The New Party: A New Curtain on Capital's Stage

Young comrade, greetings.

On the magnificent theatrical stage of modern bourgeois politics, the scenery is changing once again, the lights are being reset, and the actors are switching places. Faced with the deepening crisis of Turkish capitalism, the rulers' inability to govern, and the anger accumulating at the base of the masses, the expected explosion in the stormy seas of establishment politics has taken place: The class and political contradictions long fermenting in the corridors of the CHP have broken into the open; 91 deputies have resigned from their party and mixed the mortar of a new political formation.

The bourgeois media, polling firms, and liberal commentators were quick to package this rupture in glittering words—"a democratic move," "a historic turning point," or "the restructuring of the opposition"—and serve it to the masses. Yet we must go beyond the ideological illusions created by modern science, technology, and the society of the spectacle; we must seek reality not in glittering headlines, but on the hard ground of relations of production and class struggle.

Looking at the Matter with a Socialist Vision

For us Marxists, this picture is nothing but the foam created by the storm on the surface. The river flowing in the depths is the jamming of the capital-accumulation model and the fight among fractions of the ruling class to redistribute power. The aim of this study is to tear, with the scalpel of dialectical materialism, the fog curtain that instrumental reason, parliamentary fetishism, and populist media have drawn over us. We will treat events not by reducing them to the shallowness of "personal ambitions" or "intra-party democracy," but with the independent, revolutionary, and historical vision of the working class.

Summary of the Situation at the Outset: What Is There, What Is Not?

When the process is examined dialectically, the plain truth that emerges is this:

What Is There? There is a vast desire for change accumulating among the broad masses in the face of the social devastation, deep poverty, and authoritarian encirclement created by the AKP regime. There is the ruling class's need to channel this anger into channels within the order, to protect the system from a class explosion, and to "restore" the state according to new conditions. The move of the 91 deputies is precisely the parliamentary manifestation of this need for restoration.
What Is Not There? In the background of this rupture there is no class program that questions property relations, aims to stop the wheels of exploitation, or sets before itself the improvement of the working class's material living conditions. We face a new version of an old trick of bourgeois politics—the art of "appearing to change everything while changing nothing."

The introduction is quite clear: The names and badges of political actors may be changing; yet the ownership of the means of production, surplus-value exploitation, and capital's domination stand exactly where they were. Now it is time to peel back, layer by layer, the material reality behind this "new" formation.

The Birth of the New Party and Its Class Anatomy: Capital's Logic of Restoration

Young comrade: the greatest illusion we can fall into when evaluating political events is to measure the actors' intentions by their own declarations. A politician may claim to have set out "for the people," "for democracy," or "for justice." Yet dialectical materialism teaches us that objective reality is leagues independent of subjective intentions.

To understand the birth of this new party—shaped by the rupture of 91 CHP deputies—we must look not at the gilded corridors of parliament, but at the structural blockage into which Turkish capitalism has been dragged.

Why Now? The Capital-Accumulation Model and the Crisis of Hegemony

A political movement does not break from a homogeneous structure without cause; rupture is the surfacing of upheavals and deep waves that have accumulated below. Behind the fact that this move has taken place at precisely this historical moment lie two fundamental dialectical reasons:

The Jamming of Capital Accumulation: For nearly a quarter-century the AKP government protected the interests of international and domestic capital with a savage regime of exploitation. Yet by today, runaway inflation, currency crises, the complete dequalification of institutions, and the risk to international capital flows have begun to threaten the sustainable profit rates of the capital class (especially of big industry and finance capital). Capital sees that the model the government built has completed its lifespan, and that the cost of the present structure exceeds its return.
The Ruling Class's Need for Restoration: The vast discontent and anger accumulating among the masses carry the potential to spill beyond the limits of the order. For the ruling classes, the greatest nightmare is that this anger turn into a class consciousness. It is precisely at this point that the new party functions as the bourgeoisie's safety valve. Its aim is to take the steam off the masses breaking from the AKP and from the inadequacy of the existing opposition, and to imprison this social energy in a domesticated, "reasonable" restoration project within the system.

