Seminar Notes

Last weekend, I attended an Eğitim-Sen class meeting. Despite the cold weather, many of my colleagues and comrades did not leave me alone, and I am grateful to them.

The title of the topic assigned to me at the meeting, which was organized as a Class School Training Program, was as follows: “Capitalist Economic Model or Centrally Planned Economic Model?”

Today, I would like to share some of my thoughts with you on the occasion of that meeting.

The subject was quite broad as it covered two different economic models. Given the circumstances, I planned to focus on the main features of the two systems to the extent that time permitted, highlight the differences in the context of their fundamental characteristics, and reserve the remaining time for a mutual discussion with friends.

I would like to share here some of the thoughts that formed in my mind while I was continuing my speech and conducting the discussions at the meeting in this vein.

It was difficult to present the differences between a system that is ongoing and has become so ingrained in our social genetics that it seems natural, and another system that, apart from a brief experience, has not yet been put into practice.

In my opinion, this discrepancy is not only experienced by the general public, but the academic circles that ponder this subject suffer from the same problem. So much so that the fundamental reason for the tensions and fractures among left-wing parties and groups is that a central planning system has not yet been implemented.

While it is evident that such a massive discrepancy exists, discussions in the theoretical realm certainly have their place and a very valuable role in terms of social benefit. However, while our society is being crushed between the gears of interest of the obsolete right-wing mentality, I view the inability of groups on the left front to present meaningful policy proposals to society in unity, despite their internal debates, as a lack of a sense of historical responsibility.

Let us hope that I am wrong and that a meaningful recovery occurs on the left front in a short time, so that the historical role of guiding our society can be assumed. 

In the labor-capital conflict experienced within the capitalist system, when the protective role of the capitalist state is pushed into the background and the issue is focused solely on wages, the danger to the system is averted for the sake of its survival, and the matter is confined to a wage-related tangle.

Yes, livelihood is the fundamental problem.

As such, laborers and our people, squeezed by livelihood issues, may psychologically turn toward solving the most pressing problem, thereby pushing the actual culprit—the system itself—into the background.

In short, as wages are suppressed, the problem is narrowed, and all attention is directed toward solving the issue that has gained urgency by being narrowed.

In this process, when the wage issue is resolved even slightly, a false consciousness takes root in minds and hearts that labor struggles can achieve results. Indeed, as seen in the messages from the streets, I observed at the latest hall meeting that almost no criticism touched upon the systemic issue, but rather developed solely around the problem of livelihood.

I believe that while the capitalist system generates crises within its own protective structure, it manages to draw individuals and societies into the system in an incredible way, often without them even realizing it.

Soren Mau, who has made valuable contributions to the literature by examining Marxism and addressing the economic power of capital from a Marxist theoretical perspective, reveals the types of covert pressures that exist within the intricate webs of capitalism in his book, which could be translated into Turkish as 'Silent Violence'. 

Like every system, the capitalist system protects itself as a whole and creates ways to sustain itself. In situations where short-term and long-term issues are intertwined and, unfortunately, short-term problems gain urgency, trade unions come to the fore; however, it is clear that political parties are the ones that will provide the ultimate solution by taking a long-term view of the matter.

Thus, while trade unions are tasked with providing short-term solutions in the labor-capital conflict, political parties are tasked with providing long-term solutions in the capital-system conflict. As long as the division of labor between the union and the party is maintained in this way, advantages are gained regarding wages in the short term, and the exploitation of labor is eliminated in the long term.

However, we must certainly not overlook the role of capital in softening the system here.

Specifically, when trade unions manage to find a remedy for wage issues, the workers' critical view of the system weakens, and they may drift into false consciousness, falling behind in the struggle.

While the mutual position and roles of trade unions and political parties should be complementary, as can be understood from the explanation, they can, on the contrary, also be obstructive. This process, as is known, serves as a very powerful function of the state and public organizations to protect the system rather than oppose it, acting as a legitimizing function for the system. 

In the capitalist system, while the key element is capital—the owner of the system—it is the state that masks the malice of capital. In this respect, the state intervenes between capital and labor, creating a visual reflection of capital's oppression of labor.

That is why, when the issue of wages is reduced to the topic of minimum wage, it is perceived by society as if the state is the one making the decision. However, when the minimum wage is determined between the state and capital in favor of capital, and then communicated to the parties by the state, capital is exonerated, and all arrows are pointed at the state. 

In order for unions not to drift away from their political role while playing an active part in resolving short-term wage and other issues between capital and labor, the content of the training programs provided must be much more serious. While examples that could be given on this subject might be seen as prohibited or even criminal within the framework of union laws and regulations, I believe that intermediate solutions can be found through serious efforts.

For instance, instead of unions merely organizing meetings with May Day dances, they could declare May as the month of the laborer and organize seminars in regions where laborers are concentrated on topics such as labor, capital, wages, profit, the state, value-added, exploitation, etc. We should consider that if the aforementioned topics are deemed criminal, they can be explained through indirect methods.

It is essential, in my opinion, for our unionist friends to think about this issue in detail. In overcoming the obstacle of criminality, topics such as the alienation of labor in the capitalist system, the alienation of the state from labor and society, and especially the fact that today's states serve global capital instead of protecting national interests, are areas that can be addressed without constituting a crime.

For example, imperialist projects like build-operate-transfer or public-private partnerships, which have dragged our country into a deep crisis and through which global capital has held our country captive for years, can be addressed by unions and discussed as seminar topics without creating any element of crime.

As in the weekend seminar, the topics we discussed here were not about the mutual positions of capitalist and collectivist systems, but rather about identifying and exposing the anti-social and anti-people viruses hidden in the intricate labyrinths of capitalism, and discussing the mutual roles and goals of union and party organizations in building a counter-front.

Without ignoring the fact that the value of the struggle against a system is determined by the perceived positive aspects of the opposing system, the priority of the struggle against capitalism is clear.