\tYUKARDAK\u0130 ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n i\u015faret etti\u011fi konuya, Trotski ve Martov, Neue Zeit,[60] n\u00b0 50 ve 51’deki yaz\u0131lar\u0131nda de\u011finiyorlar. Martov, men\u015fevik g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131yor. Trotski, \u00f6zellikle tumturakl\u0131 s\u00f6zlerin ard\u0131na gizlenerek men\u015feviklerin d\u00fcmen suyunda gidiyor Martov. “Rus deneyimi”ni \u015f\u00f6yle \u00f6zetliyor. “Blankici ve anar\u015fist k\u00fclt\u00fcr eksikli\u011fi, marksist k\u00fclt\u00fcr \u00fczerinde utku kazand\u0131” (kast\u0131: men\u015fevizm \u00fczerinde bol\u015fevizm) “Avrupa’n\u0131n genel” taktik y\u00f6ntemlerinin tersine, “Rus sosyal-demokrasisi gayretke\u015flik \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcnde Rus\u00e7a konu\u015fuyor.” Trotski’nin “tarih felsefesi” de ayn\u0131. Sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131n nedeni “marksist ayd\u0131nlar tabakas\u0131n\u0131n, proletaryan\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131f hareketine uyarlanmas\u0131”d\u0131r. “Sekterlik, ayd\u0131nca bireycilik, ideolojik feti\u015fizm” \u00f6n s\u0131raya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bulunuyor “Siyasal y\u00f6nden olgunla\u015fmam\u0131\u015f proletaryay\u0131 etkileme sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131” – i\u015fte sorunun \u00f6z\u00fc. (sayfa 122)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tI<\/p>\n
\tBol\u015fevizmle men\u015fevizm aras\u0131ndaki sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131n, olgunla\u015fmam\u0131\u015f bir proletarya \u00fczerinde etkinlik kazanma sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin teori yeni de\u011fildir. Bir\u00e7ok kitapta, bro\u015f\u00fcrde,liberal bas\u0131ndaki yaz\u0131larda (1903’ten bu yana de\u011filse bile) 1905’ten beri bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fle kar\u015f\u0131la\u015fmaktay\u0131z. Martov’la Trotski, Alman yolda\u015flar\u0131n \u00f6n\u00fcne, marksist bir k\u0131l\u0131f ge\u00e7irdikleri liberal g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri koyuyorlar.<\/p>\n
\tBat\u0131 Avrupa proletaryas\u0131na bak\u0131\u015fla Rus proletaryas\u0131n\u0131n siyasal y\u00f6nden \u00e7ok daha az olgun oldu\u011funa hi\u00e7 ku\u015fku yok. Ama Rus toplumundaki t\u00fcm s\u0131n\u0131flar aras\u0131nda, 1905-1907’de en b\u00fcy\u00fck siyasal olgunlu\u011fu g\u00f6steren de proletarya oldu. Al\u00e7ak\u00e7a, korkak\u00e7a, aptalca ve 1848’de Alman burjuvazisinin yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi haince davranan Rus liberal burjuvazisi, Rus proletaryas\u0131ndan nefret ediyor. Bunun nedeni, Rus proletaryas\u0131n\u0131n, hareketin \u00f6nderli\u011fini bu burjuvazinin elinden kopar\u0131p alacak ve liberallerin ihanetini insafs\u0131zca ortaya koyacak yeterlikte siyasal olgunlukta oldu\u011funu 1905’te kan\u0131tlamas\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\tTrotski ilan ediyor: Men\u015fevizmin ve bol\u015fevizmin, diyor, “proletaryan\u0131n derinliklerinde k\u00f6k sald\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131” d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmek, “bir hayaldir”. Bu, Trotski’nin ustas\u0131 oldu\u011fu, yank\u0131 yap\u0131c\u0131 ama bo\u015f s\u00f6zlere iyi bir \u00f6rnektir. Bol\u015feviklerle men\u015fevikler aras\u0131ndaki ayr\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n k\u00f6kleri “proletaryan\u0131n derinliklerinde” de\u011fil, ama Rus devriminin iktisadi i\u00e7eri\u011finde yat\u0131yor. Bu i\u00e7eri\u011fi g\u00f6rmezlikten geldikleri i\u00e7in Martov’la Trotski, Rusya’daki parti-i\u00e7i sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131n tarihsel anlam\u0131n\u0131 kavrama olas\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, kendilerini yoksun b\u0131rakmaktalar. Sorunun \u00f6z\u00fc, ayr\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131n teorik ifadesinin proletaryan\u0131n \u015fu ya da bu kat\u0131na “derinden” i\u015fleyip i\u015flemedi\u011fi de\u011fildir. Sorunun \u00f6z\u00fc, 1905 devriminin iktisadi ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n, proletaryay\u0131 liberal burjuvaziyle, sadece i\u015f\u00e7ilerin g\u00fcndelik ya\u015fam ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131 iyile\u015ftirme sorununda de\u011fil, ama ayn\u0131 zamanda tar\u0131m sorununda, devrimin b\u00fct\u00fcn siyasal sorunlar\u0131nda, vb. d\u00fc\u015fmanca ili\u015fkiler i\u00e7ine soktu\u011fu ger\u00e7e\u011fidir. “Sekterlik” gibi, “k\u00fclt\u00fcr eksikli\u011fi” gibi etiketler da\u011f\u0131tarak Rus devrimindeki e\u011filimlerin sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan dem vurmak, ama proletaryan\u0131n, liberal burjuvazinin ve demokratik k\u00f6yl\u00fc y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n temel iktisadi \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda tek s\u00f6z s\u00f6ylememek, ucuz gazetecilerin d\u00fczeyine (sayfa 123) d\u00fc\u015fmek demektir.<\/p>\n
\t\u0130\u015fte bir \u00f6rnek: “Bat\u0131 Avrupa’n\u0131n t\u00fcm\u00fcnde” diye yaz\u0131yor Martov, “k\u00f6yl\u00fc y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n, kapitalist devrimin tar\u0131mdaki ciddi sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 duymaya ba\u015flad\u0131klar\u0131 \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde [proletarya ile] ittifak yapmaya elveri\u015fli olduklar\u0131 kabul edilir. Ne var ki Rusya’da, kapitalizmin ‘e\u011fitsel’ etkisini hen\u00fcz ya hi\u00e7 hissetmemi\u015f ya da \u00e7ok az hissetmi\u015f, bu nedenle de kapitalist burjuvazinin okulundan hen\u00fcz ge\u00e7memi\u015f olan y\u00fcz milyon k\u00f6yl\u00fcyle kayna\u015f\u0131p birle\u015fen say\u0131ca zay\u0131f bir proletarya tablosu \u00e7izilmektedir.”<\/p>\n
\tBu, Martov’un bir kalem s\u00fcr\u00e7mesi de\u011fildir. Men\u015fevikli\u011fin b\u00fct\u00fcn fikirlerinin ana noktas\u0131 budur. Rusya’da Potresov, Martov ve Maslov’un edit\u00f6rl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc alt\u0131nda yay\u0131nlanmakta olan Rus devriminin oport\u00fcnist tarihi (20. Y\u00fczy\u0131l\u0131n Ba\u015f\u0131nda Rusya’da Toplumsal Hareket) ba\u015f\u0131ndan sonuna bu t\u00fcr d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerle doludur. Men\u015fevik Maslov, bu “yap\u0131t”\u0131 bir \u00e7e\u015fit derleyip toparlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00f6zetledi\u011fi yaz\u0131s\u0131nda, bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceleri \u015fu s\u00f6zlerle daha canl\u0131 bi\u00e7imde dile getirmektedir: “Proletaryan\u0131n ve k\u00f6yl\u00fcn\u00fcn diktat\u00f6rl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcyle, iktisadi geli\u015fmenin tuttu\u011fu yol, ba\u015f\u0131ndan sonuna kadar birbirine ters d\u00fc\u015fer.” \u0130\u015fte bol\u015fevizmle men\u015fevizm aras\u0131ndaki ayr\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131n k\u00f6k\u00fcn\u00fcn aranmas\u0131 gereken yer tam buras\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\tMartov, kapitalizm okulunun yerine kapitalist burjuvazinin okulunu koymu\u015ftur. (Yery\u00fcz\u00fcnde kapitalist burjuvaziden ba\u015fka bir burjuvazi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ayra\u00e7 i\u00e7inde belirtelim.) Kapitalizm okuluyla kastedilen \u015fey ne? Bununla kastedilen \u015fey, kapitalizmin k\u00f6yl\u00fcleri k\u00f6ysel ya\u015fam\u0131n b\u00f6nl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden \u00e7ekip \u00e7\u0131kard\u0131\u011f\u0131, uyand\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve sava\u015fmaya zorlad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r. “Kapitalist burjuvazi” okuluyla kastedilen \u015fey ne? Bununla kastedilen \u015fey, “1848 Alman burjuvazisinin, en do\u011fal m\u00fcttefiki olan … ve onlar olmaks\u0131z\u0131n soylular kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda g\u00fc\u00e7s\u00fcz kalaca\u011f\u0131 k\u00f6yl\u00fclere, en ufak i\u00e7 s\u0131z\u0131s\u0131 duymaks\u0131z\u0131n ihanet etmesidir” (Karl Marx, 29 Temmuz 1848 tarihli Neue Rheinische Zeitung’ta[61]). Bunun anlam\u0131 Rus liberal burjuvazisinin, 1905-1907’de inatla ve d\u00fczenli olarak k\u00f6yl\u00fcye ihanet etmesidir, sava\u015fan k\u00f6yl\u00fclere kar\u015f\u0131 toprak sahipleriyle \u00e7arl\u0131\u011f\u0131n yan\u0131na ge\u00e7mesidir, k\u00f6yl\u00fc sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n geli\u015fme yoluna do\u011frudan do\u011fruya engeller koymas\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\tMartov, k\u00f6yl\u00fclerin kapitalizm taraf\u0131ndan “e\u011fitilmesi”ne ili\u015fkin “marksist” \u00e7arp\u0131c\u0131 s\u00f6zlerin gerisine s\u0131\u011f\u0131narak, (sayfa 124) (soylulara kar\u015f\u0131, devrimci bir bi\u00e7imde \u00e7arp\u0131\u015fan) k\u00f6yl\u00fcleri, (soylular\u0131n yan\u0131nda yer al\u0131p k\u00f6yl\u00fclere ihanet eden) liberallerin “e\u011fitmesini savunuyor.<\/p>\n
\tBu, marksizmin yerine liberalizmi koymakt\u0131r. Bu, marksist s\u00f6zlerle s\u00fcslenmi\u015f liberalizmdir. Bebel’in Magdeburg’da, sosyal-demokratlar aras\u0131nda ulusal liberallerin bulundu\u011funa ili\u015fkin s\u00f6zleri, sadece Almanya i\u00e7in do\u011fru olan s\u00f6zler say\u0131lmamal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\tBir noktay\u0131 daha belirtmek gerekiyor: Rus liberalizminin ideolojik \u00f6nderlerinin \u00e7o\u011fu, Alman yaz\u0131n\u0131yla yeti\u015fmi\u015flerdir. Bunlar Rusya’ya, “kapitalizm okulu”nu tan\u0131yan, ama devrimci s\u0131n\u0131f sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 okulunu tan\u0131mayan Brentano ve Sombart t\u00fcr\u00fc bir “marksizm”i bile bile aktarmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131yorlar. Rusya’da, Struve, Bulgakov, Frank, \u0130zgoyev ve \u015f\u00fcrekas\u0131 gibi b\u00fct\u00fcn kar\u015f\u0131-devrimci liberaller, benzer “marksist” s\u00f6zleri g\u00f6steri\u015fle savurmaktalar.<\/p>\n
