Theses on Socialist Revolution

Mahmut Boyuneğmez

i. Socialist revolution is relevant in every country worldwide. Even in African nations governed by tribal chiefdoms, socialism remains a viable agenda. In today’s world, there is no mode of production called feudalism or semi-feudalism. The degree of development or underdevelopment of capitalist social relations in a country does not preclude the concrete possibility of transitioning to socialism. This is because the political line and organization capable of leading a socialist revolution can emerge, as a result of uneven development, even within relatively backward social relations. Furthermore, even if proletarianization processes are not sufficiently developed, it is possible for exploited producers/workers to turn toward socialist revolution with their own power without waiting for capitalist social relations to mature. Within the global imperialist-capitalist system, antagonisms can escalate into contradictions, causing the existing power structure to weaken and fracture, even before capitalist social relations are fully established or entrenched.

ii. Lenin defines a “revolutionary situation” as follows:

A revolutionary situation emerges at a historical moment when the ruling class can no longer govern as before, the ruled refuse to be governed as before, and an economic crisis accompanies these conditions.

This definition encompasses an economic crisis, a political crisis, and a “hegemony” crisis simultaneously. When the rulers can no longer govern as before, we speak of a “governance crisis” or a crisis of political power. In such a situation, the ideological engagement of the masses with various views under the umbrella of liberalism, as directed by system parties, significantly diminishes or disappears. These parties lose their ability to influence, excite, or be regarded as authoritative by the masses. When it is said that the ruled classes and intermediate strata no longer wish to be governed as before, it is understood that the conciliatory effect of the components of the dominant ideology has been lost among the masses. The capacity of the mobilized masses to approve of the political power or tolerate/accept the capitalist system dominated by the capitalist class weakens or is nullified. This situation is characterized by a “hegemony” crisis, marked by the fragmentation or dissolution of hegemony among the actively mobilized segments of society. In the historical juncture of a revolutionary situation, the economic crisis forms the foundation for the political crisis and the “hegemony” crisis. Among workers and intermediate strata, unbearable impoverishment, an inability to reproduce their daily lives, dependence on charitable practices, and the widespread emergence of signs of “declassing,” lumpenization, or societal decay are observed.

During an economic crisis, class struggle does not automatically intensify. The capitalist system possesses mechanisms, structures, and relations capable of absorbing the reactions of workers and intermediate strata during economic crises. In other words, not every economic crisis leads to a revolutionary situation. In periods of economic crisis, it is possible for workers/masses to support fascist parties, leading to the establishment of fascist dictatorships, or for far-right/fascist parties to come to power within the framework of capitalist democracy. For a revolutionary situation to emerge, a political/governance crisis must arise on the basis of an economic crisis, through the combined effect of objective and subjective factors. This alone is not sufficient; a third condition, the “hegemony” crisis, must also be added to these indispensable conditions.

A revolutionary situation has two possible outcomes. The dynamic equilibrium between forces preserving the capitalist system and those driving transformation is disrupted in a revolutionary situation. The resolution of a revolutionary situation -either through revolution or counter-revolution- means either a return to the old dynamic equilibrium or a transition to a historical juncture where processes advancing social revolution predominate, though processes reinforcing the status quo and protecting the system’s gains also persist.

For a revolutionary situation to progress toward a socialist revolution, the socialist/communist party must have made certain preparations in the processes leading up to the revolutionary situation. It must have organized vanguard workers to some extent, established a significant presence in workplaces and neighborhoods, and entered the revolutionary situation with an organizationally and theoretically advanced vanguard party that has created or contributed to the creation of societal strongholds (i.e., counter-hegemonic organizations, embryonic forms of alternative power). This is the sufficient condition for the emergence of a socialist revolution.

In the absence of this sufficient condition, history has shown that, with the passive approval of the capitalist class in France, Bonapartism (a form of “reactionary Caesarism,” according to Gramsci) emerged, while in Germany and Italy, fascist parties gained strength with the active support of the capitalist class and through the terrorization and demagogic persuasion of workers and intermediate strata, leading to the establishment of fascist dictatorships and the resolution of the “hegemony” crisis in favor of the capitalist class. In contrast, the processes leading to the October Socialist Revolution demonstrate that the RSDLP successfully fulfilled the role of a communist vanguard party, resolving the economic, political, and “hegemony” crises (i.e., the refusal to live or be governed as before) in favor of the proletariat.

