Mediaboss Marketing

For most of the twentieth century, the workers movement was divided into two distinct camps. Though both social democracy and communism traced their origins to the original International Workingmens Association, founded in London in 1864 by Karl Marx and other radicals, by the 1920s, the two currents had hardened into rival organizations and worldviews. After World War II, they represented opposite sides of the Cold War. By the 1990s, communism as a mass movement had all but disappeared, while social democracy, though still a significant political force, had long ceased to be a working-class movement.

Such an anticlimactic ending was unthinkable for socialists a hundred years ago. Whether reformist social democrats like Tom Shaw of Britains Labour Party, revolutionary Marxists like the Bolshevik Karl Radek, or those somewhere in between like Austrian socialist Friedrich Adler, socialism was the only conceivable horizon for humanitys future. The movement had gone from conspiratorial circles to parties with millions of supporters in the span of two generations. The recent world war, which cost Europe 40 million lives and untold destruction, had heightened contradictions across the continent and brought socialists to power in several countries in Russia through violent revolution, in Germany and Austria through the ballot box.

Yet the war had also brought the tension between reformists and revolutionaries to a head. What had once been a single movement now splintered into several feuding camps whose disunity weakened both sides and made them vulnerable to co-optation by their enemies. It was against this backdrop that, on April 2, 1922, three delegations assembled in Berlin in the Reichstag, the seat of the German parliament. As Austrian socialist Otto Bauer put it, the aim was to bring together the three armies into which the proletariat has been unfortunately divided, so that they may be able once more to march together against the common enemy, and, united, defeat that enemy.

The fruitless undertaking would be the last of its kind never again would social democrats, socialists, and communists meet eye to eye with the aim of developing a common strategy. The chasms engendered by mutual distrust and the pressures of state building on both sides proved too great to be overcome with well-intentioned resolutions.

Whether Communists or Social Democrats, for many of the delegates who made their way to Berlin in early April 1922, the meeting must have felt a bit like a political homecoming of sorts. One decade earlier, most of them had been members of allied socialist parties, united under the banner of the mighty Second International led by Emile Vandervelde of the Belgian Workers Party. Speaking on the first day of the conference, Vandervelde himself remarked, A sight like this is not without a certain grandeur, to see today in this assembly, whether as journalists or delegates, such men as [Viktor] Chernov, [Fyodor] Dan, or [Julius] Martov, side by side with Radek or [Nikolai] Bukharin. For Radek, speaking at a meeting of the Communist International several months later, the brief reunion with his former comrades had been really a bit much.

The meeting was a long time coming. The institutional bonds of international socialism had largely ceased to function after war broke out in 1914, when most parties in the rival states had sided with their own national governments. Only a small minority of antiwar socialists, led by figures like Giacinto Serrati of the Italian Socialist Party and Clara Zetkin of the German Social Democrats, continued to uphold socialist internationalism, meeting in Switzerland in September 1915 to publish the renowned Zimmerwald Manifesto against the war. These connections were deepened at second meeting held in Kienthal in 1916 and a third in Stockholm in September 1917, only weeks before the Russian Revolution would further deepen the divide in international socialism.

After the armistice on November 11, 1918, the reformists, as they now openly called themselves, sought to resuscitate the prewar international. Vandervelde, together with Labours Arthur Henderson and French diplomat Albert Thomas, invited Europes socialist parties to join them on the sidelines of the Paris Peace Conference in January 1919. Ultimately, the meeting had to relocate to Bern, Switzerland, once it became clear that delegates from Germany and Austria would not be allowed into France.

Refounding the old international proved easier said than done: the Belgians refused, citing the presence of the Germans, their enemies in the recent war. The Italians and the Romanians were unwilling to band together with pro-war parties, and the Bolsheviks now in the process of founding their own Third International refused to meet with any of them. Nevertheless, those who did make it to Bern that February officially founded a Labour and Socialist International (LSI) as the successor to the Second International. One month later, the Bolsheviks founded the Communist International, or Comintern, as its revolutionary counterpart.

The Comintern expressly sought to unite the revolutionary wing of the international workers movement and purge it of reformists and vacillating elements. Through this clean break, the Russian Communists hoped to prepare their international followers for the final battle at a time when the Cominterns twenty-one conditions of membership claimed the class struggle was entering the phase of civil war. Their victory, in turn, would aid Soviet Russias struggle to withstand a counterrevolution aided and abetted by the major capitalist powers.

