Let's rethink 'May 1st'

We celebrated May 1st last weekend. May 1st could be a good opportunity to remember the past, reflect on today's problems, and think about what kind of program could be developed to produce solutions to the deep problems and hardships being experienced by building unity among laborers.

But is May 1st perceived and experienced as a day to come together, reflect on what is happening, and produce remedies or make plans? Yes, on May 1st, laborers gather in squares, marches are held, and folk dances are performed. At rallies, some union or labor leaders give speeches to state the meaning and importance of the day. What happens after a few hours of such formal ceremonies? Everyone returns to their homes, tired. Is this what is desired!

In your opinion, do capital owners, who work on future capital investment plans and the exploitation of labor, fear the May 1st rallies of laborers? Now I ask you this question: can you think of any action taken during the last May 1st rallies or demonstrations that was frightening or thought-provoking for capital, or at least delivered a powerful message? I cannot.

Well, if this is the situation, why was all this effort made, just for the sake of mere entertainment! We learn from both Marx's writings and the social practices we have experienced that, apart from the 70-plus-year Soviet experience, there have been two periods of social democracy in the history of capitalism that partially relieved laborers. The first is the social democracy period implemented by Prussian leader Otto von Bismarck in 1871, with the support of Finance Minister Wagner, out of fear of the Paris Commune, which appeared on the historical stage and lived for a short time. The second is the social democracy period created with the US Marshall Plan in the aftermath of the Second World War, when Europe was in ruins, the Soviets occupied half of Europe, and the fear of the "Marxist Spectre" was felt in the skies of Europe. The common feature of both periods is that the capitalist world fears left-wing or communist actions and takes precautions against possible developments. While powerful capital enjoys its pleasure on the superficial electoral system by adhering to the rules of electoral democracy based on the 1789 French Revolution, why shouldn't May 1st be allowed as a "pressure-relief valve"? On the contrary, this one-day leave is granted to laborers, the laborers faithfully comply with this leave, and the next day the partisan press blesses the event with headlines like "May 1st Celebrated with Enthusiasm," so that the parties are satisfied and peacefully return to the new period of exploitation.

Like every system, a very important feature of capitalism is that it teaches people to accept the social oppression and violence experienced as a normal condition of life, as a customary lifestyle. We all, even while doing our daily work under pressure, experience the happiness of having fulfilled our duty, feeling quite happy without even feeling the pressure, or even understanding who or what we are serving. In the last miners' strike, could the problem have been solved so smoothly if the AKP had not been a bit cornered! Is it not in our memory that some labor resistances were devalued by the interventions of the unions themselves! 

I say let May be the "labor month." During this month, meetings and conferences should be held in various labor regions of the country. Meetings should be held to develop mutual consciousness on topics such as "productive forces," "the divergence between profit and wages," "what is the state, which segment of society does it look at and how," "what is labor exploitation, how is it prevented," "what is profit, is it an entitlement," "what do active and passive insured mean," "are active insured people really receiving their own savings," "why is there such high inflation while some entertainment venues in society are packed," "what is the difference between bourgeois democracy and economic democracy," etc. Booklets should be produced as a result of the meetings, and the information produced should be disseminated to the whole society.

Now I ask: In your opinion, would public agents look favorably upon such a program, would they allow it; what would be the attitude of the unions in the face of such a proposal? These are litmus tests. It is for this reason, or so that such frightening projects that would enter dreams are not developed, that all enthusiasm is compressed into May 1st, and the pressure of the laborer and society is relieved. How sad it is that all laborers can become material for this process with great enthusiasm. Yes, I was also in the squares on May 1st, but besides the sanctity of the day, I was there solely out of respect for labor and friends of labor, without believing in much else. 

Let's think about it: If no labor segment showed interest in the May 1st program; if all segments were to be 1