Class Anatomy: The Intelligence of Capital Beneath the Badges

So where do these new political actors stand class-wise? Is there before us a will representing the interests of the proletariat or the oppressed, or a different fraction of capital?

We must put sharply at this point the dialectical contradiction between Appearance and Essence:

In Appearance: Cadres who "revolt against intra-party bureaucracy," who "listen to the people's voice," who are "democratic and innovative."

In Essence: Techno-bureaucratic bourgeois elites loyal to neoliberal economic policies, responding to international finance capital's demand for a "reliable, predictable, and rule-of-law-packaged" market.

When we look at the socio-economic background of the actors carrying out this rupture, at their discourse, and at the solution prescriptions they propose, the class map clarifies:

A Discourse of "Justice" That Does Not Touch Property Relations: While the new party's leadership speaks of the rule of law and justice, it treats property relations as entirely sacred and untouchable. Yet where there is exploitation, flexible work, and the seizure of surplus value, law is merely an apparatus that protects the rights of property owners.
The Search to Settle in Centrist Politics: By its class position, this party represents the desire of the urban middle classes to protect their comfort zone and the bourgeoisie's demand for predictability. For capital groups that hold ownership of the means of production, this formation is a "Plan B"—one with rules and compatible with international capital—against the AKP's "worn-out and lawless" style.

The Society of the Spectacle and the Illusion of "Novelty"

Modern capitalism has escalated image fetishism in politics just as in the philosophical and artistic fields. In Guy Debord's expression, the Society of the Spectacle is expert at marketing forms emptied of content as "new."

This "excitement" and media packaging created by the founding of the new party is nothing other than the manifestation of consumer culture in the political field. Comrades: we must not be deceived by technocratic jargon, new emblems, or glittering agency-produced slogans.

The dialectical method teaches us that: If a movement does not aim to change relations of production, to end exploitation in the factories and fields, and to return public wealth to the class, then no matter how "new" it appears, it serves no purpose other than oiling the old gears of the order.

This new party is, in essence, a restoration project imprisoned within the limits of bourgeois democracy, aiming to pull the capital order out of crisis, and able to promise the working class only "more just exploitation."

The Illusion of "As Long as the AKP Goes" and Independent Class Politics

Young comrade: in periods of crisis, the most poisonous prescription bourgeois ideology offers the working class and revolutionary youth is the logic of the "lesser evil" (ehven-i şer). This logic takes the masses' minds hostage with this paralyzing dilemma: "The present authoritarian structure is so destructive that we are obliged to support unconditionally every kind of alternative that comes against it."

It is precisely at this point that we must draw the sharp blade of dialectical-materialist thought. For this approach is a vast ideological illusion that arrests historical development, renders contradictions invisible, and turns the proletariat into an appendage of one or another wing of the bourgeoisie.

The Trap of the Lesser Evil: Not a Qualitative but a Quantitative Difference Between Two Evils

What is presented in politics as the "lesser of two evils" is nothing but an illusion capitalism produces in order to manage its own internal contradictions. The dialectical method shows us that treating events only with moral and abstract categories such as "bad" and "less bad" tears us from material reality.

The Continuity of Exploitation: The devastation created by AKP rule is plain. Yet the source of this devastation is not only a single leader or party, but the savage neoliberal accumulation regime that party has resolutely applied. Does the newly founded bourgeois party touch the property foundations of this accumulation regime? No.
Intra-Capital Restoration: The new party promises not to abolish the order of exploitation, but to lift the "lawless" cover upon it and put in its place a "legal and institutional" packaging. Therefore the difference between the two foci is not a qualitative difference (the resolution of the exploiter–exploited contradiction), but only a quantitative and methodological difference (the method by which capital will govern the country).