Yet many socialists rejected both moderate reformism and Moscows maximalist line, neither of which corresponded to their own experiences. Following a series of meetings in Bern and Vienna, they founded the International Working Union of Socialist Parties (IWUSP), also known as the Two-and-a-Half International or the Vienna Union, in April 1921. Led by Friedrich Adler son of the founder of the Austrian social democratic party and best known for assassinating the Austrian prime minister in 1916 the IWUSP united forces like the Independent Social Democrats in Germany (still a party of 340,000, even after the majority left for the Comintern), Britains Independent Labour Party, and most socialist parties in the Balkans.

The IWUSP did not reject a revolutionary path to socialism outright but emphasized the need for strategic flexibility from country to country what had worked in Russia would not necessarily work in Britain or Italy. Nevertheless, they saw the split in the workers movement as a tragic setback to be overcome as quickly as possible. It was not possible to talk of an International, Adler explained at the meeting in Vienna, if, on the one hand, as in the Second International, the greater part of the Russian movement is absent, or if, on the other hand, as in the Third International, the majority of the British workers are not represented. His international would serve as a bridge between the two wings until reunification was possible.

Prospects for such a reunion appeared to improve by the early 1920s. A series of Bolshevik-inspired uprisings had failed in Germany, Hungary, and elsewhere, and the Communist movements international position was growing desperate. Though Vladimir Lenins followers had won the civil war and held on to power, the conflict cost millions of lives and led to the collapse of the Russian economy.

In Western Europe, socialists were also on the defensive. The initial alliance between the Social Democrats and the ruling class in Germany had meant brutal violence against the countrys revolutionary minority, but also entailed significant concessions to the workers movement. By 1921, however, the balance of forces was shifting: emboldened by the defeat of the revolutionary wave and Soviet Russias isolation, capitalists went on the offensive, seeking to roll back economic gains and curtail the democratic freedoms granted in the wake of the war.

Against this backdrop, Communist parties cautiously began to seek a degree of rapprochement with other forces, beginning with an open letter published by the Communist Party of Germany in January 1921 calling for joint action between all socialist organizations in defense of workers living standards. Though it provoked the ire of many Communists for its seemingly compromising attitude toward the reformists, what Lenin called a model political step was endorsed by the Cominterns Third World Congress in June 1921, and codified in a resolution adopted by its Executive Committee in December.

With tensions between social democracy and the European ruling classes intensifying and the Communists appearing to take a step back from the precipice, the IWUSP saw its chance to bring the rival internationals to the table. The reformists, for their part, were also keen to break out of their postwar isolation, and Labours Arthur approached Friedrich Adler in summer 1921 seeking to reconcile the Second and Two-and-a-Half internationals on the basis of shared democratic principles i.e., without the Communists.

Adler rejected this proposal out of hand; reuniting with the reformists alone would have contradicted his internationals very purpose. Instead, he issued his own call for a meeting of all three internationals to plan a first attempt at a general conference coinciding with the upcoming Genoa Conference, where the great powers planned to resolve outstanding economic and political issues resulting from the war and normalize relations with Germany and Russia. The socialists conference was also to be held in Genoa; it was intended to pressure negotiators to relieve the German working class of the burdens imposed by the Versailles Treaty and normalize relations with Russia, a country that, all criticisms aside, European socialists still felt deserved their support in the international arena.

For the sake of unity, Adler proposed that the meeting avoid debating the internationals principled differences and instead focus on the state of the European economy and working-class activity. The Comintern, despite its contempt for the social chauvinists of the Second International, agreed to attend without preconditions. The reformists, on the other hand, were only willing to commit to the meeting if the agenda also included the liberation of political prisoners (i.e., the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries set to go on trial in Moscow for the attempted assassination of Lenin back in 1918) and the status of Georgia, whose independent Menshevik-led government had been overthrown by local Bolsheviks backed by the Red Army in early 1921.

