1) The character of the revolution

Let's get to the matter by referring to Kaypakkaya. As we have noted above, in the previous section, Kaypakkaya had written that the collabourationist capitalism, which is developed by imperialism, can never dissolve feudalism through the "peasant style". And as long as feudalism is not entirely rooted out, the peasant masses would remain as an important revolutionary force and the content of the revolution would continue to be democratic revolution.

Kaypakkaya knew that as long as the feudal production relations are not "fundamentally" rooted out through the means of revolution or a strong uprising by peasants, democratic revolution would continue to be the basic method of dissolving the contradiction between feudalism and the masses. This is an extremely important conclusion and is in accordance with that of Lenin's. (...) Lenin had never considered the remnants of serfdom as "a problem that does not belong to the essence" or "an economy that is of secondary importance" or as "an unimportant detail." Those have had the chance to study Lenin's works of that period would recall very well that in his letter to Skvorzov-Stepanova, dated 29 December 1909, he explained to Skvortzov and Stepanov, who were underestimating the importance of the agrarian issue and subsequently arguing to skip the democratic revolution, Lenin had explained that this was an issue of top importance, fundamental, and national importance. The relevant passages are noted in previous sections.

For Lenin, neither the fact that Russia had entered the Prussian way or that Russia was highly matured for this way or that Russia's conditions had matured for the bourgeois economy or the level that the capitalism in Russia had reached, none of these had marginalized the "peasant agrarian revolution" as long as the remnants of corvée system were not entirely cleaned off. This issue was not crossed off by Lenin because the feudal remnants were the oppression upon and the "restraining barriers" before the progress and improvement of peasantry's life quality, in particular, and of the entire social order and development, in general. The sole method of liberation from these obstacles was a democratic revolution. In fact even by 1913, in his response to N. Rojkov, who argued that "the agrarian question in its old form in Russia has disappeared from the agenda," Lenin states that this approach is liquidationist and is entirely wrong and adds that the agrarian question constitutes the essence and foundation of the democratic revolution in Russia. He emphasizes that the essence of the agrarian question "is the struggle of the peasantry to abolish landlordism and the survivals of serfdom in the agricultural system of Russia, and, consequently, also in all her social, and political institutions." [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1907/agrprogr/concl.htm]

The following is the question: How and by which method can the removal of private ownership of land and estates and thus the liberation of the rural toiling masses from the enslaving oppression of feudal and semi-feudal relations be achieved? Moreover, how and by which method can the principle contradiction between the masses and feudalism be resolved? Answer to this question shall also provide answer for the perspective and path of our revolution. It shall also reveal the historical and revolutionary role of peasantry in our revolution. As for the question of which method to employ, the answer of course shall be the democratic revolution. The factor that puts forth this method as the right option is the semi-feudal, semi-colonial character of the country. The main axis of contradictions that are formed as a result of this character also determines the democratic people's revolution as the basic path and method of our revolution. Only a revolution of peasantry can entirely remove the feudal remnants. This is the mandatory path in order to realize a genuine development in productive forces and to leave behind all pre-capitalist relations and traditions of slavery. In society where the chance of a genuine capitalist development is taken away by imperialism, only a democratic people's revolution can entirely root out the economy of drudgery along with all its remnants, bondage of debt, working repayment system, bondage to the land, personal bondage, and the economic external compulsion.

In a country where the predominant entity in the rural areas is not the bourgeoisie, the capitalist economy, but the usury and large land ownership; where backward and scattered production means and outdated mode of productions are not insignificant details but on the contrary predominate the overall the social and economic life, a revolution can assume only the character of a democratic people's revolution in order to end the predominance of all medieval obstacles over the land. In a country where feudalism is dissolved only insomuch as it suits imperialism's interests but it is never entirely liquidated; where an economic form within which the lines of capitalism and those of feudalism are intertwined is predominant, as Kaypakkaya had put it, "the peasant masses remain as a revolutionary force and the content of the revolution continues to be the democratic revolution."

Due to the imbalance in the economic development, in some areas in the country feudalism has dissolved to a greater extent than in some other areas. We could see that more concretely in the contrast between Kurdistan/Turkey and the west of Turkey. Naturally, the democratic people's revolution cannot carry the same level of relevance in all regions. It is less relevant for more developed regions, such as the Trachea and the Aegean regions, while it is a lot more relevant for Kurdistan/Turkey. However, even in the regions where the feudal relations have gone through increased levels of dissolution and the necessity for an agrarian revolution is not as intense, the role and importance of the rural toiling masses is preserved. After all, the movement of democratic revolution would preserve its importance in terms of providing the poor and consciousness-deprived masses of the rural areas a democratic development environment, in terms of cleaning off the remnants of serfdom in the entire countryside, and in terms of liberating the country from economic, political, and all other forms of imperialist dependency. As Kaypakkaya had accurately put it, "In a semi-colonial, semi-feudal country, the weakness of feudalism would only reduce the tasks of the agrarian revolution or shrinks its boundaries, that's all."

