“We have no other option but to Struggle and Fight for Liberation”
-Hello, can you introduce yourself?
– How are you, my name is Ozgur Aren, I am a member of the Central Committee Polit Bureau of TKP-ML.
-You have announced that you held your 1st Congress last year. In what environment did you prepare for your Congress? both in terms of your Party agendas and the situation in your country?
– We left behind an exceedingly difficult period for our Party. Our Congress confronted the enemy attacks as well as the left-looking putschist liquidator attack against our Party. It responded to the enemy’s attacks of physical destruction, psychological warfare tactics, and ground propaganda. Besides, it drew a thick line between it and the chute that hit our Party from within and united around the slogan “Revolution with the Party”. This was a historical development. As a matter of fact, our supporters, especially the friendly revolutionary organisations, our sympathisers, and the advanced masses, greeted this step.
Firstly, our Congress is attributed to our comrade Nubar Ozanyan, who became immortal in Rojava in August 2017. We would like to express this once again. Our Congress is a humble but also vital step to show our commitment to Nubar Ozanyan and comrades who became immortal who are all the essence and summary of our party identity. As well as a promise of the revolution to the families of fallen and veteran comrades.
Of course – in connection with your question – our Congress was not independent of the country’s agenda. We know and live that; There is a very intense attack on the progressive forces, the revolutionary communist movement in our country. This attack is directly proportional to the fascism being trapped and the crisis of inability to manage. It is not without reason that spokesmen of fascism talk about the Gezi Rebellion at every opportunity. Although the orientation of the ruling classes to the revolutionary communist movement has developed mainly as a physical attack aiming at destruction, there is also a very intense attack in the ideological-political field. We can say that the revolutionary and communist movement is the target of the onslaught of destruction. Every understanding that does not compromise with fascism and struggles against it has been and is becoming the target of the enemy. When the armed struggle is added to this conflict, the aggression of fascism increases even more.
When the armed struggle is added to this conflict, the aggression of fascism increases even more. The revolutionary public knows that this is, of course, the nature of things. The point we want to emphasise is the fact that this aggression has increased its intensity step by step, especially after the 2015 parliamentary elections. Our Party was the target of both physical and psychological attacks of the enemy before and after the Congress. She succeeded in holding the Congress under these attacks.
With the 2015 counter-revolutionary attack, the enemy wanted to prevent our Party from concentrating on the class struggle and reorganising itself at a higher level. Not only the Turkish Republic fascism but also the European counter-revolutionary attack under the leadership of German imperialism pursued this aim. We once again experienced in practice that our Party is not only the target of Turkish fascism but also imperialism. It was an instructive enemy attack.
This attack aimed to eradicate our Party. The practical experience and the death and imprisonment of our comrades showed us this fact very clearly.
It was not only the counter-revolutionary attacks of the enemy that made our Congress more critical to our Party than any other. At the same time, our Congress has been a strong response to the internal attacks on our Party, destroying its unity.
We know that the history of the international communist movement, the development of Marxism, and it is reaching the stage of Leninism and Maoism have always been in a struggle. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism developed with the battle inside and outside the Party against right and left opportunism, anarchism, all kinds of reactionary bourgeois lines, especially revisionism. Our Party wanted to strengthen its communist stance by insistently fighting based on the unity of the Party on a communist ground with those of this understanding. But, unfortunately, failed in this.
If I continue in connection with your question; As our Party was preparing for its Congress, it was surrounded by both internal and external enemies. The 2015 counter-revolutionary attack, the subsequent attack on the unity of our Party, and the 24-28 November 2016 attack aimed at the destruction of our people’s army and party forces and the murder of 12 comrades in Dersim are significant developments. When we look at this annihilation attack today, it is understood that our class enemies are directed to our Party. This incident bears similarities to the murder of 9 comrades, including delegates, which existed in the history of our Party. These developments showed that the class enemies of our Party wanted to suffocate by leaving them breathless and faced an attack of destruction. The aim was the strangling and destruction of the communist line of our Party.
Our Congress analysed all these attacks against our Party and made various conclusions. It can be said that the ground on which our congress rises can be taken up to the 2009 TEKEL Resistance, 2013 Gezi Rebellion and 2015 Self-Government Resistance. This chain of resistance and riots emphasised the dynamics of the revolution for our Party and took its place in the experiences of the revolutionary struggle as important examples in breaking the distrust of the working class and the mass of people by showing the distance of Revolutionary movement of Turkey to these dynamics. One of the slogans brought to the fore by the groups during the Gezi Rebellion was “Nothing will be the same as before”. We have seen the importance of this slogan much more clearly in the process of our Party.
We know that communist parties are not frozen mechanisms. They are living organisations. They live through the bonds they establish with the masses, especially the working class, and the masses feeding and controlling it. Our Party, as a product of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, could not sufficiently absorb the energy that emerged in this resistance and uprisings. It could not meet the demands of the masses. To put it more accurately, the leadership of our Party failed to respond to the situation and needs of the masses. This was seen, for example, instead of learning from the dynamics that emerged during the Gezi Rebellion and reproducing and updating its strategy through these dynamics and approached the issue in general. Despite this position of the party leadership, our comrades, especially in the field of women and youth, learned a lot from this resistance and began to question our Party’s stance.
In any case, when we were subjected to a putschist liquidator attack, our main governing organs were our women and youth fields that first opposed it. This shows us that; Those who feed on the class and the masses, who try to respond to the demands of the class and the masses, who try to analyse the situation of the class and the masses, have developed themselves and become different in practice. This situation combined with the emergence of the whole reality of the Party in 2015 and beyond, “nothing will ever be the same”.
– If you can summarise with a few items, what do you think your Congress has achieved mainly?
-I have mentioned briefly above. First, MLM forces, which embraced the Party, from cadres to members, from advanced militants to militants and supporters, who stood against the attacks we have summarised, carried the Party to the Congress with their efforts, criticism, and opinions. This is the first and, in our opinion, a significant success of our Congress.
Second, our Congress formed the party program half a century after its founding. When the issue is viewed from the theory-practice dialectic, our Congress was held practically, and theoretically, our Congress formed a program by systematising the programmatic views defended by our Party until the Congress. This, in our opinion, is a step of historical importance.
Third, our Congress has declared that it will insist on the orientation of the Democratic People’s revolution and the line of armed struggle. In our country, the people’s War, in general, had a debate on the issue of guerrilla warfare and reached various results. The Dersim and Rojava guerrilla practice of our Party has been put on the table. Our Party has taken various decisions regarding these practices and has set concrete organisational duties before it. Today, we are progressing step by step to realise these tasks.
Fourth, our Party has updated its statute based on the lessons learned from the process it has gone through, the various experiences created by the class struggle in our country, and of course the point we have positioned in the women’s struggle. These are also especially important contributions in our opinion. For example, there is now a quota for women in our statute. This is both a historical experience for our Party and a remarkable experience for the international communist movement. After all, programs and statutes are not frozen, unalterable, non-renewable texts for a communist party.
Living goals, rules, methods, etc. that will be renewed, changed, or even wholly created following the development of knowledge is the whole.
Fifth, the establishment of the Communist Women’s Union was declared at our Congress as a tangible product of the communist women’s movement. This development is also a significant and delayed step from the perspective of party history.
Sixth, our Congress focused on our Party’s policy of raising staff and successors. In addition to putting an understanding on this issue, it has also undertaken concrete planning.
Lastly, our Congress put forward the orientation of our Party to “Party First for the Revolution” based on the agenda I pointed out in the first article above. In direct connection with this, our Party underlined the “Middle Easternization” orientation and analysed the situation of the world and our country.
– One of your congress slogans is “clarity in ideology, depth in theory and militarisation of the whole party”. Can you explain your purpose here? What is ideology? ideological clarity? What is the theory? What does go into more depth in theory mean? What is militarisation, and how does the whole organisation become militarised?
-You know, ideology is the main issue. If you do not have an ideology, you are nothing. Even if you have an ideology but are not clear on this matter, you will inevitably make mistakes. And you cannot ultimately triumph. This is also clear.
Our Party has an ideology. This is the science of MLM, which has been tested in the practice of class struggles and, as I have pointed out above, has come of age by developing in the battle both with our enemy, the bourgeoisie, and its representatives in the ranks of the proletariat. Our Party approaches the world, class struggles, society, War, culture, matter, in short, everything with the science of MLM, the scientific worldview of the proletariat.