The period in Turkey during the 1970s and 1980s exemplifies the emergence of a revolutionary situation, followed by a military coup and a brief military dictatorship. This led to the restructuring and fortification of the capitalist state, the convergence of political parties through their adoption and commitment to neoliberal strategies, and the reorganization of ideological and cultural structures and mechanisms to reproduce religious, nationalist, and liberal values, ultimately evolving into capitalist democracy. While the September 12 military coup intervened in a fascist/totalitarian manner across the entire social fabric, including revolutionary forces and tendencies, it does not signify a political regime called “fascism.”

According to Gramsci, a “hegemony” crisis can arise during wars, but it is inherent to a revolutionary situation. This perspective aligns with Lenin’s understanding of a revolutionary situation.

In our view, a “hegemony” crisis is the characteristic feature of a revolutionary situation, a historical juncture where, alongside a political/governance crisis, the hegemonic apparatuses, mechanisms, and practices that sustain the capitalist class’s social power fail to function adequately, thereby eroding the ruled classes’ capacity to consent, approve, or accept the capitalist system, political regime, or order. Since hegemony is not solely related to the production of consent, approval, or acceptance but is formed through mechanisms, practices, and interpersonal relations involving violence, repression, coercion, intimidation, punishment, consensus, distraction, meaning-making, pleasure, indifference, passivity, ignorance, being overwhelmed by problems or overwork, and joining communities for individual gain, a “hegemony” crisis indicates that these practices and mechanisms lose their effectiveness in a Leninist revolutionary situation.

iii. The struggle between the proletariat and the capitalist class assumes a contradictory character during periods of crisis. In other words, the contradictory nature of capitalist production relations emerges in historical junctures when the system fails to reproduce itself. In normal times, these production relations exist as an irreconcilable antagonism between the two classes.

iv. In nature and society, during dynamic equilibrium, there is a struggle between opposites. When this equilibrium is disrupted, a contradiction emerges and is resolved. A revolutionary situation describes processes in which the dynamic equilibrium between the mechanisms that reproduce and preserve the societal system and the forces that compel transformation is lost. This set of processes, where dynamic equilibrium is disrupted, is termed as “crisis.” In the crisis of a revolutionary situation, the antagonism between transformative and reproductive/preservative processes evolves into a contradiction. The resultant of these processes gives rise to revolutionary and counter-revolutionary tendencies. The contradiction describes the attempt of these tendencies to annihilate each other. The resolution of the contradiction through the dominance of transformative processes leads to a qualitative transformation in social relations. Thus, development in these historical junctures occurs through the resolution of contradictions. This development can be understood as the quantitative accumulation of actions and organizations, culminating in qualitative change once a critical threshold is surpassed. The revolutionary transition to new social relations, driven by transformed production relations, constitutes a leap. When a certain measure or threshold is surpassed, qualitative transformation occurs. This qualitative transformation is called a “leap,” whereby social relations undergo an essential change, resulting in a qualitative rupture and reconstruction.

v. Most events in nature and society occur as “conjunctures”. A result may have multiple causes and causal mechanisms. Revolutions or revolutionary situations have numerous causal mechanisms. Famine, misery, wars, the presence of spontaneous social movements, the successful or failed experiences of the masses, and the vanguard party’s ability to influence and direct social movements are among the first that come to mind. These causes can reinforce each other and create synergistic effects.

vi. Some causes of revolutions are contingent. Contingencies are causes that arise outside the chain of interactions of a process or event and contribute to its development. However, these contingent causes have their own “logic,” meaning a discernible causal chain of interactions. Necessity refers to the existence of one or more causal mechanisms, or laws, in a cause-and-effect relationship. Under suitable conditions, the same causes produce the same results with necessity. Thus, revolutions have identifiable causes, or laws. However, it is clear that contingency, probability, and chance also play a role in making each revolution unique. For instance, Lenin was among the few individuals in pre-revolutionary Russia capable of assuming a leadership role. Thus, Lenin’s leadership and critical role were probabilistic. Additionally, contingencies in his life also played a role in his rise to prominence.