Dialectical Warning: Changing the name, style, or badge of the exploiter does not abolish surplus-value seizure in the factory, the hell of flexible work, or futurelessness. Consenting to the lesser evil does not resolve the present dialectical contradiction; it only provides a deferred synthesis of the crisis—that is, the order's self-repair (restoration).

Formal Transformation and the Denial of Essence: What Changes, What Remains?

The greatest perception that modern media, the world of spectacle, and polling politics wish to create is the lie that such party-founding moves will "change everything." Yet Marxist philosophy reminds us of the distinction between Form and Essence.

Changes in the distribution of seats in parliament, the redistribution of ministries, or the revision of constitutional texts are the formal aspect of politics. The essence of politics, by contrast, is who produces social wealth and who seizes that wealth.

If the newly founded party:

Does not open the ownership of the means of production to debate,
Does not threaten the interests of international finance capital and domestic capital foci,
Does not offer radical programs of Socialization that would reverse the transfer of wealth,

Then this move is nothing but an illusion that changes nothing in essence; on the contrary, it renews the shop window in order to protect the system's fundamental gears. Giving unconditional support to this new bourgeois project with the cry "just so the AKP changes" is to sacrifice the class's own historical interests to the bourgeoisie's restoration agenda.

Our Political Stance: Organizing the Independent Line of the Class

So what revolutionary stance emerges from this analysis? Will we surrender ourselves to a "sectarian indifference" or to the easy comfort of "everything is the same, let's do nothing"?

Absolutely not.

Marxist philosophy is not passive spectatorship, but an intervening practice (Praxis). Our political stance must rise on these three fundamental pillars:

Class and Ideological Independence: The working class and youth are not obliged to take sides in the ruling classes' internal brawls. We must be in the field with our own demands, our own organization, and our own political line. We must trust not the bourgeoisie's "savior" figures, but the class's own power.
Exposure and Confrontation: Instead of passively watching the wave of expectation the new party creates, we must put this party to the test before the masses. We must expose the limits of their promises of "democracy" and "justice" by placing before them the class's concrete material demands.
Tactical Flexibility, Strategic Principle: Rolling back AKP authoritarianism is historically important. Yet this rollback must be done not by lining up behind another bourgeois clique, but by growing the masses' own power—their organization in the street and the square.

Young comrade, remember: Our aim is not to change the actors who turn the wheel of exploitation, but to stop that wheel entirely. Building the independent, revolutionary line of the class without surrendering to the "lesser evil" illusions of bourgeois politics is our sole historical task.

The Orientation of the Masses: Why the Retreat to the Bourgeois Center When Socialist Alternatives Exist?

Young comrade: those who reason idealistically at a desk often ask this question, which seems justified yet lacks dialectical depth: "While exploitation is plain; while socialist parties such as TİP, EMEP, the Left Party, and the TKP defend the rights of the class and openly offer revolutionary and public-oriented programs—why do the masses pin their hopes on a bourgeois party founded only yesterday, or on restoration projects?"

A simple answer of "The masses are unconscious" to this question means abandoning the Marxist method. As Karl Marx stated: the ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class. The pulling of the masses toward the center of bourgeois politics is not an individual deficit of comprehension; it is the dialectical result of the ruling class's ideological hegemony, neoliberal alienation, and mass psychoanalysis.

Hegemony and Ideological Illusion: A Look from Gramsci and Lukács

Antonio Gramsci showed that the ruling class sustains its power not only through apparatuses of force (police, army, prisons), but essentially through the production of consent and hegemony. The bourgeois media, the education system, the spectacle industry, and even polling firms carve this fundamental dogma into society's mind: "Outside the limits of capitalism and bourgeois democracy, no 'realistic' politics can be conducted."

