The question of transition is directly linked with the fact that capitalism in its imperialist stage is the age of proletarian revolutions. This question expressed by Lenin was brought up in order to win the mass of the working class to the cause of the proletarian revolution and advance the struggle to this end. That Lenin brought up the question of transition was a clear response to the conception of revolution in stages which was once a controversial issue among Marxist ranks.

The period in the run-up to the election reveals that a serious potential on the part of the masses is there in the struggle against the one-man regime. At least half of society does not want this new regime and its leader. Coupled with the recent practices of the government and the conditions that point to an economic crisis, these factors may cause serious vacillations among the working masses that voted AKP.

The principles marking the Bolshevik political organisation (an organised and disciplined functioning on every level, based on democratic centralism) are cornerstones of the Leninist conception of party. The goal of such a party is essentially to arm vanguard workers with communist consciousness, and try to drive the working class into struggle. Building revolutionary kernels within the working class that able to adapt to any circumstances, organising workers’ circles with various functions under the leadership of vanguard workers, making the revolutionary workers movement organised even at the level of sympathizers… all constitute the essence of the Bolshevik way.

In the book Bonapartizmden Faşizme [From Bonapartism to Fascism] and many articles in Marksist Tutum both Bonapartist regimes and fascist regimes and developments in that direction in Turkey have been examined at length. Here, building upon what we have said before, we will briefly touch upon some important issues to bring light upon the actual situation in Turkey.

The referendum on 16 April about changing the system of government in Turkey toward a totalitarian one-man regime was officially declared to be won by Erdogan, with the result being 51% yes and 49% no. This result came after extremely unfair conditions of political campaigning. There was a horror of intimidation, blackmail, smear, blackening, manipulation, lies, a reign of terror, mainly by the state forces, applied under a regime of state of emergency which allows the government (practically Erdogan) to rule by decrees. The opposition camp was not allowed to carry on a proper campaign, with almost no space given to them in TV channels, other media outlets, etc.

When we examine the necessary conditions for a successful proletarian revolution as a whole, we must speak of three principal premises. The first one is related to the general conditions of production across the world. Productive forces must reach a certain level of development that would allow socialism to replace capitalism. Secondly, a class that possesses both the intention and capability to carry out such historical transformation must come into existence. That is to say, the position occupied by the working class in the economy must allow it to launch such a radical change. And thirdly, the working class must be prepared to carry out the revolution. While the first two conditions involve the objective basis for the overthrow of capitalism and the building of socialism, the last one corresponds to the subjective factor of the revolution. In order not to drift towards voluntarism or spontaneity on the question of revolution, one must properly grasp the objective and subjective factors of proletarian revolution.

The main distinguishing feature between reformist and revolutionary tendencies in the workers’ movement lies in the question of whether or not there is will, tenacity and preparedness to heighten the organised class struggle against the bourgeoisie. The idea that capitalist crisis will somehow be followed by a new period of economic recovery, where measures to improve workers’ rights will be back on the agenda, is an utterly pacifist, conciliationist and reformist notion.

The relationship between the economic crises of capitalism and the struggle of the working class should not be interpreted in a mechanical manner. Rather, it must be analysed on the basis of the dialectical relationship between various objective and subjective factors that determine the actual course of events. Economic crisis does not automatically lead to an upsurge of the revolutionary struggle of the working class. The mutual interaction between economy and politics has a much more complex nature. The way workers respond to crisis is determined by various factors such as the political and organisational level of the workers’ movement, its general mood, its determination to combat, or exhaustion. Under unfavourable circumstances, the working class may suffer setbacks in the face of economic crisis, allowing bourgeoisie to heave a sigh of relief.

Capitalist economy inherently contains seeds of crisis. However, it would be utterly erroneous to argue that crises will spontaneously lead capitalism to its destruction. Unless it is overthrown through a revolution of the working class, it can continue to exist, going through new periods of booms and crises. Some assert that the ongoing crisis will mark the end of capitalism. This idea was also put forward during previous crises. While it seems very difficult for capitalism to overcome the deep crisis it is currently engulfed in, and moreover that capitalism becomes weaker with time in terms of overcoming its crises, it would be erroneous to link the collapse of capitalism with the prophecy of a final crisis.

Mass organisations of the working-toiling classes are of great importance and carrying on work in these organisations in a revolutionary way plays a key role in class struggle. It is an essential part of the task of fulfilling revolutionary strategy and tactics to create such organisations and conduct a correct work within them. A successful organising that provides the ground for fulfilling this task can only rise above historical tradition, principled attitude and experience. The path to take in organisational area has been developed by contributions of Marx and Engels and other revolutionary leaders, but illuminated principally by Lenin and the Bolsheviks in his leadership. What happened as a result of the bureaucratic counter-revolution that altered the nature of the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet power after Lenin’s death is a completely different matter.