This is a country that has not yet resolved its national question that is rested on peasantry as a social base; that has not yet reached the economic level that would liberate this peasantry from the isolation of land bound life; that has not yet shaken off the overwhelming pressure of feudal judicial extruder that feeds the overlord economy; that has not yet entirely broken off the clamp of the feudal exploitation forms that are restraining barriers before the development of all social life; and that, before being able to catch the train of bourgeois revolutions, has been tied down with the chain of capitalist exploitation and been bound to imperialism as a backyard. In such a country, the character of the revolution is democratic people's revolution and the basis and content of this revolution rests upon agrarian revolution.

In spite of this reality, the Third Congress of the MKP insists on exaggerating the development level of capitalism and considers the feudal remnants as "insignificant" and as a question that is "not of the essence." This matter, which the Congress was incapable of absorbing adequately, leads the MKP to the liquidationist line. This is a liquidationist-revisionist line that looks at the question of development from left, bypassing the historical perspective of revolution and replacing the democratic revolution with a socialist revolution. The approach turns its back on the peasantry and pushes the national bourgeoisie, a strategic component of revolutionary united front, to the ranks of the counter-revolution. Thus the MKP turns its back on the current tasks of the revolution, rolling on to the liquidationist path via the thesis of Trotskyism.

The first step of our revolution, as per its essence, expresses the requirements of the peasantry; the question of peasantry appears as the basic ring of the chain in our revolution. The economic foundation of this ring requires this route. This means that, in the first step of the revolution, in order to realize the economic essence of the struggle for land, lands and estates of landlords as well as those that belong to the state treasury shall be confiscated and be distributed to the peasants. So in the first step of our revolution, land shall be primarily distributed to the landless and less-landed peasants - a redistribution of land favouring those who had been at the bottom of the pyramid thus far - opening the way for fundamental changes in the production relations. This is the task of the moment cannot be postponed. Moment that this task is achieved through a successful revolution, the obstacles to the revolutionizing of agriculture, to the development of the productive forces in agriculture would be removed. Subsequently, the causes for the miserable living conditions of the peasantry would be eliminated completely. Albeit the first step, in terms of economic substance, is carried out in a bourgeois framework, since it opens up the path for the second step, and in terms of giving the political power to the revolutionary classes under the leadership of the proletariat, and, finally, in terms of the creation of socialism's prerequisites, it is a step that is locked to the axis of future objectives of the proletariat.

For a society beset with such condition, the path of transformation into a democratic, liberated, and independent society must go through the resolving anti-imperialist, anti-feudal contradictions that stem from being a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society, by a democratic people's revolution, leading to the establishment of the new democratic people's power, subsequently of socialism, and finally reaching the golden age. Imperialism, feudalism, and comprador capitalism are the targets of the democratic people's revolution. As Mao said: "New Democratic Revolution is the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution of the masses of the people, led by the proletariat." (Selected Works II, p. 327)

The MKP's theory bypasses the peasantry in the revolutionary process and jumps to Trotskyism slurred "left". Instead of formulating the "moment", it theorizes the "future" and thus loses the perspective of the revolution. It turns its back on the concrete and current tasks of the revolution and attempts "to play a number on history", aiming to jump off to the next "phase".

By negating the democratic revolution, not only did the MKP "throw this necessary stage of the historical process into the fire" but also, and more importantly, rather than cling to the strategic slogan corresponding to the period of socialist revolution, it carves the slogan of an earlier stage of revolution into the form of "redeemer" for its own slurry of a theory, putting it into the "service".

What was said in the Congress Documents?

"The socialist revolution is realized through the means of socialist people's war against the ruling comprador monopoly bourgeois, which is depended on imperialism, waged by the proletariat as the vanguard and fundamental force, with the petty-bourgeois sectors of urban and rural areas as allies." (p. 94)

Past experiences of the revolution and the Russian revolution in particular, the most appropriate in this particular case, has proven that the main slogan for the conditions where the democratic revolution is applicable, is the achievement of democratic revolution against the current ruling power by the proletariat with "all the peasantry", the poor and middle peasantry. In the first phase of the revolution in the Russian revolutionary experience, in other words in the period from 1905 to the democratic revolution in February 1917, the following was the basic slogan: "The proletariat must carry to completion the democratic revolution, by allying to itself the mass of the peasantry in order to crush by force the resistance of the autocracy and to paralyse the instability of the bourgeoisie." (Lenin, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, p.119) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch12.htm]

