CRISIS IN THE IMPERIALIST SYSTEM*
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
 
Other articles
 

Last year, the US President Bush said, "the UN will share the League of Nations' fate if it would stay still on Iraq". Bush, who, in spite of threats, could not bring out a decision from UN, this time, was stressing that the USA will not need the UN's approval in the case of necessity to act against Saddam. Such announcement by the American imperialists was not coming to meaning other then "death of UN". Nevertheless, it was an announcement of, not only the death of UN, but also the death of existing system of international relations as a whole. Finally, this announcement was presented as an ultimatum to the whole world just after the meeting of Bush, Blair and Aznar in the Azores islands of Portugal. The US and Britain have withdrawn their resolution when they realize that they cannot reach necessary number of votes for the acceptance of the resolution presented to the UN Security Council. France, Russia and Germany were opposed to the ultimatum of the US-Britain-Spain. Like UN, the EU has also openly divided into two on the subject of the attack on Iraq. Italy, Spain, Britain, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Check Republic and Portugal have taken side with the USA. The situation in the NATO is not different also. France, Germany and Belgium are opposing the US plans in the NATO. Division in between the great imperialist powers has become evidential. China has taken part in the anti-American camp while Japan takes side with the US. However, all these divisions and polarizations show on what level the hegemonic struggle has been intensified.

Our world is face to face with an "international crisis". This is not a situation of "ordinary" crisis, because, the one in the crisis is "the imperialist order of international relations". Moreover, the present situation is not only the crisis of the order of imperialist international relations, but also the most highest place of the crisis that continues since '90s' or a moment of which the crisis has shown itself in the most striking and severe form.

The order of international relations, which was formed after the 1st World War, was destroyed by the fascist Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany. The League of Nations founded in 1920 was become insignificant since mid-1930s'. So much so that even the war decisions were not notified to the League of Nations. The decisions of the League of Nations did not have any sanctioning role anymore. Italy and Germany were stating that they were not recognizing the system of international relations created by the winner states at the end of the 1st World War. The system was not functioning anymore and the new one depended on the rifle. As a result, the order of imperialist international relations entered into an inevitable crisis. This crisis was quenched through creation of a new order after 1945 by the victorious forces of the 2nd World War.

The "international order" which was created following the 2nd World War was destroyed by the collapse of the Modern revisionist, social imperialist system and the disintegration of the USSR. But, in fact, there was no "new international order" or a status quo was created after that. After the "world of two poles", the situation, which is expressed as the "single-polarized world", was in fact nothing else then transition period, that is to say, the situation of transition to a multi-polarized system of international relations. In 1990s', the international organisations such as UN, NATO etc. have functioned as the vehicles of the US imperialism's strategy on domination of the world. Despite continuing their existence throughout the years of 1990s, the disfunctionalism of the main organisations of the ex-system of international relations (except Warsaw Pact, USSR etc.) have gradually become more evident. They were worn out, therefore, either they were going to be liquidated or be reconstructed in terms of their functions and forms under new conditions. After the USSR's disappearance, the competitor imperialist forces were no more feeling a need for the protection under USA's umbrella. The most important thing for them and for the USA was share out of the booty left from USSR. Lastly, the imperialists were agree on the subject of continuing with the international institutions in order to continue with the re- sharing, to stop some of the "irregular" states' challenge through benefiting from "empty space" with the imperialist states, the legalisation of the decisions on war and occupation and, finally, to suppress the oppressed peoples' blow ups with anger by naming them as "terrorism". As a result of this, the imperialists start using UN and NATO as the vehicles of the "legitimate intervention". Military intervention of Somalia, the First Gulf War, the creation of protectorate colonial regimes in Bosnia and Kosovo through military intervention and occupation and the occupation of Afghanistan and attempts to form another protectorate colonial regime in there are some of the examples of the "legitimate intervention" where all imperialists agreed. The "Balkan crisis", which consisted of dismemberment and liquidation of Yugoslavia and share out of Balkans, have both strengthened the USA's hegemony and freedom of using force and de facto liquidated the so-called "not to interfere in internal business" principle of the international law.

The September 11 attack is a new and shocking challenge to the USA's tending towards the world hegemony. It has played a sharpening and aggravating role in the contradictions of the transition period.

The taking of the power by the representatives of the USA imperialism's racist, most militarist and most reactionary tendencies, the manifestation of the tendency of transition from bourgeois democracy to fascism inside the country, and -in abroad- the definitions such as "pre-emptive war" doctrine and "you are either with us or against us" those expressing the philosophy of unlimited imperialist aggression and the militarist logic show that the contradictions of the transition period are not only sharpens but the imperialist consciousness of the transition period becomes more concrete and crystallized.

The course of the world economy from stagnation to crisis and the rising importance of the control of the energy sources were deepening the contradictions between the imperialists and were exciting the re-sharing fight. Despite to all their contradictions, the others were continuing to their "partnership" with the America both in order to get a slice from the cake and to oppose the influence of America. This, on some points, was because of the result of the policy to "appease" America. They were choosing the path of "appeasing" the USA because they were not able to show boldness to "resist" him.

All his rivals have accepted and even legitimised the USA's attack on Afghanistan in order to appease him. However, as a result, the USA was able to enter into the Caspian Basin and Central Asia and continue to march towards the centre of Eurasia. The share of the booty and the new shape of the world map were imposed both on to the former allies and the whole world by the leader of the victorious countries of the cold war.

The USA's war threat on Iraq has created "circumstantial changes". Increasing anti-war protests of the oppressed people of the world have made accelerator affects on the clear appearance of the "the change of the situation". The crisis of the order of imperialist-international relations brings the exploited and oppressed millions into action, and the developing mass movement becomes a factor that hardens the crisis.

Although the magnificent resistance of the people of the world creates partial hesitation on its most important allies (Britain, Turkey), the USA's, which took the British imperialism firmly in tow, continuing imperialist ambition to attack Iraq -despite the peoples of the world and the organisations of international law and order- increasingly puts tension on the international situation. The USA imperialism is insolently challenging with the whole world through its preparation for one-sided attack on Iraq. It threatens the interests of its imperialist rivals in Iraq and also rejects their word and decision rights in the intervening to the regions of crisis.

In connection with its strategic aim on the world hegemony, the USA's commitment to attack Iraq by taking Britain on its side and disagreement of France/Germany to this and their participation by Russia and Chine is driving imperialist system into an inescapable crisis.