All three sides agreed to send ten-person delegations to the meeting, picked from their respective executives. The reformists were led by Labours Tom Shaw along with Vandervelde and Ramsay MacDonald, an antiwar socialist and future infamous renegade. Two-and-a-Half was represented by Adler, as well as other luminaries like Frances Jean Longuet (Karl Marxs grandson) and Germanys Arthur Crispien. The Communists delegation was unspectacular by comparison: of its ten delegates, only Zetkin, Radek, and Bukharin enjoyed international stature. Alongside them spoke Serrati for the Italian Socialists, whom Adlers original plan entrusted with hosting the upcoming Genoa summit.

Adler opened proceedings by acknowledging that the present difficulties amongst the proletariat make a common organization impossible, but insisted that the position of the world proletariat is such that it is imperative, in spite of all differences which may exist, to make an attempt to unite its strength for certain concrete purposes and actions. Economically, the terrible conditions of misery caused by depreciation of currency and economic need on the one hand, and increased unemployment in the lands with a high currency on the other hand could only be opposed by united action, while politically, the upcoming Genoa Conference, organized by the international of capitalist imperialism, heightened the need for a united band of proletarian parties to oppose further division of the world along imperialist lines.

He framed the divide between the internationals not as a fundamental difference but one of historical perspective. Reformists saw the transition to socialism as lying much further in the future and focused their activity on immediate economic concerns, while revolutionaries sought to lay the groundwork for socialism today. But, however different our perspective of tomorrow may be, he rejoined, we can still say that although we who meet here as comrades are divided as to whether the fight is to be for today or tomorrow, yet we have this in common, that we all want to fight. He went on to propose one simple condition for further action: All proletarian parties will be admitted who stand on the ground of the class struggle, whose goal is to overthrow capitalism and who recognize the necessity for common international action on the part of the proletariat for the attainment of this goal.

This straightforward proposal was greeted by Zetkin, speaking for the Comintern. She began by affirming the need to unite for a defensive struggle against the offensive of world capital and welcoming Adlers initiative as a means for the uniting of the coming labour struggles. Yet she inserted an important caveat, characteristic of the Communists alliance policy at the time: these shared struggles would only be necessary until the working class as a whole learned . . . that capitalism can only be overcome when the great majority of the proletariat seizes power in revolutionary battle and establishes the dictatorship of the working people.

Zetkin and the other Communists had no doubt that they would eventually consolidate their hegemony over the workers movement and establish dictatorships of the proletariat around the world. The other socialist parties would either see the error of their ways and fall in line behind them or, if necessary, face repression, like the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries whose plight so stirred the Second International reformists.

The fundamental distrust caused by the Communists insistence that they alone would lead the proletariat to victory proved to be the biggest sticking point at the negotiations. Vandervelde and his comrades were filled with suspicions and apprehensions by the Cominterns official proclamations, specifically the December 1921 resolution on the united front, a strange mixture of ingenuousness and Machiavellianism that appealed for unity with the reformists even as no secret is made of the intention to stifle us and poison us after embracing us. Ramsay MacDonald pointedly asked the Communist delegates, We come here anxious to promote cooperation, but we come here to ask you as man to man: Is that why you are here?

Despite his professed desire for unity, Radek had no patience for the reformists concerns, snidely remarking that the strength of Vanderveldes voice carried us back for a moment to that time when we believed in the warmth of his voice, and we forgot for the moment that this voice had been drowned in the roar of the cannon. As far as Vanderveldes pleas for a minimum of confidence, just a little, were concerned, he retorted, Confidence in what? In the war?

The proceedings of the meeting reveal a movement whose divisions had long congealed into deep distrust and resentment. The two sides exchanged polemical barbs and refused to give any substantive ground, while Adler and his men desperately tried to broker a truce. Everyone agreed on the need for unity, but everyone, especially the Communists, wanted that unity on their own terms.

A sole voice of reason emerged in the figure of Giacinto Serrati, whose party the Communists had split in two the previous year. Serrati chided both sides for moralizing and asked whether delegates were here to set ourselves up as judges one of another, or to accomplish a practical piece of work. We have all committed many errors, he continued, but perhaps the judges i.e., the reformists have committed more errors than the accused, because the judges have committed them in alliance with our enemies. The accused committed errors for the sake of the revolution and not of the bourgeoisie.

Serrati, the only representative whose party belonged to none of the three internationals, urged all attendees to look beyond the past and subordinate short-term, national priorities to the ultimate goal of international socialism. He viewed the recent splits as caused not by fundamental differences so much as different conditions of struggle it was not unthinkable that they would be resolved in the years to come if the movements leaders remained committed to unity. Moreover, all of the criticisms raised by the reformists the repression of the Mensheviks, the Soviet invasion of Georgia, and Communist subversion of social democratic organizations would only worsen should the internationals grow further apart.