\tMartov, feodalizme kar\u015f\u0131 k\u00f6yl\u00fc ayaklanmalar\u0131 \u00e7a\u011f\u0131n\u0131n Rusyas\u0131’n\u0131, feodalizme uzun s\u00fcre \u00f6nce son vermi\u015f olan “Bat\u0131 Avrupa” ile kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131yor. Bu, tarihsel perspektifi \u015fa\u015f\u0131lacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde \u00e7arp\u0131tmak demektir. “Bat\u0131 Avrupa’n\u0131n t\u00fcm\u00fcnde”, program\u0131 “ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mallara elkonmas\u0131[62] dahil olmak \u00fczere k\u00f6yl\u00fcn\u00fcn devrimci eylemlerini destekleme” iste\u011fini i\u00e7eren bir sosyalist var m\u0131 acaba? Hay\u0131r yok. “Bat\u0131 Avrupa’n\u0131n t\u00fcm\u00fcnde” sosyalistler, toprak sahipleri konusunda k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck m\u00fclk sahiplerinin b\u00fcy\u00fck toprak sahiplerine kar\u015f\u0131 sava\u015f\u0131n\u0131 hi\u00e7 de desteklemiyorlar. Fark nerede? “Bat\u0131 Avrupa’n\u0131n t\u00fcm\u00fcnde”, \u00f6zellikle burjuva tar\u0131m ili\u015fkileri dahil olmak \u00fczere burjuva d\u00fczeninin \u00e7ok \u00f6nce kurulmu\u015f ve bi\u00e7imlenmi\u015f olmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k, Rusya’da bu burjuva d\u00fczeninin nas\u0131l bir bi\u00e7im alaca\u011f\u0131 sorunu \u00fczerinde bir devrimin yer almakta olmas\u0131 ger\u00e7e\u011finde. Fark burada. Martov, belli bir sorun \u00fczerindeki devrimci \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmalar d\u00f6nemini, o sorun \u00e7oktan \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc i\u00e7in bu t\u00fcr devrimci \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 kapsamayan d\u00f6nemlerle kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131ran liberallerin hav\u0131 d\u00f6k\u00fcl\u00fcp y\u0131pranm\u0131\u015f y\u00f6ntemlerini yineliyor.<\/p>\n
\tMen\u015fevizmin traji-komedisi, devrim zaman\u0131nda, liberalizmle uyu\u015fmayan tezleri kabul etme zorunda kalmas\u0131 ger\u00e7e\u011finde yat\u0131yor. E\u011fer topra\u011fa elkoyma konusunda “k\u00f6yl\u00fc”n\u00fcn sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 desteklersek, bu, zaferin olas\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve gerek i\u015f\u00e7i s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 i\u00e7in gerek t\u00fcm halk i\u00e7in iktisadi ve siyasal y\u00f6nden (sayfa 125) avantajl\u0131. oldu\u011funu itiraf ve kabul ediyoruz demektir. Ancak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mallara elkonmas\u0131 sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131nda, kendisine proletarya taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6nc\u00fcl\u00fck edilen “k\u00f6yl\u00fc”n\u00fcn elde edece\u011fi zafer, proletaryan\u0131n ve k\u00f6yl\u00fcn\u00fcn devrimci diktat\u00f6rl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden ba\u015fka bir \u015fey de\u011fildir. (Marx’\u0131n, devrimde diktat\u00f6rl\u00fck gere\u011fi hakk\u0131nda l848’de s\u00f6ylediklerini ve Marx’\u0131, demokrasiye ula\u015fmak i\u00e7in diktat\u00f6rl\u00fck kurmakla su\u00e7layanlar\u0131 Mehring’in hakl\u0131 olarak alaya al\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 an\u0131msayal\u0131m).[63]\n
\tBu s\u0131n\u0131flar\u0131n diktat\u00f6rl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn “iktisadi geli\u015fmenin tuttu\u011fu yola ba\u015f\u0131ndan sonuna kadar ters d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc” g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc, b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde yanl\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Do\u011fru olan, bunun tam tersidir. Sadece b\u00f6yle bir diktat\u00f6rl\u00fck feodalizmin kal\u0131nt\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131 iyice temizleyebilir ve \u00fcretici g\u00fc\u00e7lerin en ivedi bi\u00e7imde geli\u015fmesini g\u00fcven alt\u0131na alabilir. Bunun tersine, liberallerin siyaseti, t\u00fcm sorunu, Rusya’n\u0131n “iktisadi geli\u015fme yolunu” y\u00fcz kat yava\u015flatan Rus Junker’lerin eline b\u0131rakmakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\tLiberal burjuvaziyle k\u00f6yl\u00fc aras\u0131ndaki kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k 1905- 1907’de iyiden iyiye ortaya d\u00f6k\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. 1905 y\u0131l\u0131n\u0131n ilkyaz\u0131yla g\u00fcz\u00fcnde ve 1906’n\u0131n ilkyaz\u0131nda, Orta Rusya uyezdlerinin \u00fc\u00e7te-birinden yar\u0131s\u0131na kadar\u0131 k\u00f6yl\u00fc ayaklanmalar\u0131n\u0131n etkisinde kalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131. K\u00f6yl\u00fcler toprakbeylerine ait evlerden yakla\u015f\u0131k olarak 2.000 kadar\u0131n\u0131 y\u0131kt\u0131lar (bu miktar, y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekenin ne yaz\u0131k ki, onbe\u015fte-birinden daha fazla de\u011fil). Bu devrimci sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 yaln\u0131zca proletarya y\u00fcrekten destekledi, her bak\u0131mdan y\u00f6netti, \u00f6nderlik etti ve y\u0131\u011f\u0131nsal grevleriyle birle\u015ftirdi. Liberal burjuvazi bu devrimci sava\u015f\u0131ma hi\u00e7bir zaman yard\u0131m etmedi. Onlar, k\u00f6yl\u00fcleri \u00e7ar ve toprak sahipleriyle “bar\u0131\u015ft\u0131rmay\u0131” ve “uzla\u015ft\u0131rmay\u0131” ye\u011f tuttular. Ayn\u0131 \u015fey parlamento alan\u0131nda, ilk iki Dumada (1906 ve 1907) yinelendi. O d\u00f6nemin ba\u015f\u0131ndan sonuna kadar liberaller, k\u00f6yl\u00fclerin sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 engellediler ve onlara ihanet ettiler. Liberallere kar\u015f\u0131 durarak k\u00f6yl\u00fcleri y\u00f6neltenler ve destekleyenler, sadece i\u015f\u00e7i temsilcileriydi. Birinci ve ikinci Duman\u0131n t\u00fcm tarihi, liberallerin k\u00f6yl\u00fclerle sosyal-demokratlara kar\u015f\u0131 giri\u015ftikleri sava\u015f\u0131mlarla doludur. Bol\u015fevizmle men\u015fevizm aras\u0131ndaki sava\u015f\u0131m da, liberalleri destekleyip desteklememe ya da onlar\u0131n k\u00f6yl\u00fc \u00fczerindeki egemenli\u011fini y\u0131k\u0131p y\u0131kmama sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in, bu tarihle ayr\u0131lmaz bi\u00e7imde ba\u011f\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131d\u0131r. Bu nedenle, aram\u0131zdaki b\u00f6l\u00fcnmeyi, ayd\u0131nlar tabakas\u0131n\u0131n etkinlik sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131na, proletaryan\u0131n olgunla\u015fmam\u0131\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131na vb., (sayfa 126) ba\u011flamak liberal peri masallar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7ocuksu bir b\u00f6nl\u00fckle yinelenmesinden ba\u015fka bir \u015fey de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
\tTrotski’nin sav\u0131 \u015fu: Diyor ki, uluslararas\u0131 sosyal-demokrat hareket i\u00e7indeki b\u00f6l\u00fcnmeler, “toplumsal-devrimci s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131, parlamentarizmin s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 (dar) ko\u015fullar\u0131na uyarlama s\u00fcrecinden” vb., do\u011fmu\u015ftur. Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k Rus sosyal-demokrat hareketi i\u00e7indeyse b\u00f6l\u00fcnmeye neden olan \u015fey, ayd\u0131n tabakan\u0131n proletaryaya uyarlanmas\u0131d\u0131r. Bu sav, yukarda belirtti\u011fim ayn\u0131 nedenle, t\u00fcmden yanl\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Trotski \u015f\u00f6yle yaz\u0131yor: “Sosyalizmin sonal amac\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan, bu uyarlama s\u00fcrecinin ger\u00e7ek siyasal i\u00e7eri\u011finin s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 (dar) olmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k, ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 bi\u00e7imler s\u0131n\u0131rs\u0131zd\u0131 ve bu s\u00fcrecin ideolojik g\u00f6lgesi b\u00fcy\u00fckt\u00fc.”<\/p>\n
\tBu ger\u00e7ekten “s\u0131n\u0131rs\u0131z” laf cambazl\u0131\u011f\u0131, liberalizmin “ideolojik g\u00f6lgesi”nden ba\u015fka bir \u015fey de\u011fildir. Hem Martov, hem Trotski ba\u015fka ba\u015fka tarihsel d\u00f6nemleri birbirine kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131yorlar ve kendi burjuva devriminden ge\u00e7mekte olan Rusya’y\u0131, bu devrimlerin uzun zaman \u00f6nce tamamlanm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu Avrupa’yla kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131yorlar. Avrupa’da sosyal-demokrat \u00e7al\u0131\u015fman\u0131n ger\u00e7ek siyasal i\u00e7eri\u011fi, devlette t\u00fcm egemenli\u011fi elinde tutan burjuvaziye kar\u015f\u0131, proletaryay\u0131 iktidar sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131na haz\u0131rlamakt\u0131r. Rusya’da ise sorun, hen\u00fcz sadece modern bir burjuva devleti yaratmakt\u0131r. Bu devlet, (\u00e7arl\u0131\u011f\u0131n demokrasi \u00fczerinde zafer elde etmesi durumunda) bir junker monar\u015fisine ya da (demokrasinin \u00e7arl\u0131k \u00fczerinde zafer kazanmas\u0131 durumunda) k\u00f6yl\u00fc burjuva demokratik cumhuriyetine benzeyecektir. Bug\u00fcnk\u00fc Rusya’da demokrasinin zafer kazanmas\u0131, ancak, k\u00f6yl\u00fc y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n, hain liberallerin de\u011fil, ama devrimci proletaryan\u0131n \u00f6nderli\u011fi ard\u0131ndan gitmeleriyle m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Tarih hen\u00fcz bu soru hakk\u0131nda karar\u0131n\u0131 vermi\u015f de\u011fil. Rusya’da