The international order and its international organisations, which formed after 1945, are loosing their reason of existence. Because, the system of relations that brought them into being is experiencing rooted changes. Just as the League of Nations' that was led to become non-functional and turned into a mummy by the Hitler's Germany in 1938, today, the United Nations is being left aside by the USA. The same thing is also evidential for all other institutions. In parallel to the sharpening inner-contradictions of the imperialists, these institutions are also under the tension of contradictions. The USA's aggression over Iraq and its efforts for monopolist domination on the oil and its distribution is openly sharpening the contradictions and conflicts.

This situation has brought, especially recently, emergence of the crisis in shaking form within the most important institutions of the system of international relations such as UN, EU and NATO. The questioning of the role and the reasons of the existence of NATO and EU, which are showing rifts inside, and the UN, which have become even more implausible, has been deepened in striking form. By being pulled into the crisis, the main institutions of the order of imperialist-international relations have become the subject of the crisis, and also turned into a factor that hardens the crisis. The crisis and sharpening contradictions are disintegrating all former structures and relations. Today, our world is more close to the new imperialist world-war then yesterday.

Beside other things, there were two main reasons why it was convenient to the interests of the imperialist brigands to conduct re-sharing struggle without coming face to face with each others until now. The first one is the huge inequality on the military-forces. And the second one is the creation of the regions, which have been considered as being outside of the hegemony struggle during the Cold War, and which became today object of the accrual re-sharing. But, the risk of direct confrontation between the imperialist brigands is increasing since the opportunities of doing manoeuvres supplied by the situation have gradually become narrow.

IRAQ WORKS AS A LITMUS PAPER IN THE CRISIS OF THE SYSTEM

OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

The oil problem is the problem of the capitalist-imperialist world-economy and the operation and stabilisation of the world order. The power, which considers itself as being the leader of the current imperialist world system, has to make sure the processing and distribution of the oil, which is the vital energy for the world economy, its regular pumping into the veins of world economy and ensure the stabilization of its price and production. Furthermore, this power needs to prevent loosing the control of the oil in favour of other countries for the sake of its future hegemony. That is the reason why Iraq is in the centre of the USA`s attack. If the USA arranges Iraq and the Middle-East as it wants, then this provides the USA to become the leader of the world even after. This is the intention of the USA.

The other image of the same direction of the USA is the conflict that increased and evaluated to the civil war in Venezuela. Iraq and Venezuela are the targets of the same imperialist politics. Therefore, the crisis in Venezuela is essentially the reflection of the crisis of the order of international relations.

The oil production and its distribution for the USA are as important as that of other rival imperialist forces. This is one of the main reasons why Germany and France try to establish an axis against the USA.

Doubtlessly, this does not mean that the axis of Germany and France like peace since these two imperialist brigands did not bow to the USA insistence. They think that USA is doing wrong in the re-share of the slaves to them, and are also showing objection to the USA's desire for unshared world sovereignty. These two victorious powers of the cold war are now openly challenging to the leadership of their former ally and to its (USA's) authority by showing objection to its demand for unshared world sovereignty. This conflict between the imperialist states expresses the fight between the great monopoly groupings on the market re-sharing and oil domination.

In today's conditions, the oil problem and the problem of sovereignty politically is bringing the UK/USA alliance and Germany/France alliance to political confrontation. Because Russia and China support Germany/France alliance the unpredictable aggressive imperialist aspirations of the USA are getting more difficult. The other reason and sign of the increase of the present crisis is the disintegration of imperialist alliances, which leaded by the USA throughout the second part of the 20th century, in the last decade.

THE EFFECT OF THE CRISIS ON TURKEY AND THE REGION

The crisis has obviously reached the edge of a period, where the imperialist rivalry and hegemonic struggle between the axis USA/UK and the axis German/French have deepened. This situation shows itself in the main problems of the international politics and will continue to do so. Our region is the premier sphere of the oil and the rivalry for worldwide domination. Therefore, it will be directly affected by the sharpening contradictions between the imperialist cliques and increase of hegemonic struggle. This affect means increasing destabilisation, disintegration of existing structures etc.

Because of the increase of the crisis of the order of imperialist relations, the direct appearance of the hegemonic struggle, which focuses on the Middle East, between the USA/UK and Germany/France alliances, Turkey has entered in a process where the hegemonic struggle of the imperialist forces will sharpen upon itself. Turkey is a direct subject of the conflict for imperialist hegemony.

TUSIAD (Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association), Chief of General Staff, the AKP (Justice and Development Party) government have all agreed to be on the side of the USA in the imperialist war on IRAQ. Therefore, neither the Turkey-USA relations nor the Turkey-EU relations will be the same as they were before. Until recently, in order to keep Turkey away from the USA's axis, the EU was, on one side, applying political pressure and, on the other, compromising with her. The Turkish Bourgeois government have also implemented the same strategy. They, on the one hand, were developing their strategic collaboration with the USA and, on the other, making her entering into the EU as the centre of its strategic goal. The Turkish bourgeois state will not seek to cease from this dual strategy. But, despite to that, two factors are making the situation really hard. The first one is the Turkey's participation to the war on the side of USA, and second one is the clear appearance of the conflict between the France/Germany and USA-UK axis. This situation, before anything else, blurs the future of the NATO and the EU. The EU will follow different policy then the past on the Cyprus and Kurdish questions, which became internationalised problems of the Turkish colonialism. They will also increase their activities to make pro-USA wing ineffective in Turkey.

Until recent months, the AKP government and TUSIAD were having a conflict with the army on the matters of decreasing the impact of the Army on the State, of immediate fulfilment of the laws for accession to EU, and resolving the Cyprus question in accordance with the Annan Plan. But, now they seem to have united on the same ranks. The agreement was made on the occupation of Iraq together with the America, but also they left the rest of their disagreement of other matters on the side. The Chief of General Staff's view on the issue of Cyprus and the Kurds has become dominant. However, both issues are creating very sensitive balances. When the Annan Plan was refused by the Turkish side, the representatives of the EU have started to define Turkey as being an occupier force in Cyprus. It is very clear that this matter will increase the tension between EU and Turkey in the near future. The Turkish bourgeois government is doing this because of their level of relationship with the USA. Even the USA is not happy about it. Therefore, they had to speak about their disappointment on the Turkish side's uncompromising attitude on the Cyprus question.

