Crisis of the Regime and the Dynamics of Struggle

It has been quite obvious for some time that the fascist regime is in serious trouble as it failed to prevent the slide from economic crisis to economic collapse and used up the space for manoeuvre in foreign policy. As this plight worsens, the regime faces a deadlock, which also triggers a loosening of its inner cohesion. With social problems getting into a chaos on every single front, the regime rapidly loses ground as it lacks energy, capability and economic power to resolve them. And for the working masses, among all the mingled problems caused by the regime, economic problems have been on the forefront for the last few months as they have been worsening in a bitter way. AKP-MHP electorate is shrinking with a growing pace because of joblessness, rapidly rising cost of life fuelled by the outrageous depreciation of the Turkish Lira, decline in revenues so much that even basic needs cannot be fulfilled.

On the other hand, the economic devastation makes these sections of society begin to speak out in face of numerous problems they have not responded to before. Thus the regime has now a much weaker hand in using religion as a tool. Corruption, plunder, injustice and all kinds of cruelty have become much more evident in the eyes of a big majority of society. And the tendency among the electorate of the regime to break away has become more pronounced among the youth and women for about a year. While the masses that were driven into despair and passivity owing to the prevailing suffocating atmosphere get into action, the feeling of “this cannot go on any further” is dominant in the large part of society. However this feeling has not yet turned into a significant action because of aimlessness and lack of organisation.

Bringing about crisis and devastation on every front, the fascist regime has lost any potential to save Turkish capitalism from its deep crisis. As this situation is unsustainable for capital, the political crisis has matured as we noted for some time. This process sharpened by the dynamics of conflict both between the classes and among the ruling class itself proceeds towards a crisis of inability to govern not only for the ruling fraction of capital but the ruling class as a whole. It is obvious that such a crisis implies not a big risk only for the ruling section of capital but the ruling class as a whole. Apart from the fact that the current economic devastation makes things almost irreparable, it also involves the threat of the working-class anger gone uncontrollable which frightens the bourgeoisie. This is the main reason why the regime talks of an “independence war” and why TÜSİAD (Association of Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen) and “Nation Alliance” headed by CHP-İYİP sound alarm bells these days.

Thus the bourgeois opposition that has been in a state of wait-and-see for a long time attempts to take the lead in recent months. The fact that Kılıçdaroğlu threatened those capital sections that are active part of the ongoing plunder and pillage which have become a hallmark of the regime; his call on the state bureaucracy for a kind of “civil disobedience”; his call on those sections of society that have been victims of state harassment for a “reconciliation”; that CHP voted for the first time against extending of the war bill for two more years; that TÜSİAD spoke up with emphasis on democracy; are just some examples of it. Call for “early elections” is now being made in a more vigorous way and CHP is organising mass rallies for the first time after the local elections in 2019. These moves indicate that preparations for a new period are stepped up on the side of capital.

Talking about getting rid of the current regime by defeating it in the election, the bourgeois opposition is up to a restoration program named “reinforced parliamentary system”. In line with this, 6 opposition parties led by CHP and İYİP are carrying on preparations for a draft constitution. Although there is no example of fascist regimes being removed through ordinary means, Kılıçdaroğlu says, “we will kick out an authoritarian regime by elections for the first time in world history”. This discourse helps underestimating the nature of the regime. And its main purpose is surely to undermine possible upsurges of the working masses that could upset the order. The bourgeois opposition is fearful of pulling the masses into struggle as they think this could weaken the state and jeopardise the order, so they seek a top-down transformation without any storms at bottom. This bourgeois mentality reduces the struggle against the regime to elections and ballot box. Yet this was one of the essential reasons for failing to prevent the process of authoritarianism going from Bonapartism to fascism.

We know that Asiatic statehood traditions are so ingrained in the Turkish bourgeoisie that from the very start they are ferociously determined to close the doors to any possibility of independent initiative of the working masses. There are many cases in which this mentality played its sinister role. For instance CHP did not own the votes of its presidential candidate against Erdoğan, and it also did not leave parliament that has been turned to a fig leaf of the regime, which would be announcing aloud the illegitimacy of the regime. We also know what CHP did in the run up to 12 September 1980 military coup, when it stayed totally passive against it and strove to drive the socialist left to the parliamentary impasse in an attempt to strangle it. And today, this mentality is not up for a broad bourgeois democracy but for “returning to the pre-presidential system”. The fact that the announced aspects of the draft constitution on which 6 opposition parties have been working are only about workings of the bourgeois state mechanisms, parliament, judiciary etc, is a vindication. The kind of “democracy” that would come out of this program of change where unions and other democratic mass organisations are not allowed to get involved in the process, and HDP is persistently alienated, would not be any much further that restoring the order within the old narrow confines.