It must be admitted that; In the face of the reversals in socialism and the intense ideological attacks of the imperialist bourgeoisie, the international communist movement’s inability to respond actively to these attacks created certain question marks in the minds of the masses. The fragmented and scattered stance of the international communist movement against the ideological assault carried out with the propaganda of “Ideologies are dead”, “Marxism is over” and “the end of history” has emerged as an obstacle to defending and flagging democratic popular revolutions as an alternative to capitalism more effectively. The masses started to seek different searches, most of all, in-order solutions. However, in the process, they experienced that such palliative measures would not be a solution, with their spontaneous practice.
Especially in recent years, the rebellion and mass movements around the world should be signs of discontent with the capitalist system and the search for an alternative. It is precisely for this reason that the imperialist capitalist ideologues now say that “Marx is back” and “the end of history is not coming”. More importantly, imperialist capitalism takes various measures in its way, foreseeing that uprisings, rebellions and mass movements may develop against it if it cannot overcome the crisis it is experiencing.
It can be said that MLMs are the most equipped movements that can deal with these attacks in practice. Because MLM ideology offered us a theoretical infrastructure against “possible reversals that can be experienced in socialism”. Indeed, thousands of cultural revolutions are needed against this possibility. However, after the death of Chairman Mao, the International Communist Movement failed to fill his void. The practice of RIM, in which our Party is also among its founders, and its end are known. The communist movement, which flourished in Peru, advanced in India, and found power in Nepal, retreated in the face of the enemy’s attacks. The capture of the Peruvian revolution leadership, the revisionism of the Nepalese revolution leadership, etc. it could not succeed with these reasons. But the Indian revolution continues to resist and fight against the intense attacks of the enemy. Our comrades have suffered significant personnel losses in recent years. The enemy wants to limit the communist movement in India to the countryside only.
Our Party has also had its share of this global process. Our Party, which has accepted MLM ideology as a world view since its establishment, could not achieve our revolution despite significant resistance and success, indescribable sacrifices, and hundreds of losses after Comrade Kaypakkaya. Our failure to use MLM ideology correctly as science was effective in this. That is why our Party is not in the desired place in the arena of class struggle today. Or let me put it this way because our Party could not grasp MLM ideology correctly and handle it with sufficient clarity, today it is in its “deserved” place.
In general, the factions that broke out in the party, putschist and liquidator attacks were shown to be responsible for this. This is a completely wrong view. Factions, putschist liquidation, etc., are just results. In this sense, while explaining our party history or discussing the role that our Party cannot play in the class struggle today, it is not correct to put forward the factions, the putschist liquidator attacks as a reason. Undoubtedly, such developments caused the Party to lose its organisational power. This is a fact.
However, what is important and decisive is the inability of our Party to treat and apply MLM science as a guide to action, as a science that will analyse the current developments and contradictions in the class struggle. Comrade İbrahim Kaypakkaya’s approach to the class struggle, mass movements and the lessons he learned were thanks to MLM science. It is his MLM line that makes Kaypakkaya a communist leader. Kaypakkaya was able to put forward his communist theses after becoming clear in MLM science in its dialectical development course. After that, the job is in the field of politics. In the area of politics, he was murdered before he could practice what he thought, or when he was “at the beginning”.
In short, our Party has lagged the class struggle and the movements of the masses to the extent that it is not clear in its ideology and falls under the right and left opportunism. When you have an absolute clarity ideologically, you can be successful in intervening in the developing mass movements, in touching the current dynamics of the class struggle, and in feeding and developing their communist Party. If this is achieved, the Party can reproduce its ideological stance again and again. It is inevitable that right and left deviations, factions, and coups will arise when the Party cannot continuously feed its ideological stance from the dynamics of the class struggle and the struggle of the mass movements and in this sense does not reproduce itself.
I tried to express it with the example of the Gezi Rebellion above. To the extent that the Party cannot feed and learn from the experiences of the international communist movement and the current dynamics of the class struggle and the struggle of the masses, it becomes inevitable that it will experience problems within itself. Because MLM ideology is not a desk or drawer science, it is the science of searching for truth in facts, and it is not frozen. It is an ideology that can be adapted to concrete conditions and is the weapon of the oppressed as much as it is adapted.
We know this fact from comrades Marx and Engels that “Marxism is not a dogma but a guide for action”. They have always said that “our teaching is not a dogma, but an action guide.” Chairman Mao begins his well-known article titled “Theory and Practice” with the statements, “There were dogmatist comrades in the Chinese Communist Party who did not care about the experience and manners gained from the Chinese revolution, denied the fact that Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide for action”.
Now if our teachers are telling us this, shouldn’t we stop and think about it? This is what our Party did at our party congress paused and thought. It pointed out that we could not grasp MLM ideology with sufficient clarity. If our Party had been able to make MLM science dominant in its practice, it would have had the chance to analyse the current situation of the class struggle correctly and to relate to the fundamental dynamics of the class struggle based on this analysis, to feed on them and to reproduce itself based on MLM.
The more our Party has ideological clarity in its work, the more it is a party that is firmly grounded and knows what it does and what to do, it can take more daring steps in its policy. This is where politics come into play. One should be principled in ideology and flexible in politics. If you make an ideological mistake, it is tough to correct. If you make a mistake in politics, you give a self-criticism and try not to do it again. Often this difference and relationship between ideology and politics are confused. Politics are treated like ideology, and dogmatism is considered. Especially in a reality where the political agenda in our country changes almost every day, it should be understandable how this will be a mistake for a CP.
In the article we pointed out above, Chairman Mao said, “Neither the process of change in the objective world ends, nor is true knowledge that man gains through practice. Marxism-Leninism has never summarised information on all truths. He is just saying that he has opened the paths to true knowledge through practice”.
This approach is especially important for the communist parties, which define themselves as the leading and the vanguard organisation of the proletariat and the masses. It is vital. Communist parties emerge from the bosom of their society. And from the moment they are established, they must first struggle to change the world and the society they live in. This can only be achieved with ideological clarity. Our Congress approach is about this. If this is not done, the communist parties cannot relate to the class struggle of the society in which they were born and the movements of the masses on a correct basis; They break away from the masses, especially the proletariat, and become dogmatic caste organisations.
The point of departure of our Congress is the approach of Chairman Mao that if life continues, the process of change in the objective world does not end, and in connection with this, the correct information that communist parties (and of course, the individual and the masses) have gained through practice is always renewed-must be renewed. From this point of view, the MLM ideology and the views of İbrahim Kaypakkaya, which are his theses adapted to our country – our party program in our concrete – cannot and should not be taken as dogmas.
The objective world is constantly changing. Accordingly, the knowledge acquired by the individual, the masses and the Party through practice is constantly changing. Not being aware of this fact creates a communist party and a revolutionary practice that is far from the living reality of life, disconnected from the class struggle, unaware of the struggle and fundamental dynamics of the masses. This situation means death for both the individual and the communist parties.
This is what we are trying to express; Based on this approach of Chairman Mao, our Congress will learn from the class struggle and the movement of the masses, and theoretically formulate this learning activity, if it provides its ideological clarity and sustains it. It should be known that we are not talking about revising the MLM and its communist theses adapted to our country. What we are talking about is the reproduction of communist theory with the change of objective reality, its enrichment and deepening with the correct knowledge gained through practice from the class struggle and the movement of the masses.
MLM ideology has never provided us with ready-made recipes for country revolutions. MLM did not summarise the information on all the facts. This ideology has shown us the way to acquire correct knowledge only through practice and said that one should walk from it. Our Party is determined to follow the principle of seeking the truth in facts and being revolutionary in practice in the coming period. Our Congress has discussed and defined the deepening of our ideology and perfection in theory on this basis.
Take the issue of the militarisation of the whole Party on the other part of your question. Here, the concept of “militarisation of the whole party” may cause misunderstandings. There are various parties and organisations within the international communist movement that use this concept. We do not use the concept like them.
How do we use it? Our revolution is armed from beginning to end. It must be armed. This is not a choice; it is due to the political and economic structure of our country. The social structure of our country and the fact that it has been governed by fascism since its foundation conditions this. Let alone the revolutionary struggle in our country, even in the struggle for democratic rights, extremely high costs have been paid from time to time. Based on these political, economic, social, and historical realities, our Party argues that our country’s revolution will achieve victory with the strategy of the People’s War in and guerrilla warfare.
Undoubtedly, the People’s War Strategy will not be the same as it was in the period that Chairman Mao theorised and practised. Please allow me to quote the following opinion expressed in our party program in connection with your question:
Article 41 of our Party Program are as follows: “The Democratic People’s Revolution in Turkey will carry its originality. People’s War, guerrilla warfare will not be the same as the previous examples. Turkey has its characteristics; there are differences. The central authority of the state and its militaristic development is at an important level. The demands of the masses are different in form. The social lives of the peasantry have changed. For this reason, the issue cannot be viewed solely as a land problem. While the contradictions based on agriculture remain strong, the quantitative and qualitative sophistication of the working class has increased. With this reality, it should be noted that the phenomenon of immigration due to war and economic reasons increases the necessity of organising and fighting in cities. The TEKEL Resistance and the Gezi Rebellion are concrete examples of this.”