hen\u00fcz burjuva devrimleri tamamlanmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu s\u0131n\u0131rlar i\u00e7inde, yani Rusya’da burjuva rejiminin bi\u00e7imi i\u00e7in sava\u015f\u0131m s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7inde, Rus sosyal-demokratlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n “ger\u00e7ek siyasal i\u00e7eri\u011fi”, k\u00f6yl\u00fclerin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mallara elkoymalar\u0131 sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7inde bulunmayan, burjuva devrimlerini uzun zaman \u00f6nce tamamlam\u0131\u015f olan \u00fclkelere bak\u0131\u015fla, daha az “s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131”d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\tBurjuvazinin s\u0131n\u0131f \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131n\u0131n liberalleri, neden i\u015f\u00e7ileri devrimdeki rollerinin “s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131” oldu\u011funa; e\u011filimler aras\u0131ndaki sava\u015f\u0131ma derin iktisadi \u00e7eli\u015fkilerin de\u011fil, ama ayd\u0131nlar (sayfa 127) tabakas\u0131n\u0131n neden oldu\u011funa; i\u015f\u00e7ilerin partisinin “kurtulu\u015f sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131nda \u00f6nder de\u011fil, ama bir s\u0131n\u0131f partisi olmas\u0131” gerekti\u011fine inand\u0131rma \u00e7abas\u0131 g\u00f6stermeye zorlad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 anlamak \u00e7ok kolayd\u0131r. Golos tasfiyecilerinin son zamanlarda ortaya att\u0131klar\u0131 (Na\u015fa Zarya’da Levitski) ve liberallerin onaylad\u0131\u011f\u0131 form\u00fcl budur. “S\u0131n\u0131f partisi” terimini Brentano-Sombart’\u0131n kabul etti\u011fi anlamda kullan\u0131yorlar: Sadece kendi s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131nla ilgilen, \u00e7arl\u0131\u011fa ve hain liberalizme kar\u015f\u0131 verilecek sava\u015f\u0131mda halk\u0131n t\u00fcm devrimci \u00f6\u011felerine \u00f6nderlik etmek gibi “Blankici bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fc” bir yana b\u0131rak.<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tII<\/p>\n
\tMartov’un Rus devrimi hakk\u0131ndaki sav\u0131, Trotski’nin de Rus sosyal-demokrasisinin bug\u00fcnk\u00fc durumuna de\u011fgin sav\u0131, her ikisinin temel g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerinin yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kesenkes do\u011fruluyor.<\/p>\n
\tBoykottan ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131z. Martov, boykotu “siyasetten geri durma” diye niteliyor, bunu “anar\u015fistlerle sendikalistlerin” y\u00f6ntemi olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcyor, \u00f6rnek olarak sadece 1906’y\u0131 g\u00f6steriyor. Trotski, “bol\u015fevizmin t\u00fcm tarihi boyunca boykot\u00e7uluk e\u011filimiyle kar\u015f\u0131la\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131” s\u00f6yl\u00fcyor – “sendikalar\u0131 boykot, devlet Dumas\u0131n\u0131 boykot, yerel y\u00f6netim kurulu\u015flar\u0131n\u0131 boykot, vb.” Trotski, boykot\u00e7uluk e\u011filiminin, “y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar taraf\u0131ndan bat\u0131r\u0131l\u0131p bo\u011fulmak gibi sekter bir korkunun, uzla\u015fmaz bir geri durma k\u00f6ktencili\u011finin, vb. sonucu oldu\u011funu” s\u00f6yl\u00fcyor. Trotski’nin, sendikalar\u0131 ve yerel y\u00f6netim kurulu\u015flar\u0131n\u0131 boykotla ilgili olarak s\u00f6yledikleri kesinlikle yanl\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Onun kadar yanl\u0131\u015f olan bir ba\u015fka nokta da bol\u015fevizmin t\u00fcm tarihi boyunca boykot\u00e7uluk e\u011filimiyle kar\u015f\u0131la\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemektir. Bol\u015feviklik, bir e\u011filim olarak, 1905’in ilkyaz\u0131yla yaz\u0131nda, boykot sorunu hen\u00fcz ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmadan \u00f6nce bi\u00e7imlenmi\u015f, belirginle\u015fmi\u015ftir. 1906 A\u011fustosunda hizbin resmi yay\u0131n organ\u0131nda,[64] bol\u015fevizm, boykotu gerektiren tarihsel ko\u015fullar\u0131n ge\u00e7ip gitti\u011fini ilan etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\tTrotski bol\u015fevizmi \u00e7arp\u0131t\u0131yor, \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc Rus burjuva devriminde proletaryan\u0131n rol\u00fc konusunda hi\u00e7bir zaman kesin bir g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe varamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\tAma ondan da k\u00f6t\u00fcs\u00fc, bu, devrimin tarihinin \u00e7arp\u0131t\u0131lmas\u0131d\u0131r. E\u011fer boykottan s\u00f6zedeceksek, sondan de\u011fil, ba\u015ftan (sayfa 128) ba\u015flamal\u0131y\u0131z. Devrimdeki ilk (ve tek) zaferi, boykot slogan\u0131n\u0131n bayra\u011f\u0131 alt\u0131nda ilerleyen y\u0131\u011f\u0131n hareketi elde etti. Bunu unutmak sadece liberallerin i\u015fine gelir.<\/p>\n
\t6 (19) A\u011fustos 1905 tarihli yasa, Buligin Dumas\u0131n\u0131,[65] salt bir dan\u0131\u015fman kurul olarak kurmu\u015ftu. Liberaller, hatta en k\u00f6ktencileri bile, bu Dumaya kat\u0131lmaya karar verdiler. Sosyal-demokratlar (men\u015feviklere kar\u015f\u0131) ezici bir \u00e7o\u011funlukla Dumay\u0131 boykot etmeye, y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar\u0131 \u00e7arl\u0131\u011fa kar\u015f\u0131 do\u011frudan sald\u0131r\u0131ya ge\u00e7meye, toplu greve ve ayaklanmaya \u00e7a\u011f\u0131rmaya karar verdiler. G\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcyor ki boykot sorunu, salt sosyal-demokrasi i\u00e7inde s\u00f6zkonusu olan bir sorun de\u011fildir, liberalizmin proletaryaya kar\u015f\u0131 sava\u015f\u0131m vermesi sorunuydu. O g\u00fcnlerin t\u00fcm liberal bas\u0131n\u0131, liberallerin, devrimin geli\u015fmesinden korktuklar\u0131n\u0131 ve b\u00fct\u00fcn \u00e7abalar\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7arl\u0131kla bir “anla\u015fma”ya varma amac\u0131na y\u00f6nelttiklerini g\u00f6steriyor.<\/p>\n
\t\u0130lk a\u011f\u0131zdaki y\u0131\u011f\u0131n sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n nesnel ko\u015fullar\u0131 neydi? Bu soruya en iyi yan\u0131t\u0131 (iktisadi ve siyasal grevler olarak ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 g\u00f6sterilen) grev istatistikleri ve k\u00f6yl\u00fc hareketi veriyor. Burada, biraz a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da ortaya koyaca\u011f\u0131m\u0131z noktalar\u0131 ayd\u0131nlatmaya yarayacak temel, belliba\u015fl\u0131 bilgileri veriyoruz: (sayfa 129)<\/p>\n
\u00dc\u00c7 AYLIK* D\u00d6NEMLER \u0130T\u0130BAR\u0130YLA GREVE KATILANLAR (B\u0130N K\u0130\u015e\u0130)<\/p>\n
1905 1906 1907<\/p>\n[Grevler] I \u0131\u0131 \u0131\u0131\u0131 \u0131v \u0131 \u0131\u0131 \u0131\u0131\u0131 \u0131v \u0131 \u0131\u0131 \u0131\u0131\u0131 \u0131v<\/p>\n
Toplam 810 481 294 1.277 269 479 296 30 146 323 77 193<\/p>\n
\u0130ktsd\u00ee grev 411 190 143 275 73 222 125 37 52 52 66 30<\/p>\n
Siyas\u00ee grev 399 291 151 1.002 196 257 171 26 94 271 l1 163<\/p>\n
K\u00f6yl\u00fc hareketinin etkiledi\u011fi uyezd y\u00fczdesi<\/p>\n
1905 1906 1907<\/p>\n
I \u0131\u0131 \u0131\u0131\u0131 \u0131v \u0131 \u0131\u0131 \u0131\u0131\u0131 \u0131v \u0131 \u0131\u0131 \u0131\u0131\u0131 \u0131v<\/p>\n
%14,2 %36,9 %49,2 %21,1<\/p>\n
* \u00d6zellikle \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131yan donemler \u00e7er\u00e7eve i\u00e7ine al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r: 1905, I – Ocak 9; 1905, IV – devrimin doru\u011fu, ekim ve aral\u0131k; 1906, II – Birinci Duma; 1907, III – \u0130kinci Duma. Bu rakamlar, resmi grev istatistiklerinden al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yay\u0131nlamak \u00fczere haz\u0131rlamakta oldu\u011fum Rus devriminin tarihinin ana hatlar\u0131 i\u00e7in halen bu istatistiklerin ayr\u0131nt\u0131lar\u0131 \u00fczerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131yorum.[66]\n
\tBu rakamlar, bir devrim s\u0131ras\u0131nda proletaryan\u0131n ne \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde b\u00fcy\u00fck bir g\u00fc\u00e7 g\u00f6sterebilece\u011fini ortaya koyuyor. Devrimden \u00f6nceki on y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde Rusya’da grevcilerin toplam say\u0131s\u0131 431.000’di, yani y\u0131lda ortalama 43.000 grevci. Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k sadece 1905’te, -toplam fabrika i\u015f\u00e7ilerinin sadece 1.661.000 ki\u015fi oldu\u011fu bir d\u00f6nemde- grev yapanlar\u0131n toplam say\u0131s\u0131 2.863.000 oldu! D\u00fcnya \u015fimdiye dek b\u00f6yle bir grev hareketine tan\u0131k olmad\u0131. 1905’in \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc \u00e7eyre\u011finde, boykot sorununun ilk kez ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nemde, yeni ve \u00e7ok daha g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc bir grev hareketi dalgas\u0131 a\u015famas\u0131na (ve onun ard\u0131ndan k\u00f6yl\u00fc hareketine) ge\u00e7ildi\u011fini g\u00f6r\u00fcyoruz. Boykot sorununun ger\u00e7ek tarihsel \u00f6z\u00fc \u015fuydu: Devrimci dalgan\u0131n y\u00fckselmesine yard\u0131m edilmeli ve bu dalga \u00e7arl\u0131\u011f\u0131 devirmeye mi y\u00f6neltilmeliydi, yoksa \u00e7arl\u0131\u011f\u0131n, dan\u0131\u015fma Dumas\u0131 oyunuyla, y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar\u0131n dikkatini ba\u015fka y\u00f6ne \u00e7evirmesine izin mi vermeliydi? Hal b\u00f6yle olunca, Rus devriminin tarihindeki boykotu, “siyasetten geri durmakla”, “sekterlikle” vb., ba\u011flama \u00e7abalar\u0131n\u0131n ne \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde sa\u00e7mal\u0131k ve liberal ahmakl\u0131k y\u00fckl\u00fc oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcyor. Liberallere kar\u015f\u0131 boykot slogan\u0131 alt\u0131nda ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan hareket, 1905’in \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc \u00e7eyre\u011findeki 151.000 siyasal grevci say\u0131s\u0131n\u0131, ayn\u0131 y\u0131l\u0131n d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc \u00e7eyre\u011finde bir milyona y\u00fckseltti.<\/p>\n