Moreover, this is a restoration program that assumes that elections would be carried out in a regular way and Erdoğan would abandon power! The election-centred approach of the bourgeois opposition parties influences socialist ranks as well, and it not only drives toilers to remain passive until the ballot box, but also serves to obscure the true nature of the regime. Yet, the way political organisations act is determined by how they analyse the nature of the regime.

The nature of the regime

We made our analysis of the transformation AKP went through and the underlying circumstances in the course of 2011-2016:

“In his efforts to strengthen his own faction during the bourgeois infighting, Erdoğan increasingly stood out as a political figure turning into a Bonaparte. Yet the internal conflict within the ruling class did not come to an end. Rather, it escalated further. The bourgeois regime became increasingly fragile on such a basis. This was combined with the extraordinary conditions shaped by the profound crisis suffered by capitalism, the imperialist war engulfing Turkey, and the Kurdish national independence struggle. All these presented a grave threat to the bourgeois order. Although the revolutionary struggle of the working class is far from posing a systemic danger, all the above-mentioned factors were sufficiently challenging for the ruling AKP. As a result of these conditions, for Erdoğan’s faction, staying in power became a matter of life and death. With bourgeois regime becoming increasingly fragile, Erdoğan adopted the posture of a leader who represents the only alternative – a leader the bourgeoisie must put up with. He imposed himself on all pillars of the system, from the military to various bourgeois circles. On his path to becoming a Bonaparte, Erdoğan also changed the bourgeois regime to a Bonapartist one. But extraordinary practices did not stop there, with developments moving in the direction of a fascist escalation.” (Elif Çağlı, Forward to the Struggle Against Fascist Escalation, January 2016, marksist.com)

Unfortunately, not challenged by an effective struggle, the fascist escalation accelerated in the aftermath of the defeat of AKP in 2015 June elections and ended in a fascist regime. This was the first time Turkey faced a civil fascism in power. Erdoğan assumed Emergency Law powers using the 2015 July coup attempt as excuse, which meant absolute power in his hands and, in alliance with MHP and Ergenekon elements, moved forward to establish a fascist regime. The referendum in 2017 April on transition to presidential political system and the occupation of Afrin district in Syria in 2018 February were the finishing touches of establishing this regime. Thus, with Erdoğan in the leadership, the process of institutionalisation of Turk-Islam type civil fascism was completed.

In other writings we have elaborated on the peculiarities of this fascist regime, its differences with classical examples of fascism and 12 September military fascism in Turkey. Here we can remember some basic aspects of our analysis:

“Since parliamentary system is not dissolved in a sudden blow in civil fascism unlike in the case of military fascist regimes, the effect it created is different. Until the turning point where the fascist rule has been institutionalised, the perception in society at large that an extraordinary regime (fascism) is in the making remains weak. And when this perception begins to take root, it turns out that it is already late.

“As in the example of Turkey, military fascism puts a definite end to political life by inflicting a sudden blow to all civil political forces both on the right and left as soon as it comes to power. As if playing the game of offering a choice between the worse and the worst, posing as having put an end to the violent climate prevalent across the country, it makes itself perceived by society as lesser evil. It is a bit different in civil fascism. The ruling party which rules the country by laws of state of emergency (executive decrees) pursues its «civil» politics pretending that the normal bourgeois regime is in its place, while it gradually strangles all other political tendencies. Therefore, a sense of assent gradually sinks into society that political life is somehow continuing (though now in this new mode!).

“During the course of its rise to power and its first phase of power, civil fascism applies selective violence to combative organisations of the working masses in particular, and gives the impression that the rest of society would not be touched. If not defeated in this phase, civil fascism, which has risen to power by its «palace» coups or «election» coups through the instrument of its special operation forces, gets a big chance for full settlement of its rule. It is also a fact that fascist practices stretched into a relatively long period of time and increased stepwise make it harder to mount a broad and united struggle to prevent fascism from settling its power.” (Elif Çağlı, Revolutionary Resistance is the Only Antidote to Fascism, September 2017, marksist.com)

Having said that and considering the backward level of consciousness and organising on the working class part (both on union level and politically), with socialist movement extremely weakened due to its own weaknesses and numerous blows it received, it is not difficult at all to understand why social opposition have been in such an inactive state.