vii. The role of individuals in historical development and revolutions cannot be explained solely by voluntarist or fatalist perspectives. Each side of this antinomy reflects a one-sided and inadequate grasp of reality. The personal power attributed to “great men” is exaggerated to the extent that the social forces that elevate and support them are ignored. This illusion creates the perception that social movements, needs, accumulated knowledge, and technical development levels, which underpin the power, influence, and authority of “great men,” would not have emerged or developed without them. It is a mistake to assume that the premature death or absence of a famous “great man” would hinder historical development. In specific stages of societal development, when problems and needs corresponding to that stage arise, numerous individuals focus on resolving them. When one or a few individuals succeed in addressing these issues or meeting these needs, and the tangible results of their success are experienced, attention shifts to other problems and needs. If some individuals fail to achieve success for various reasons, others emerge to take their place and contribute that success to humanity’s collective development. For an individual’s unique talent to influence the course of events, they must be exceptionally suited to meet a specific societal need of their historical period, and the social forces and relations must not obstruct their personal development. Talented individuals emerge wherever favorable social conditions exist for their development. As products of the development of social relations, these talented individuals cannot alter general societal tendencies but can gain the social power to change the specific characteristics of events. Plekhanov’s ideas also apply to “revolutionaries” who play critical roles in revolutionary historical junctures.

The belief that the struggles of the masses can succeed only under the direction of a single great leader is mistaken. The mythologization of the “great leader” obscures the organizational capacity of the masses and the fact that they produce many leaders from among themselves.

viii. Engaging with societal discourses, trends, and shared themes, connecting with people’s daily emotions, thought patterns, behaviors, and ideological motifs, analyzing these, rejecting some, and adopting or transforming others, constitutes the core of political and ideological struggle. This struggle is waged by creating spaces in workplaces, neighborhoods, and schools, or, when this is not possible, by developing networks/organizations. In these spaces or organizations, it is essential to foster a cultural atmosphere of solidarity, mutual aid, and empathy, creating a collectivity through practices of shared feeling, interpretation, production, and action. This is the working style that socialists need while engaging in political, cultural, and ideological production and organizing. With this approach, socialists take into account societal tendencies, practices, values, and ideological motifs, working among workers to give direction to their thoughts, tendencies, and values. The organizational functioning that accompanies and complements this approach is democratic centralism. Democratic centralism is a mode of operation where discussions are held in units and committees before decisions are made, decisions are fully adhered to even if previously opposed, cadres have equal rights to participate in political, ideological, and cultural production, and experiences from different localities are centralized and easily shared with other organizations of the vanguard party. Democratic centralism does not exclude centralism when swift and critical decisions are required.

ix. Capitalist society is a system of practices and relations among people. In the capitalist system, social relations have economic, political, ideological, cultural, and legal dimensions. These social relations encompass the interactions between the capitalist class, the proletariat, and intermediate strata. The capitalist class holds power on a societal scale over the working class and intermediate strata. The social power of the capitalist class is established through its relations with other classes and strata. Power exists through the relations among people with different habitus/class positions. Thus, the social power of capitalist class has economic, political, ideological, cultural, and legal dimensions.

The capitalist state, through its influence over economic, political, ideological, cultural, and legal practices and relations, and through interactions within these dimensions, serves as an organization that reinforces the capitalist class’s dominance over other societal groups. It is not merely a political organization but a component of capitalists’s social power, formed through its presence and interactions in other dimensions of social relations and practices.

Power is established through the creation of hegemony within the practices and relations of everyday life. It is not solely through repression, coercion, or fear of punishment but also through persuasion, consent, acceptance, indifference, passivity, ignorance, being overwhelmed by problems or overwork, distractions, and the allure of pleasurable activities that the masses are rendered unable to think, feel, or act in opposition to the capitalist system, its contradictions, and its negative aspects. In capitalist social formations, the social power of the capitalist class manifests as the obedience of the masses and the absence of opposition to the problems they face.

In the capitalist system, the social power of capitalists ensures the continuation and perpetuation of the exploitative relationship between the working class and the capitalist class. In other words, the formation of this power is necessary for the continued existence of the capitalist system. Therefore, the capitalist state, various hegemonic tools/structures (unions, associations, foundations, chambers, NGOs, establishment parties, sports clubs, capital’s cultural organizations, among others), and legal practices and structures operate together and in interaction as components of the system. For the continuation of the exploitative relations between the working class and the capitalist class, which are the production relations of capitalism, all components of the system must function together and in interaction.

This understanding views society as a system/totality and considers the interactions and relations among its components. Here, exploitative relations form the pivot/axis of the system. These relations are not solely economic but also encompass moral, ideological, legal, and state-related dimensions that accompany the processes and practices between capitalists and workers. For example, laws and the state always regulate exploitative relations and interact with them. Contracts between workers and capitalists always have a legal dimension. These relations are significant within the practices of the parties’ thoughts, emotions, and value judgments.