As can be seen, our Party, as I mentioned above in the issue of ideology and politics, also aims to analyse the conditions and concrete conditions of our country, draw various lessons from it. We aim to synthesise the guerrilla war we have been waging for almost half a century and the war experience we have gained in the Rojava area in the last period. We have some practical steps in this direction.
The experience of the armed struggle and the People’s War, which is close to half a century of our Party, has shown us that this struggle is not only the work of the guerrilla, but also a mistake to consider the War limited to the guerrilla areas. In this sense, we use the concept of militarisation, the militarisation of the Party. It is the shaping of all illegal and legal fields of activity, together with all the subsidiary organisations of the Communist Party, in accordance with War. At the centre of all fields of activity is War and positioning according to War.
In short, what is understood from the militarisation of the Party is that war and arms struggle are on the agenda of all-party organisations from top to bottom, from the centre to periphery. There should be a phenomenon of War on the agenda of every meeting, and at some point, in the daily practical activity of every activist and militant, the reality of armed struggle must be a fact of contribution to armed struggle. Without this, we have experienced that armed struggle and People’s War cannot be successful when considered as the “work” of only one or a few areas, not a whole party.
– You created your program and updated your statute in your Congress. What is the importance of the program?
– You pointed out an especially important point for our Party. The importance of regulation and program issues for communist parties is not unknown. Let us not go back here.
The statute of our Party was created in the 1st Conference held in 1978. It was updated when needed in conferences held after this date. Some updates were made in our Congress. This is the matter of party statute.
“What is the significance of our party program?” If you want, let us try to answer your question with what Comrade Kaypakkaya wrote in the introduction of the article “TIIKP PROGRAM DRAFT CRITICISM”. Comrade Kaypakkaya begins the article with the following statements: “The great leader and teacher of communism, Marx said: ‘Every step forward, every real progress, is more important than a dozen programs.
‘These words are a fundamental law that never loses its value and validity. Taking steps forward, making real progress should be our primary goal.” (IK, All His Works, p.283)
However, Comrade Kaypakkaya, when starting the critique of the program draft, referring to the letter dated 18-28 March 1875, which was sent by F. Engels from London to A. Bebel, added: “On the other hand, we should not forget that a new program is of great importance: ‘It is true that, in general, the official program of a party is much less important than the movements of that Party. But a new program is like a flag raised high before everyone’s eyes, and everybody decides about the Party accordingly.”
First, we need to emphasise the following fact; Since its foundation, our Party has taken “always forward” steps, waving the flag of the international proletariat in the countryside and cities. However, within this period, did not create an official party program, and was content with the “programmatic opinions” written by Comrade Kaypakkaya. This is undoubtedly an important deficiency.
Although there are various reasons for this, in our opinion, the most important reason is that the program issue is dealt with concerning the socio-economic structure (which is not wrong), and the preparation of the program is postponed or postponed without discussing the socio-economic structure. However, despite this, the issue of why our Party did not turn the existing “programmatic views” of Comrade Ibrahim into a program and wage its half-century struggle in line with this program needs explanation and requires a self-critical approach.
This approach emerges as a noteworthy mistake in terms of showing our Party’s inadequacy in addressing the program issue. The issue of “technical” Beyond being a process, the level of our political parties, analyse the changes and transformations experienced in Turkey are an important aspect of society in terms of their ability to demonstrate. Instead of applying the Leninist principle of a concrete analysis of concrete conditions and drawing revolutionary conclusions from it, our Party has contented itself with repeating the “programmatic views” of Comrade Kaypakkaya 50 years ago, with a pragmatist approach. It is extremely clear that this is not a scientific approach; it is against the nature of things.
The fact that the Party did not have a program caused the two-line struggle within the Party to not be held on this platform, which led to the fact that the class struggle and the real problems of the Party could not be discussed and developed within this discussion. The fact that the struggle of two lines within the Party could not be carried out on the right ground – apart from other reasons – prevented the Party from strengthening its communist line. The result was that the Party declared its determination to continue the class struggle under the name of Comrade İbrahim Kaypakkaya’s programmatic views. This is important. However, when taken alone, it also contains the danger of falling into dogmatism.
The importance of the subject is to ignore that the theses of Comrade Kaypakkaya is the answer to the current problems, based on the principle of a concrete analysis of concrete conditions. Ignoring that the theses put forward by Comrade Kaypakkaya were done within the conditions of the class struggle of that day – which is important and points to a problem in the ideological understanding – and being contented with programmatic views on the problems experienced, not establishing a program, led to the Communist Party is “not a real party”. It should be noted that; this Party did not have a program, it did not “raise a flag high in front of everyone’s eyes” and was content with only the programmatic views of its founding leader. It is quite clear that this is a problematic situation. Moreover, it contains various handicaps, especially on the organisational ground.
Comrade Kaypakkaya mentions not only the ideological unity but also the party statute and party program so that a party can become a party. Our Party, after Comrade Kaypakkaya, created the party statute in its 1st Conference, but did not create its program and left one side of being a “real party” in this sense. This deficiency made itself felt at every opportunity in the later historical process of the Party, especially the inability to properly address the organisational problems and the inability to strengthen the line of the Party.
A program is necessary as much as ideological unity and bylaws are necessary for the organisational activity of a party. In our 1st Congress, this extremely important deficiency has been eliminated, and “a flag has been raised in front of everyone’s eyes”.
While preparing our party program, Comrade Kaypakkaya’s “Critique of the TIIKP Program Draft” mentioned above, and we would like to emphasise that the “Defence Draft” written by Comrade Kaypakkaya in the form of notes before his murder was used. Our party program has a special meaning in this sense. So, to speak, Comrade Kaypakkaya’s defence that he planned and prepared, but could not realise due to his murder, has been put forward briefly and clearly in our party program. In this sense, this can be defined as the fulfilment of the will of the leading comrade.
– How did you renew programmatic views?
– Yes, our party program on the subject in terms of a better understanding of the reader allow me to transfer the article 29:
“This historical facts in light of Turkey can be expressed as follows as studies contradict the main fore in the social formation:
1- The conflict between imperialism and the popular masses
2- The contradiction between the masses of the popular masses and feudalism
3- The contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie
4- The conflict between the oppressor nation and the oppressed nation and nationalities
5- The conflict between the patriarchal system and the oppressed gender
6- The contradiction between oppressor beliefs and oppressed beliefs
7- The conflict between the system and the ecological system
8- Conflict within the dominant classes.”
During its Congress, our Party analysed the socioeconomics of Turkey and Turkey Kurdistan and pointed out the presence of new contradictions, amongst existing contradictions, within the society in Turkey. For example, the conflict between the oppressor nation and the oppressed nation and nationalities, the conflict between the patriarchal system and the oppressed gender, the conflict between the oppressor belief and the oppressed beliefs, and the conflict between the system and the ecological system.
All these contradictions, the contradictions in which we live and struggle together with other prominent contradictions in the society of Turkey in which we live in. And it should be regarded as the concrete product of our party congress’s effort to catch up with the current and to relate to the fundamental dynamics of the class struggle.
For example, Comrade Kaypakkaya did not express this contradiction in the main contradictions even though Comrade Kaypakkaya made an extremely important “National Issue” analysis centred on the Kurdish national issue in our country. Our Party has carried the theses of Comrade Kaypakkaya further on this subject, in parallel with the developments experienced today.
Similarly, during the period in which comrade Kaypakkaya fought and established our party the Women’s Question as described back then was a current issue, no approach was developed towards this until the Congress pointed out the presence of the conflict between the patriarchal system and the oppressed gender. We know that Comrade Kaypakkaya has some expressions on this issue only in the defence draft. In the current situation, our Party has taken a step towards eliminating the shortcomings of our Party in this field with the experiences it has learned from the class struggle, especially the struggle of the masses of women.
Again, the contradiction between the oppressing belief and the oppressed beliefs, which existed in the period of Comrade Kaypakkaya in a very burning way but not formulated by the leader, was also evaluated within the main contradictions in our Congress. Apart from the oppressing Sunni belief, especially the Alevi belief, there is a reality of systematic state repression, ignoring and denial against the oppressed beliefs in our country. With the organisation of the fascist state, hundreds of people were massacred in Maraş and Çorum, and in a massacre like Sivas, people were burned alive. Today, the houses of our people of the Alevi faith continue to be marked, and their places of belief are still not accepted. The democratic demands of the oppressed beliefs are among the demands of our democratic revolutionary struggle. Our Congress pointed out the important deficiency of our Party in this regard.