Dynamics of struggle against the regime

Making a correct analysis of the character of the regime is not imperative for socialists only to adapt proper methods of struggle for the new situation and protect their organised existence from the attacks of the regime, but it is also necessary for focusing on fighting demoralisation and despair. Unless this is done, it is very difficult to prevent lessening of resolve to fight and falling into despair and hopelessness not only on the part of unorganised masses but also of organised groups. Is it not, after all, what the regime is deliberately trying to achieve in the context of mass psychology? Thus, apart from short revivals in election episodes, the dissident working masses could not break free from the vortex of pessimism that drive them down for the last 6 years when fascism escalated and institutionalised. Unfortunately this mood gripped a large part of the socialist movement too. It is a positive thing these days that the economic devastation propels a large part of the working masses to begin to move out from this mood in a speedy way and direct their anger at the regime. Although the bourgeois opposition is trying to channel this change of mood into elections, it would prepare the ground for socialist agitation and propaganda as the working class as a whole would be receptive. But it must be remembered that the struggle against the fascist regime cannot be forged ahead on the basis of sentiments, but by organised struggle that would turn these dissenting sentiments into active struggle.[*]

There are two fundamental questions facing the social opposition: first, what is needed to overthrow this regime led by Erdoğan; and second, what will replace it. As mentioned above, the bourgeois opposition front gathered around “Nation Alliance” aims at getting rid of the regime by defeating it in the ballot box, and then putting into practice the political restoration program they called “reinforced parliamentary system”. With their neo-liberal economic program and politically reactionary stance (a nationalist-statist stance), most notably on the Kurdish question, which is an essential part of the question of democracy in Turkey, it is obvious that the bourgeois opposition forces that are positioned at the centre and right of the bourgeois political arena, including CHP, cannot be a remedy for the burning problems of the working class and other toilers.

There are two more legs of social opposition apart from this centre-right alliance called “Nation Alliance”: The biggest one is HDP which has been ferociously attacked by the regime to weaken it although it is in the parliament. HDP is the only party that occupies the left side of the bourgeois political arena and is also home to many socialist groups that are in alliance with it. While it points to elections as “Nation Alliance” does in its response to the first question above, it sharply differs from it in its answer to the second question, where it proposes an economic-social-political program. While it focuses on peace and democracy, it is a left reform program that promises improvements in economic-social conditions of the working masses.

Another leg of the social opposition is the socialist movement with its large spectrum. In recent period there are intense debates among the ranks of the socialist movement on the struggle against the regime and shaping the political setting of the post-regime period, and whether a left/socialist front (or alliance, bloc etc.) can be built that takes as its axis the urgent economic and democratic demands of the working class apart from the bourgeois opposition front. When the anger and outrage of the working class and toiling masses are rampant, it is imperative that every single working class organisation focus on how to get rid of this regime in the interests of the working masses. Should the debates on joining forces in the struggle against fascism proceed on a sound basis, then it will be possible that unity in action on daily practical needs and tasks gets stronger. However, being out of touch with the reality in the name of “revolutionary politics,” expressed in disregarding the actual level of consciousness and organisation of the working class and the weak state of the socialist movement, large part of the socialist movement is far from being serious as well. Essential weakness of the socialist movement is not the inability of a multitude of socialist organisations to get “united”, but their inability to get “united” with the working class. In fact, even the talk of “going to the working class” in itself is an admission that they are “out” of the working class. Yet the point is not to “go” to the working class, but to be within the working class in the most profound sense of the word. It is the abc of Marxism that revolutionary politics can be an effective force only when revolutionary organisations have arms embedded powerfully into the working class, and that otherwise even the most revolutionary program, most revolutionary strategy would just stay on paper.