From this, the following conclusion emerges: The struggle for the power of the working class cannot be seen as merely seizing political power. To render the social power of the capitalist class irreproducible, there is a need for activities, practices, and organizations that create counter-hegemony in various dimensions of social relations. In a hegemony crisis that the social power of the capitalist class enters, alternative power nuclei formed in society must be ready to develop and flourish under the leadership of a vanguard party for the power of the working class. In this crisis juncture, as the social power of capitalists cracks and fragments, a new power, with its many component organizations, takes the place of the old. Thus, power shifts from the capitalist class to the working class.

In a socialist revolution, while the exploitative relations (the base/infrastructure) that form the axis of the capitalist system are liquidated, the entire superstructure and the ideological realm, which is the ideal dimension of societal activities, are also restructured. The functioning and organization of existing structures are shattered/destroyed and transformed. The structures, which are the organizational forms of social relations, are reorganized, and their functions undergo transformations. It is clear that this includes the state organization.

x. Structure and agent are not separate 'elements,' and their relationship is not external. Structures are the forms of the organization and functioning of the relations/interactions of agents/subjects. The organization and functioning of structures change through the activities of agents, particularly noticeably in specific historical junctures. Periods when reforms are implemented, or revolutionary initiatives are undertaken are such times. Structures, as the organizations of agents, condition their activities, but the activities of agents are not always reproductive of these organizations and can also be transformative. In the processes of social revolution initiated by political revolution, some organizational forms of social relations are liquidated, while the functions, operations, and organization (structuring) of others are altered.

xi. The power/domination relations between the capitalist class, the proletariat, and other societal segments exist in ordinary periods as the masses’ dependence on the system and their immobilization under hegemony. In daily life, these power relations exhibit a dynamic equilibrium. For example, with a strike in a workplace, the class antagonism transforms into active struggle, or a contradiction, temporarily disrupting the equilibrium in the power relations between capitalists and workers. In a revolutionary situation on a national scale, the hegemony over the working masses dissolves and becomes irreproducible. This is called a hegemony crisis. At this point, the death knell of the capitalist class’s social power has sounded. The masses participating in the revolution have alternative power organizations and a party, along with counter-hegemonic tools (e.g., unions, associations, foundations, media, cultural organizations, and others). The revolution does not occur as the working class’s party seizing political power externally. In a historical juncture characterized by a crisis where the social power of the capitalist class cannot be reproduced, political power passes from the capitalist class to the proletariat with the support of societal counter-hegemonic tools. The existing social and political power fragments and dissolves, and the masses, with newly developed alternative power organizations and the vanguard party, establish their own power. The new power is seen to sprout from within the cracking structure of the old power.

xii. A hegemony crisis does not arise solely from subjective or objective factors. Revolutions are made by the masses. The vanguard party gives direction to the mobilization of the masses. In a revolutionary situation, the social movement guided by the vanguard party does not produce a hegemony crisis on its own, nor does this crisis develop solely as a product of objective processes beyond the control of the vanguard organization. The political, cultural, and ideological productions and actions of the vanguard are components of objective/societal processes, influenced by them, while also influencing and transforming these processes.

xiii. Socialists should avoid distinguishing between minimum and maximum strategies, goals, or programs for struggle. There should be a single socialist revolution strategy, a single socialist power objective, and a single struggle for socialism. Just as the notion of a staged revolution, even if a continuity is established between democratic and socialist revolutions, is a political strategy that must be abandoned, dividing class struggle into two compartments -“struggle for democratic tasks” and “struggle for socialism”- even if interconnected, is an unhealthy approach. In the Turkish socialist movement, remnants of the staged revolution strategy persist as staged struggle approaches.

Instead, socialist policies should be developed on current issues and combined with the grievances of the masses, striving to give coherence to the healthy opposition and thoughts/emotions of workers against establishment politics. This cannot be seen as a struggle for democracy. Of course, class struggle must also be waged for the immediate interests of workers or on current issues. However, the demands of these struggles must be formulated and defended in a revolutionary manner, linked to the goal of socialism. Struggle demands not connected to socialist power/revolution are reformist, whether they appear “sharp” or moderate/parliamentary. Democratic gains in the short term from struggles conducted with political demands aimed at socialist power are desirable and expected developments.

