SHP leader Hüseyin Ergün: Turkish left at critical juncture

    Speaking with Sunday's Zaman, Ergün indicated that leftists who are driven by the disease of nationalism are also supporters of military coups. Emphasizing that recent developments have clearly revealed that neonationalists have not abandoned their pro-coup attitudes, Ergün said: “Those who have contracted the disease of neonationalism are still advocating the idea that the military should seize political power and hand it over themselves. However, in Turkey, people are increasingly rejecting the tradition of military coups, and in my opinion, they will eventually snowball into a big mass.

This is the first time such a big separation has occurred in the Turkish left. Thus, the situation is better compared to the past.”

Ergün noted that typically, the Turkish left settles for its old habits in a pro-status quo manner. “They were happy with the old nursery rhymes of the 1930s and tended to see them as sacrosanct. They were wrong in assuming them to be inviolable or unchanging,” he said. Pointing out that the pro-status quo left has turned a blind eye to his 2004 book “Bilişim Çağında Sol” (Left in the Age of Information), Ergün stated that ideas that do away with old habits started to be discussed after he was elected as the leader of the SHP.

Underlining that any discussion of the taboos and diseases of the Turkish left will lead to renewal, SHP leader Ergün indicated that those who fail to rethink their ideas become obsolete in several years.

SHP leader Ergün spoke with Sunday’s Zaman in an exclusive interview.

Let us start with your assessments about the European Union.

There is a sentence in our bylaws: “We will enter the EU in order to minimize the negative effects of globalization.” This is nonsense as the EU is one of the models of globalization. In 1965, İsmet Pasha [İnönü] said the preliminary steps toward today’s EU were one of the greatest inventions of human genius in the 20th century. Perhaps, it was a common market then. What does this mean? He saw it. It is an economic gathering of hostile brothers in bloodstained lands in a world that had recently emerged from World War II. We missed a big opportunity by saying they would exploit us.

The adverse effects of globalization -- is that one of the fundamental criticisms raised by the left?

I am an incurable globalist. You cannot find anyone as supportive of globalization as me. Everyone backpedals at some stage. I see globalization as surpassing capitalism. Indeed, advanced technology is what makes globalization possible. Capitalism is a specific type of formation, just like the primitive communal society and the slave society. The information society is a new type of formation. What has initially triggered them is the development of science and technology in society. The reason why industrial society is depicted as capitalism is that capital owners invested in industrialization, and so on. That is, it is not that some people came together and said to themselves, “Let us establish capitalism in order to exploit society.” The developments coming out of feudal society created capital for commerce, and the use of steam power led to industrial society.

Are you saying that there was no exploitation?

What was actually exploited was the notion of exploitation. Soviet nationalism was conducted in this way, and Soviet statism intended to disrupt the relations of developing countries with the West so that they could grow close to the Soviet Union. Thus, the West was somewhat isolated. Strong anti-imperialist sentiments developed in developing countries. What was the reason for us being in this situation? The West exploiting us? This is wrong. It is said that the West exploited India, but what did it do in reality? It bought spice from India. If the West had not bought spice, would India have become more developed or would it have been deprived of the revenues of the goods sold to the West?

So, you reject the notion of exploitation as the basic argument of the left?

Rather, I say the opposite: We have lagged behind in development not because we were exploited, but because we were not exploited sufficiently. Years ago, the French produced chromium in Kütahya. Suppose they took the chromium to the Port of İzmir. If that chromium had not been produced, would the villagers have been in a better position or had a mining culture been formed due to chromium production? Did they learn how to produce different mines? Carriers and workers were paid for their labor. Would we have developed more if these ores had not been extracted? In order to exploit, you need to develop a genuinely economic relationship. They had to secure the supply of one of your products at prices cheaper than the market prices. Yet, we had nothing to supply. Today, we export goods and compete in the world. Do we exploit and are we being exploited? If you look at things from this perspective, all commercial transactions are a sort of exploitation. That is not a sound perspective. If you are forced to sell your products at a price lower than the market prices around the world, then this means that you are being exploited. If there is a transaction in line with international law, then we can talk about using an opportunity, not exploitation.

A new discourse in the left.

That’s why I find it more suitable to call our movement the “contemporary left.” Some colleagues suggest that we should not use the term “left” because it is burdened with negative connotations in the eyes of the masses. Our purpose is to create a left that has a proper view of the world and which can ride the emerging sentiments. We want to have a left that does not react to new developments with fear, but as opportunities.

How does the contemporary left see the statist left?

They believe that the country will develop quickly with statism. The moment I realized this, I left the Yön movement. They plan to create something in which the majority of the tools of production are owned by the state. This was meaningful for some time after World War II and until the 1970s. Yet it does not fit with today’s world.

Have anti-capitalist sentiments prevented the left from realizing the realities of the market?

It is true, but actually there was a market even before the advent of capitalism. Markets have existed since man started to produce commodities, i.e., production exceeding his own needs. A marketplace is an environment where economic and even some social activities are conducted. The marketplace is not equal to capitalism, but is an environment that has given birth to capitalism among other things. In a sense, it is nothing but man producing more than he needs and trading his excess production for other products. The identification of capitalism with the marketplace was one of the gravest errors ever committed by the Turkish left. In 1991, Sadun Aren wrote clearly about this. “They are not the same. There was a marketplace even 3,000 years ago,” he said. But, the party members who failed to read his writings continued to chant slogans, “Down with the marketplace.” Not everyone can dispense with Soviet propaganda as quickly and start to understand the world correctly.

Is the ruling Justice and Development Party [AK Party] quicker?

Due to lack of a proper, genuine leftist political movement, this perception came a bit late. We had assumed the left to be more revolutionary, but this proved false. The right was quicker.

Why did the Turkish left fail to rejuvenate itself?