György Lukács's concept of reification enters precisely at this point:

The Objectification of Politics: Under the capitalist order, politics is stripped of being an action of which the masses are themselves the subject, and is turned into a "commodity" consumed once every four years.
Consumer Pragmatism: The masses are forced to look at political parties not through ideological principles or class programs, but as a "product" that will solve an immediate problem by the shortest path. The radical program offered by TİP, EMEP, the Left Party, or the TKP is perceived by reified minds as "long-term, utopian, or impossible," while the new formation that steps into the bourgeois shop window is marketed as a "reasonable and smooth" consumption item that can "get results at once."

The Fetishism of the "Winning Candidate/Party" and the Trap of Pragmatism

The greatest illusion that bourgeois political engineering creates in mass psychology is parliamentary fetishism. Under the precarity and anxiety for the future to which they have been exposed for decades, the masses have reduced political activity to the search for "reaching the fastest result with the least risk."

Dialectical Contradiction: Masses who wish to be free of AKP authoritarianism as soon as possible take refuge in the center "with the highest chance of winning" that the bourgeois media polishes—instead of reaching class consciousness and organizing their own power. Yet this move of refuge leads them, with their own hands, to reproduce the mechanism that will continue to crush them.

The bourgeois media and polling apparatuses continuously render socialist options invisible with the labels "marginal," "unable to cross the threshold," or "vote-splitters." This causes a deep erosion of self-confidence among the masses. The working class forgets that the power to stop the wheels in the factory is in itself, and begins to seek emancipation in the new signs hung in the corridors of Ankara.

Alienation and the Limits of the Socialist Movement

To see the full picture we must also stick the needle into ourselves—that is, into the socialist movement. Dialectical materialism does not confine critique to the external world; it also analyzes its own practice objectively.

In the masses' orientation toward bourgeois parties instead of socialist alternatives, there are two further fundamental dialectical factors:

Neoliberal Atomization and Disorganization: Forms of precarity escalated since the 1990s—flexible work, de-unionization, and the courier/gig economy—have destroyed the class's capacity to stand together, to act together, and to organize in class spaces. The individual who has been isolated and atomized finds it hard to believe in a collective revolutionary line.
The Distance Between Vanguard and Mass: Despite the presence of socialist parties (TİP, EMEP, the Left Party, the TKP, etc.) in the parliamentary field or in actions, it is an objective fact that they have not yet established an organic and lasting hegemony in the lowest layers of the working class, in Organized Industrial Zones, and in the shantytowns. When the masses cannot see socialists as a continuous force at the center of their everyday lives and of their struggle for economic survival, they turn reflexively in moments of crisis toward "familiar bourgeois harbors."

Summary and Revolutionary Conclusion

Young comrade: the masses' orientation toward this new bourgeois party is not a "betrayal," but a natural reflection of the ideological illusion the system produces.

Our task is not to condemn this orientation or to look down on the masses from above. On the contrary, it is to show how the "easy solutions" bourgeois politics promises are mirages, to rebuild the masses' faith in their own power, and to set against parliamentary fetishism concrete class organization in the street, the factory, and the campus.

Bourgeois parties promise the masses that they will be "passive voters"; we call the masses to become "revolutionary subjects" who take their historical destiny into their own hands. That is the fundamental difference.

The United Front Tactic and the Position of the DEM Party: The Independent Political Line of the Class

Young comrade: while watching the bourgeoisie's internal arm-wrestling, socialists can fall into two most dangerous extremes: on the one hand, sectarian isolationism, which watches every concrete political development as "all a game of bourgeois power" and severs itself from the everyday struggle of the masses; on the other, liquidationist liberalism (tailism), which, out of the desire to overthrow the authoritarian regime, attaches itself to the unprincipled driftings of the bourgeoisie or the petty bourgeoisie.

Dialectical materialism loads upon us the task of building the independent political line of the class not between these two shallow refuges, but in the very middle of the contradictions. The idea of the "United Front" and the dialectical relation to be established with the DEM Party take shape precisely on this line.

The United Front Tactic: Tactical Flexibility, or the Liquidation of the Class?

The "United Front" tactic filtered down from the tradition of Lenin and the Comintern does not mean, as the liberal media markets it, an unprincipled "electoral alliance" or the turning of programs into a common stew.