The Turkish colonialist state will also define a new route on the Kurdish question. The Chief of General Staff, who managed to hold the string with the help of the USA, will not give attention to the EU's calls on the question. However, the fascist Turkish colonialist state can not openly return to their "denial" policies anymore. The Turkish State will try to find a way to destroy the revolutionary dynamics of the Kurdish people and to make them accept the Turkish colonialist occupation by force. This behaviour will suit the nature of its increasing expansionist direction. The announcement of HADEP's (Peoples' Democracy Party) closure by the Constitutional Court on the following day of the decision of the European Human Rights Court against the Turkish state on A. Ocalan case, opening a court case demanding closure of DEHAP (Democratic Peoples' Party), and reconsideration of the State of Emergency, all these can be counted as the Turkish bourgeois state's preparation to take position as an occupant force in the South Kurdistan. Considering all of this, it is clear that we are entering a new period on the Kurdish national question. The occupational movement against Iraq and the mobilization of the Turkish State towards the South Kurdistan inevitably brings South and North Kurdistan more closer to each other and makes "unification of the pieces" more necessary then ever for the liberation of Kurdistan.

The same necessity is also valid for other peoples of the Middle East. The Palestinians, Kurds, Arabs, Turks and all oppressed peoples of the Middle East must unite against the imperialist occupants and their local collaborators. Therefore, their relations must be turned into a common struggle and go beyond the "solidarity". The imperialist occupation in Iraq may continue for long time by the increase of enmity between the people to each others and by sabotage against all sorts of unities of the people. In order to prevent conflicts between Kurds-Arabs, Turks-Kurds, Arabs-Turks, Shiite Arabs-Sunni Arabs, there must be a democratic struggle union of the people of the Middle East, and this must be connected to the aim of Democratic Middle-East Federation.

The Turkish colonialism wanted peace in Iraq, not war. But, its master, the imperialist USA, needs war in order to redesign the region for their plan on world hegemony. Although the Turkish colonialists wanted stabilization in the region, they are face to face with a war that they could not exclude themselves because of their imperative interest. Therefore, the attention of the ruling classes and administrative state bodies is now concentrated on the war, which they have been dragged to.

For them, there was no other choice but to be on the side of the USA during the war. They, therefore, wanted to benefit from the situation and make a good marketing of their geographically strategic position. The Turkish colonialist state was aiming to reach these goals by being involved in the war:

a) To prevent the post-war division of Iraq and establishment of a Kurdish State.

b) To keep Iraq as the 'Unitary State' instead of a Federation.

c) To destroy KADEK's forces in the region.

d) To prevent Mosul's and Kerkuk's oil being held by the Kurds.

e) To become one of the founders of the protectorate colonial regime that

planned by the USA and Britain in Iraq.

f) To get a high amount of financial grants and credits by being involved

in the war.

g) Desire to get, at least, some portion of the oil income and to become one of

the decision making countries in the reconstruction of Iraq and trade relations

with the new regime.

Moreover, the Turkish bourgeois state aims to become one of the effective elements of the USA's post-war reconstruction plan on the Middle-East by using the advantage of being involved in the war on the side of the winners.

However, all this does not mean that there are no contradictions between Turkey and USA. Especially on the Kurdish question, Turkey does not trust the USA. And, this is the main reason why it goes towards to involve in the war.

It is obvious that the collaborationist regime, which is directly dependent on the USA imperialism, will not be able to refuse the USA's demands. However, it is also clear that there are disagreements on the Kurdish question between the USA and Turkish State. Because, what is being talked about is a threat on the vital interests (i.e. its colonial hegemony on Northern Kurdistan) of the Turkish colonialism. The Turkish state was not able to show strong will in participation to the war since the beginning. That was mostly because of their disagreement with the USA on the Kurdish question.

DECISION OF WAR IS OFFSPRING TO NEW CRI SES

The decision to join the war together with USA has lead to new balances of power within the Turkish bourgeois politics and these have caused new elements of crises.

The AKP (Justice and Development Party) government, the Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association (TUSIAD) and the General Staff are forming the war front. The President, the Assembly Chairmen and a selection of AKP MPs and Republican People's Party ( CHP ) were not totally against this front but tried to show different stand. This can be also called as "indecisive wanting". Both fronts do agree on the Turkish Army's occupation of Northern Kurdistan and the annihilation of Kurdish revolutionaries. The point they are divided on is the "international legitimacy". The situation seemed not to be important but lead to an important crisis. For instance, when the first bill about sending troops to Iraq was not approved by the parliament this put both the government and the General Staff in a difficult situation. This was an unsolvable problem. This was the same for America as well. In a statement made after the refusal of the first bill, the American General staff had said that soon or later the northern front would be opened. The USA knew that the Turkish bourgeois state would have no other choice but to bowel. This is why the dispatch of troops continued uninterruptedly. Where as the USA had already agreed with the Turkish General Staff. These "preliminary" and "secret" agreements added new elements of crisis to the relations between the ruling powers.

The real elements of the crisis are in deep places. The ex-elements of the crisis are falling back because of the decision on war. The ruling administrative power of the state, which put Tayyip Erdogan into prison and tried to prevent him from taking part in the elections, is now as good as mobilised to make him the Prime Minister. Tayyip would be appraised as the Prime Minister of war government.

As stated above, the relations with the EU, the Kurdish and Cyprus questions would still continue to be the reasons of contradictions and clashes in different dimensions and upon different actors between the rulers. The interior crisis of those rulers would increase proportionally to the tension between the USA and France-Germany relations.

There is also another important point. It is very unlikely to guess today how long the war will last and what it would bring with it. However, separately from the things that it can bring in general, the problems that it would create are foreseeable. A state of emergency in Northern Kurdistan, war taxes, inflation and the increase of unemployment, attack on rather limited freedom and rights of people through censorship, and a new wave of chauvinism. The oppressed people under the heavy economical and political pressures of the war would no longer wish to be governed as they used to be. Because of the weakening effect of the pro-Americanism as an utopia of liberation, the closure of the way of reformist solutions due to worsening economical and political oppression as a result of the war and the masses' developing ability on the struggle and organisation together with the actions and organisations against the imperialist war, the labouring masses, differently from the previous periods, would organise more frequent and more comprehensive street demonstrations, strikes and resistances. The people would no longer wish to be governed in the old way. They would not only demonstrate this through election pools and political surveys, they also will show this by preparing themselves to give sacrifices. A long-lasting war would lead to a revolutionary situation in our geography as in the region. This will be the main crisis which would be created by the war situation. This means the war would bring important changes in the conditions of the struggle and therefore the conditions of the struggle would get tight.

Some of these are absolute facts, but others are most likely possibilities. But, they are still possibilities only. Converting these possibilities into reality is the work of revolutionary practice and organisation.

THE NEW FORMS OF INTERNATIONAL MASS MOVEMENT

The workers and labourers from all nations, those oppressed; millions in the international mass movement are standing against the boundless aggression of the US imperialism. When we consider the international mass movement, which has developed fast by resting on the experiences and accumulations of the movement against the imperialist globalisation and who opposes the war and defends peace, together with the international mass movement against the imperialist globalisation, it will show that we are at the beginning of a new increasing wave of the world revolution.

