Dissolution of the Soviet Union and collapse of the Republic of Turkey

Kemal Okuyan, first secretary of the CC of Communist Party - Turkey (KP) and soL news portal columnist, wrote an article for the anniversary of the October Revolution. The article draws attention to the similarities between the dissolution of the Soviet Union and liquidation of the Republic of Turkey.

Two tragedies: The USSR and the Republic of Turkey

"We do not want instability in our country. Though our enemies try to drag us to the streets, we have the control of all fundamental institutions. Don't be fooled by what you see. The situation is not that bad."

Just a few months before the dissolution of the USSR, honest and devoted Soviet communists holding certain positions in the state were talking like this. Soviet communists, under the illusion that they still had the political power, were acting in confidence and trying to avoid any "family feud." They assumed that the security forces would eventually maintain the order, and the main struggle would be that of keeping the enemies (or the "democrats" as they used to call them those days) away from governmental institutions and the committies of the Communist Party. They were trying to stay away from physical violence, or a possible bloodshed, because they feared sanctions and criticisms of the West.

It is for sure that if the communists of Russia had summoned the people to the streets "to defend the gains of socialism" just even on the day when Yeltsin declared the victory of the counter-revolution on top of a tank, that crowd of a few thousand people trying to destroy the Soviet Union would have vanished into thin air, and a difficult and yet winnable fight would have commenced.

What I am trying to underline is that the psychology of "being the host" is utterly useless after a certain point. Interestingly, (apart from all the differences in terms of their class character and ideological background of the story) it is exactly the same case with the "Kemalist republic" in Turkey.

Some would remind us that the people took to the streets during mass pro-Republic rallies in 2007. And yet, those millions of people were acting in a psychology of "being the host," "being the owner of the country," leaning upon a statist identity, within very well-defined limits. The AKP rule was not fully established yet back then, however they were not afraid of those rallies, knowing for sure the limits of them. What they feared was the whole progressive legacy of the republic. What the AKP rule benefited most while eradicating that legacy step by step was the psychology of "being the host" of the masses opposing the policies of this party.

A considerable part of those people at the pro-Republic rallies took to the streets during the June Resistance in 2013. That resistance was more effective since the statist identity was transgressed, and a pursuit that surpassed the quest for stability and order was clearly there. And yet, in the June resistance, what was prominent was the rage against Erdoğan, as a figure overturning the stable condition, rather than a system change. That was the weak spot of the glorious June resistance.

There were at least a few millions of people in the Soviet Union that could have been mobilized if an organised summon had been made against the enemies of socialism in 1991. These people, instead, retreated to their homes, virtually delegating the duty of defence to the armed forces, the ministry of interior and the intelligence service.

And yet the fundamental principle was forgotten: A "revolutionary" institution can preserve its revolutionary quality only when it sustains its ties with the social dynamics of the revolution. The Red Army, when it was first established, was the army of the revolution, the armed forces of the people. Cheka, the intelligence service prior to the KGB, had an utterly populist quality with its fully formed sense of justice, its cadres devoted to the revolution and its legendary leader Dzerzhinsky.

The Second World War regenerated the popular character of the institutions practicing the monopoly of violence of the state. The Red Army was a whole with the partisans hitting the fascists in the regions occupied by the Germans and its allies and the people nourishing, equipping and providing ammunition to the partisans and the military. No country other than the Soviet Union, not even the UK despite the masterly mobilization of the people by Churchill, was able to attain such an integration.

After the war, the Soviet people got occupied with their daily routines, while political and ideological struggle and the preservation of the state was delegated to certain institutions. The people were responsible from production and the increase of productivity. Protection was the duty of some experts of the field.

This division of labor resulted in alienation and the experts started to break away from the system they were liable to protect. Those that remained firm were following the example of the top cadres. And yet decomposition and affiliation with the counter-revolution through bribery or blackmailing was more common at the top of the hierarchy.

Those that were not affected by this decomposition were extremely naive and they were suffering from over-specialisation. They tended to focus on the orders, the preservation of the state, stability and the precise operation of the mechanisms they were in charge of rather than struggling together with the working people.

One such example was Kryuchkov, the last head of the KGB in the Soviet Union. He gave a historical answer to the question, "How could you not see the approaching danger as the head of the KGB?", asked at a meeting years after the counter-revolution. He said "We were aware of everything and reported it in detail. What we did not take into account was that the general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union could have been a traitor."

Although the aim of Gorbachev and the others was all clear a couple of years, the bureaucrats loyal to communism were trying to solve problems within the state mechanisms.

They had a major blow. When they realized that the so much trusted OMON units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Alfa group of the KGB were seized by the counter-revolutionaries, it was all too late.

All these are closely related to what has been happening in Turkey.

The class character and historical goals of the founders of the Turkish Republic were quite different. In 1917, a socialist revolution occurred in Russia; a bourgeois revolutionary movement appeared in Anatolia a couple of years later. These two revolutions became allies, assisting each other. The support of the people was limited during the foundation of the Republic of Turkey. And yet, revolutionary changes, particularly laicism, got the support of certain social segments. Certain social forces of the evolving Turkey defended the republic.

As the capitalism in Turkey advanced, the republic had to suppress the social class that could have defended the republic. The working class of Turkey and leftist organisations were attacked in accordance with the interests of the dominant capitalist class. The responsibility of protecting the republic was left to the state. For decades, the military-civil bureaucracy somehow took over this duty relying on the passive support of the urban and secular population that have faith in the "modern and westernized capitalist system." This cooperation proved useful during the military coup in 1960. But what about after that?

I will not tell the rest of the story. I will not mention the crisis of capitalism, how political Islam was supported to fight communism, the use of reactionism both as a social force and an ideology against working class by the monopolies that actually own the state.

I will only remind you the situation of the state institutions and the so-called Kemalist bureaucracy during the dissolution of, what we call, the First Republic. I will draw attention to the similarities between the dissolution of the Soviet Union and collapse of the Republic of Turkey.

No historical gain can be defended by means of order and stability fetishism.Nowadays they keep talking about conspiracies but what about the pitiable state of the Turkish Armed Forces vis-a-vis the Gulenists supported by the AKP during the Ergenekon operations? The institution that was told to be the victim of a conspiracy was the armed forces of the state. The highest hierarchy of that force did not even show a slightest hint of "resistance" while they were being arrested one by one with the order of a prosecutor.

That was the case because the armed forces used to concentrate on defending the system against any popular uprising, and on nurturing enmity towards the Soviet Union in the international arena. There was nothing to do while the reactionary organisations that the army had worked hand in hand for years were undermining the secular Republic in Turkey.

The Soviet Union was established in 1917 and collapsed in 1991. The Republic of Turkey the foundations of which were laid between 1920 and 1923 came to an end 15-20 years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

The idea of revolution will certainly take a full shape in its sole possible ideological and class identity. An egalitarian system will be formed. However, we have learnt our lesson; this system will never fool itself in quest of order and it will never lower its guard and surrender to stability fetishism.

We will get peace to the extent of our alertness until imperialism and exploitative classes are completely destroyed.