Dialectically, the united front is: "To walk separately, but to strike at the same point."

The Difference Between Strategy and Tactic: Our strategy is the power of the working class and the construction of a classless society. Tactic is the flexibility to stand side by side with the dynamics of social opposition in order to push back the most concrete obstacle before us on the road to this strategic goal (the present authoritarian and fascistic regime mechanism).
The Preservation of Class Independence: Even when entering united-front mode, socialists never shelve their own independent organization, their own line of action, and their right to criticize bourgeois restoration projects. If the alliance established conditions that the working class put its own flag in its pocket, what is at issue there is not a united front but the liquidation of the class into capital.

The boundary of legitimacy for any relation that can be established—including with the newly founded party—with bourgeois or middle-class foci that claim to push back the regime is here: the freedom of the class to voice its own demands loudly and to organize the masses.

The DEM Party and the Kurdish Question: A Dialectical Intersection

One of the most distinctive and determining dynamics of Turkish politics is, without doubt, the tradition the DEM Party represents. In evaluating this focus we must completely cleanse ourselves of the illusions of the modern bourgeois media or of shallow nationalist discourses, and approach the fact with historical and class materialism.

The DEM Party is, in essence, a heterogeneous and mass popular movement that harbors within itself the democratic rights-seeking of an oppressed nation, the reaction of broad poor masses, and the demands of social movements (women, ecology, labor).

In approaching this fact from a Marxist standpoint, we must keep two fundamental dialectical principles in mind:

The Twinship of the National Question and Class Struggle: The Kurdish question is one of the founding contradictions of Turkish capitalism and of the state structure. A class movement that ignores national oppression and denial falls into the trap of chauvinism and feeds the division of the working class. The unity of the Turkish and Kurdish proletariat is possible only through the unconditional defense of the democratic rights of the oppressed nation.
Neither Sectarianism nor Liberal Attachment:
- Sectarian Error: Pushing the DEM Party outside class struggle solely on the grounds that it "does identity politics" is to cut the bond with the broad masses the regime most oppresses.
- Liberal Error: Failing to see the class limits of the petty-bourgeois, liberal, or reformist tendencies within the DEM Party, and turning socialist politics into a passive supporter of this movement's parliamentary or diplomatic moves.

Synthesis: The Revolutionary Bloc of the Oppressed and the Class

While the DEM Party carries the historical dynamics of the Kurdish people, the working class and socialists represent the destructive power that comes from the center of production.

The dialectical synthesis is this: To unite the democratic potential of the Kurdish movement with the radical and public-oriented power of the working class in the west on a common ground of struggle.

The newly founded bourgeois party, like the CHP, can approach the Kurdish question and the demands of the oppressed only within the limits that capital and "state reason" permit—that is, as a cosmetic within the system. Yet a real and lasting solution is possible not in parliamentary bargains, but with the social power that Turkish and Kurdish laborers will build around common class interests.

Therefore the shoulder-to-shoulder stance to be established with the DEM Party and other foci of social opposition on the ground of the united front is not merely a vote calculation indexed to the ballot box; it is an anti-capitalist barricade to be built against capital and fascism in the street, the factory, and the field.

The Uncompromising Demands of the Class: A Program for Testing and Confronting the New Party

Young comrade: the stance socialists will take before a new formation making an ambitious entrance onto the bourgeois political stage can never be passive "spectatorship." Yet this also does not mean giving them an unprincipled "blank check."

The demands we present to bourgeois parties are not a bargaining chip or a document of seeking help from them. From the standpoint of the dialectical-materialist method, these demands are instruments of testing and exposure. As in Karl Marx's logic of Transitional Demands: while these demands represent the masses' most urgent, concrete need, they force the limits of bourgeois politics and of the capital order to collide.