The international mass movement which aims to stop the USA aggression and defend the peace is, doubtlessly, a "reformist" movement despite its anti- imperialist characteristics. It is a reflection of the capitalist-imperialist world order, which was shaped within the last wave of imperialist globalisation, in consciousness, organisation and struggle of the masses. Off course, this does not make it unimportant.

The movement is centralised in Europe, (the UK, Italy and Spain those which are the USA's close allies in Europe are the countries where there is a large mass movement against the war), but the movement covers the whole "West". The movement is provoked by the crisis of the imperialist-international relations and by the USA imperialism's boundless aggression that does not recognise any law.

The horizon of the movement is limited by preventing the imperialist aggression against Iraq, and by stopping the imperialist war in the case of its' start.

The similarities of the international mass movement on the timing, unity of aims and the modes and methods of struggle in numerous countries and cities are some of the considerable specialities which also show the relativity of the movement with the existing world conditions.

The gradual worldwide centralization of the anti-war organisations which develop independently from each others' and their actions taken all over the world at the same time are the elements of the "new" situation. This movement is different then the "anti-globalisation" movement. Because, it is an international movement that does not restrict itself with the international- imperialist institutions but directly aims at the national state institutions also.

The leadership of the international mass movement and its subject question need to be investigated carefully. Therefore, we must avoid showing conventional and diagrammatic approaches. The movement consists of individuals, many different social organisations and numerous subjects, and they all make influence on the movement. It seems like the movement is equalizing the singular subjects within itself. And this means that the revolutionary leadership, which considers itself as bound to take part within the movement and conduct hegemonic struggle, can march towards the movement's centre on the ideological-political meaning by getting involve with the international movement by using numerous methods and positions, and by directing towards the targets of the revolutionary programme.

By moving from this "new situation", it will be more beneficiary to consider the question of the communist international also in connection with the reality of the international mass movement. Above all because of the following reasons: these organisations which organised internationally are open to all sort of revolutionary undertakings. The organisations who are coming together are also taking part in each single country's organisations against the imperialist war. The decisions taking here are also accepted as binding and implemented at the same time. The oppressed people of the world are creating a new method of organisation and struggle on international level. This also means that the workers, toilers and oppressed are rescue them selves from the national narrow-minded point of view, start feeling that they are the part of the oppressed mankind of the world, and the blooming of the idea of the liberation could only be achieved through organisation unity of the world's oppressed people. After a few experiences of worldwide general strike and resistance, these actions would cause to great animations even in the countries which are in "deadly" situation in terms of the class struggle.

THE REVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY AND TACTIC HAVE TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENTS

1-a) The crisis of the system of imperialist-international relations, b) The imperialist war and its effects in our geography, c) The efforts of the Turkish fascist regime -that experiences a process of bankruptcy- in order to recreate itself on the new plane by involving in the war on USA side, d) The problems that could be created by the long term occupation in Southern Kurdistan;

2-a) Because of the severe consequences of the war, the wish for getting rid of the regime in Turkey may become strong among the masses those who have already been lost their hopes on the regime, b) Weakening of opportunities for the trade-union bureaucracy in controlling the workers and, in connection with this, creation of initiatives from the below in trade-unions, c) The growing impossibility for the reformist parties to keep masses -those under their influence- in the former boundaries and, as a result, the increase of the revolutionary pressure in the ranks of the reformist parties, d) The creation of tens of different types of organisations in everywhere against the imperialist war e)Increase of widespread, crowded and militant street actions, f) The necessity, that the Kurdish National Liberation struggle's reaches a new phase;

3-a) The creation of the anti-imperialist struggle unity of the peoples of the region becomes necessary by the beginning of the imperialist occupation in Iraq, b) The oppressed peoples' worldwide struggling unities become stronger and the creation of worldwide platforms is increasing, while imperialist camp experiencing divisions, c) If necessary, the workers and labourers of each single country are subordinating themselves under the will of these international organisations by going beyond the local trade-unions and organizations. These are the main and most important elements that have to be taken into consideration in strategy and tactics.

The communists of our geography should take "new duties" from these "new developments" and positioned themselves in accordance with the "new situation". On the contrary, the revolutionary tactic should consider the situation realistically as a whole.

The mass movement, which has targeted the USA aggression, has reached its high point in Ankara. But still, it has been counted with ten thousands and is far away from being adequately big. It must be accepted that the struggle against imperialist war has played role in the failure of the Turkish parliament in reaching necessary number of votes for the Second Bill (the bill was allowing the USA troops to use Turkish soils), but everything should not be explained by this.

The duty of developing the mass struggle against the USA aggression and imperialist war still maintains all of its importance. In this sense, organising the work of mass agitation is totally coherent with the route of transition to leader party. It is the most concrete field for the implementation of the directive: "to the masses".

The main means of organizing the mass struggle against the imperialist war are the platforms organized on different levels against the imperialist war. Development of the platforms against the imperialist war on the basis of the base-initiative and under the axis of units of production and location is the appropriate way of development of mass movement and mass initiative, and strengthening of the revolutionary influence upon the movement. The centralization of such platforms through co-ordination etc. is the necessity of the perspective of claiming the leadership of the movement.

We must try to involve revolutionary organisations in the platforms and, in the case of their involvement; we must go in the direction of uniting our efforts in order to direct movement towards revolutionary goals.

The movement's relations with the movements and centralised organizations in other parts of the world must be tightened, and the planned common methods of struggle must be putted into practice in our geography.

By many legal, semi-legal and illegal organisations and by using tens of armed, unarmed, peaceful and militant methods of the struggle in many places, the movement should turn into a mass movement that comprises everybody who oppose the imperialist war and the government of war; and should always be connected to the general-resistance.

Having close relationship with the Kurdish National Liberation Movement, making national democratic demands of the Kurdish nation as the subject of the actual struggle, building the barricade of peoples' brotherhood against the chauvinism and its' social-chauvinist defenders; are the indispensable elements of the revolutionary tactic.

The initiatives in order to form organisation of the common struggle among the progressive, anti-imperialist organisations and parties of our geography, participating in the international meetings of the international mass movement and taking part in their decision-taking mechanisms are the duties of our revolutionary tactic that absolutely to be implemented.