There is still the Republican People’s Party [CHP] in Turkey. It is wrongly assumed to be leftist, partially due to its own attempts to advertise itself as such. The CHP has nothing do with the left. It only used the left as a temporary propaganda tool. But, the CHP has never become a true leftist party in the sense applicable to the leftist parties around the world. It only stole the show of the leftist parties, and by doing so, it managed to keep some groups busy from time-to-time, and it was able to steal their votes.

Does this apply to other leftist parties as well?

The left outside the CHP consists in general of small parties, formations or groups. Most of them still stick to their old habits, a legacy of 1930s. In other words, they have failed to establish proper contact with society. Nevertheless, a culture of liberalism and equality could be formed. If this culture can be introduced in the current climate, then it may be possible to create a healthy leftist and socialist movement. Bülent Ecevit, the deceased leader of the Democratic Left Party [DSP], made some remarks on equality and freedom, which contributed to the creation of a certain intellectual climate. Such things do not disappear easily. If a political movement can bridge a gap between this environment and our time, it can fill the left wing of the political spectrum in Turkey.

Do you have hopes that such a movement will ever emerge? What will happen if the status quo is maintained?

We are working to bring together the contemporary left that can perceive the world correctly. We are also hopeful, but if we cannot succeed and if the current situation persists, there will be no left in Turkey.

Has the Socialist International failed to analyze the Turkish left correctly?

The Socialist International is completely aware of the situation. Visiting Turkey a few months ago, German Foreign Minister [Frank-Walter] Steinmeier clearly declared that the CHP is not a leftist party. But there is nothing to replace it. If the Socialist International can find a genuine representative here, I believe things will change. They are certainly aware of the situation.

Don’t you think that adopting a pretender as a true leftist party will disrupt the development of the left?

There is some historical background to this. The CHP became a member of the Socialist International, its emphasis on leftist values seemed to continue with some good prospects. They accepted it as a member so that there would be a party from Turkey. However, the developments within the CHP proved them false. Also, there are so many different parties within the Socialist International that they seem to be content with accepting at least one party from each country, be it good or bad. They refrain from setting too many criteria and rejecting applicants for failing to meet them. This is a somewhat political stance, and I think they are right.

Why was the emphasis on the left not maintained?

Because they are not a genuine leftist party. For this reason, they cannot advocate leftism in the true sense. A genuine leftism is a matter of legacy, culture and intention. Left parties and groups in Turkey tended to regard this as something to profit from. They tried to represent a political movement that has worldwide currency in Turkey, but they could not give it a true essence. Thus, a truly left project could not be offered to the masses.

Let alone failing to bridge the left project with the masses, they also came to be known as having a pro-military image, didn’t they?

Some of the leftists in Turkey contracted a disease called “neonationalism.” They surely had justifications for this. Still, they caught it. It is obvious that they have not abandoned their pro-coup stance. They still advocate the idea that the military should seize political power and hand it over to themselves. However, in Turkey, people are increasingly rejecting the tradition of military coups, and in my opinion, they will eventually snowball into a big mass. This is the first time such a big separation has occurred in the Turkish left. Thus, the situation is better compared to the past.

Was the left misperceived or did the leftists failed to explain it properly? Why weren’t leftist values brought to the agenda?

Socialism was accepted as an order that would replace capitalism. This was what the world’s left, particularly the socialist left, believed. They thought that society would evolve into a socialist order through struggles and this socialist order is the final system for humanity. They assumed that there would be no further development than this, but this did not happen. Industrial society is evolving into an information society. Yet, one thing became clear: The primary purpose of what we call socialism is to ensure that the masses have freedom, equality and welfare. This purpose is applicable not only to capitalism, but also to the information society. It will also apply to future societies as well. There will always be differences between the quality of life, preferences and values of small minorities in society and the larger masses, and this struggle will continue.

Will this struggle be defined by the mode of production?

When there is less production, division becomes bloodstained, but when it is abundant, it is more peaceful. I think these struggles will be much more peaceful in the future. As societies develop, quality of life will become more equal.

The Turkish media has long been dominated by leftists. Why didn’t they succeed in promoting the left?

The left as represented in the media basically stuck to the tradition of military coups. Thus, they stopped being leftist. Instead, they evolved into something that was in the pursuit of a change of political power. In other words, they developed a mentality for social engineering instead of protecting leftist and civilian and democratic values. Social engineering cannot coexist with leftism.

Aren’t they nurturing the military?

Of course, the military is nurtured in this way or that. Yön is a media movement against which a coup was conducted in Turkey. It was so influential that some military officers prepared the failed coup attempt of March 9, 1971. The Turkish army and the chief of general staff had to suppress it. It was so influential that this tradition continued to exist in the Turkish media.

Did this influence your decision to depart from the Yön movement?

I had to leave because of their statist stance. Later, I found out that they were also pro-coup. I was with the Turkish Worker’s Party [TİP] at that time. As TİP, we clearly opposed the junta group and military coups. Today, I reiterate that we are certainly against it.

Today’s Worker’s Party [İP] is singing a completely different tune from the old Worker’s Party.

Yes, they are completely incompatible. They stole our name. It is a neonationalist party and is known for its strong pro-coup image.

Did your book “Bilişim Çağında Sol” contribute to the discussion of leftist values?

Its primary contribution was to me. I had to write a lot so that I could write such a book. I had to try to understand the world. I did a good job that was quite beneficial to myself. The people who read it, though small in number, were influenced. Yet, the Turkish left tended to ignore it. It acted as if it did not exist, and no one including the media brought it to the agenda. When I became the head of the SHP, I gave some interviews about it. The ideas I expounded on in “Bilişim Çağında Sol,” which also form the basis of my current discourse, have just recently started to be discussed with shocking consequences.