Ultimately, he concluded, the enemies of social democracy and communism were the same: Capitalism is trying to invade Russia; and at the same time, climbing upon your shoulders, Social Democratic comrades. A unity agreement, no matter how provisional, would at least keep alive the prospect of the salvation of the international proletariat. Failure to reach an agreement, on the other hand, may mean a victory for capitalist imperialism over the workers international, for who knows how long.

Negotiations dragged on for the next four days, with Adler remarking that again and again our attempts were nearly wrecked. Despite Serratis appeals to the greater good, and the repeated insistence by all parties involved that a united front against reaction was necessary, the meeting failed to schedule a conference in Genoa.

Instead, the meeting agreed to establish an Organization Committee of the Nine, consisting of three representatives from each international, and continue deliberations on the possibility of a future international conference. It would also examine the fate of Georgia, with all sides given ample opportunity to present evidence. The Bolsheviks, for their part, promised that none of the Social Revolutionaries on trial would be given death sentences. All parties involved were called on to organize demonstrations on May Day signaling the newfound spirit of unity.

Shortly after Adler announced the common declaration, however, the Committee of the Nine began to unravel. Just days after the meeting, Lenin chided Zetkin and Radek for their concessions, telling them they paid too much, and denounced the other two internationals as blackmailers working for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. Radek issued a report several days later accusing the Second International of sabotaging the united front, and days before the Committee of Nine was scheduled to meet in Berlin on May 23, Comintern leader Grigory Zinoviev published an article predicting its imminent collapse.

He wasnt wrong. The meeting on May 23 quickly devolved into recriminations on both sides, with the Second and Two-and-a-Half Internationals complaining that the Bolsheviks had ratcheted up repression of domestic reformists, while May Day demonstrations in Moscow featured slogans like Death to the bourgeoisie and the Social Democrats! Their suspicions concerning the duplicitous nature of the united front tactic appeared to be confirmed. The Communists, under instructions from Moscow, issued an ultimatum that the meeting either agree to convene a world congress of the proletariat immediately or their delegates would walk out. The unity talks were history. The Communists would continue to pursue a united front, they insisted, but only from below, without the leaderships of rival parties.

Adler and the IWUSP, exasperated with the Communists, quickly entered into unity talks with the LSI in London, and, by 1923, the Second International had been more or less reconstituted, shorn of its revolutionary minority. The Communists attempted one last uprising in Germany in 1923, but in truth had already been moving toward diplomatic acceptance on the international stage since 1921. Even the unity talks, Radek claimed in retrospect, were nothing but an attempt to utilize the international proletariat during the Genoa Conference for the support of Soviet diplomacy. Instead, Russia normalized its relations with Germany by signing the Treaty of Rapallo on April 16, 1922, undermining the Genoa Conference more effectively than any socialist meeting could have.

The dissolution of the Committee of the Nine marked the end of international socialism as a movement and a common goal. Reformists turned to building welfare states within their own national borders, while Communists devoted themselves to Joseph Stalins vision of socialism in one country within the Soviet Union. Though it felt like a betrayal to many Communists at the time, the devastation of the civil war combined with the Bolsheviks international isolation left them with little other choice. That there would be no space for reformists or other dissenting socialist currents was by then a foregone conclusion.

In the West, the rise of fascism fueled further splits among socialists, with both the Italian and German movements fragmenting even further before being outlawed entirely. Only the Nazi victory in Germany provided a common enemy strong enough to reunite them, albeit only temporarily.

See more here:
Why the Three Internationals Couldn't Agree - Jacobin magazine

Workers including bus drivers, healthcare staff and teachers active in rank-and-file committees in the UK were invited by the Socialist Equality Party to discuss a fight against war based on the working class and socialism.

Opening the meeting last Saturday, SEP National Secretary Chris Marsden drew attention to a point made in the February 28 World Socialist Web Site Editorial Board statement, NATO goes to war against Russia: The essential causes and interests of wars are often not at first apparent. They are concealed by an avalanche of propaganda. However, sooner or later, the real and more profound driving forces and significance of the conflict emerge.