\tMartov, 1905 grevlerinin ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131nda “ana nedenin”, “geni\u015f burjuva \u00e7evrelerinde b\u00fcy\u00fcyen muhalefet ak\u0131m\u0131” oldu\u011funu s\u00f6yl\u00fcyor. “Bu geni\u015f burjuva tabakalar\u0131n\u0131n etkisi \u00f6yle bir noktaya kadar geni\u015fledi ki, bir yandan i\u015f\u00e7ileri siyasal grevlere k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rt\u0131yordu”, \u00f6te yandan da \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131ranlar\u0131 “grev s\u0131ras\u0131nda i\u015f\u00e7ilerin \u00fccretini \u00f6demeye” zorluyordu (italikler Martov’un).<\/p>\n
\tBiz, burjuvazinin “etkisi” hakk\u0131ndaki bu tatl\u0131 dilli \u00f6vg\u00fcy\u00fc, kuru istatistiklerle kar\u015f\u0131layaca\u011f\u0131z. 1905’teki grevler, 1907’dekilere bak\u0131\u015fla, daha s\u0131k i\u015f\u00e7iler yarar\u0131na sonu\u00e7lan\u0131yordu. O y\u0131la ait rakamlar \u015f\u00f6yle: 1.438.610 i\u015f\u00e7i iktisadi istekler \u00f6ne s\u00fcrd\u00fc, 369.304 i\u015f\u00e7i, sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 kazand\u0131, 671.590 i\u015f\u00e7i sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 uzla\u015fmayla sonu\u00e7land\u0131rd\u0131, 397.716 i\u015f\u00e7i ise sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 yitirdi. \u0130\u015fin asl\u0131nda (liberal masallar\u0131ndaki gibi de\u011fil) burjuvazinin “etkisi” i\u015fte buydu. Martov, proletaryan\u0131n burjuvaziye kar\u015f\u0131 tak\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 ger\u00e7ek tutumu, tam bir liberal (sayfa 130) \u00fcslubuyla \u00e7arp\u0131t\u0131yor. \u0130\u015f\u00e7iler (siyasal ve “iktisadi” sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131), burjuvazi \u00e7ok seyrek olarak grevleri \u00f6dedi\u011fi ya da muhalefetini ortaya koydu\u011fu i\u00e7in kazanmamd\u0131lar. \u0130\u015f\u00e7iler, zaten kazan\u0131yordu, burjuvazi i\u015fte bu y\u00fczden sadakati bir yana koydu ve \u00f6dedi: Aziz Martov, “ana neden”, s\u0131n\u0131f sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcc\u00fcyd\u00fc, milyonlar\u0131n giri\u015fti\u011fi grevlerin g\u00fcc\u00fcyd\u00fc, k\u00f6yl\u00fc ayaklanmalar\u0131n\u0131n ve silahl\u0131 kuvvetlerdeki ba\u015fkald\u0131rmalar\u0131n g\u00fcc\u00fcyd\u00fc; burjuvazinin sempatisi, sonu\u00e7tu.<\/p>\n
\tMartov \u015f\u00f6yle yaz\u0131yor: “Duma se\u00e7imleri yolunu a\u00e7an, toplant\u0131lar yap\u0131lmas\u0131, i\u015f\u00e7i birlikleri kurulmas\u0131 ve sosyal-demokrat gazeteler yay\u0131nlanmas\u0131 olas\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ortaya \u00e7\u0131karan 17 Ekim,[67] \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n y\u00f6neltilmesi gereken y\u00f6n\u00fc g\u00f6sterdi.” Ama as\u0131l dert \u015fu ki, “bir ‘y\u0131pratma stratejisi’ olas\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesi hi\u00e7 kimsenin akl\u0131na gelmemi\u015fti. T\u00fcm hareket ciddi ve kesin bir \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmaya”, yani aral\u0131k ay\u0131 grevine ve aral\u0131ktaki “kanl\u0131 yenilgi”ye yapay olarak itildi.[68]\n
\t1910 ilkyaz\u0131nda Almanya’da “y\u0131pratma stratejisi”nden “devirme stratejisi”ne ge\u00e7me zaman\u0131 gelip gelmedi\u011fi hususunda Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg’la \u00e7at\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Kautsky, e\u011fer siyasal bunal\u0131m daha ileri giderse bu ge\u00e7i\u015fin ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ve kesinlikle belirtmi\u015fti. Ama Martov, Kautsky’nin ete\u011fine yap\u0131\u015farak, devrimin en yo\u011fun noktas\u0131na eri\u015fti\u011fi bir d\u00f6nem i\u00e7in ge\u00e7mi\u015fi kapsam\u0131na alacak bi\u00e7imde bir “y\u0131pratma stratejisi”ni savunuyor. Hay\u0131r azizim Martov, siz sadece liberal konu\u015fmalar\u0131 yineliyorsunuz. 17 Ekim, bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l bir anayasa olas\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n yolunu “a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f” de\u011fil. Bu bir liberal masald\u0131r. 17 Ekim i\u00e7 sava\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131. Bu sava\u015f\u0131, partilerin ya da gruplar\u0131n \u00f6znel dile\u011fi de\u011fil, 1905’ten bu yana gelen olaylar haz\u0131rlad\u0131. Ekim manifestosu sadece sava\u015f\u0131ma ara verilmesinin de\u011fil, ayn\u0131 zamanda yar\u0131\u015fan g\u00fc\u00e7ler aras\u0131ndaki dengenin de i\u015faretidir: \u00c7arl\u0131k art\u0131k y\u00f6netebilme g\u00fcc\u00fcnde de\u011fildi, devrimse hen\u00fcz onu devirecek bir noktaya ula\u015fmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Bu durumun nesnel olarak ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz sonucu, kesin ve belirleyici bir sava\u015f\u0131md\u0131. Hem ekimde hem kas\u0131mda i\u00e7 sava\u015f ger\u00e7ek bir olguydu (bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l “olas\u0131l\u0131klar” ise bir liberal yalan\u0131yd\u0131). Bu i\u00e7 sava\u015f, sadece h\u00fck\u00fcmetin buyru\u011fuyla giri\u015filen katliamlarda de\u011fil, ayn\u0131 zamanda silahl\u0131 kuvvetlerin, buyruklara boyune\u011fmeyen ordu birliklerine ve onun yan\u0131s\u0131ra, Rusya’n\u0131n \u00fc\u00e7te-birinde k\u00f6yl\u00fclere ve s\u0131n\u0131f b\u00f6lgelerine kar\u015f\u0131 verdi\u011fi sava\u015f\u0131mda kendini g\u00f6stermi\u015fti. Bu ko\u015fullar alt\u0131nda, (sayfa 131) aral\u0131k ay\u0131ndaki silahl\u0131 kalk\u0131\u015fmay\u0131 ve y\u0131\u011f\u0131nsal grevleri “yapay” diye niteleyenler, sadece kendilerinin yapay olarak sosyal-demokrat say\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olduklar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6sterirler. Bu t\u00fcr ki\u015filerin do\u011fal partisi liberal partidir.<\/p>\n
\t1848 ve 1871’de Marx, bir devrimde, sava\u015f\u0131m vermeksizin d\u00fc\u015fmana teslim olunmas\u0131n\u0131n, y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar \u00fczerinde, bir d\u00f6v\u00fc\u015fte yenik d\u00fc\u015fmekten daha maneviyat bozucu etkileri olabilece\u011fi anlar bulundu\u011funu s\u00f6ylemi\u015fti.[69] Aral\u0131k 1905, Rus devriminin tarihinde sadece o t\u00fcr anlardan biri olmakla kalmad\u0131, \u00fcstelik ondan \u00f6nceki oniki ayl\u0131k s\u00fcre boyunca \u00fclkenin her yan\u0131nda geli\u015fip yo\u011funla\u015fan y\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n ve kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya gelmelerin, ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz ve do\u011fal tepe noktas\u0131 oldu. Kuru istatistikler bile bu ger\u00e7e\u011fin tan\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r. Salt siyasal grevlere (yani hi\u00e7bir iktisadi iste\u011fin \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclmedi\u011fi grevlere) kat\u0131lanlar\u0131n say\u0131s\u0131 Ocak 1905’te, 123.000’di, ekimde 328.000, aral\u0131kta 372.000. H\u00e2l\u00e2 bu art\u0131\u015f\u0131n “yapay” oldu\u011funa inanmam\u0131z\u0131 isteyenler var! Bize, silahl\u0131 kuvvetlerdeki isyanlara ek olarak y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar\u0131n siyasal sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n b\u00f6ylesine b\u00fcy\u00fcmesinin, ille de silahl\u0131 bir kalk\u0131\u015fmaya d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fmesinin s\u00f6zkonusu olmayabilece\u011fi masal\u0131 s\u00f6yleniyor. Hay\u0131r, devrimin tarihi bu de\u011fildir, bu devrime liberal bir kara\u00e7almad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tIII<\/p>\n
\tEkim greviyle ilgili olarak Martov \u015funlar\u0131 yaz\u0131yor: “Tam \u015fu s\u0131rada, i\u015f\u00e7i y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar\u0131 aras\u0131nda genel bir heyecan\u0131n egemen oldu\u011fu bir d\u00f6nemde … siyasal \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131yla iktisadi sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 tek bir b\u00fct\u00fcn haline getirip birle\u015ftirme \u00e7abas\u0131 g\u00f6steriliyor. Yolda\u015f Rosa Luxemburg’un d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesi ne olursa olsun, bu, hareketin g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc de\u011fil, g\u00fc\u00e7s\u00fcz yan\u0131n\u0131 ortaya koymu\u015ftur.” Devrimci yollarla, sekiz saatlik \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fc getirme \u00e7abas\u0131 ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131kla sonu\u00e7lanm\u0131\u015f, i\u015f\u00e7ileri “darmada\u011f\u0131n\u0131k etmi\u015ftir”. “Posta ve telgraf g\u00f6revlilerinin 1905 Kas\u0131m\u0131ndaki genel grevleri de ayn\u0131 etkiyi yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.” \u0130\u015fte Martov, tarihi b\u00f6yle yaz\u0131yor.<\/p>\n