As international communists we have persistently emphasized the importance of a correct analysis of the regime both during the escalation of fascism and after its establishment in power, while at the same time stressing the urgency of mounting the struggle against it. For sure we did it in line with our analyses on the dynamics of this struggle:

“History shows that it is vital to raise the struggle against fascist escalation in every field, before it is too late. This downward spiral can only be reversed by an anti-fascist struggle waged commonly by all opposing sections: from revolutionary workers, to democrat intellectuals, to organised socialists, to defiant Kurds. And let us not forget the vital importance of establishing a firm nucleus, which is based on common principles and composed of revolutionaries who conduct work within the working class. Such a force would play a decisive role in the formation of the united front of the working class against fascism. Today, fascism and war represent a grave threat to working and toiling masses. The only way to eliminate this threat is to raise the struggle. Only in this way can humanity overcome oppression. There is no other way out!” (Elif Çağlı, Forward to the Struggle Against Fascist Escalation)

“... it needs to be underlined that there is a serious sense of opposition and discontent against the totalitarian Erdogan-AKP rule shared by more than half of the society. Surely the struggle against the regime cannot be forged ahead on the basis of sentiments, but by organised struggle that is to turn these dissenting sentiments into active struggle. It is very important and valuable that there is a wide range of tendencies are waging a struggle for democracy against the totalitarian regime, from the oppressed nation, through the united democratic opposition supporting it, to journalists, academics and other intellectuals who endure repression and imprisonment. But this is not enough. It will not be possible to get lasting achievements without adding the revolutionary struggle of the working class to the present anti-fascist opposition.

“It must be remembered that although fascism or other kinds of extraordinary bourgeois regimes might cast blows on the struggle and the organisation of the working class, it cannot do away with the working class. It cannot do away with its historical mission and prevent even in darkest periods the responsive elements of the class from burgeoning. The lyrics sung by workers from a variety of industries, who cried out «No» in the interests of their own class at the time of the referendum of 16 April 2017, explain this reality very well: «Flowers of resistance emerge with a lag / but water springs out gurgling from the crack they wedged!» These lyrics that express the dynamic of the working-class struggle in capitalist society in the framework of the dialectical Marxist conception, acquire more importance in the reactionary period we are passing through. The struggle will forge ahead with the strength of knowing that this dark period will not be perpetual and of historical optimism of Marxism. No-one should suspect that!” (Elif Çağlı, Revolutionary Resistance is the Only Antidote to Fascism)

To emphasize once more, at the moment, the impasse of the regime is much more severe, and its space for manoeuvre is much more limited. However, this does not mean that the regime will spontaneously go, be overthrown through ordinary/regular means. While the fascist regime steps up repression and intimidates the opposition to keep its power, it should not be ignored that it can engineer any frame-ups including going to war with a view to seizing the opportunity to postpone the elections and suppress the opposition. The debates being circulated by the quarters of the regime these days about “economic state of emergency” should be seen in this light. After all, any politics based on the calculation that this regime would leave power without the pressure of a mounting struggle of the working masses or without a profound crisis and turmoil enforced by circumstances inside and outside the country, would be doomed to fail.

As we emphasized time and again since the establishment of the fascist regime, fascism would never abandon power by itself. “In the last analysis, it can be said as an iron rule of class struggle that he who rules by «force», is bound to go by «force» through mounting struggle which is helped by the effect of various domestic and international factors!” (Elif Çağlı, ibid)

As with the other examples in history, the fate of this extraordinary regime will be decided by extraordinary developments and this period is opened. The point is whether the working class will take part in this process as an independent player organised on the basis of its independent class interests. The fact that relatively combative unions began to move into action, organised some massive rallies, and that socialist groups joined these rallies in increasing numbers, all these signs, point to the increasing possibilities for strengthening essential elements of the struggle against fascism. Increasing number of strikes (especially unofficial ones) during last year also serves to pave a proper ground for the transformation of the working class in the sense of its consciousness. At this point, it is surely the task of class revolutionaries to turn the union level consciousness to revolutionary consciousness. A rise in the working class struggle will make it a centre of gravity for all other struggles such as farmers’, students’, and other toilers’, making their struggles more coordinated and effective. This is also the most effective way not to leave Kurdish people and its political representative HDP alone in face of the regime’s attacks. They are the biggest sufferer of fascism and also one of the most essential elements of the struggle against it. At this point it is up to class revolutionaries and vanguard workers to strengthen the organised sections of the class, push unions towards a combative line of struggle and widen the struggle. It is a much more urgent question these days to move into action by building a united labour front against the fascist regime and attacks of capital.