If the new party's leadership is truly claiming "democracy" and "justice," it must leave the comfortable zone of capital and state bureaucracy and confront these uncompromising demands of the class:

A Public and Social Approach: Liquidating the Neoliberal Devastation

The Parliamentary System and Public Ownership: A promise of a "strengthened parliamentary system" alone is not enough. The commodification of basic human needs such as education, health, housing, and transport must be ended at once; strategic public institutions, factories, and infrastructure facilities privatized in the past must be re-socialized without compensation.
The transfer of social wealth to a minority capital class must be ended, and the economy must be replanned not "profit"-oriented but "social benefit"-oriented.

Union Freedoms: Removing the Obstacles Before the Class's Weapons of Action

The antidemocratic thresholds before union organization, the bureaucracy of authorization procedures, and the pressures of de-unionization must be lifted at once.
All strike bans and postponements routinized under the cover of "national security" during AKP rule must end; the right to strike and to seek rights must be unconditionally guaranteed.

Economic Justice: Dumping the Tax Burden onto Capital's Back

Indirect taxes (VAT, special consumption tax) loaded onto laborers under the pretext of inflation and crisis must be lowered; no tax must be taken from basic consumer goods.
A progressive and graduated Wealth Tax must be imposed on capital owners and big holdings.
The minimum wage must cease to be an "average wage," be raised to a level above the poverty line on which one can live humanely, and be left untaxed.

A Revolution in the Labor Regime: Ending Precarity and Algorithmic Slavery

Capitalism's modern forms of exploitation—flexible work, subcontracting, platform labor (the gig economy), and the "tradesman courier" illusion to which motorized couriers are subjected—must be banned.
A comprehensive labor law based on secure, permanent employment and humane working hours (a weekly maximum of 35 hours) must be put into effect for all workers.
Against the understanding that treats workplace deaths as "fate" in work culture, occupational health and safety inspections must be left directly to workers' committees.

Ecological Justice: Stopping the Plunder Against the Illusion of "Green Capitalism"

Capital's commodification of nature through mining, hydroelectric, geothermal, and rent projects must be ended at once.
The makeup policies of modern bourgeois politics packaged as "green transition" (greenwashing) must be rejected; ecological balance must be taken under legal protection so that it is not sacrificed to capital's drive for growth.

Ending the Fetishism of Right-Wing Candidates and Ideological Unprincipledness

The policy of packing the party with AKP leftovers, neoliberals, or right-populist candidates under the pragmatism of "taking votes from the right" or "widening the center" must be abandoned at once.
The illusion of defeating the AKP by becoming like the AKP paralyzes the masses ideologically. The new party must cease putting reactionary and market-oriented cadres in the shop window, and must clarify its course toward laborers and the oppressed.

An Equal, Free, and Democratic Solution to the Kurdish Question

The Kurdish question—one of Turkey's most fundamental founding contradictions—cannot be left to the mercy of securitarian policies and capital's rent contracts.
The trustee (kayyum) regime must be ended at once; the right to elect and be elected must be applied without deficit.
The solution must be secured not in parliamentary bargains or behind the closed doors of state reason, but on the ground of equal citizenship, education in the mother tongue, and social peace, with institutional and constitutional guarantees.

Forcing Bourgeois Law to Its Limits

Even basic bourgeois-democratic rights such as the rule of law, judicial independence, and freedom of expression are being trampled by the present regime.
The new party must defend these minimum democratic rights not as an abstract wish, but as a field of struggle that will clear the way for the rights-seeking of the oppressed, of students, of women, and of workers in the street.

Dialectical Conclusion: To Be the Side That Forces, Not the Side That Requests

Young comrade: this set of demands is not a "plea" to the new party, but a historical barricade the class places before them. If this new formation rejects these demands as "extreme," "unrealistic," or "contrary to market conditions," it will have exposed its own class limits before the eyes of the masses.

Our task is not only to voice these demands, but to organize social power around these demands in the factories, campuses, and streets. For the bourgeoisie never grants rights of its own will; it takes a step back only when it sees an organized class force before it.