\tBu tarihin yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rmek i\u00e7in yukarda verilen istatistiklere \u015f\u00f6yle bir g\u00f6zatmak yeter. Devrimin her \u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131l\u0131 boyunca, siyasal bunal\u0131m\u0131n keskinle\u015fti\u011fi her sefer, sadece siyasal grev sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 de\u011fil, ayn\u0131 zamanda iktisadi ama\u00e7l\u0131 grev sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131nda bir s\u0131\u00e7rama g\u00f6r\u00fcyoruz. \u0130ki sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131n birli\u011finde (sayfa 132) kendini ortaya koyan \u015fey, hareketin g\u00fc\u00e7s\u00fczl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc de\u011fil, g\u00fcc\u00fcd\u00fcr. Kar\u015f\u0131t g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f, liberal burjuvan\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcd\u00fcr. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc liberal burjuvan\u0131n istedi\u011fi \u015fey, i\u015f\u00e7ilerin siyasete girmesidir, ancak bunun, geni\u015f y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar devrime ve burjuvaziye kar\u015f\u0131 sava\u015f\u0131m i\u00e7ine s\u00fcr\u00fcklenmeksizin yap\u0131lmas\u0131d\u0131r. Liberal zemstvo hareketinin[70] kesin b\u00f6l\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f\u00fc, 17 Ekimi izler; toprak sahipleriyle sanayiciler, (bir yandan bas\u0131nda “sol” liberaller, kadetler, i\u015f\u00e7ileri “\u00e7\u0131lg\u0131nl\u0131k”la su\u00e7larken) grevcilere kar\u015f\u0131 misillemeye giri\u015fen b\u00fct\u00fcn g\u00fc\u00e7lerin ipini sal\u0131veren “oktobristler”in kar\u015f\u0131-devrimci partisini o zaman kurmu\u015flard\u0131r. Oktobristlerle kadetlerin g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc yans\u0131tan Martov, i\u015f\u00e7ilerin “zay\u0131fl\u0131\u011f\u0131”n\u0131nn, o s\u0131ralarda iktisadi sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 daha sald\u0131rgan hale getirmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015f olmalar\u0131 ger\u00e7e\u011finde yatt\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesindedir. Bize g\u00f6re i\u015f\u00e7ilerin, (ve daha da \u00e7o\u011fuyla k\u00f6yl\u00fclerin) zay\u0131fl\u0131\u011f\u0131, belli grup ya da partilerin \u00f6znel dileklerinin de\u011fil, olaylar\u0131n tam geli\u015fme yolunun ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz sonucu olan sald\u0131rgan iktisadi ve silahl\u0131 siyasal sava\u015f\u0131ma yeterince geni\u015flikte ve ivedilikle kararl\u0131 olarak ge\u00e7memi\u015f olmalar\u0131 ger\u00e7e\u011finde yatmaktad\u0131r. Bizim g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fczle Martov’un g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc aras\u0131nda geni\u015f bir u\u00e7urum var. Trotski’nin sav\u0131 ne olursa olsun, “ayd\u0131nlar”\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri aras\u0131ndaki bu u\u00e7urum, ger\u00e7ekte 1905’in sonunda, s\u0131n\u0131flar aras\u0131nda, yani sava\u015f veren devrimci proletaryayla, hain bir tutuma giren burjuvazi aras\u0131nda varolan u\u00e7urumdan ba\u015fka bir \u015feyi yans\u0131t\u0131yor de\u011fil.<\/p>\n
\tBir noktan\u0131n daha eklenmesi gerekiyor: grev sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131nda i\u015f\u00e7ilerin tatt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yenilgiler, sadece, Martov’un yakalad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, 1905 y\u0131l\u0131 sonunun karakteristi\u011fi de\u011fil, ondan daha fazlas\u0131yla 1906 ve 1907’nin karakteristi\u011fidir. \u0130statistiklere g\u00f6re 1895-1904 aras\u0131ndaki on y\u0131ll\u0131k d\u00f6nemde grevlerin %51,6’s\u0131n\u0131n, (greve kat\u0131lan grevcilerin say\u0131s\u0131na g\u00f6re) \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131ranlar kazanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu oran 1905’te %29,4, 1906’da %33,5, 1907’de %57,6 1908’de %68,8’dir. Buna bakarak, 1906-1907’nin iktisadi ama\u00e7l\u0131 grevleri “\u00e7\u0131lg\u0131nl\u0131k”t\u0131, “zamans\u0131z”d\u0131, “hareketin g\u00fc\u00e7s\u00fcz yan\u0131n\u0131” ortaya koydu mu diyece\u011fiz? Hay\u0131r. Bu rakamlar\u0131n ifade etti\u011fi \u015fey \u015fudur: 1905’te y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar\u0131n devrimci sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n sald\u0131r\u0131 g\u00fcc\u00fc yeterince \u015fiddetli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in (hem siyasal, hem “iktisadi” a\u00e7\u0131dan) yenilgi ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz bir \u015feydi. Ama proletarya d\u00fc\u015fmana kar\u015f\u0131 en az\u0131ndan iki kez yeni sald\u0131r\u0131ya giri\u015fmek \u00fczere aya\u011fa kalkmasayd\u0131 (1906’\u0131n\u0131n ve 1907’nin sadece ikinci \u00e7eyre\u011finde siyasal grevlere (sayfa 133) kat\u0131lanlar\u0131n say\u0131s\u0131 \u00e7eyrek milyondu) yenilgi daha da b\u00fcy\u00fck olurdu; darbe 1907 Haziran\u0131nda de\u011fil, bir y\u0131l \u00f6nce, hatta bir y\u0131ldan daha \u00f6nce patlak verirdi; i\u015f\u00e7ilerin 1905’teki iktisadi kazan\u00e7lar\u0131, daha da \u00f6nce ellerinden giderdi.<\/p>\n
\t\u0130\u015fte Martov’un anlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fey, y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar\u0131n devrimci sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n bu yan\u0131d\u0131r. 1906 ba\u015flar\u0131ndaki boykota de\u011finirken Martov, liberallerin a\u011fz\u0131n\u0131 kullan\u0131yor, “sosyal-demokratlar, bir s\u00fcre sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131n siyasal cephesinin d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kald\u0131lar” diyor. Salt teorik a\u00e7\u0131dan, 1906 boykotu sorununun ortaya b\u00f6yle konmas\u0131, hayli karma\u015f\u0131k \u00f6rg\u00fcn olan bir sorunun ak\u0131lalmaz \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde baya\u011f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131, yal\u0131nkat bir d\u00fczeye indirgenmesidir. 1906’n\u0131n ikinci \u00e7eyre\u011finde as\u0131l “sava\u015f cephesi” neydi – parlamentonun i\u00e7i miydi, yoksa d\u0131\u015f\u0131 m\u0131? \u0130statistiklere bak\u0131n: “iktisadi” grevlere kat\u0131lanlar\u0131n say\u0131s\u0131 73.000’den 222.000’e, siyasal grevlere kat\u0131lanlar\u0131n say\u0131s\u0131 196.000’den 257.000’e y\u00fckseliyor. K\u00f6yl\u00fc hareketinin etkisi alt\u0131nda kalan uyezdlerin oran\u0131 %36,9’dan %49,2’ye \u00e7\u0131k\u0131yor. Bunun yan\u0131s\u0131ra bilindi\u011fi gibi silahl\u0131 kuvvetlerdeki isyanlar da 1906’n\u0131n ikinci \u00e7eyre\u011finde, ilk \u00e7eyrektekine bak\u0131\u015fla b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde art\u0131yor ve daha s\u0131kla\u015f\u0131yor. Yine bilindi\u011fi gibi birinci Duma (20. y\u00fczy\u0131l\u0131n ba\u015f\u0131nda) d\u00fcnyadaki en devrimci parlamento, ama ayn\u0131 zamanda en g\u00fc\u00e7s\u00fcz parlamento, kararlar\u0131n\u0131n bir teki bile uygulamaya konmu\u015f de\u011fil.<\/p>\n
\tNesnel ger\u00e7ekler bunlar. Liberallerle Martov’un hesab\u0131nca, bu ger\u00e7ekler, as\u0131l “sava\u015f cephesi”nin Duma oldu\u011funu g\u00f6steriyor, buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k ayaklanmalar, siyasal grevler, k\u00f6yl\u00fclerle askerler aras\u0131ndaki kayna\u015fma “devrimci romantikler”in ufak-tefek yaramazl\u0131klar\u0131. Ve derin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceli Trotski, bu ortamda, beliren hizip ayr\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, “olgunla\u015fmam\u0131\u015f bir proletaryay\u0131 etkilemek \u00fczere ayd\u0131nlar aras\u0131nda patlak vermi\u015f sava\u015f\u0131m” olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcyor. Bizim g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcze g\u00f6re, nesnel bilgilerin kan\u0131tlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 nokta \u015fu: 1906 ilkyaz\u0131nda ger\u00e7ek devrimci y\u0131\u011f\u0131n sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 \u00e7ok ciddi bir parlama noktas\u0131na ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in, sosyal-demokrat parti, bu sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 esas sava\u015f\u0131m g\u00f6z\u00fcyle g\u00f6rmek, onu desteklemek ve geli\u015ftirmek i\u00e7in elden gelen her \u00e7abay\u0131 harcamak zorunlulu\u011funu duydu. Bizim g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcze g\u00f6re, o g\u00fcnlerin \u00f6zg\u00fcl siyasal durumu -\u00e7arl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmetinin adeta Duman\u0131n toplanmas\u0131n\u0131 g\u00fcvence g\u00f6stererek Avrupa’dan iki milyarl\u0131k \u00f6d\u00fcn\u00e7 sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve Duman\u0131n boykot edilmesine kar\u015f\u0131 ivedi yasalar \u00e7\u0131kard\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00fcnler- (sayfa 134) proletaryan\u0131n, Rusya’da ilk parlamentonun toplanmas\u0131 olay\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7ar\u0131n elinden kopar\u0131p alma \u00e7abas\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7ok do\u011fru oldu\u011funu g\u00f6stermi\u015ftir. Bizim g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcze g\u00f6re, o s\u0131ralarda “siyasal sava\u015f cephesinin d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalanlar” sosyal-demokratlar de\u011fil, liberallerdi. Liberallerin devrimdeki t\u00fcm kariyeri, anayasa d\u00fc\u015flerinin y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar aras\u0131nda yay\u0131lmas\u0131na dayand\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131. \u0130lk Duman\u0131n tarihi, bu anayasa d\u00fc\u015flerini a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a \u00e7\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc.<\/p>\n