* This article is taken from the periodical "Teoride Dogrultu" (Direction in Theory), number 11, March/April 2003

 

 

Archive

 

2019
March
2018
November September
June March
2017
October
2008
December January
2007
January
2006
January
2005
April
2004
September

 

CRISIS IN THE IMPERIALIST SYSTEM*
fc Share on Twitter
 

Last year, the US President Bush said, "the UN will share the League of Nations' fate if it would stay still on Iraq". Bush, who, in spite of threats, could not bring out a decision from UN, this time, was stressing that the USA will not need the UN's approval in the case of necessity to act against Saddam. Such announcement by the American imperialists was not coming to meaning other then "death of UN". Nevertheless, it was an announcement of, not only the death of UN, but also the death of existing system of international relations as a whole. Finally, this announcement was presented as an ultimatum to the whole world just after the meeting of Bush, Blair and Aznar in the Azores islands of Portugal. The US and Britain have withdrawn their resolution when they realize that they cannot reach necessary number of votes for the acceptance of the resolution presented to the UN Security Council. France, Russia and Germany were opposed to the ultimatum of the US-Britain-Spain. Like UN, the EU has also openly divided into two on the subject of the attack on Iraq. Italy, Spain, Britain, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Check Republic and Portugal have taken side with the USA. The situation in the NATO is not different also. France, Germany and Belgium are opposing the US plans in the NATO. Division in between the great imperialist powers has become evidential. China has taken part in the anti-American camp while Japan takes side with the US. However, all these divisions and polarizations show on what level the hegemonic struggle has been intensified.

Our world is face to face with an "international crisis". This is not a situation of "ordinary" crisis, because, the one in the crisis is "the imperialist order of international relations". Moreover, the present situation is not only the crisis of the order of imperialist international relations, but also the most highest place of the crisis that continues since '90s' or a moment of which the crisis has shown itself in the most striking and severe form.

The order of international relations, which was formed after the 1st World War, was destroyed by the fascist Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany. The League of Nations founded in 1920 was become insignificant since mid-1930s'. So much so that even the war decisions were not notified to the League of Nations. The decisions of the League of Nations did not have any sanctioning role anymore. Italy and Germany were stating that they were not recognizing the system of international relations created by the winner states at the end of the 1st World War. The system was not functioning anymore and the new one depended on the rifle. As a result, the order of imperialist international relations entered into an inevitable crisis. This crisis was quenched through creation of a new order after 1945 by the victorious forces of the 2nd World War.

The "international order" which was created following the 2nd World War was destroyed by the collapse of the Modern revisionist, social imperialist system and the disintegration of the USSR. But, in fact, there was no "new international order" or a status quo was created after that. After the "world of two poles", the situation, which is expressed as the "single-polarized world", was in fact nothing else then transition period, that is to say, the situation of transition to a multi-polarized system of international relations. In 1990s', the international organisations such as UN, NATO etc. have functioned as the vehicles of the US imperialism's strategy on domination of the world. Despite continuing their existence throughout the years of 1990s, the disfunctionalism of the main organisations of the ex-system of international relations (except Warsaw Pact, USSR etc.) have gradually become more evident. They were worn out, therefore, either they were going to be liquidated or be reconstructed in terms of their functions and forms under new conditions. After the USSR's disappearance, the competitor imperialist forces were no more feeling a need for the protection under USA's umbrella. The most important thing for them and for the USA was share out of the booty left from USSR. Lastly, the imperialists were agree on the subject of continuing with the international institutions in order to continue with the re- sharing, to stop some of the "irregular" states' challenge through benefiting from "empty space" with the imperialist states, the legalisation of the decisions on war and occupation and, finally, to suppress the oppressed peoples' blow ups with anger by naming them as "terrorism". As a result of this, the imperialists start using UN and NATO as the vehicles of the "legitimate intervention". Military intervention of Somalia, the First Gulf War, the creation of protectorate colonial regimes in Bosnia and Kosovo through military intervention and occupation and the occupation of Afghanistan and attempts to form another protectorate colonial regime in there are some of the examples of the "legitimate intervention" where all imperialists agreed. The "Balkan crisis", which consisted of dismemberment and liquidation of Yugoslavia and share out of Balkans, have both strengthened the USA's hegemony and freedom of using force and de facto liquidated the so-called "not to interfere in internal business" principle of the international law.

The September 11 attack is a new and shocking challenge to the USA's tending towards the world hegemony. It has played a sharpening and aggravating role in the contradictions of the transition period.

The taking of the power by the representatives of the USA imperialism's racist, most militarist and most reactionary tendencies, the manifestation of the tendency of transition from bourgeois democracy to fascism inside the country, and -in abroad- the definitions such as "pre-emptive war" doctrine and "you are either with us or against us" those expressing the philosophy of unlimited imperialist aggression and the militarist logic show that the contradictions of the transition period are not only sharpens but the imperialist consciousness of the transition period becomes more concrete and crystallized.

The course of the world economy from stagnation to crisis and the rising importance of the control of the energy sources were deepening the contradictions between the imperialists and were exciting the re-sharing fight. Despite to all their contradictions, the others were continuing to their "partnership" with the America both in order to get a slice from the cake and to oppose the influence of America. This, on some points, was because of the result of the policy to "appease" America. They were choosing the path of "appeasing" the USA because they were not able to show boldness to "resist" him.

All his rivals have accepted and even legitimised the USA's attack on Afghanistan in order to appease him. However, as a result, the USA was able to enter into the Caspian Basin and Central Asia and continue to march towards the centre of Eurasia. The share of the booty and the new shape of the world map were imposed both on to the former allies and the whole world by the leader of the victorious countries of the cold war.

The USA's war threat on Iraq has created "circumstantial changes". Increasing anti-war protests of the oppressed people of the world have made accelerator affects on the clear appearance of the "the change of the situation". The crisis of the order of imperialist-international relations brings the exploited and oppressed millions into action, and the developing mass movement becomes a factor that hardens the crisis.

Although the magnificent resistance of the people of the world creates partial hesitation on its most important allies (Britain, Turkey), the USA's, which took the British imperialism firmly in tow, continuing imperialist ambition to attack Iraq -despite the peoples of the world and the organisations of international law and order- increasingly puts tension on the international situation. The USA imperialism is insolently challenging with the whole world through its preparation for one-sided attack on Iraq. It threatens the interests of its imperialist rivals in Iraq and also rejects their word and decision rights in the intervening to the regions of crisis.

In connection with its strategic aim on the world hegemony, the USA's commitment to attack Iraq by taking Britain on its side and disagreement of France/Germany to this and their participation by Russia and Chine is driving imperialist system into an inescapable crisis.