On the other hand, the ruling classes are in a systematic attack on the environment and nature for the sake of rent and plunder. This attack of the ruling classes leads to environmental disasters, and there are discussions of “climate crisis” around the world. The Covid-19 epidemic, which we live as one of the results of the excessive exploitation and plunder of the capitalist-imperialist system. Humanity is being dragged into extinction by the capitalist-imperialist system.
In our country, the ruling classes cause great damage to the ecological system with their looting and plundering projects. This situation has created an awareness of the environmental problem among the public. It should not be forgotten that it was “a matter of a few trees” that triggered the Gezi Rebellion. At the current stage, the mass actions against Turkish ruling classes’ pillaging and plundering attacks on the environment have emerged as a part of the peasants’ struggle with democratic demands. Environmental actions are an important agenda of the peasant movement. Unlike the period when Ibrahim Kaypakkaya put forward his theses, this reality is on the agenda of our country in the current situation. Based on the task of analysing these demands of the peasantry, which is the main force in the struggle for a democratic revolution of our Party and channelling them into the struggle for a democratic revolution, our Congress has identified the “contradiction between the system and the ecological system” as major contradictions.
Are these enough? Certainly not. Our Party to examine the conditions in Turkey, will continue to be in direct contact with the dynamic of class struggle and the movement of the masses, and continue its efforts to subjugate the claims and demands of the struggle of the democratic revolution.
– As a linked question, could you summarise the changes made to the statute?
– Actually, I mentioned it briefly while answering your question about the party program. Of course, it is useful to explain a little more here. The preamble of our statute, which was created at the 1st Conference of our Party in 1978, contained expressions that should not exist in a party statute, or rather correspond to the party program. This situation weakened our statute.
We have edited these statements in the introduction section of the statute and transferred them to the party program in a suitable format. In this way, the statute has been given a shorter but understandable and clear form.
The statute issue is extremely important for communist parties. It functions as cement, so to speak, holding the Party together. It should not be understood as articles written one under the other. It is the embodiment of the Party’s practical experiences, especially its organisational activity, in the practice of the class struggle. In this sense, the statute is concrete, not abstract. It is the consciousness gained from the practical activity of the Party!
If we need to concretise the issue that our statute is a consciousness derived from the practical activities of our Party, we can give the following example. For example, a section has been added to our party statute: “By accepting gender equality unconditionally, TKP-ML stands against all kinds of discrimination, belittling and ignoring against women and LGBTI + in the organisation. Considering the slavery conditions of women for millennia, TKP-ML adopts the principle of positive discrimination in all activities within the Party; As a part of this, it puts into practice a 30 per cent quota system in all its committees, especially the executive bodies.”
Behind this approach are the practical experience and discussions of our Party’s women’s activity. In other words, the theoretical and political accumulation of our women’s work was synthesized in our Congress, and the bylaws that bind our entire Party as above came out. This is the understanding behind ‘our statute is a consciousness’.
– These are some technical issues. What is the meaning of the creation of the program and the statute in your struggle?
– As I briefly stated above, the program discussed and accepted by our Party at its 1st Congress was prepared based on the programmatic views of comrade İbrahim Kaypakkaya. When drafting the program, Kaypakkaya comrades Turkey’s society and history, allies and enemies of the revolution, the revolution was moving from the road, and similar opinions were the starting point. Also, the notes he wrote as “Defence Draft” just before his murder were used.
On the other hand, the first part of our party statute, which was accepted at the 1st Conference and subsequently subjected to various rectifications while preparing the program draft, was transferred to the program. Thus, as I have just mentioned, the opinions that are included in our party statute but should be in a program (which in this sense also weaken our party statute) were included in our program.
The draft of the program was published in our publication called Party Union before the Congress, and all-party members’ opinions, criticisms and suggestions were received. Based on these criticisms, suggestions and opinions, the draft was once again reviewed and submitted to the Congress. The will of the Congress decided by discussing each item of the draft one by one. In this sense, all our party members contribute to the creation of our party program.
The adopted program also is pointing in a situation in which the people of Turkey. The program was based on the principle of “concrete analysis of concrete conditions” and, for example, it touched and clarified some issues that were not included in the programmatic views of Comrade Kaypakkaya. For example, if I repeat, he focused on the “Gender” issue, which is described as the “women’s issue”, and embodied the steps taken by our Party in this field in recent years.
Again, in our program, a clear approach was displayed about the national problem in general and the Kurdish national issue, and it was clearly stated how our Party would solve this problem with the Democratic People’s Revolution, including the conceptualisation of the Right to Separation Freely and the definition of the current Kurdish National Movement.
– We ask because we come across, even if a little; Despite these changes you mentioned, there seems to be a perception that “nothing has been changed” in the program. How do you evaluate this?
-The perception that “nothing has been changed” in some of our comrades after our 1st Congress is not correct in our opinion. First, our Party has created its program 47 years after its establishment. This phenomenon itself is an important step forward in itself. It is an innovation and a revolutionary step. The problem is that this revolutionary step taken now is carried forward and strengthened by enrichment.
We can say that Congress is just one step of our obligations. The correct decisions, policies and orientation ultimately belong to the present and are only about shaping the future; that is, it is not the future itself. To be the future itself, the right decision, policy, and orientation must be implemented decisively, developed, and completed in practice. Congress can only help solve problems if handled in this way.
In our opinion, the most decisive point in the perception of “there is nothing new” is that our Party did not enter the socio-economic structure debate in its 1st Congress and left this discussion for later. First, let us say; Our Party has the capacity, competence, and experience to make this debate, but it has given its priority to the centralisation of the Party as soon as possible under the current conditions and has developed such a political approach.
On the other hand, because our Party has not held congresses for many years – some of our conferences were held on the congress agenda – and extremely unnecessary pressure was placed on us, and the angle between expectations and the state of the Party grew. Our Party did not carry out the socio-economic structure debate and always threw this agenda into the “congress”. This is a partly understandable approach.
With the conditions of the process, it is going through today, and our Party must first reorganise itself, centralise and concentrate on the class struggle. In this sense, our 1st Congress gave its priority to be “Party First”. It is aimed that the Party heal its wounds and stand on its feet again based on its principles. This task has been accomplished with its shortcomings.
Undoubtedly, it is necessary to act on a certain ground while performing this task. Here is the line put forward by our Party’s 1st Congress and the program it has created, expressing this ground. In other words, our Party gave priority to reorganise itself in the first step in a sense creating a program of the already existing programmatic views and discussing the upcoming process – including the socio-economic structure – through this program. This approach is the most revolutionary method under the Party’s conditions. Communists deal with reality, not dreams. The reality is that our Party has received significant blows from both inside and outside, and it will take time to heal its wounds.
As a result, our Party has repelled attacks and reorganised itself.
Now it will reorganise itself and its activity on this ground in the light of the decisions of the 1st Congress. It will address its mistakes and shortcomings with the approach of a serious communist party, and most importantly, it will act with the awareness that the only way to organise itself again and on a more solid basis is through insisting on the class struggle and engaging with the mass movements, especially the working class, on a revolutionary basis. And it will act with the awareness that the new forms of armed struggle in our country should be reorganised at a higher level.
– You mentioned it briefly above, but can you explain more? Forty-seven years later you held a congress, why a congress rather than a conference?
– In fact, some conferences held by our Party in the past correspond to the Congress when evaluated in terms of their agenda and scope. However, since Congress is always associated with the socio-economic structure discussion, the platforms where this agenda is not discussed are not defined as congresses. For example, our 1st Conference could well be called a congress when considered in terms of the agendas it included. Our 1st Conference discussed a series of comprehensive agendas from our party statute to party self-criticism and made various decisions. Central platforms realised later continued this approach, “congress or conference?” It created unnecessary psychological pressure on our Party.
Our Party is a rich party where different ideas coexist and struggle with one another! The important and essential point here is that these ideas and thoughts are confronted within the Party in line with our understanding of the two-line struggle. Our understanding of Unity-Criticism-Unity requires this.
Our program, which was accepted in our 1st Congress, has put an end to these discussions for now. At the 2nd Congress of our Party, including the discussion of socio-economic structure, all the problems of our country and our Party regarding the class struggle will, of course, be discussed, and a higher-level unity-criticism-unity platform will be realised. Now, according to our principle of democratic centralism, which is on our agenda, it is to unite around our existing program, to reorganise and reorganise the Party by making effective interventions in the class struggle.