\tHem birinci, hem ikinci Dumada liberaller (kadetler) \u00e7o\u011funluktayd\u0131lar, g\u00fcr\u00fclt\u00fc ve pat\u0131rt\u0131lar\u0131yla, en \u00f6ndeki siyasal s\u0131ralar\u0131 tutmu\u015flard\u0131. Ancak liberallerin ba\u015f\u0131ndan sonuna kadar “siyasal sava\u015f cephesinin d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda” kald\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar\u0131n demokratik bilincini derinden yozla\u015ft\u0131ran siyasal g\u00fcld\u00fcr\u00fc oyuncular\u0131 olduklar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6steren \u015fey de, i\u015fte, onlar\u0131n bu “zaferleri”dir. E\u011fer Martov’la arkada\u015flar\u0131, liberallerin a\u011fz\u0131n\u0131 kullan\u0131rlar ve devrimin a\u011f\u0131r bir yenilgiye u\u011fray\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 “ne yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 gerekti\u011finin” uygulamal\u0131 bir dersi olarak g\u00f6sterirlerse, onlara yan\u0131t\u0131m\u0131z \u015fudur: birincisi, devrimle kazan\u0131lan tek ger\u00e7ek zafer, Buligin Dumas\u0131na girilmesine ili\u015fkin liberal \u00f6\u011f\u00fctlerine kulak asmayan ve k\u00f6yl\u00fc y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131 ayaklanmaya g\u00f6t\u00fcren proletaryan\u0131n elde etti\u011fi zaferdir; ikincisi, \u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131l (1905-1907) boyunca s\u00fcrd\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kahramanca sava\u015f\u0131mla Rus proletaryas\u0131, hem kendisi, hem Rus halk\u0131 i\u00e7in, ba\u015fka uluslar\u0131n elde edebilmek i\u00e7in onlarca y\u0131l harcamas\u0131n\u0131 gerektiren kazan\u00e7lar sa\u011flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Rus proletaryas\u0131, i\u015f\u00e7i y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131, hain ve utan\u0131las\u0131 \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde g\u00fc\u00e7s\u00fcz liberalizmin etkisinden kurtarm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Rus proletaryas\u0131, sosyalizm sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nko\u015fulu olan \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck ve demokrasi sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131nda kendisinin egemen olmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Rus proletaryas\u0131, Rusya’n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn ezilen ve s\u00f6m\u00fcr\u00fclen s\u0131n\u0131flar\u0131na devrimci y\u0131\u011f\u0131n sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 (d\u00fcnyan\u0131n hi\u00e7bir yerinde b\u00f6yle bir sava\u015f\u0131m olmaks\u0131z\u0131n insanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ilerleyi\u015finde \u00f6nemli bir geli\u015fme sa\u011flanm\u0131\u015f de\u011fil) yapabilme yetene\u011fini kazand\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\tLiberallerin hi\u00e7bir gerici eylemi, nefreti, k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fcmsemesi, garaz\u0131 ya da sosyalist oport\u00fcnistlerin hi\u00e7bir karars\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131, k\u0131sa g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fl\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc yada inan\u00e7s\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131, Rus proletaryas\u0131n\u0131n bu kazan\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 geri alamaz.<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\tIV<\/p>\n
\tDevrimden bu yana Rus sosyal-demokrasisinde g\u00f6r\u00fclen (sayfa 135) hiziplerin geli\u015fimi olay\u0131 da “ayd\u0131nlar tabakas\u0131n\u0131n proletaryaya uyarlanmas\u0131” ile de\u011fil, s\u0131n\u0131flar aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkilerin de\u011fi\u015fmesiyle a\u00e7\u0131klanmal\u0131d\u0131r. 1905-1907 devrimi, Rusya’daki burjuva rejiminin bi\u00e7iminin ne olaca\u011f\u0131 sorunu \u00fczerinde k\u00f6yl\u00fclerle liberal burjuvazi aras\u0131ndaki uzla\u015fmaz kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulam\u0131\u015f, g\u00fcn \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131karm\u0131\u015f, g\u00fcndeme sokmu\u015ftur. Siyasal y\u00f6nden olgunla\u015fan proletarya, bu sava\u015f\u0131mda en enerjik bi\u00e7imde rol oynamaktan daha ba\u015fka bir davran\u0131\u015f i\u00e7inde olamazd\u0131. Proletaryan\u0131n, yeni toplumun de\u011fi\u015fik s\u0131n\u0131flar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131ndaki tutumunun ne oldu\u011fu bol\u015fevizmle men\u015fevizm aras\u0131ndaki sava\u015f\u0131mda g\u00f6r\u00fclebilir.<\/p>\n
\t1908-1910 aras\u0131ndaki \u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcre, kar\u015f\u0131-devrimin utkun oldu\u011fu, otokrasinin ve kara-y\u00fczlerle oktobristlerin mal\u0131 olan \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc Duman\u0131n yeniden canland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir d\u00f6nemdir. Yeni rejimin bi\u00e7imi konusunda burjuva s\u0131n\u0131flar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki sava\u015f\u0131m, \u00f6nde gelen bir sava\u015f\u0131m olmaktan \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u015eimdi proletaryan\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya geldi\u011fi birincil (elementary) ama\u00e7, hem gericili\u011fe, hem kar\u015f\u0131-devrimci liberalizme d\u00fc\u015fman olan proleter partisini korumakt\u0131r. Bu kolay bir ama\u00e7 de\u011fildir. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc iktisadi ve siyasal bask\u0131n\u0131n en a\u011f\u0131r y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fc oldu\u011fu gibi, devrimde y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlara \u00f6nderlik etmeyi sosyal-demokratlara kapt\u0131rm\u0131\u015f olmalar\u0131ndan \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc liberallerin duydu\u011fu nefretin b\u00fct\u00fcn a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 da proletarya ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\tSosyal-demokrat partideki bunal\u0131m \u00e7ok ciddidir. \u00d6rg\u00fctler parampar\u00e7a olmu\u015ftur. K\u0131demli \u00f6nderlerin \u00e7o\u011fu (\u00f6zellikle ayd\u0131nlar aras\u0131nda) tutuklanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ger\u00e7i parti i\u015flerini kendi ellerine almakta olan yeni t\u00fcr bir sosyal-demokrat partili belirmeye ba\u015flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r, ancak, bu partili, ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fcklerin \u00fcstesinden gelmek zorundad\u0131r. Bu ko\u015fullar alt\u0131nda sosyal-demokrat parti “Abbas yolcular\u0131”ndan bir \u00e7o\u011funu yitiriyor. Burjuva devrimi s\u0131ras\u0131nda, k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck-burjuva “Abbas yolcular”\u0131n sosyalistlere kat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 \u00e7ok do\u011fald\u0131r. \u015eimdi marksizmden ve sosyal-demokrasiden kopuyorlar. Bu geli\u015fme her iki hizipte de g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcyor: Bol\u015fevikler aras\u0131nda “otzovist” e\u011filim bi\u00e7iminde 1908 ilkyaz\u0131nda ortaya \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015f, Moskova toplant\u0131s\u0131nda derhal yenilgiye u\u011frat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, uzun bir sava\u015f\u0131mdan sonra hizbin resmi merkezi taraf\u0131ndan reddedilmi\u015f ve yurtd\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ayr\u0131 bir hizip olarak, Vperyod hizbi olarak kurulmu\u015ftur. Kendi platformlar\u0131na (“proletarya felsefesi” (sayfa 136) maskesi alt\u0131nda) marksizmle sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 getiren mah\u00e7\u0131larla, utanga\u00e7 otzovistler olan “\u00fcltimatomcular”\u0131 ve ezberledikleri “g\u00f6zkama\u015ft\u0131r\u0131c\u0131” sloganlara kap\u0131lan ama marksizmin temellerini anlamay\u0131 ba\u015faramayan “\u00f6zg\u00fcr g\u00fcnler sosyal-demokratlar\u0131”n\u0131 bu Vperyod hizbinin biraraya getirmi\u015f olmas\u0131, da\u011f\u0131lma d\u00f6neminin \u00f6zg\u00fcl niteli\u011fini g\u00f6sterir.<\/p>\n
\tK\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck-burjuva “Abbas yolcular”\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcl\u00fc\u015f\u00fc men\u015fevikler aras\u0131nda, tasfiyeci e\u011filim olarak d\u0131\u015favurmu\u015ftur. Bu e\u011filim bay Potresov’un dergisi olan Na\u015fa Zarya’da, Vozrojdeniye’de ve Jizn’de, “Onalt\u0131lar”\u0131n ve “\u00dc\u00e7ler”in (Mihayil, Roman, Yuri) tak\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 tutumda tam k\u0131vam\u0131n\u0131 bulmu\u015ftur. Yurtd\u0131\u015f\u0131nda yay\u0131nlanan Golos Sotsiyal-Demokrata da Rus tasfiyecilerin hizmetkar\u0131 ve parti \u00fcyeleri kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda diplomatik pe\u00e7eleri olarak g\u00f6rev yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\tTrotski, kar\u015f\u0131-devrim d\u00f6neminde, sosyal-demokrat olmayan \u00f6\u011felerin Sosyal-Demokrat \u0130\u015f\u00e7i Partisinden \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcl\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn, bu da\u011f\u0131lman\u0131n tarihsel ve iktisadi anlam\u0131n\u0131 kavrayam\u0131yor ve Alman olan okurlar\u0131na, her iki hizbin “par\u00e7a par\u00e7a b\u00f6l\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc”, partinin “par\u00e7a par\u00e7a b\u00f6l\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc”, partinin “maneviyat bozuklu\u011funa u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131” s\u00f6yl\u00fcyor.<\/p>\n
\tDo\u011fru de\u011fil. Do\u011frudan bu uzakla\u015f\u0131\u015f, her \u015feyden \u00f6nce Trotski’nin teorik anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde eksik oldu\u011funu g\u00f6sterir. Genel kurulun,[71] tasfiyecili\u011fi ve otzovizmi, her ikisini, neden “proletarya \u00fczerinde burjuva etkisinin d\u0131\u015favurumu” olarak tan\u0131mlad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 hi\u00e7bir bi\u00e7imde anlayamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn: Parti taraf\u0131ndan k\u0131nanan ve proletarya \u00fczerindeki burjuva etkisini g\u00f6steren e\u011filimlerin kopmas\u0131, partinin da\u011f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n m\u0131 belirtisidir, daha g\u00fc\u00e7lendi\u011finin, daha ar\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n m\u0131?<\/p>\n