The international order and its international organisations, which formed after 1945, are loosing their reason of existence. Because, the system of relations that brought them into being is experiencing rooted changes. Just as the League of Nations' that was led to become non-functional and turned into a mummy by the Hitler's Germany in 1938, today, the United Nations is being left aside by the USA. The same thing is also evidential for all other institutions. In parallel to the sharpening inner-contradictions of the imperialists, these institutions are also under the tension of contradictions. The USA's aggression over Iraq and its efforts for monopolist domination on the oil and its distribution is openly sharpening the contradictions and conflicts.

This situation has brought, especially recently, emergence of the crisis in shaking form within the most important institutions of the system of international relations such as UN, EU and NATO. The questioning of the role and the reasons of the existence of NATO and EU, which are showing rifts inside, and the UN, which have become even more implausible, has been deepened in striking form. By being pulled into the crisis, the main institutions of the order of imperialist-international relations have become the subject of the crisis, and also turned into a factor that hardens the crisis. The crisis and sharpening contradictions are disintegrating all former structures and relations. Today, our world is more close to the new imperialist world-war then yesterday.

Beside other things, there were two main reasons why it was convenient to the interests of the imperialist brigands to conduct re-sharing struggle without coming face to face with each others until now. The first one is the huge inequality on the military-forces. And the second one is the creation of the regions, which have been considered as being outside of the hegemony struggle during the Cold War, and which became today object of the accrual re-sharing. But, the risk of direct confrontation between the imperialist brigands is increasing since the opportunities of doing manoeuvres supplied by the situation have gradually become narrow.

IRAQ WORKS AS A LITMUS PAPER IN THE CRISIS OF THE SYSTEM

OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

The oil problem is the problem of the capitalist-imperialist world-economy and the operation and stabilisation of the world order. The power, which considers itself as being the leader of the current imperialist world system, has to make sure the processing and distribution of the oil, which is the vital energy for the world economy, its regular pumping into the veins of world economy and ensure the stabilization of its price and production. Furthermore, this power needs to prevent loosing the control of the oil in favour of other countries for the sake of its future hegemony. That is the reason why Iraq is in the centre of the USA`s attack. If the USA arranges Iraq and the Middle-East as it wants, then this provides the USA to become the leader of the world even after. This is the intention of the USA.

The other image of the same direction of the USA is the conflict that increased and evaluated to the civil war in Venezuela. Iraq and Venezuela are the targets of the same imperialist politics. Therefore, the crisis in Venezuela is essentially the reflection of the crisis of the order of international relations.

The oil production and its distribution for the USA are as important as that of other rival imperialist forces. This is one of the main reasons why Germany and France try to establish an axis against the USA.

Doubtlessly, this does not mean that the axis of Germany and France like peace since these two imperialist brigands did not bow to the USA insistence. They think that USA is doing wrong in the re-share of the slaves to them, and are also showing objection to the USA's desire for unshared world sovereignty. These two victorious powers of the cold war are now openly challenging to the leadership of their former ally and to its (USA's) authority by showing objection to its demand for unshared world sovereignty. This conflict between the imperialist states expresses the fight between the great monopoly groupings on the market re-sharing and oil domination.

In today's conditions, the oil problem and the problem of sovereignty politically is bringing the UK/USA alliance and Germany/France alliance to political confrontation. Because Russia and China support Germany/France alliance the unpredictable aggressive imperialist aspirations of the USA are getting more difficult. The other reason and sign of the increase of the present crisis is the disintegration of imperialist alliances, which leaded by the USA throughout the second part of the 20th century, in the last decade.

THE EFFECT OF THE CRISIS ON TURKEY AND THE REGION

The crisis has obviously reached the edge of a period, where the imperialist rivalry and hegemonic struggle between the axis USA/UK and the axis German/French have deepened. This situation shows itself in the main problems of the international politics and will continue to do so. Our region is the premier sphere of the oil and the rivalry for worldwide domination. Therefore, it will be directly affected by the sharpening contradictions between the imperialist cliques and increase of hegemonic struggle. This affect means increasing destabilisation, disintegration of existing structures etc.

Because of the increase of the crisis of the order of imperialist relations, the direct appearance of the hegemonic struggle, which focuses on the Middle East, between the USA/UK and Germany/France alliances, Turkey has entered in a process where the hegemonic struggle of the imperialist forces will sharpen upon itself. Turkey is a direct subject of the conflict for imperialist hegemony.

TUSIAD (Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association), Chief of General Staff, the AKP (Justice and Development Party) government have all agreed to be on the side of the USA in the imperialist war on IRAQ. Therefore, neither the Turkey-USA relations nor the Turkey-EU relations will be the same as they were before. Until recently, in order to keep Turkey away from the USA's axis, the EU was, on one side, applying political pressure and, on the other, compromising with her. The Turkish Bourgeois government have also implemented the same strategy. They, on the one hand, were developing their strategic collaboration with the USA and, on the other, making her entering into the EU as the centre of its strategic goal. The Turkish bourgeois state will not seek to cease from this dual strategy. But, despite to that, two factors are making the situation really hard. The first one is the Turkey's participation to the war on the side of USA, and second one is the clear appearance of the conflict between the France/Germany and USA-UK axis. This situation, before anything else, blurs the future of the NATO and the EU. The EU will follow different policy then the past on the Cyprus and Kurdish questions, which became internationalised problems of the Turkish colonialism. They will also increase their activities to make pro-USA wing ineffective in Turkey.

Until recent months, the AKP government and TUSIAD were having a conflict with the army on the matters of decreasing the impact of the Army on the State, of immediate fulfilment of the laws for accession to EU, and resolving the Cyprus question in accordance with the Annan Plan. But, now they seem to have united on the same ranks. The agreement was made on the occupation of Iraq together with the America, but also they left the rest of their disagreement of other matters on the side. The Chief of General Staff's view on the issue of Cyprus and the Kurds has become dominant. However, both issues are creating very sensitive balances. When the Annan Plan was refused by the Turkish side, the representatives of the EU have started to define Turkey as being an occupier force in Cyprus. It is very clear that this matter will increase the tension between EU and Turkey in the near future. The Turkish bourgeois government is doing this because of their level of relationship with the USA. Even the USA is not happy about it. Therefore, they had to speak about their disappointment on the Turkish side's uncompromising attitude on the Cyprus question.

