action, who, and what class line, would determine the main political course? How and on what basis would the inevitable question of “political hegemony” be resolved, not in terms of inner administrative functioning, but of living class relations that exist in real life? In answer to these questions we must state that no unity in action, unless its core is formed by revolutionary forces of the working class, can bring forward the revolutionary struggle of the working class in a healthy way. Unless political hegemony is held by the organised revolutionary forces of the working class no umbrella and bloc formation can ultimately prevent the working class from tailing some other class’ course. As clearly exemplified in the struggle of the oppressed nation, even the righteousness of the forces that wage struggle against the political order can never sweep aside these burning questions.

In plain words, there must be very clear attitudes reflecting the revolutionary class line on questions such as the present situation of capitalist system, organisational questions and unity in action. We are fully aware that such attitudes are hardly to be welcomed by the Turkish left that has a strong dislike for clear-cut class line in general and those who seek to sow a horde psychology in the left, those touts of unprincipled unity etc. Yet, this in no way changes, and it did not in the past, our revolutionary sense of duty and basic principle: Go on your own way, let them talk![*]