Three weeks later, Marsden said, it was now clear that what is involved is not only a war in Ukraine, but a campaign by the US and NATO imperialist powers for war against Russia and a redivision of the world that also has China in its sights.

We were now at the most dangerous point in history, he continued, where the use of nuclear weapons was not only being considered but planned.

The US and the other imperialist powers were being driven by an acute crisis that was economic, social, and political.

During the pandemic, the major corporations and oligarchs had been given trillions of dollars, euros, and pounds, and now this must be clawed back. Price rises and spending cuts were adding to a social and political catastrophe under conditions where people are already desperate. Everything is set to get worse. War abroad means class war at home.

Preventing war meant facing up to the absence of a mass anti-war movement. The old anti-war movement has collapsed; the Stop the War Coalition (STWC) and Labour lefts do not offer any genuine means for opposing the escalating war danger.

Our answer to war, Marsden concluded, is the development of a mass anti-war movement, based on the international working class. The fight against imperialist war must be developed as a conscious and international political movement for socialism.

Introducing the discussion, SEP Assistant National Secretary Tom Scripps stressed that the question of the war was not exhausted simply by pointing to who fired the first shot. What was necessary was to understand the context, all the players involved, their interests and objectives, and where these events are threatening to take us.

The present conflict, said Scripps, followed 30 years of uninterrupted US-led wars and interventions, many involving NATO or NATO powers: Iraq, Yugoslavia, everything done in the name of the war on terror, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Libya, Syria.

All those military campaigns were about gaining geostrategic advantage for the US for the benefit of its banks, its corporations. That objective had now turned US predatory attentions towards Russia and China. US strategy documents had been talking about the need to prepare for great power conflict.

In the discussion, Jude argued, We should also link into the fight for Julian Assanges freedom. He represents the stance of opposition to war through his exposures on WikiLeaks.

Marsden said Assanges fate was the personal embodiment of the collapse of the anti-war movement, He represents everything the anti-war movement has abandoned. If there was an anti-war movement today worth of the name, it would be carrying placards with Assanges picture on them. Instead, the Stop the War Coalition wanted to make their figurehead the Corbynite Labour MPs.

Jude asked how to counter government and media propaganda.

Marsden answered, We have to start from where we are. The anti-war movement has collapsed, a new one has to emerge. An objective conflict is developing between the working class and ruling class. What we must do is fight for clarity. We must explain as clearly as possible what is actually happening. In these circumstances, knowledge is the most essential weapon the working class can have.

Several participants spoke on the domestic crisis. Laura noted that the previous Wednesday had been National Covid Remembrance Day and there wasnt even a minutes silence in parliament because they are too busy preparing a world war.

Adam commented, I feel that an anti-war movement is vitally important as the war is going to have a knock-on effect on our standard of living globally.

Jay added, Working people will be forced to pay for this war like they are for Covid.

Scripps replied that the war had been going for a month and already massive social fault lines were opening up. Forecasters were saying that there would be a collapse of living standards in Britain in the next months, double what we saw after 2008.

Education workers Chris P and Ruth referenced the censorship of material critical of NATOs warmongering or the governments pandemic policy on social media.

Katrina, a nurse, described how as a healthcare professional social media is banned. People have been sacked for comments on Facebook. Its policed by the employers. We cant even say what sort of day weve had, or we get hauled into the office. As nurses, we are silenced.

In the last month, we have shed about half a dozen senior members of staff who have been there quite a while. This leaves it all on the shoulders of junior staff, which can put patients at risk. The NHS [National Health Service] is shedding staff left, right and centre. It is a nightmare.

Medical student Sanya said, Like frontline workers, medical students are being forced into high-risk environments.

Laura thanked Katrina, adding, Patients are the collateral damage from decades of relentless cuts and underfunding. The connection between war abroad and war at home could not be clearer, with what millions of people have suffered in the pandemic.

Chris D added, Here in Northern Ireland the COVID cases are rising rapidly, and the hospitals are on the brink again, but the media are acting like the pandemic is over.

Stephen, a care worker, said he had not detected any major susceptibility to pro-war hysteria among those he worked with, or at least none that could not be dispelled by explaining the background to the current situation.

Tim, a secondary school teacher, said he had been struck by how his Year 12 pupils quickly understood that there was a bigger picture than just Putin ordering the invasion of Ukraine. Straight away they said, well the US and NATO have provoked this.