The Turkish colonialist state will also define a new route on the Kurdish question. The Chief of General Staff, who managed to hold the string with the help of the USA, will not give attention to the EU's calls on the question. However, the fascist Turkish colonialist state can not openly return to their "denial" policies anymore. The Turkish State will try to find a way to destroy the revolutionary dynamics of the Kurdish people and to make them accept the Turkish colonialist occupation by force. This behaviour will suit the nature of its increasing expansionist direction. The announcement of HADEP's (Peoples' Democracy Party) closure by the Constitutional Court on the following day of the decision of the European Human Rights Court against the Turkish state on A. Ocalan case, opening a court case demanding closure of DEHAP (Democratic Peoples' Party), and reconsideration of the State of Emergency, all these can be counted as the Turkish bourgeois state's preparation to take position as an occupant force in the South Kurdistan. Considering all of this, it is clear that we are entering a new period on the Kurdish national question. The occupational movement against Iraq and the mobilization of the Turkish State towards the South Kurdistan inevitably brings South and North Kurdistan more closer to each other and makes "unification of the pieces" more necessary then ever for the liberation of Kurdistan.

The same necessity is also valid for other peoples of the Middle East. The Palestinians, Kurds, Arabs, Turks and all oppressed peoples of the Middle East must unite against the imperialist occupants and their local collaborators. Therefore, their relations must be turned into a common struggle and go beyond the "solidarity". The imperialist occupation in Iraq may continue for long time by the increase of enmity between the people to each others and by sabotage against all sorts of unities of the people. In order to prevent conflicts between Kurds-Arabs, Turks-Kurds, Arabs-Turks, Shiite Arabs-Sunni Arabs, there must be a democratic struggle union of the people of the Middle East, and this must be connected to the aim of Democratic Middle-East Federation.

The Turkish colonialism wanted peace in Iraq, not war. But, its master, the imperialist USA, needs war in order to redesign the region for their plan on world hegemony. Although the Turkish colonialists wanted stabilization in the region, they are face to face with a war that they could not exclude themselves because of their imperative interest. Therefore, the attention of the ruling classes and administrative state bodies is now concentrated on the war, which they have been dragged to.

For them, there was no other choice but to be on the side of the USA during the war. They, therefore, wanted to benefit from the situation and make a good marketing of their geographically strategic position. The Turkish colonialist state was aiming to reach these goals by being involved in the war:

a) To prevent the post-war division of Iraq and establishment of a Kurdish State.

b) To keep Iraq as the 'Unitary State' instead of a Federation.

c) To destroy KADEK's forces in the region.

d) To prevent Mosul's and Kerkuk's oil being held by the Kurds.

e) To become one of the founders of the protectorate colonial regime that

planned by the USA and Britain in Iraq.

f) To get a high amount of financial grants and credits by being involved

in the war.

g) Desire to get, at least, some portion of the oil income and to become one of

the decision making countries in the reconstruction of Iraq and trade relations

with the new regime.

Moreover, the Turkish bourgeois state aims to become one of the effective elements of the USA's post-war reconstruction plan on the Middle-East by using the advantage of being involved in the war on the side of the winners.

However, all this does not mean that there are no contradictions between Turkey and USA. Especially on the Kurdish question, Turkey does not trust the USA. And, this is the main reason why it goes towards to involve in the war.

It is obvious that the collaborationist regime, which is directly dependent on the USA imperialism, will not be able to refuse the USA's demands. However, it is also clear that there are disagreements on the Kurdish question between the USA and Turkish State. Because, what is being talked about is a threat on the vital interests (i.e. its colonial hegemony on Northern Kurdistan) of the Turkish colonialism. The Turkish state was not able to show strong will in participation to the war since the beginning. That was mostly because of their disagreement with the USA on the Kurdish question.

DECISION OF WAR IS OFFSPRING TO NEW CRI SES

The decision to join the war together with USA has lead to new balances of power within the Turkish bourgeois politics and these have caused new elements of crises.

The AKP (Justice and Development Party) government, the Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association (TUSIAD) and the General Staff are forming the war front. The President, the Assembly Chairmen and a selection of AKP MPs and Republican People's Party ( CHP ) were not totally against this front but tried to show different stand. This can be also called as "indecisive wanting". Both fronts do agree on the Turkish Army's occupation of Northern Kurdistan and the annihilation of Kurdish revolutionaries. The point they are divided on is the "international legitimacy". The situation seemed not to be important but lead to an important crisis. For instance, when the first bill about sending troops to Iraq was not approved by the parliament this put both the government and the General Staff in a difficult situation. This was an unsolvable problem. This was the same for America as well. In a statement made after the refusal of the first bill, the American General staff had said that soon or later the northern front would be opened. The USA knew that the Turkish bourgeois state would have no other choice but to bowel. This is why the dispatch of troops continued uninterruptedly. Where as the USA had already agreed with the Turkish General Staff. These "preliminary" and "secret" agreements added new elements of crisis to the relations between the ruling powers.

The real elements of the crisis are in deep places. The ex-elements of the crisis are falling back because of the decision on war. The ruling administrative power of the state, which put Tayyip Erdogan into prison and tried to prevent him from taking part in the elections, is now as good as mobilised to make him the Prime Minister. Tayyip would be appraised as the Prime Minister of war government.

As stated above, the relations with the EU, the Kurdish and Cyprus questions would still continue to be the reasons of contradictions and clashes in different dimensions and upon different actors between the rulers. The interior crisis of those rulers would increase proportionally to the tension between the USA and France-Germany relations.

There is also another important point. It is very unlikely to guess today how long the war will last and what it would bring with it. However, separately from the things that it can bring in general, the problems that it would create are foreseeable. A state of emergency in Northern Kurdistan, war taxes, inflation and the increase of unemployment, attack on rather limited freedom and rights of people through censorship, and a new wave of chauvinism. The oppressed people under the heavy economical and political pressures of the war would no longer wish to be governed as they used to be. Because of the weakening effect of the pro-Americanism as an utopia of liberation, the closure of the way of reformist solutions due to worsening economical and political oppression as a result of the war and the masses' developing ability on the struggle and organisation together with the actions and organisations against the imperialist war, the labouring masses, differently from the previous periods, would organise more frequent and more comprehensive street demonstrations, strikes and resistances. The people would no longer wish to be governed in the old way. They would not only demonstrate this through election pools and political surveys, they also will show this by preparing themselves to give sacrifices. A long-lasting war would lead to a revolutionary situation in our geography as in the region. This will be the main crisis which would be created by the war situation. This means the war would bring important changes in the conditions of the struggle and therefore the conditions of the struggle would get tight.

Some of these are absolute facts, but others are most likely possibilities. But, they are still possibilities only. Converting these possibilities into reality is the work of revolutionary practice and organisation.