Conclusion: Conjunctural Turning Points Pass; Class Struggle Remains

Young comrade: historical materialism teaches us that the history of humanity does not advance on a linear, smooth, and carefree straight line. The history of class societies is a dialectical process full of crises, leaps, retreats, attempts at restoration, and illusions.

This new party founded by the 91 deputies who broke from the CHP—or other actors who will step onto the bourgeois political stage in the future—are nothing but temporary conjunctural moments of this historical flow. On the long road of struggle toward a classless and exploitation-free world, such tremors are natural results of the bourgeoisie's effort to manage its own crisis.

The Dialectics of Transition Periods: Deferring the Contradiction Is Not Resolving It

When the capital order is squeezed by its own internal contradictions, it resorts to formal restorations instead of radical transformations. The founding of a new party, the polishing of a new leader, or the makeup of the parliamentary shop window is not a qualitative change of capitalism, but a quantitative change of form.

From the standpoint of dialectical philosophy the situation is clear:

The Existence of the Contradiction: The fundamental contradiction between labor and capital—the reality that production is social but property is private—does not evaporate in the new party's badge or statute.
The Illusion of a Temporary Solution: With this move the ruling classes do not resolve the contradiction; they only defer it until the next crisis.

Therefore such periods of transition are for socialists not a moment of hopelessness or defeat; on the contrary, they are dialectical fields of possibility in which the masses will confront intra-system illusions, will see the limits of bourgeois politics in practice, and in which class consciousness will mature.

Tearing Modern Illusions: Standing on the Naked Ground of Truth

Today's digital media environment piles technocratic discourses, artificial-intelligence fetishism, polling data, and agency-produced images before us as if they were "truth." Modern capitalism wishes to strip the masses of being the agents of their own lives and turn them into passive spectators of algorithms and the society of the spectacle.

Yet as a Marxist philosopher our task is to disperse this ideological fog curtain:

However glittering the technological and media packaging may be; exploitation in the factory where production takes place, precarity in the mine, the life-and-death market of the courier in the street, and the futurelessness of the university student stand as hard realities exactly where they are.

Politics does not advance through perception operations, but through the conflict between the productive forces and the relations of production. Therefore we must nail our gaze not to the artificial agendas of capital's media, but to the material reality the class lives in the field, on the construction site, in the office, and on the assembly line.

Hope Is Not an Illusion; It Is Organized Action

The discourse of "beautiful days ahead" is not a passive wish of waiting or a promise of a miracle that will emerge from parliament. Revolutionary optimism is fed by unshakable trust in the objective laws of historical processes and in the working class's own power.

Whether this new party comes to power or remains in opposition; whatever arithmetic comes out of the ballot box, the struggle will not end; on the contrary, it will continue in a new phase.

If this new party attempts to apply capital's restoration program, it will again find before it workers, youth, and women seeking their rights.
If the present authoritarian structure continues its repression, the class's dynamic of resistance will sharpen the contradictions still further.

That is: the wheel of history will turn not according to the calculations of bourgeois parties, but according to the clash of social forces.

Final Word to Young Comrades: The Consciousness of the Hand That Holds the Switch

Young comrade: let the deputy bargains in the corridors of Ankara, the necktie debates spinning on screens, and capital's search for a new shop window never drag you into pessimism or passivity.

The future of this country and of the world will not be determined by 91 deputies or by the number of seats in parliament. The future will be shaped by the organized will of the working class—which brings production into being, rebuilds life from scratch every day, and which, when the day comes, holds the power to throw that switch and stop the order.

Strategic moves are made, new parties are founded and dissolve; bourgeois actors appear on the historical stage and withdraw. What endures is humanity's march toward emancipation and class struggle itself.

Our historical task is to channel the masses' desire for change into a revolutionary line without attaching ourselves to the tail of bourgeois restoration projects; to organize the independent power of the class in every field; and to build that classless, exploitation-free world with our own hands.

The struggle will not stop; those who struggle will not be defeated.