Tony Robson said members of the London Bus Workers Rank-and-File Committee shared a broad anti-war sentiment. They had not forgotten or forgiven these previous illegal wars. They live in a country where war criminals get knighted, not sent to The Hague [for prosecution].

The fundamental issue was to give a lead to anti-war sentiment, which meant a reckoning with Labour and the unions. Referring to the mass P&O sackings, he said workers knew that if this is not defeated then it will provide a pretext for a wholesale attack, But there was no expression given to that sentiment by these organisations. Instead, they were waging a nationalist campaign, lining up workers behind their ruling class in a race to the bottom, when workers only way forward is an international struggle.

Shortly after the meeting, bus worker Jason sent in his thoughts. Calling the meeting insightful, he said, Young people deserve better than the decades of inter-generational war that has been waged on them. He added, There is no effective voice for the working class. Where I live the local Labour party/supporters walk around with placards that say, give our young people the skills for tomorrow. Yet they helped defund and turn it into what it now is.

Katrina commented, Im really glad I came online. I wasnt going to but actually what is the point in moaning if you're not prepared to do something about it? It was so informative and has definitely changed some of my way of thinking.

Closing the event, Marsden said that developing an anti-war movement ultimately meant building an anti-war party. This meant joining and funding the Socialist Equality Party.

Foreword to the German edition of David Norths Quarter Century of War

Johannes Stern, 5 October 2020

After three decades of US-led wars, the outbreak of a third world war, which would be fought with nuclear weapons, is an imminent and concrete danger.

Visit link:
Socialist Equality Party discusses building an anti-war movement with UK workers - WSWS

This photo, dated March 30, 2022, and released by the North's official Korean Central News Agency, shows officials in the information field of the Workers' Party of Korea taking part in the final day of the first workshop at the April 25 House of Culture in Pyongyang after it opened March 28. (KCNA)

North Korea reiterated calls for the ruling party's propaganda officials to help weed out anti-socialist and non-socialist practices, as it wrapped up a three-day workshop, according to state media Thursday.

The workshop for officials in the information field of the ruling Workers' Party concluded the previous day with a study session on prioritizing ideological work as the "very core of the Party work," the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reported.

"The workshop called for regarding it as the general orientation and target of the Party ideological work to model the entire Party and the whole society on the respected Comrade Kim Jong-un's revolutionary idea," it added.

Officials were urged to "concentrate all rabble-rousing forces" on improving peoples' living standards and carry out a "fierce campaign" against anti-socialism and non-socialism.

During the workshop, the North also held a lecture warning officials to stay alert against the "imperialists' moves for ideological and cultural poisoning."

On the first day of the workshop Monday, the North's leader sent a letter to the party officials, urging them to wage a battle in rooting out "evil spirits" of anti-socialism and bring fundamental change to their ideological work.

The workshop appears to be part of the Kim regime's efforts to tighten social discipline and rally internal unity amid growing economic pressure from the fallout of international sanctions and the COVID-19 pandemic. (Yonhap)

Originally posted here:
N. Korea calls on party officials to wipe out anti-socialist practices - The Korea Herald

Kadir Akin, with his second book, paves the way for Turkish socialists to pursue their common history with Armenians faithfully and intersectionally, to offer a perspective on what has been left out of history of socialists on the lands they live today.

BY CIHAN ERDALBianet.org

Paul Ricoeur, in Memory, History, Forgetting (2004)*, argues that no such thing as a historical reality exists readymade, so that science merely has to reproduce it faithfully. The historical reality, because it is human, is ambiguous and inexhaustible (p. 334).

In his book Sakli Tarihin Izinde: Osmanlida Modernlesme, Anayasa, Sosyalizmin Kkleri ve Ermeni Vekiller (Tracing the Hidden History: Modernization, Constitution, the Roots of Socialism and Armenian Deputies in the Ottoman Empire), Kadir Akin traces the history of the socialist movement led by Armenian intellectuals and deputies as the members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Ottoman Empire during the Second Constitutional Monarchy (1908-1915) not as an academic-historian but as a socialist-intellectual and engaged-researcher.