THE NEW FORMS OF INTERNATIONAL MASS MOVEMENT

The workers and labourers from all nations, those oppressed; millions in the international mass movement are standing against the boundless aggression of the US imperialism. When we consider the international mass movement, which has developed fast by resting on the experiences and accumulations of the movement against the imperialist globalisation and who opposes the war and defends peace, together with the international mass movement against the imperialist globalisation, it will show that we are at the beginning of a new increasing wave of the world revolution.

The international mass movement which aims to stop the USA aggression and defend the peace is, doubtlessly, a "reformist" movement despite its anti- imperialist characteristics. It is a reflection of the capitalist-imperialist world order, which was shaped within the last wave of imperialist globalisation, in consciousness, organisation and struggle of the masses. Off course, this does not make it unimportant.

The movement is centralised in Europe, (the UK, Italy and Spain those which are the USA's close allies in Europe are the countries where there is a large mass movement against the war), but the movement covers the whole "West". The movement is provoked by the crisis of the imperialist-international relations and by the USA imperialism's boundless aggression that does not recognise any law.

The horizon of the movement is limited by preventing the imperialist aggression against Iraq, and by stopping the imperialist war in the case of its' start.

The similarities of the international mass movement on the timing, unity of aims and the modes and methods of struggle in numerous countries and cities are some of the considerable specialities which also show the relativity of the movement with the existing world conditions.

The gradual worldwide centralization of the anti-war organisations which develop independently from each others' and their actions taken all over the world at the same time are the elements of the "new" situation. This movement is different then the "anti-globalisation" movement. Because, it is an international movement that does not restrict itself with the international- imperialist institutions but directly aims at the national state institutions also.

The leadership of the international mass movement and its subject question need to be investigated carefully. Therefore, we must avoid showing conventional and diagrammatic approaches. The movement consists of individuals, many different social organisations and numerous subjects, and they all make influence on the movement. It seems like the movement is equalizing the singular subjects within itself. And this means that the revolutionary leadership, which considers itself as bound to take part within the movement and conduct hegemonic struggle, can march towards the movement's centre on the ideological-political meaning by getting involve with the international movement by using numerous methods and positions, and by directing towards the targets of the revolutionary programme.

By moving from this "new situation", it will be more beneficiary to consider the question of the communist international also in connection with the reality of the international mass movement. Above all because of the following reasons: these organisations which organised internationally are open to all sort of revolutionary undertakings. The organisations who are coming together are also taking part in each single country's organisations against the imperialist war. The decisions taking here are also accepted as binding and implemented at the same time. The oppressed people of the world are creating a new method of organisation and struggle on international level. This also means that the workers, toilers and oppressed are rescue them selves from the national narrow-minded point of view, start feeling that they are the part of the oppressed mankind of the world, and the blooming of the idea of the liberation could only be achieved through organisation unity of the world's oppressed people. After a few experiences of worldwide general strike and resistance, these actions would cause to great animations even in the countries which are in "deadly" situation in terms of the class struggle.

THE REVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY AND TACTIC HAVE TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENTS

1-a) The crisis of the system of imperialist-international relations, b) The imperialist war and its effects in our geography, c) The efforts of the Turkish fascist regime -that experiences a process of bankruptcy- in order to recreate itself on the new plane by involving in the war on USA side, d) The problems that could be created by the long term occupation in Southern Kurdistan;

2-a) Because of the severe consequences of the war, the wish for getting rid of the regime in Turkey may become strong among the masses those who have already been lost their hopes on the regime, b) Weakening of opportunities for the trade-union bureaucracy in controlling the workers and, in connection with this, creation of initiatives from the below in trade-unions, c) The growing impossibility for the reformist parties to keep masses -those under their influence- in the former boundaries and, as a result, the increase of the revolutionary pressure in the ranks of the reformist parties, d) The creation of tens of different types of organisations in everywhere against the imperialist war e)Increase of widespread, crowded and militant street actions, f) The necessity, that the Kurdish National Liberation struggle's reaches a new phase;

3-a) The creation of the anti-imperialist struggle unity of the peoples of the region becomes necessary by the beginning of the imperialist occupation in Iraq, b) The oppressed peoples' worldwide struggling unities become stronger and the creation of worldwide platforms is increasing, while imperialist camp experiencing divisions, c) If necessary, the workers and labourers of each single country are subordinating themselves under the will of these international organisations by going beyond the local trade-unions and organizations. These are the main and most important elements that have to be taken into consideration in strategy and tactics.

The communists of our geography should take "new duties" from these "new developments" and positioned themselves in accordance with the "new situation". On the contrary, the revolutionary tactic should consider the situation realistically as a whole.

The mass movement, which has targeted the USA aggression, has reached its high point in Ankara. But still, it has been counted with ten thousands and is far away from being adequately big. It must be accepted that the struggle against imperialist war has played role in the failure of the Turkish parliament in reaching necessary number of votes for the Second Bill (the bill was allowing the USA troops to use Turkish soils), but everything should not be explained by this.

The duty of developing the mass struggle against the USA aggression and imperialist war still maintains all of its importance. In this sense, organising the work of mass agitation is totally coherent with the route of transition to leader party. It is the most concrete field for the implementation of the directive: "to the masses".

The main means of organizing the mass struggle against the imperialist war are the platforms organized on different levels against the imperialist war. Development of the platforms against the imperialist war on the basis of the base-initiative and under the axis of units of production and location is the appropriate way of development of mass movement and mass initiative, and strengthening of the revolutionary influence upon the movement. The centralization of such platforms through co-ordination etc. is the necessity of the perspective of claiming the leadership of the movement.

We must try to involve revolutionary organisations in the platforms and, in the case of their involvement; we must go in the direction of uniting our efforts in order to direct movement towards revolutionary goals.

The movement's relations with the movements and centralised organizations in other parts of the world must be tightened, and the planned common methods of struggle must be putted into practice in our geography.

By many legal, semi-legal and illegal organisations and by using tens of armed, unarmed, peaceful and militant methods of the struggle in many places, the movement should turn into a mass movement that comprises everybody who oppose the imperialist war and the government of war; and should always be connected to the general-resistance.

Having close relationship with the Kurdish National Liberation Movement, making national democratic demands of the Kurdish nation as the subject of the actual struggle, building the barricade of peoples' brotherhood against the chauvinism and its' social-chauvinist defenders; are the indispensable elements of the revolutionary tactic.

The initiatives in order to form organisation of the common struggle among the progressive, anti-imperialist organisations and parties of our geography, participating in the international meetings of the international mass movement and taking part in their decision-taking mechanisms are the duties of our revolutionary tactic that absolutely to be implemented.

* This article is taken from the periodical "Teoride Dogrultu" (Direction in Theory), number 11, March/April 2003