As for the second stage, i.e. the socialist revolution stage, a period from March 1917 to October 1917, the following is the basic or the strategic slogan: "The proletariat must accomplish the socialist revolution, by allying to itself the mass of the semi-proletarian elements of the population in order to crush by force the resistance of the bourgeoisie and to paralyse the instability of the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie." (ibid, p. 119.120) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch12.htm]

It is clear that Lenin's approach and the conclusions of the MKP differ fundamentally from each other. What is extremely important here is the MKP's stance regarding the rural petty bourgeoisie, in other words, stance on the middle peasantry. On the one hand bring the socialist revolution on the agenda, but on the other hand, don't abandon the slogan of the democratic revolution on the peasantry or on the middle peasantry, to be more precise! If the revolution is at the stage of democratic revolution, then the slogan is clear: With all the peasantry. If this stage has been already replaced by the socialist revolution phase, then the slogan on the peasantry is: "Only" with the poor peasantry. The so-called poor peasantry is categorized as semi-proletarians, as Lenin and Stalin had explained. Even though the MKP seems to be fixed on the socialist revolution, it somehow does not seem to be able to depart from the revolution's earlier stage's basic slogan on the peasantry. And as long as it does that, it gets stuck under the sign of class positioning that corresponds to the socialist revolution without ever being able to pass beyond the horizon of the democratic revolution.

Without possessing a clear idea as to this basic slogan on the peasantry, it would not be possible to have a clear direction as to the revolution. This is precisely the case with the MKP. For an organization whose basic slogan does not rest on "a Marxist analysis of classes"; who does not rest its "arrangement of revolutionary forces at the front of class struggle" on the correct scheme, driving up the stud in the mud would be a natural consequence.

As the passage above from Lenin clearly explains, at the phase of the socialist revolution, "[t]he proletariat must accomplish the socialist revolution, by allying to itself the mass of the semi-proletarian elements of the population in order to crush by force the resistance of the bourgeoisie and to paralyse the instability of the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie." If the middle peasantry is a component of the socialist revolution, or as the MKP states, if "[t]he proletarian party, under the leadership of the proletariat, as the fundamental and vanguard force, relying on the poor and middle peasants" (p. 273) will seize the political power, then this revolution cannot be called a socialist revolution. As long as the revolution is carried out along with middle peasantry, in terms of economic and social perspectives, this revolution would be a bourgeois revolution and not a socialist revolution. In Lenin's words, "... as long as we march with all of the peasantry, our revolution is a bourgeois revolution." In a socialist revolution, all of the peasantry is not a force that the revolution would rely on. On the contrary, in this revolution, their instability would be neutralized.

In this regard, the MKP handicaps itself with the decision to consider urban and rural petty-bourgeois sections, middle peasantry as allies in their "socialist revolution" perspective. This is basically a distortion of basic slogans of both the democratic revolution and the socialist revolution.

Understanding of the Congress of the chief contradiction is a problem in itself; both in terms of its eclectic nature and contradictory statements. According to the Congress Documents, the monopolist comprador bourgeoisie is the class that put its stamp on all aspects of life in "Turkey Northern Kurdistan particularity". Thus, "the principal contradiction has concretely transformed into the contradiction between imperialism and the comprador monopoly capitalism and the broad masses." (p. 96)

At another point, we come across another statement in the Congress Documents, which contradicts the principal contradiction conclusion above. Here it is: "In this complex process where multiple major contradictions exist, the contradiction that determines the development of all other contradictions and exerts influence on them, the principal contraction, is one between the international imperialism dependent comprador monopoly capitalism and the large masses of people of various nationalities and ethnic minorities. The contradiction between the comprador monopoly bourgeoisie and the broad masses of people constitutes the essence of this contradiction."

In the next paragraph, however, the one that negates the previous one is negated, and returns back to the first description of principal contradiction. It goes: "Principal contradiction is between imperialism, comprador monopoly bourgeoisie and the broad masses of people." (p. 257)

Which one precisely is the principal contradiction? Between imperialism, the comprador monopoly bourgeoisie and the people or between the comprador monopoly bourgeoisie and the people? In other words, is imperialism included to the contradiction or not?

The MKP muddies the question of principle contradiction with its conflicting descriptions. This shows the current confusion among the MKP. And understanding of the principle contradiction that includes imperialism would be fatal for the MKP with their current perspective of revolution. Here, by the way, the MKP courts expressions authentic to Mao. It was Mao who had stated that in a complex situation, if there is more than one contradiction, one of them would be the principle and determining contradiction and the rest would play a secondary role. In this regard, the comprador monopoly bourgeoisie and imperialism would correspond to two distinct contradictions. So, the MKP does not act even according to the statement that it courts; by including in the principle contradiction both imperialism and the comprador monopoly bourgeoisie, it actually negates Mao's statement.