As a researcher who is committed to contributing to a more faithful relationship with the historical reality of Turkey, Akin attends to challenge both the nationalistic/right-wing and alternative/left-wing accounts of the past, by shedding light on the pivotal roles of Armenian, Greek, Jewish, and Bulgarian revolutionaries in the emergence of socialist politics in the late Ottoman era. In his preface to the book, Ertugrul Krk, the current Honorary President of the Peoples Democratic Party (HDP), aptly describes Akins endeavour as the following:

Rather than doing historiography, he wants to contribute to the restoration of the wounded (historical) consciousness of the Left by calling on historians and historiography to help. Sakli Tarihin Izinde invites the socialist movement with all its fractions, the Left, libertarian and critical citizens to re-approach the state, nation, republic, democracy and socialism in the context of the Armenian Genocide (p. 17-18).

Akins first book Armenian Revolutionary Paramaz, which was published in April 2015 (Dipnot Yayinlari), should also be regarded as an invitation to the Turkish Left to recall the struggle of Armenian socialist Paramaz (Matdeos Sarkisyan), who was one of the leading militants of the Social Democrat Hunchakian Party (SDHP).

The assassination of Hrant Dink marked a milestone for reckoning with the past evils of our country, particularly for our generation in Turkey who engaged in politics throughout the 2000s. The unforgettable chain of conscience and minds of the country, following our great loss, unsettled the dominant, hostile imaginaries of Armenians, who had been taught to us over decades as being giaours, nationalist separatists, traitors, or spies by the Kemalist historiography.

Particularly striking is that the discursive-imaginary orientation of the Turkish Left towards its past has never been fully free of such dominant-nationalist modes of approaching history. The narrative of the past struggles of socialists in Turkey in the 20th century has predominantly built on the heroic stories of some prominent political figures, who suffered from execution, exile, imprisonment, or torture.

However, until the time Akins book was published in 2015, very few of the socialists, leftists, and democrats in Turkey knew the name of the Armenian Revolutionary Paramaz, who was, after an unlawful trial that lasted for 17 days, executed with 19 other comrades in Beyazit Square in 1915.

Such shameful disregard and silence, indeed, was not accidental, given the fact that the hegemonic discourse in the Left used to see no harm in starting its historical trajectory with the foundation of the Turkish Communist Party in 1920 and the significant role of its founder Mustafa Suphi.

Kadir Akin unearths the truth that the Turkish socialists embodied the chauvinist perspective for so long, which historically categorized the political Armenian groups as the ones who were in cahoots with the imperialists.

In an interview with Akin (Sert, 2021)***, the writer describes how excited he was when he first read Paramazs defense at the Van Court while he was on trial in 1897, and highlights Paramazs internationalist political perspective:

Our demand is to live on equal terms with Armenians, Turks, Kurds, Greeks, Alevis, Laz, Yazidis, Syriacs, Arabs and Copts. As a revolutionary, I believe we will achieve this goal. () We are not nationalists, we are not guided by the nation-building motivation. We are friends of the people, not chauvinistic nationalists. We know that a nationalist rule will maintain the same order. Our demand is that all inhabitants of Armenia, Armenians, Kurds, Turks, Arabs, Laz, Circassians, Assyrians, Yazidis and Mitrib elect their own rulers by their own will and vote. We demand this future for all inhabitants of Armenia, for all Ottoman peoples.

Uncovering a forgotten pastKadir Akin, with his second book Sakli Tarihin Izinde, paves the way for Turkish socialists to pursue their common history with Armenians faithfully and intersectionally, to offer a perspective on what has been left out of history of socialists on the lands they live today.

Akin makes it clear that there is more scholarly, political, and ethical effort needed in encountering the struggles of Armenian, Greek, Jewish, and Bulgarian socialists in the late Ottoman era, which has faded into oblivion over decades and has not yet been recognized adequately.

While uncovering this forgotten past, Akin meticulously provides a broader narrative in the book for readers to comprehend the historical conditions in which those Armenian intellectuals-deputies fought for their revolutionary ideas. This includes the poverty brought by the economic destruction during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid, the 1908 Workers Strikes, how the demands of the Christian peoples of the Ottoman were suppressed under the Islamist policies of Abdulhamid, the relations between the Unionists and Armenian politicians who opposed the tyranny, the conflicts between the Armenian Parties (EDF and SDHP) and the initiatives of their coalition-building, and importantly, how the path to the Armenian genocide has been developed.