– Looking at what you said, can it be said that you are moving away from Kaypakkaya or his line?
– Of course, no. If the class struggle rejects Kaypakkaya, only then can our Party move away from Kaypakkaya. Also, many developments in the last ten to fifteen years have repeatedly proved the accuracy of Kaypakkaya’s theses. However, this should not be confused with dogmatism.
As we pointed out above, one of the most critical problems of our Party has been the inability to develop the theses put forward by Comrade Kaypakkaya. For example, Comrade Kaypakkaya has made a precise analysis of Kemalism. He made a very realistic and scientific analysis (at that time) of the collaboration of the Kemalist ideology with the imperialists and its fascist character. However, our Party could not adequately analyse the change Kemalism experienced in the political field in the following period and remained incomplete in raising the awareness of the masses of the people. This situation has brought along the fact that although the class character of Kemalism has not changed, for example, the Islamist movement, which opposes some aspects of it and propagates it, reproduces the class essence of Kemalism through so-called “anti-Kemalism”.
Another example is the Kurdish National Question and the developments brought about by this issue. Comrade Kaypakkaya is known to represent the communist line in our country in this regard. However, our Party was contented with only the correct theses put forward by Comrade Kaypakkaya, and it did not adequately examine the changes in the Kurdish National Question and the Kurdish national movement that created itself based on this contradiction. It did not develop correct tactical policies regarding the “moment”. Our Party, which correctly and scientifically resolved the issue of the national question thanks to the leader comrade, however in the following years, our Party evaluated the PKK in a wide range from the counter-revolutionary movement to the revolutionary movement.
The issue here is not the Kurdish national freedom movement or the PKK, but what our Party does as the representative of the communist movement in our country, what program, and tactics it has developed. It is that the theses put forward by Kaypakkaya are not reproduced according to the developments experienced. We fell behind the popular masses. For example, the contradiction that expressed itself in the Kurdish national question was much more recent than when Kaypakkaya put forward his theses. Our Party, on the other hand, did not make an initiative towards this concrete development and was content with repeating the scientific theories of Comrade Kaypakkaya.
A similar situation exists in the socio-economic structure issue. Today, we have a task to examine the changes that took place after comrade Kaypakkaya analysed Turkey’s socio-economic structure. Studying the changes in the socio-economic system and the means to put forward concrete assays does not mean that Turkey is now in another social formation. However, as for other issues in our Party, this issue was also wrongly discussed from the very beginning.
Marxists do not begin their studies with presuppositions. Or while examining an important issue such as socio-economic structure, they will not try to prove whether Turkey is semi-colonial and semi-feudal or a capitalist for that matter. The main starting point of our Party in this matter is to act from the principle of “concrete analysis of concrete conditions” which is a Marxist principle. Thus, it will be our starting point too.
We want to emphasise that the most critical and decisive factor in the analysis of the socio-economic structure is the comprehension of Kaypakkaya’s method. We want to underline once again that not examining to prove what we think but forming ideas after examining is a dialectical method. There will be no scientific results if we do not follow the method of comrade Kaypakkaya.
The fact that the socio-economic structure debate is on the agenda in our Party, of course, is related to the fact that our Party does not take sufficient steps in this regard after Comrade Kaypakkaya. In the first place, it is about putting the program discussion on the agenda and not reaching a conclusion. This points primarily to the incomprehension of our founding leader and theorist Comrade Kaypakkaya’s method. Because, as it can be seen when the theses of Comrade Kaypakkaya are examined, as in all other issues, he never acted from a static and dogmatic approach to the socio-economic structure issue.
Comrade Kaypakkaya based on the concrete analysis of concrete conditions in his studies of “Analysis of Classes in Çorum Province” and “Kürecik Region Report”, reached a synthesis by analysing the production relations and production style in these regions with the science of Marxism Leninism Maoism. Following the scientific method of Kaypakkaya, it is our task to analyse the changes and developments in social formation, mode of production and relations of production in our country, Turkey.
However, even examining the socio-economic structure issue in our Party is equated with denying comrade Kaypakkaya. However, this approach is related to the failure to grasp Kaypakkaya’s practice, his communist scientific method itself. The starting point of our Party in all these issues, especially the socio-economic structure, will be the method of Comrade Kaypakkaya.
We must be the ones who keep Kaypakkaya alive. This will only happen when we do not freeze his theses but take it as a living theory and examine it. Not by condemning the Party to inactivity and stop the discussion. Kaypakkaya has been squeezed into a narrow dogmatic framework for years, and politics have been tried to be made within this framework. This is not the way of advocating Kaypakkaya.
– One of the most important decisions of your Congress was the formation of the Communist Women’s Union (KKB) Could you summarize the process that has created KKB and the stance of your party in the women’s freedom struggle?
– Our Party’s approach to the gender issue was at a point that included important steps forward with the first conference it held, but later developed a gender-blind approach to this issue. When you do not accept the fact that the communist parties are not independent of the contradictions of the society they are in, it does not happen automatically that they change themselves in the direction of representing the future from these contradictions. So yes, our Party has not been able to develop a communist approach in this regard, despite the thousands of female cadres, militants, and supporters that it has organized in its ranks since its establishment, and the occasional appearances and efforts have remained stubborn because they do not discuss the essence of the issue.
A single paragraph in the 8th Conference, which included the decision to work on this field, opened the doors of a whole world to our Party, especially our organized women comrades. There have been many difficulties in the implementation of this decision, of course, but their solution has always resulted in a way to take us one step further in the context of the gender issue. Every step from the establishment of the Women’s Committee to the establishment of the Communist Women’s Union, which has an autonomous structure, has involved particularly important discussions.
Since its establishment, our Party has demonstrated that women’s liberation will take place because of a struggle that will last until communism by organizing within the ranks of our Party. However, with the cancellation of the “separate women’s organization” decision taken at the 1st Conference in the 2nd Conference, it did not develop a systematic approach to how this would happen. This statement should not be understood as ignoring our history. However, showing women the address of salvation and limiting the issue to this, not discussing the ways and methods of this, not creating its means, even considering a separate women’s organization as “sexism”, depicting women as “reserve power”, etc. it is incompatible with the seriousness of a communist party to realise a revolution.
In conclusion, although we do not ignore all previous efforts, we should say that following the decision taken at the 8th Conference, the efforts of our female comrades who put their teeth on the nail for the implementation of this decision, creating a Women’s Committee led our Party to take this historic step and at our 1st Congress. The establishment of KKB has been announced.
Gender is a broad issue. Women will gain their freedom where they lose their freedom. Women will gain their freedom as soon as they return to the beginning of the conditions when private property arose – and the female gender is also treated as private property. In this sense, the Democratic People’s Revolution, Socialism is a great step towards the freedom of the sexes, but real freedom is the social structure that communism will create.
Our party does not only look at the issue of gender within the generalization that men and women are equal. On the other hand, whatever you call it, the issue of gender constitutes one of the main pillars of all exploitative systems. That is, every move towards that pillar is also aimed at overthrowing the exploitative system. In this very reality, our Congress has handled the gender issue as one of the main issues and has given its deserved place in the contradictions regarding the social structure in its program.
In your publications and statements, you have an emphasis on “regeneration” as well as “rejuvenation and feminization”. What exactly does this mean? How will your party become young and feminine?
– While Comrade Kaypakkaya discusses the name of the party with reference to comrade Lenin: “You are afraid to go back on your old memories?” But the time has come “to change our linen; we’ve got to take off the dirty shirt and put on clean.”
-Our Party, representing the communist line with the when it emerged in the 1971 uprisings, has taken off the dirty shirt and put on clean one. By fighting against the old, decaying, stale, status quo, and dogmatism, it appeared on stage if history by “bombing bourgeois headquarters”.
However, this revolutionary breakthrough could not be sustained, and reproduced at a higher scale.
Muzaffer Orucoglu quotes an anecdote from the Malatya Regional Committee meeting in his semi-documentary novel Tohum. As Ibrahim Kaypakkaya takes the steps to establish our party, he mentions that the global economic crisis is deepening and this crisis will further exacerbate the crisis in our country, and the struggle of the masses will rise in waves. And he explains his biggest fear: “I personally fear that we will not be able to embrace these waves if we go like this, we will be left behind these waves!” And adds; “Spontaneous development is much faster than the development of the vanguard. You cannot see this. You are not making a perfect effort because you cannot see it, we are not. ”
Unfortunately, Comrade Kaypakkaya’s fear came true, history confirmed Kaypakkaya’s prediction, and the vanguard has fallen behind the spontaneous development of the masses. Why did we need to pass on this memory? This revolutionary side of our party has dulled in time. Although there were some positives in relation to the mass movements, being a student of the masses, learning from them and with the spontaneous movements of the masses, it was not successful in principle. This situation has crippled the party’s connection with the class struggle on a revolutionary basis. This situation, which developed because of the inability to grasp MLM science not as a dogma but as a guide to action, prevented the party from developing and getting stronger, taking root in the masses, and moreover, from developing its theory in the practice of class struggle.