\t\u0130kinci olarak, do\u011frudan bu uzakla\u015f\u0131\u015f, Trotski hizbinin izledi\u011fi reklam “siyaseti”ni g\u00f6sterir. Trotski, merkez y\u00f6netim kurulu temsilcisini Pravda’dan uzakla\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6re, onun giri\u015fiminin bir hizip yaratmak oldu\u011funu herkes biliyor. Kendi hizbinin reklam\u0131n\u0131 yaparken Trotski, Almanlara, partinin par\u00e7a par\u00e7a oldu\u011funu, her iki hizbin par\u00e7a par\u00e7a b\u00f6l\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ve sadece kendisinin, Trotski’nin, durumu kurtarmakta oldu\u011funu s\u00f6ylemekten \u00e7ekinmiyor. Ger\u00e7ekten \u015fimdi hepimiz g\u00f6r\u00fcyoruz ki, Trotski, \u00f6zellikle tasfiyecilerin ve vperyodcular\u0131n g\u00fcvenini kazanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r – Trotski yanda\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n (Viyana Kul\u00fcb\u00fc ad\u0131na 26 Kas\u0131m 1910 tarihinde) onaylad\u0131klar\u0131 en son (sayfa 137) \u00f6neri bunu kesin olarak kan\u0131tlamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\tTrotski’nin Almanlar\u0131n \u00f6n\u00fcnde partiyi k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fcltmekte ve kendini y\u00fcceltmekte ne \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde utanmazl\u0131\u011fa ka\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00f6rne\u011fin \u015fu s\u00f6zlerde \u00e7ok iyi g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcyor. Trotski, Rusya’daki “i\u015f\u00e7i y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar\u0131n”n\u0131n, “sosyal-demokrat partinin kendi \u00e7evreleri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda [italik Trotskitnin] kald\u0131\u011f\u0131” d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinde olduklar\u0131n\u0131 yaz\u0131yor ve “sosyal-demokrasisiz sosyal-demokratlar”dan s\u00f6zediyor.<\/p>\n
\tBay Potresov’la dostlar\u0131n\u0131n, bu t\u00fcr s\u00f6zlerden \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc Trotski’yi \u00f6p\u00fcc\u00fck ya\u011fmuruna tutmaktan geri durmalar\u0131n\u0131 ki\u015fi nas\u0131l bekleyebilir?<\/p>\n
\tNe var ki, bu t\u00fcr s\u00f6zler, sadece t\u00fcm devrim tarihiyle de\u011fil, ayn\u0131 zamanda i\u015f\u00e7i grubunun \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc Duma i\u00e7in yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 se\u00e7imin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131yla da yalanlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\tTrotski, “eski ideolojik ve \u00f6rg\u00fctsel yap\u0131lar\u0131 nedeniyle, men\u015fevik ve bol\u015fevik hiziplerin” yasal kurulu\u015flar i\u00e7inde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmakta “yeterli olmad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6sterdiklerini” yaz\u0131yor; bu t\u00fcr “\u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n tek tek gruplar ya da sosyal-demokratlar taraf\u0131ndan yerine getirildi\u011fini, ancak b\u00fct\u00fcn bunlar\u0131n hizipler d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, hiziplerin \u00f6rg\u00fctsel etkileri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda” olup bitti\u011fini s\u00f6yl\u00fcyor. “Men\u015feviklerin a\u011f\u0131r bast\u0131\u011f\u0131 en \u00f6nemli yasal kurulu\u015f dahi, t\u00fcm\u00fcyle men\u015fevik hizbin denetimi d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndad\u0131r.” \u0130\u015fte b\u00f6yle yaz\u0131yor Trotski. Oysa ger\u00e7ekler \u015f\u00f6yle: \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc Dumada sosyal-demokrat grubun ta ilk g\u00fcn\u00fcnden itibaren, bol\u015fevik hizip, parti merkez y\u00f6netim kurulunun yetki verdi\u011fi temsilcileri eliyle, grubun \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131na yard\u0131m etmi\u015f, katk\u0131da bulunmu\u015f, dan\u0131\u015fmanl\u0131k etmi\u015f ve o \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 denetlemi\u015ftir. Hiziplerin temsilcilerinden olu\u015fan (Ocak 1910’da hizip kimliklerine son verdiler) merkez yay\u0131n organ\u0131 da ayn\u0131 \u015feyi yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\tTrotski, Alman yolda\u015flara, “otzovizm”in budalal\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 bir d\u00f6k\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc verdi\u011fi ve bu e\u011filimi, bol\u015fevizmin bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak karakteristik boykot\u00e7ulu\u011funun “kristalle\u015fmesi” diye niteledi\u011fi zaman; bunun ard\u0131ndan bol\u015fevizmin “otzovizm” taraf\u0131ndan “ezilmesine izin vermedi\u011fi”ni, ama o e\u011filime “kararl\u0131, hatta gemlenmemi\u015f bi\u00e7imde sald\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131”n\u0131 k\u0131saca belirtti\u011fi zaman, Alman okur, hi\u00e7 ku\u015fku yok ki, bu a\u00e7\u0131klaman\u0131n i\u00e7indeki ustal\u0131kl\u0131 ihanetin ne \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde oldu\u011funu anlayamayacakt\u0131r. Trotski’nin bu “\u00fcst\u00fc kapal\u0131” d\u00fczenbazca s\u00f6zleri, ufak, \u00e7ok ufak bir “ayr\u0131nt\u0131”y\u0131 d\u0131\u015farda b\u0131rakm\u0131\u015f. O da \u015fu: Bol\u015fevik hizbin temsilcilerinin 1909 ilkyaz\u0131nda yapt\u0131klar\u0131 resmi (sayfa 138) bir toplant\u0131da, otzovistleri reddettiklerini ve aralar\u0131ndan att\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemeyi Trotski “unutmu\u015f”. Ama sosyal-demokrat olmayan \u00f6\u011felerin \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc de\u011fil, bol\u015fevik hizbin (ve ard\u0131ndan da partinin) “par\u00e7a par\u00e7a oldu\u011funu” s\u00f6ylemek isteyen Trotski’nin i\u015fine gelmeyen “ayr\u0131nt\u0131” da budur!<\/p>\n
\t\u015eimdi biz Martov’u tasfiyecili\u011fin \u00f6nderlerinden biri olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcyoruz. Martov, marksist g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcl\u00fc s\u00f6zlerle tasfiyecileri daha “ak\u0131ll\u0131ca” savunduk\u00e7a, daha tehlikeli oluyor. Ama Martov, 1903-1910 aras\u0131nda y\u0131\u011f\u0131nsal i\u015f\u00e7i hareketindeki b\u00fct\u00fcn e\u011filimlere damgas\u0131n\u0131 vuran g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri herkesin \u00f6n\u00fcnde a\u00e7\u0131klay\u0131p yorumluyor. \u00d6te yandaysa Trotski, sadece kendi ki\u015fisel yalpalay\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131 temsil ediyor, ba\u015fka bir \u015feyi de\u011fil. 1903’te men\u015fevikti, men\u015fevikli\u011fi 1904’te b\u0131rakt\u0131, 1905’te yeniden men\u015feviklerin aras\u0131na d\u00f6nd\u00fc ve sadece ultra-devrimci s\u00f6zler parlatmakla yetindi, 1906’da men\u015feviklerden bir kez daha ayr\u0131ld\u0131, 1906’n\u0131n sonlar\u0131nda kadetlerle se\u00e7im anla\u015fmas\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 savundu (yani bir kez daha men\u015feviklerle birlik oldu), 1907 ilkyaz\u0131nda, Londra kongresinde “siyasal e\u011filimlerden \u00e7ok bireysel g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f tonlar\u0131nda” Rosa Luxemburg’dan ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6yledi. Trotski bir g\u00fcn hiziplerden birinin ideolojik stokundan, ertesi g\u00fcn \u00f6tekinin stokundan \u00e7alar ve bu nedenle de kendisinin hizipler \u00fcst\u00fc oldu\u011funu ilan eder. Teorik olarak, Trotski, tasfiyeciler ve otzovistlerle hi\u00e7bir noktada g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f birli\u011finde de\u011fildir, ama uygulaman\u0131n kendisinde goloscular ve vperyodcularla tam bir g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f birli\u011findedir.<\/p>\n
\tBu nedenle, Trotski, Alman yolda\u015flara, “genel parti e\u011filimi”ni temsil etti\u011fini s\u00f6yledi\u011fi zaman, ben onun sadece kendi hizbini temsil etti\u011fini ve sadece otzovistlerle tasfiyecilerin bir \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde g\u00fcvenini elde etti\u011fini belirtmek zorunday\u0131m. \u015eu ger\u00e7ekler, benim s\u00f6zlerimin do\u011frulu\u011funun kan\u0131t\u0131d\u0131r: 1910 Ocak ay\u0131nda partimizin merkez y\u00f6netim kurulu, Trotski’nin gazetesi Pravda ile yak\u0131n ba\u011flar kurmu\u015f ve yaz\u0131kuruluna bir temsilci atam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 1910 Eyl\u00fcl\u00fcnde partinin merkez yay\u0131n organ\u0131, Trotski’nin partiye kar\u015f\u0131t siyaseti nedeniyle, merkez y\u00f6netim kurulunun temsilcisiyle Trotski aras\u0131nda ili\u015fkilerin kesildi\u011fini ilan etmi\u015ftir. Kopenhag’da, parti yanl\u0131s\u0131 men\u015feviklerin temsilcisi ve merkez yay\u0131n organ\u0131 yaz\u0131kurulu delegesi olarak Plehanov, bol\u015feviklerin temsilcisi olarak bu sat\u0131rlar\u0131n yazar\u0131, ve bir Polonyal\u0131 yolda\u015f, Trotski’nin (sayfa 139) partimize ait olaylar\u0131 Alman bas\u0131n\u0131na yans\u0131t\u0131\u015f bi\u00e7imini \u015fiddetle yermi\u015fizdir.<\/p>\n
\tTrotski’nin Rus sosyal-demokrasisinde “genel parti” e\u011filimini mi, yoksa “genel parti kar\u015f\u0131t\u0131” e\u011filimi mi temsil etti\u011fine okurlar karar versin. (sayfa 140)<\/p>\n
1910 sonlar\u0131nda yaz\u0131ld\u0131
\nDiskussionni Listok, n\u00b0 3,
\n29 Nisan (12 May\u0131s) 191l’de
\nyay\u0131nland\u0131
\n\u0130mza: N. Lenin<\/p>\n
