1923 was a year of intense class struggle and repression in Turkey. From July to November, 32,000 workers participated in a wave of strikes. Nationalist sentiments were widespread. The communists played a significant role in only a small number of strikes, as they were harshly repressed. At the end of the year, the Red Trade Union League was dissolved and all communist organizations were forced underground by the Kemalists.

At the end of 1923, the repression of the communist left and the red trade unions cleared the field for the intellectual circles that had always been favorable to Kemalism. In his 1923 article “Socialist Movements in Turkey”, Sefik Hüsnü expressed not only his usual illusions about the Kemalist movement, but also his conception of socialism as a society introduced by national-bourgeois statesmen:

"Turkey is not without classes and class struggle. It is just that, since the capitalist bourgeois class is a very small and weak entity and the working and peasant class constitutes an enormous majority, the class struggle takes place between the foreign capitalists, the local elites and the rich landowners who serve them, and basically takes the form of a national struggle. Until now, in this struggle, individual dynastic governments have always taken the side of the capitalists, the enemies of the nation (...) From now on, the government of the people, which derives its power from national sovereignty, must take the side of the righteous, that is, of the nation, and be a government of labor and workers.

"The presence among statesmen, such as the Deputies of Economy and Social Welfare, of people who seem inclined to act with a Marxist mentality makes it essential that our government does not hesitate to follow this path. We want this policy to be more open and for more sincere and mutual trust to be established between the working and peasant classes and between the institutions and authorities of the government, which will be guided by the interests of the working masses. Only in this way will it be possible to adequately fulfill our current revolution. If, in the meantime, we succeed in developing our industry, then it will be necessary to take new steps in the valley of socialism".

By then, however, the left in Anatolia, Constantinople, and Baku had also come into contact with each other and did not intend to hand over control of the party to the right. A letter written by Ginzberg to his comrades in 1924 gives us an idea of the scope of the left’s activities during this period:

"In every issue of the newspaper, you should report even the smallest events and changes in the trade union movement in Turkey and especially in Constantinople (...) Also include news about current trade union issues, current political events, peasants, taxes, etc., and news about the country, new laws, etc. Make sure there is more news from inside the country than from abroad (...) Report even the smallest details of May 1 and send a long account of what happened or a long news article on the ‘Taarruz’ (Offensive).

"As you know, the future intellectuals of the Turkish Communist Party are moving further and further to the right. We must fight this tendency towards ‘legal Marxism’ with all our strength, as we have done in the past, bearing in mind that if they persist on this path, the healthy elements – especially the proletarians – will not follow them (...) Only in action will their true face be revealed (...) Lenin once said: ‘It is necessary to separate in order to unite better’; this is our current situation. I believe that many of them will sooner or later fall into Menshevism.“

Aydinlik was harshly criticized by the Ukrainian delegate Manuilsky at the Fifth Congress of the Comintern.

”At the Second Congress, we established the attitude of the young communist sections towards the national liberation movements under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, which were marching towards power. But since then we have been faced with a new situation in the Eastern countries: what should we do against the national bourgeoisies that have taken power? Several articles have appeared in the organ of the Communist Party of Turkey calling on the Communist Party to support the development of national capitalism against foreign capitalism. On this point, we find among our Turkish comrades a tendency that finds its clear expression in the vision of “legal Marxism” once defended in Russia by Struve (who said that the working class had to support the development of capitalism in Russia).

The left’s criticism of the right was beginning to be heard within the International. Manuilsky was answered by one of the delegates of the left, Kazim of Van.

Bilen’s intervention, on the other hand, shocked Ginzberg, the delegate of the left from Constantinople, by stating that the working class did not really exist in Turkey:

"Some comrades are of the opinion that in the Near East, during the world war, an industrial proletariat developed on the one hand and a national industry on the other, which prepared the ground for the economic liberation of the country from the imperialists. This is completely wrong (...) The war of Kemalism against imperialism and the remnants of the feudal system is not yet over. We are therefore obliged to support them as before, and this is in our class interest".

The first two documents we read at the meeting were written by Ismail Hakki and Aleko Stakos, from the left-wing youth organization. The first is significant for the development of the left’s line against fascism: a resolute struggle but without forming a front or alliance with other parties or deviating from the goal of proletarian dictatorship. The second is a significant account by the left of the wave of strikes in 1923. The two articles express the line towards the national revolution and the role of the proletariat outlined by Ginzberg, one of the leading figures of the left.

The third document presented, Kazim of Van’s speech at the Fifth Congress of the Comintern, differs from Ginzberg’s position in its nuances regarding the duration of the destructive tasks of the national movement against the old feudal regime. Kazim also argues that there are no national demands among the Kurdish minority in Turkey, a position that is probably true with regard to the Kurdish uprisings in favor of the caliphate, but which will soon be disproved with the birth of the Kurdish Republic of Ararat in 1927.

The fourth document presented to the comrades is Ginzberg’s response to Ismail Bilen at the Third Congress of the Profintern, where he refutes the idea of the non-existence of an industrial proletariat in Turkey.

The last document was an opposition article by Ginzberg, significant for resolving the party crisis by organic means, selecting the best, i.e., the most capable comrades, instead of relying on democratic majorities and elections, and for drawing lessons from the wave of strikes in 1923.

This documentation will be included in the appendix to the publication of the extended text of the report.