What is this revolutionary aspect? We see this direction, which was instrumental in laying the revolutionary foundations of our party, in Kaypakkaya’s style. He is in Ankara, for example, during the June 15-16 Great Workers Resistance. As soon as he gets the news, he goes to Istanbul and joins the resistance. From this resistance draws the revolutionary conclusions that now constitute the program of our party. A similar situation is experienced in the land occupation of Değirmen villagers. Examples can be increased. In short, Kaypakkaya is there wherever there is a mass movement, struggle, and revolutionary dynamic. He is eager to learn from this spontaneous movement of the masses. He learns from these movements and struggles and renews himself on a higher basis. He would criticize the old and decaying. This is what regeneration is! To feel the responsibility to learn from the current mass struggle and drawing revolutionary conclusions from this struggle! This is the only way you can revolutionize theory. When this is not done, the theory gets you arrested. Makes status quo and dogmatic.
Let us continue with an example from Comrade Kaypakkaya if you will. Our party has a saying that he repeats on every occasion: “A steel-like party rooted in the masses, iron discipline, free from subjectivism, revisionism and opportunism, that applies self-criticism, will grow stronger in an armed war. Thus, it will throw away the stale and get fresh and be purified from bourgeois elements.
We have repeated these words of Comrade Kaypakkaya a lot. But have we, for example, “dumped the stale and bought fresh”, which he expresses here? Unfortunately, we cannot say yes to that.
When we look at Kaypakkaya’s method, his relation to the movements of the masses, his approach to spontaneous mass movements and his position in the class struggle in general, we witness that it is immensely powerful to regenerate, to throw away the stale and to get fresh. Unfortunately, after Comrade Kaypakkaya was murdered, it cannot be said that we, as his disciples, were able to grasp and implement this method properly. Of course, our party has continued its struggle by paying great sacrifices and costs after Comrade Kaypakkaya. In some periods it took part in the spontaneous movement of the masses and reorganized itself within these movements. However, it cannot be said that we can increasingly maintain this. At least, we can easily say this based on the result.
For example, almost half a century has passed since Comrade Kaypakkaya put forward his theses. Significant changes in society in the world and Turkey in this process took place. We tried to open it in your question regarding the program issue. Or, for example, in the Kaypakkaya period, there was no women’s movement like today. Again, the Kurdish national issue was not felt in such a burning way. Or the environmental problem … and so on. Now, will not our party say something about these contradictions? Of course, the party, which has a duty to make revolution, must say new things about these contradictions. It should go to new organizations and renew itself constantly.
– Your emphasis on feminisation and rejuvenation?
– Our party will be able to realize our country’s revolution not only to the extent that it becomes feminized and younger, but to the extent that it becomes LGBTI+, Kurdish, Alevi … This is a clear view for our party. Our party is the leading and the vanguard organization of the working class. It defends the interests of all classes and strata that have an interest in the revolution under the leadership of the working class. It must be defended. You know, the concept of the people encompasses classes and strata that have an interest in the revolution. Therefore, it defends and should defend the rights of every class, layer, community and individual that we see in the ranks of the popular masses. It positions itself with the oppressed against all kinds of oppression of the ruling classes. This is one of the first conditions of being a communist, a revolutionary.
Can you imagine a revolution without women, comprising half the population of Turkey who is facing violence and murder at an increasing rate? In this sense, feminization of our party is a necessity for the oppressed to look at the world through the eyes of the oppressed, that is, the woman. This is a must for this revolution in Turkey. If our party cannot materialize this goal in its own organizational activity, it will not be able to realize the revolution. This is clear. As a matter of fact, our Communist Women’s Union, whose establishment was announced in our congress, is the product of this consciousness.
A similar situation is valid for your rejuvenation question. Nowadays, there is a discussion of generations X, Y, Z in the bourgeois media. If you remember, similar discussions were made during the Gezi Revolt. Our party has long been saying that those who fail to win youth cannot win tomorrow. At present, the concrete counterpart of this in our party is our komsomol organization.
A party that does not correctly analyse the original situation of the youth and does not produce the right solutions to the current problems of the youth cannot win the youth. For this, our Party must see the world directly through the eyes of the dynamism of the youth.
In the ranks of our party are comrades old and new, experienced, and inexperienced, old, and young. Our current task is to establish a correct dialectical relationship between these two groups. This dialectical relationship is to combine the experience accumulated by our aged comrades, the dynamism of the youth that will shake the world from its foundations, the courage that will upset the status quo, and its open-to-innovation structure. In this regard, both our young comrades and our older comrades should act in a humble position and step towards each other. As Comrade Stalin said, “If our Party does not have a large number of new cadres working in unity and cooperation with the old cadres, our cause will be half-way.”
Some approaches in this direction have been developed in our congress. Cadre and member policy of our party was discussed, and various plans were made by taking some concrete steps.
– What is your view of alliances and fronts? How do you evaluate HBDH in this context?
– In fact, our party’s approach to alliances and action unions is not unknown. Likewise, so is the understanding of the united front. In the second issue of The Communist, published in August 1978 after our 1st Conference, a certain approach to the issue was developed. Again, in the following years, our party’s approach to the issue was widely evaluated in all our publications.
We can summarize the approach of our congress as “the weight of the process and the aggression of fascism is at upper level, so revolutionary communist movements have to act together, to meet the process in bilateral or multi-action unions”. While expressing this, it should be known that we are acting from a concrete situation. Developments in recent years both in the world and in our country show this. The issue is related to the crisis of the imperialist capitalist system that started in 2008 and not yet over. The recent epidemic has also deepened this crisis. The economic crisis causes the ruling classes to attack the working class and the people to overcome the crisis and increase the falling profit rates, and in the classical sense, “the working class and the people shall pay the bill”.
The way for the ruling classes to be successful in their policies is to eliminate the revolutionary communist dynamics and to prevent the masses from getting involved in their spontaneous actions from the very beginning. A destruction is imposed for this. Fascism’s rampage follows a parallel course with the scale of its aggression, the economic crisis it is in, and the crisis of inability to manage. Therefore, it attacks the revolutionary communist movement on the one hand and fortifies its own power on the other. Watchman law, multiple bar association debates, talking about the need to dissolve the self-organization of doctors amid the pandemic, and some Islamist fascist personalities talking about “taking down 30-50 people” on TV screens, threats of harassment against women and children, etc.
There is an all-round attack against all progressive-revolutionary dynamics to suffocate and make them kneel, especially the revolutionary communist movement. The scope and extent of the attack, no revolutionary organization or, in fact, our party can counter the attack and effectively turn it into a counterattack on the enemy. It should be known that we are not talking about an unpretentiousness in saying this. Our findings have to do with objective reality.
In this sense, it is an objective obligation to be in short and long-term to form united action against the kneeling and suffocation attack imposed on the people, the revolutionary and communist movement, and to grow revolutionary resistance and solidarity in every field.
In this sense, if I continue with the approach of our congress to the issue; Our congress emphasized that “HBDH is an important opportunity”. The HBDH, in which our party took part in its establishment with several other revolutionary organizations, especially the Kurdish national freedom movement, to deal with the contradictions in our country, especially the Kurdish national issue, to develop the armed struggle, to realize more effective and joint actions against fascism, is extremely important in this respect.
From the perspective of our party, HBDH is considered as the strengthening of the class struggle, especially the armed struggle, the joint orientation against the common enemy, and of course the revolutionary aspects of our Party that have long been gnawed by opportunism. Taking part in this unity of action is considered a political issue for our party. After all, our Party trusts in its own ideology and political stance. Refusing to take part in such action unions on various grounds is a product of self-insecurity as much as it points to an ideological stance, a problem with the communist worldview. The underlying reason for this, under the name of ideological stance, is to refer one’s own duties to others and do nothing, to understand MLM as a dogma, not as a guide to action. It is to protect the status quo under the name of MLM advocacy.
Our Congress also pointed out that our party could not fulfil its duties properly due to its internal problems regarding HBDH, and that it could not give the attention it deserves to this organization. We still have important shortcomings regarding this organization. However, we aim to eliminate these shortcomings in due course.
We attach importance to being in action unions with HBDH and other revolutionary organizations in accordance with the weight and originality of the process. We already have some steps in this regard.