What makes Akins contribution unique is that it redeems the past struggles of Armenian deputiesincluding Krikor Zohrab, Hampartzum Boyaciyan, Vartkes Seranglyan, Vahan Papazyan, and Dimitar Wlahof who served in the General Assembly of the Ottoman Empire (1908-1915) as the leading actors of a movement for socialism, equality, and freedom for all peoples of Ottoman.

How many of us had knowledge about their existence and struggles? How many of us knew about Vahan Papazyan speaking out on the education policies (May 8, 1911), Vartkes Serenglyan defending the labor rights against capitalist class, or the historic speech of Hampartzum Boyaciyan on workers fraternity (May 13, 1909) in the Chamber of Deputies?

Kadir Akin illustrates how Armenian deputies believed in the internationalist fight for the workers fraternity, womens rights, freedom of the press, and socialism, which would break down prejudices between and unite all the people of the Ottoman.

Sakli Tarihin Izinde offers a proposal to reimagine the unforgotten past, the past-present relations, and the future of internationalist-socialist struggle in Turkey. Re-approaching the history of socialist movement alongside the truth which Kadir Akin enables us to recognize, journeying to the path for a multicultural, democratic, and equal society becomes more possible.

Recalling the radical history does not only transform our collective memory, but also expands the capability for building a different country and world ahead.

* Ricoeur, Paul (2004) Memory, History, Forgetting. Translated by Kathleen Blamey and David Pellauer. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London.

** Akin, Kadir (July 2021) Sakli Tarihin Izinde: Osmanlida Modernlesme, Anayasa, Sosyalizmin Kkleri ve Ermeni Vekiller. Dipnot Yayinlari

** Sert, Soner (2021, August 26). Kadir Akin: Sosyalist hareket tarih bilincinden yoksun durumda, Gazete Duvar. https://www.gazeteduvar.com.tr/kadir-akin-sosyalist-hareket-tarih-bilincinden-yoksun-durumda-haber-1532607

About Cihan ErdalCihan Erdal is a doctoral researcher in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Carleton University in Canada. His research interests include social movements, activist youth cultures, contemporary experiences of time and temporalities, memory studies, neoliberalism, intersectionality, citizenship and social policy.

Read more from the original source:
Tracing the Hidden History: Unearthing the Past of Socialist Movement in Turkey - Armenian News by MassisPost

Jose Cortes, a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, will officially be on the ballot with a full voter guide statement on June 7. Cortes, who grew up in El Cajon, is running on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket in Californias new 51st Congressional District race for U.S. House of Representatives.

At a campaign fundraiser celebration on March 10, Cortes announced to over 40 supporters at Next Door Craft Beer & Wine Bar that the initial campaign efforts were a success. Cortes said, Thank you for coming out and supporting a grassroots, revolutionary campaign here where they feel the safest. Here in this political system that they tell us it is so democratic, but we see with our own eyes is meant to keep people like us out.

By collecting hundreds of signatures and raising over $6,000, Cortes was able to submit a 250-word statement that will go out to hundreds of thousands of voters throughout San Diego County. The full statement is published below.

I am running to represent the interests of the working class, and dedicate my platform to building real power in our communities to create lasting systemic change. I am Chicano and a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. I have organized with the PSL since 2017 after participating in anti-racist protests in El Cajon.

Since then, I have participated in and led actions against police brutality and war. I helped organize a successful campaign to overturn a local ban on feeding homeless people.

I am running on a campaign platform that includes addressing the housing crisis by canceling rent and mortgage debt accumulated throughout the pandemic, passing Medicare for All, constitutionally guaranteeing universal healthcare and housing, eliminating private health insurance, disbanding NATO, bringing home all of the troops for humanitarian and environmental reasons, jailing killer cops, defunding and demilitarizing the police, paying reparations to Black people and Native Americans, guaranteeing full rights for all immigrants, and canceling student debt. The PSL has a plan to actually defeat COVID-19 using the money billionaires have stolen from us workers.

I encourage supporters and voters to get involved with the struggle for a better world by contacting the San Diego branches of the PSL and the Peace and Freedom Party. This campaign is about building community power, and that cannot be done without working-class organization and struggle. A better world is possible, but we have to fight for it!

You can donate or sign up to volunteer for the campaign on the official website.

Continued here:
Socialist Jose Cortes obtains ballot access and full voter guide... - Liberation