This approach is distinct from the notion of deferring all solutions to socialism. Capitalist democracy is always deficient, incomplete, reactionary, and carries “anti-democratic” aspects. Defining the task of completing, developing, or democratizing it as a standalone goal leads to the neglect of the socialist power objective. If the socialist power perspective is forgotten or lost in current struggles, which is often the case when engaging in a “democracy struggle,” socialism is relegated to a distant, unattainable goal.

xiv The socialist ideology developed by the organic intellectuals and politicians of the working class represents an uneven development compared to the levels of consciousness the working class can spontaneously generate. However, the October Revolution demonstrated that when this unevenly developed ideology interacts with the working masses and is adopted to a certain extent and degree, leaps forward are achieved.

Lenin’s critique of spontaneity can be summarized as follows:

a) “Trade-unionism,” a type of consciousness spontaneously developed by workers, must be overcome.

b) The goal and perspective of socialism must subordinate the working-class movement to itself. The party intervenes in spontaneous struggles.

c) The demands and interests arising in the spontaneous struggles of the masses are encompassed and systematized by socialist ideology, given a direction aligned with the goal of socialism.

In Leninism, the masses and the party, spontaneity and socialist ideology, are not opposed. The party exists through its work among the masses; the party is within the masses. As a collective structure, the Leninist party is vanguard/leader in every unit and organization among the masses. The socialist party and ideology encompass and integrate the demands of spontaneously developing struggles, making them holistic, and learn new struggle tools and forms from the masses. A socialist party does not fight against spontaneity but works to give direction to spontaneous struggles, ensuring they result in gains from various perspectives. According to Lenin, spontaneity is often an indication that the ideologues/politicians of the working class lag behind or fail to keep up with the mobilization and struggles of the masses.

xv. “Class in itself” and “class for itself”: If the former is seen as the starting point and the latter as the endpoint, there is, metaphorically speaking, a kind of “ascending scale” in the consciousness of the working class, or, to use a better analogy from painting, a “spectrum” of consciousness. Class consciousness is “gradient” or exhibits a “spectrum” between class in itself and class for itself. At the beginning of this spectrum is a class majority with weak organization, primitive struggle, and backward consciousness, followed by various shades, from the Luddite movement to trade union struggles, to organized struggle within the ranks of the class party, to pre-revolutionary councils/Soviets, to participation in state administration with socialist consciousness as a societal segment after the revolution, and up to the organizations of communist society. Of course, in concrete struggle examples within a country or in a country under similar conditions, leaps in consciousness can occur due to uneven development.

The working class is presently the sole revolutionary and progressive class. The capitalist class, in all its components, is reactionary. Progressiveness/reactionism, revolutionism/counter-revolutionism are historical and specific to classes. The intermediate strata between these two classes -peasants and the petty bourgeoisie- do not form a class. Their various subcomponents can be mobilized in support of the revolutionary movement of the working class or align with the capitalist class against it. The revolutionary character of the working class is a capacity. Overturning the production relations in which it is embedded in capitalist society is in its interest. This objective position makes it revolutionary. However, the type of capitalist state, the level of organization, the state of hegemony structures that bind it to the system, and factors that obscure or distort consciousness can hinder the formation of the working class’s revolutionary capacity.

When individual workers are considered, it is said that they can be right-wing or left-wing in their political views. It is clear that workers hold a variety of right-wing or left-wing views with nuances among them. Workers can be right-wing or left-wing. This does not contradict the revolutionary capacity of workers as a class. The party that works among workers, bringing socialist ideology to them and organizing them, strives to win workers to the socialist left movement.

The relationship between the working class and the capitalist class should be described as an irreconcilable antagonism. It cannot be said that there is always and in every situation a contradiction between these two fundamental classes. In specific moments such as a revolutionary situation, strike, mass strike, or boycott, the antagonistic relationship between these two classes transforms into a contradiction. For a contradiction to exist, a “crisis” process must have emerged that disrupts the dynamic equilibrium in the antagonistic relationship between opposing processes, tendencies, or classes. Contradictions are either resolved and eliminated in this crisis process or resolved by returning to the previous dynamic equilibrium of antagonism.

xvi. A socialist revolution does not require the mobilization of a country’s majority population. A mobilization on a scale sufficient to create a crisis dynamic in various segments of the working class may be enough to form a socialist revolutionary situation.