Our main point of departure is to look after the interests of the working class and the people before the interests of our party or revolutionary organizations.
As I have just tried to express, the characteristics of the process we are going through, the extent and scope of the enemy attack, the situation in which the revolutionary and communist movement are in conditions make us stand side by side as much as possible. This emerges as an objective reality. In such a situation, it is necessary to emphasize not differences, but to emphasize similarities and to force walking together more than ever.
There are more possibilities to achieve this for MLMs. It is certain that any structure that avoids joint work by highlighting non-principal differences will lose – whether they call themselves communist or not. Therefore, our party cares about unions of action in accordance with the characteristics of the process we are going through. These action alliances can be short-term or long-term. Our main point of departure, as we said, is in the interest of our people.
For example, the commemoration of comrade İbrahim Kaypakkaya on May 18 in various fields was held together with various revolutionary organizations, especially the MKP in some of our fields. The energy released and the reactions given are remarkable. Even this situation is a sign of what we should do. We care about being in this kind of unity of action. Our congress has a strong approach in this direction.
-By the way, you have renewed your definition of the Kurdish movement. You also use the concept of the right of nations to self-determination and the expression Right to Separate Freely …
– Yes, it is true. Our Congress has changed its definition of the Kurdish national movement to the Kurdish national freedom movement. However, it has been decided that the conceptualization of the Right to Self-Determination of Nations, which our party has been using since its establishment, should be used as the Right of Free Separation to be clearer and understandable.
The first and fundamental condition for a real solution to the Kurdish national question is the recognition of the “right to separate freely”. This is the only revolutionary solution. After this right is recognized, the separation or coexistence of the oppressed nation will come to the fore with the free will of the oppressed nation. After that, it is a separate discussion.
We must once again underline this fact: To seize political power, it is necessary to meet the revolutionary dynamic of all contradictions. The class struggle must be addressed in a way that encompasses the oppressed beliefs and sects, the oppressed nation, the oppressed sex, or the environmental problem, etc., and seeing the specificity of each. Lenin’s initial “What to Do?” There are numerous analyses on this subject in many of his works, including. Based on these analyses, we can say that; the class struggle is “a multi-faceted struggle”. The theoretical analysis of the class origin of a problem, of contradiction, is only the beginning. For example, while determining the essence of the problem is one step in the discussion of the national problem, the second and main step when we look politically is to create concrete organizations against language, culture, education and political representation problems, physical pressure, and torture, forced migration, etc. Based on the “concrete analysis of concrete conditions” policy and action.
The main problem in the class struggle, to use an analogy from Lenin, is to show the ability to unite all degrees in a single river and direct them to power. Politics is carried out by considering the contradictions in life.
One of the main points we discuss here is where we stand on the Kurdish national question. This is what should be asked and answered. Despite the theoretical analysis we have tried to express above, what should the starting point of communists be? In other words, will we define all analysis and theoretical determinations according to the Kurdish national freedom movement or according to ourselves? If we do our analysis according to a force outside us, we are in danger of diminishing our role. In this matter, our party is faced with the task of fulfilling our responsibility by revealing its role and duties.
Our party occasionally fell into the error we pointed out above, though not in every period, and its role in the national question was obscured. It did not fulfil his responsibility in relating to this movement by seeing the issue outside itself. If we need to express it once again, the task of our party is to relate to all revolutionary dynamics in the axis of class struggle. And the main aspect of this association is the communist party.
– You mentioned above, but can you open the issue of taking into the program the conflict between the oppressor nation and the oppressed nation and nationalities?
– The Kurdish national problem is at the forefront as one of the main contradictions in our country. This reality is our party; It has formulated it as “the contradiction between the oppressor nation and the oppressed nation and nationalities”. Undoubtedly, the Kurdish question has not been explicitly expressed in this formulation. The Turkish nation as the oppressor nation, the Kurdish nation as the oppressed nation, and other societies belonging to the Muslim-Christian minority nationalities living in our country, pointed to the existence of a contradiction based on the attacks of oppression, destruction, neglect, assimilation.
Approximately half a century has passed since Comrade Kaypakkaya’s theses on the national issue in our country, especially the Kurdish national issue. These theses are still up-to-date and important to evaluate the struggle of nations and nationalities living in the Middle East and to be related to these struggles on a communist basis, not only for our country.
However, it must be admitted that; In the intervening half-century period in Turkey, there has been significant changes in the Middle East and still happening. For example, while Comrade Kaypakkaya was analysing the national question, the PKK had not yet been established. Although Kaypakkaya pointed out the development of a possible Kurdish movement with a great foresight based on the past Kurdish uprisings and touched on what the attitude of the communists should be, we need to update and reproduce the changes and developments experienced at the current stage based on the basic theses of Comrade Kaypakkaya on the national question.
Looking at the current conditions of Turkey, we can see that the Kurdish national movement plays a decisive role in both struggle of one side of Turkish ruling classes and another and the struggle between the Turkish ruling classes and the popular masses. It is known that the emergence of the PKK and the guerrilla war it wages has significantly strained fascism. War, particularly in Turkey, including in Turkey-Kurdistan society has caused the emergence of significant changes. After all, the aggression of the fascist state against the Kurdish nation, for example, in the ’90s, massacres, burning and evacuations of villages, implementations of embargo, plateau bans, etc. an estimated 5 to 6 million people migrated from the region. This situation led to the further intensification of both national and class oppression for the Kurdish nation. For the communists, it is also important for the Kurdish people to be detached from the means of production and piled into cities, condemned to hunger, poverty, and unemployment, and become the “oppressed of the proletariat”. Currently, this “role” seems to fall to immigrants, especially Syrians. Syrian refugees are exploited as cheap and precarious labour, among the wheels of the system. They are both exploited and subjected to racist and chauvinistic attacks.
In brief war it carried out for the Kurdish nation not only in the military field, societal, economic, social, cultural, and caused changes in Turkey to be experienced in many areas of society. Fascism, which renewed itself to end the guerrilla in the military field, has concentrated on technical superiority and the production of weapons, which it calls the defence industry. Turkey finished agricultural production in Kurdistan, in the economic field, farming bans and so on.
It is also known that the Turkish ruling classes effectively used the “Kurdish card” both in their attacks against the people and in their clique fights. The ruling classes can screen their attacks on the people by using the racism and chauvinism card. The Kurdish people are “demonized” and targeted by the policies followed. Being killed just because he speaks Kurdish, listens to Kurdish music or just because he is a Kurd is commonplace.
Comrade Kaypakkaya states that fascism in our country is organized by the state from top to bottom. This is a correct opinion. However, today, racism and chauvinism have spread to the base with the aggression against the Kurdish national struggle, the special state policies applied, and the psychological warfare methods. The Turkish ruling classes spread the “privilege” of being Turkish, that is, being an oppressor nation, to the smallest units of the society and made them reproduce.
The Turkish state is now turning towards the Kurdish national movement not only within its borders but also outside its borders. It carried the war to Rojava and Iraqi Kurdistan, where it imposes destruction and assimilation against the Kurdish nation with the places it occupies. The fascist state regards any status of the Kurdish nation in these parts as a threat to its own existence. For this reason, it targets Kurdish gains not only within the border but also outside the border. Of course, since the democratic gains that emerged in the example of Rojava were coded as a threat to regional reaction, especially to Turkish fascism, the revolution here was wanted to drown from the very beginning. First, the Kurds were attacked with the ISIS reaction and the support given to it, but when these forces failed, the Turkish Republic itself stepped in. To strangle the Rojava Revolution, first the Jarablus, El Bab line, then Afrin and finally the Gire Spi – Serekaniye line were occupied.
Kurds already have a significant impact on the other parts of Kurdistan, mainly Turkey-Kurdistan struggle of the national liberation movement. Developments in each piece affect other parts as well. This situation should be considered in terms of the communist movement. Along with all these developments, every actor who speaks for politics in our country is directly or indirectly related to the Kurdish problem. And yet, what could be more natural than evaluating the “contradiction between the oppressor nation and the oppressed nation and nationalities” within the main contradictions in the congress of our party, starting from the Kurdish national question?
Today, an understanding that is not in contact with the Kurdish people and the Kurdish national movement, and that is indifferent to the struggle of this movement against the political enslavement and cultural de-identification attack of imperialism and Turkish fascism, let alone its communism, its revolutionism should be discussed. For the communists, the situation must be clear. On the one hand, to fight for the resolution of the conflict between the oppressor nation and the oppressed nation, to see this task as one of its essential duties, on the other hand, to solidarity with the Kurdish national freedom movement, which struggles against the attack of political enslavement and cultural de-identification, to create the conditions and possibilities of struggle together.