Dipnotlar<\/p>\n[60] Neue Zeit. – Stuttgart’da 1883-1923 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda yay\u0131nlanan, Alman sosyal-demokratlanmn dergisi. Engels’in \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnden, yani 1890’lar\u0131n ortas\u0131ndan itibaren dergide revizyonistlerin yaz\u0131lar\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kmaya ba\u015flad\u0131. -122.<\/p>\n[61] Neue Rheinische Zeitung. – 1 Haziran 1848 ile 19 May\u0131s 1849 tarihleri aras\u0131nda K\u00f6ln’de yay\u0131nlanan devrimci bir gazete. Gazeteyi Marx’la Engels y\u00f6nlendirmekteydi. -124.<\/p>\n[62] Lenin, RSD\u0130P’nin d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc (birlik) kongresince (1906) kabul edilen “Tar\u0131m Sorununa \u0130li\u015fkin Taktik Karar”\u0131 kastediyor .- 125.<\/p>\n[63] Kastedilen yaz\u0131, Marx’\u0131n, 13 Eyl\u00fcl 1848’de Neue Rheinische Zeitung’da yay\u0131nlanan “Berlin Kar\u015f\u0131-Devrimi” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 yaz\u0131s\u0131d\u0131r. Yaz\u0131 Aus Dem Literarischen Nachlass von Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels und Ferdinand Lassalle’\u0131n 1902’de Franz Mehring taraf\u0131ndan yay\u0131nlanan III. cildinde (s. 192-196) yer alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Lenin, Mehring’in alaya al\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 an\u0131msat\u0131rken, onun kitaba yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 giri\u015f b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc (s. 53-54) kastediyor. -126.<\/p>\n[64] Lenin, Proletari’nin 21 A\u011fustos 1906 tarihinde \u00e7\u0131kan say\u0131s\u0131na yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 “Boykot” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 ba\u015fyaz\u0131y\u0131 kastediyor .(Bkz: V .\u0130. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. II, s. 141-149.) -128.<\/p>\n[65] Buligin Dumas\u0131. – \u00c7arl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmetinin 1905’te toplamaya niyetlendi\u011fi dan\u0131\u015fman niteli\u011finde bir “temsilciler meclisi”. Bu meclisin toplanmas\u0131na ve se\u00e7imine ili\u015fkin kurallar\u0131 kapsayan tasar\u0131y\u0131, \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri bakan\u0131 Buligin’in ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndaki bir kurul haz\u0131rlam\u0131\u015f ve \u00e7ar\u0131n 6 (19) A\u011fustos 1905 tarihli buyrultusuyla birlikte yay\u0131nlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Bol\u015fevikler, Buligin Dumas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 aktif bir boykot ilan ettiler. H\u00fck\u00fcmetin toplanmas\u0131na f\u0131rsat kalmadan bast\u0131ran devrim Duman\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesine engel oldu. -129.<\/p>\n[66] Lenin, toplad\u0131\u011f\u0131 istatistiklere dayanarak Rus devriminin tarihi \u00fczerine bir deneme yazmak istiyordu. Tahminince bu \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma, 300 sayfal\u0131k bir kitap olacakt\u0131. Ama, Lenin niyetini ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftiremedi. Sadece “Rusya’da Grev \u0130statistikleri” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 bir yaz\u0131 yazd\u0131. Lenin’in, belirtti\u011fi gibi bu yaz\u0131 “konuya ilk yakla\u015f\u0131m”d\u0131. (Bkz: V. \u0130. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 16, s. 393-421.) -129n.<\/p>\n[67] 17 Ekim 1905’te, genel siyasal grevlerin ve geni\u015f devrimci geli\u015fmenin tepe noktas\u0131na vard\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir s\u0131rada, \u00e7ar bir buyrultu yay\u0131nlad\u0131. Ki\u015fi \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckleri ve yasama g\u00fcc\u00fcne sahip bir Duma vaadeden bu buyrultu, y\u0131\u011f\u0131nlar\u0131 aldatmay\u0131 ama\u00e7lam\u0131\u015f bir oyundu, kolayca aldanabilecek olanlar\u0131 yat\u0131\u015ft\u0131rmaya, devrime sald\u0131r\u0131ya giri\u015fmek \u00fczere zaman kazanmaya d\u00f6n\u00fckt\u00fc. Ancak 17 Ekimden sonra da i\u015f\u00e7i s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 ve k\u00f6yl\u00fcler, otokrasiye kar\u015f\u0131 devrimci sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcrd\u00fcrd\u00fcler . -131.<\/p>\n[68] Aral\u0131k 1905’te Moskova i\u015f\u00e7ilerinin otokrasiye kar\u015f\u0131 silahl\u0131 ba\u015fkald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 kastediliyor. Moskoval\u0131 bol\u015feviklerin \u00f6nderli\u011findeki i\u015f\u00e7iler, \u00e7ar\u0131n askerlerine kar\u015f\u0131, barikatlarda dokuz g\u00fcn s\u00fcren kahramanca bir sava\u015f verdiler. H\u00fck\u00fcmetin isyan\u0131 bast\u0131rabilmesini, ancak St. Petersburg’dan getirilen askerler sa\u011flayabildi. \u00c7arl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmeti isyanc\u0131lara kar\u015f\u0131 e\u015fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmedik \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde zulmetti. \u0130\u015f\u00e7i mahalleleri, i\u015f\u00e7ilerin kan\u0131yla suland\u0131. Moskova’da ve \u00e7evresinde binlerce i\u015f\u00e7i \u00f6ld\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc. -131.<\/p>\n[69] Bkz: Marx ve Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moskova 1965, s. 264. -132.<\/p>\n[70] Zemstvo. Zemstvo Kurumlar\u0131. – Yerel belediye y\u00f6netim organlar\u0131. 1860’lar\u0131n devrimci demokratik hareketleri kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda bu y\u00f6netim organlar\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7arl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmeti kurmu\u015ftu. Zemstvolar\u0131n haklar\u0131 \u00e7ok s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131yd\u0131; salt iktisadi ve k\u00fclt\u00fcrel baz\u0131 yetkileri vard\u0131 (k\u00f6yl\u00fcye tar\u0131m yard\u0131m\u0131, yol yap\u0131m\u0131, hastane, ve okul yap\u0131m\u0131, iktisadi istatistikleri d\u00fczenlemek, vb.). Se\u00e7ilme hakk\u0131na konan bir\u00e7ok s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar nedeniyle, zemstvo kurulu\u015flar\u0131nda toprak sahipleriyle devlet memurlar\u0131 \u00f6nemli bir rol oynuyorlard\u0131. Toplumsal bir olgu olarak zemstvo hareketi, liberal ayd\u0131nlar tabakas\u0131n\u0131n otokrasiye kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmesinin arac\u0131 oldu. Zemstvo kampanyas\u0131, 1904 sonyaz\u0131ndan Ocak 1905’e kadar, zemstvolardaki burjuva liberal \u00fcyeler tarafindan y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcld\u00fc. Burjuva liberaller, gerek zemstvo toplant\u0131lannda, gerek \u015f\u00f6lenlerde \u0131l\u0131rnl\u0131 anayasal haklar isteyen muhalif konu\u015fmalar yapt\u0131lar ve bu do\u011frultuda kararlar ald\u0131lar. \u0130skra’n\u0131n, yeni men\u015fevik yaz\u0131kurulu, partiye seslenen, (Akselrod’un yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131) gizli bir mektupta, i\u015f\u00e7ilerin, isteklerini zemstvo toplant\u0131lar\u0131na sunarak, zemstvo kampanyas\u0131n\u0131 desteklemeleri isteniyordu. Yeni \u0130skra’n\u0131n, i\u015f\u00e7ilere, burjuva liberalleri “canland\u0131rma” g\u00f6revini y\u00fckleyen bu oport\u00fcnist plan\u0131n\u0131 Lenin “Zemstvo Kampanyas\u0131 ve \u0130skra’n\u0131n Plan\u0131” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 yaz\u0131s\u0131nda sert bir bi\u00e7imde ele\u015ftirdi. (Bkz: V. \u0130. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 7, s. 497-518.) -133.<\/p>\n[71] Lenin, RSD\u0130P merkez y\u00f6netim kurulunun, Ocak 1910’da yap\u0131lan birlik genel kurulunu kastediyor. -137.<\/p>\n
1910 sonlar\u0131nda yaz\u0131ld\u0131
\nDiskussionni Listok, n\u00b0 3, 29 Nisan (12 May\u0131s) 1911’de yay\u0131nland\u0131
\nLenin, Tasfiyecilik \u00dczerine
\n[T\u00fcrk\u00e7esi: Lenin: “Tasfiyecilik \u00dczerine”, Sol Yay\u0131nlar\u0131, Ekim 1993, \u0130kinci Bask\u0131, s: 122-140]\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
YUKARDAK\u0130 ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n i\u015faret etti\u011fi konuya, Trotski ve Martov, Neue Zeit,[60] n\u00b0 50 ve 51’deki yaz\u0131lar\u0131nda de\u011finiyorlar. Martov, men\u015fevik g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131yor. Trotski, \u00f6zellikle tumturakl\u0131 s\u00f6zlerin ard\u0131na gizlenerek men\u015feviklerin d\u00fcmen suyunda gidiyor Martov. “Rus deneyimi”ni \u015f\u00f6yle \u00f6zetliyor. “Blankici ve anar\u015fist k\u00fclt\u00fcr eksikli\u011fi, marksist k\u00fclt\u00fcr \u00fczerinde utku kazand\u0131” (kast\u0131: men\u015fevizm \u00fczerinde bol\u015fevizm) “Avrupa’n\u0131n genel” taktik y\u00f6ntemlerinin tersine, “Rus …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[13],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/partiyakomunistekurdistan.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/729"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/partiyakomunistekurdistan.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/partiyakomunistekurdistan.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/partiyakomunistekurdistan.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/partiyakomunistekurdistan.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=729"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/partiyakomunistekurdistan.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/729\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":730,"href":"http:\/\/partiyakomunistekurdistan.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/729\/revisions\/730"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/partiyakomunistekurdistan.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=729"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/partiyakomunistekurdistan.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=729"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/partiyakomunistekurdistan.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=729"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}