In a country where the semi-feudal relations are partly (or even deeply) dissolved but not entirely liquidated, "the content of the revolution would remain to be democratic revolution," as Kaypakkaya had concluded. The principle contradiction that is resolved by a democratic revolution is the one between feudalism and the broad masses of people. Mao had said it clearly: Different contradictions would be resolved with different methods.

Just as the bourgeoisie-proletariat contradiction is resolved by the method of socialist revolution, the contradiction between feudalism and the broad masses of people is resolved by the method of democratic revolution. This general and basic formula by Mao remains valid today as it was yesterday. It is a common knowledge that, as in the development process of everything, in the social development process of our society as well, there are various contradictions. Of these contractions, the one or the ones that determine the existing revolutionary process are the basic [fundamental] contradictions. The one that puts its stamp on a given particular phase that the revolutionary process has reached is the principal contraction. The principal contraction is the one that influences all other ones, deeply impacts their existence and development in the process of social evolution of the society. In our country, where the dissolving of feudalism is deepening but is not yet liquidated entirely; where the [Kurdish] national question still remains unresolved, where imperialism still sustains pre-capitalism exploitation forms; where feudalism is still a partner in the ruling political power; where, especially in villages, the overwhelming pressure of pre-capitalism forms on the social life continues to exist; and where the lines of feudalism and capitalism are intertwined, the contradiction between feudalism and the broad masses of people is of course the principal contradiction.

Socialist revolution is the key to resolving principle contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The MKP, however, includes within the framework of the principal contraction both imperialism and capitalism. Furthermore, from the point of view of a socialist revolution, instead of positioning the proletariat as the opposite of the bourgeoisie, it places the broad masses of people. From the perspective of a socialist revolution, the opposite of the bourgeoisie (essentially and fundamentally) is the proletariat, not the masses of people. In this specific principal contraction "inner unity" can only be achieved that way. Capitalism breaks down the society into the bourgeoisie-proletariat anti-thesis, not into bourgeoisie-people. In a capitalist society, bourgeoisie is saddled with its own anti-thesis, with the class that symbolizes its destruction, i.e. with the proletariat. In a country where the comprador monopoly bourgeoisie is in power, if you remove the proletariat as the polar opposite of the bourgeoisie from the equation and replace it with the masses of people, then even if you call this formulation a socialist revolution, your conclusion of principal contradiction would still have to come to face to face with a democratic revolution. The Congress defines the working class as the main force, demoting the peasantry from being the main force. Then how come the broad masses of people are put at the polar opposite of capitalism? If the proletariat is the main force in this country, should this not correspond to as to which one is the principle contradiction?

A similarly conflicting conclusion is on the matter of national bourgeoisie. Here is the analysis of the national bourgeoisie by the Congress Documents: "[A]s a consequence of the prevalence of capitalist production relations, resulting from the imperialist colonialism, the national bourgeoisie has dissolved and gone through an evolution of character change, part of it becoming the comprador monopoly capitalism and the other part becoming the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie." (p.96)

Elsewhere it states: "Thus, the national bourgeoisie has lost its independence within this economic process. Part of it went bankrupt and disappeared, part of it became comprador, and yet another part, with a middle bourgeois character, became the auxiliaries of big capital groups as subcontractors or in other forms." (p. 90)

While at one place claiming that the national bourgeoisie has changed character, becoming partly comprador monopoly capitalism and partly urban-rural petty-bourgeoisie, at another place it is claimed that the national bourgeoisie has become an auxiliary component of capital groups - meaning that that part has entirely joined the counter-revolutionary ranks. Through this eclectic approach, they are defining the class positioning as follows: Included in the ranks of people's class and strata are the proletariat, the semi-proletariat, and the urban and rural petty-bourgeoisie. As for the enemies of the people, "owners of multi-national monopolies, comprador monopoly rural urban big bourgeoisie, and, auxiliary to these classes, a small number of middle bourgeoisie and a small number of landlords, who have become of secondary importance." (s. 90)



For open discussion of topics (including other topics of interest not necessarily related to any one article or the view of a specific author), a separate moderated discussion forum is being made available here that will allow threaded discussion and submission of views of our readers.


All articles published on the red-path.net website are the sole views and opinions of the authors and thus each author is responsible for their own views. However, if you wish to discuss the points raised in any published article you may leave your views, comments or criticisms for public view and study, at the bottom of each article page. Please see our notes on "comments rules".

We reserve the right to moderate these comments and remove any that may be deemed to be abusive and harmful to a healthy and constructive discussion, irrespective of the views presented in such comments.