– In this context, there are occasional criticisms towards your party over the relationship of the Kurdish national movement with the imperialists, what do you say?
– We both take these criticisms seriously and we do not. We do not take it seriously because the Kurdish national freedom movement has statements on this issue. We must take these into account. In practice, the imperialists’ efforts to distance the Kurdish movement from the revolutionary ground and to pull it into its own lines have existed for a long time. You do not need to be a communist to determine this! The cadres of the Kurdish movement express these goals of the imperialists in interviews they give from time to time. On the one hand, the imperialist forces want to position the Kurdish movement in the Middle East in line with their own interests, just like Barzani, on the other hand, they accuse some of the leading cadres of the Kurdish movement of “terrorism”, as for example the US did. The goal is clear. Suppressing the revolutionary dynamic of the Kurdish movement and eliminating the blood incompatibility with them. Making it a collaborative line.
There is a situation like this in the field and in practice. Undoubtedly, when ISIS attacked Kobane, the US imperialism got involved in the war as coalition forces. It was not the Kurdish movement that called US imperialism and asked for its help. (Interestingly, during this period, the Turkish government constantly made the propaganda of “choose me, not the Kurds”). While the Kurds were besieged from all sides and were fighting a life-and-death war, they accepted the logistics aid of the imperialists, especially weapons, and defined this relationship as a tactical relationship in the field.
In the last period, the best response to such criticisms can be given through the examples of the Russian imperialist’s support and the invasion of Kobane and the US’s condoning and opening of the airspace, that the occupation of Gire Spi-Serekaniye line by Turkish state fascism. If the Kurdish movement had the kind of cooperation situation described with the imperialists, would the imperialists make such moves? There is a complex situation with many equations. However, the imperialists that I have just mentioned, giving way to the occupation of the fascist Turkish Republic is also to weaken and regress the power of the Kurdish movement in the region. Weakening the Kurds, benefiting the Assad regime for Russia, and the US imperialism and coalition forces’ count is to make the Kurdish movement dependent on them by allowing such invasion attempts.
In short, it is quite clear that the imperialists have a blood incompatibility with the democratic administration in Rojava. All their aims are to eliminate Rojava’s revolutionary dynamic.
On the other hand, of course, criticisms should be taken seriously. And of course, the reason for the criticism is important. We care about the criticism of some of those who criticise through social chauvinism for not fulfilling their duty against the national oppression of the Kurdish people and making it a reason to escape from it. And with this kind of understanding, we draw a thick line between us. Our party supports the democratic, just, and legitimate action of an oppressed nation, not the “relationship of the Kurdish movement with imperialism”. We are dealing with this side of the issue. In fact, comrade Kaypakkaya has responded to such criticisms from the very beginning.
Our party does not debate imperialism behind the Kurdish national freedom movement but fights against the Turkish ruling classes’ attacks of repression, destruction, and denial.
– You showed an orientation in the form of Middle Easternization. What does this mean?
– This is a particularly important question. Yes, we showed such an orientation in our congress. There is an important background to the issue. I can express briefly in this short period of time; Our country is a Middle Eastern country. However, this definition of the Middle East is also controversial. But let us not enter in order not to distract. What we want to explain here is that our society has great similarities with the Middle Eastern societies by examining the contradictions that can be transmitted in our country. Why is this important? It is important because it is decisive to know what kind of social formation we are fighting as communists. Our party is not faced with the tasks of the class struggle. The failure of our country to realize its bourgeois democratic revolution has brought it to have more comprehensive goals in the democratic revolution it has put before its communist party.
While analysing the socio-economic structure of our country, our party is not only concerned with the development of the means of production and the state of the economic structure. At the same time, it is interested in the superstructure rising over this infrastructure and tries to examine the social, cultural, and social structure that emerges. Why is this important? Because we MLMs know that in some cases the superstructure can significantly affect the infrastructure and even determine it in some historical conditions. The joke of cultural revolutions takes theoretical ground from here. This is a separate theoretical discussion …
At this point, the issue we will focus on in connection with your Middle Easternization question is Kemalism. It is known that the class analysis of Kemalism and the ideology of the classes were put forward by Comrade Kaypakkaya. In terms of our Party forms an extraordinarily strong theoretical foundation and interior layout that facilitates our point of this analysis class outlook on any developments also benefit our understanding of the formation of the society in Turkey.
Kemalism, as the official ideology of the Turkish ruling classes, tried to reproduce its servitude to the imperialist system as “Westernization”, “enlightenment”, “secularism” etc. Top-down during the “revolution” Progress in Turkey the natural development of society “from above” has intervened. Those who call themselves intellectuals, leftists and even communists applauded these policies of fascism as the “liquidation of feudalism”, “the realization of the democratic revolution”. The attitude of the “communist party” of the period supporting fascism towards Kurdish revolts is important in this sense.
Kemalist fascism, Turkey over the top for the society, carried out this attack together, using all the possibilities of the state apparatus, reveals the structure of an alien society to its own reality. The Turkish ruling classes constantly used this situation in their quarrels and attacks on the people, and they reproduced and reproduced their fascist power with artificial agendas.
Take the issue of secularism, for example. The Turkish state has never really been secular. Sunni oppressor’s belief in Turkey that the position of the institutions that reproduce the Islamic Religious Affairs Department, was established on March 3, 1924, M. Kemal’s orders. Let us remind you that the General Staff, which is at the top of the chain of command of the fascist Turkish army, was also established on the same date. In short, this fact lies in the background of the “secularism” issue, which the Turkish ruling classes have used as a political discourse in their clique fights and attacks on the people since the establishment of the more fascist Republic. The Turkish ruling classes and their state have never been secular. We are talking about the closure of dervish lodges, thus not recognizing the belief centres of Alevism, but a “secularism” in which the religious sects continue their activities freely as a “mosque community” and the state continues to support all kinds of material and spiritual support for the oppressor belief. It is very meaningful to claim that the budget of the Presidency of Religious Affairs surpasses eight of the 16 existing ministries and that it is still a “secular” state. And what is equally significant is that despite this fact, the Turkish ruling classes were able to back up some of the masses behind one of their cliques under the name of “progressivism”, “secularism”.
Such examples of how the ruling classes produce their own policies under the conditions of our country can be increased. What is important here is the danger that an understanding that fails to analyse Kemalism and its class character correctly is backed up by such fights among the dominant class cliques. This should not be underestimated. Turkey is home to revolutionaries, communists who make such mistakes.
– Kemalism, the founding ideology of Republic of Turkey, has interrupted the internal dynamics of society and created a social formation that is semi-colonial, semi-feudal and dependent on imperialism. Through this he established a fascist dictatorship. He said “modernization” and “progressivism” in the name of this. Is this how we should understand?
– Yes, roughly that is. Comrade Kaypakkaya says “Kemalism is a fanatical anti-communism”, “Kemalism means the chaining of all progressive and democratic ideas” and so on. his words relate precisely to this reality. Therefore, it is noticeably clear for our party that no politics that does not set a strict border with Kemalism can truly defend the interests of the working class and the people.
A situation in which the people of Turkey, genocide reality of how the rise of fascism across a floor is a prime example. We are faced with the reality of a state and ruling classes rising over the Armenian, Pontus, and Syriac Genocide. The Turkish ruling classes created themselves through these genocides and realized their capital accumulation by seizing the wealth, and property of these nations and nationalities. This situation guided all the policies and class reflexes of the Turkish ruling classes in the following period. Turkey society also sought to partner with this policy. This is top-down in Turkey for the community not only progressive, not of aggression against communist ideas and organization at the same time, non-self, herself allegiance to me, has led it to be in a constant aggression against the other. While yesterday this aggression was against Armenians, “infidel”, today it is directed towards Kurds, Alevi, women, and LGBTI +.
Looking at the issue from this point of view, Comrade Kaypakkaya’s words “Kemalism means inciting Turkish chauvinism in every field, applying a relentless national oppression to minority nationalities, forced Turkification and mass murder” are extremely meaningful. The Turkish state has created itself through Turkish chauvinism, and today it is directed towards the forced Turkification and mass murder of those who are not themselves, especially the Kurdish nation.
– How do these relate to your orientation towards Middle Easternization?
– It has a direct connection. The Kemalists aimed to create a society unfamiliar with their reality. They suppressed the most advanced dynamics of society, all kinds of progressive and democratic thinking, especially the struggle of the working class. Even worse, they marketed Kemalist fascism to our people as progressivism and even revolutionism. Even today, the fact that there are revolutionary understandings that see Kemalism as “progressive” is proof of how important the issue is.
This is where the importance of Comrade Kaypakkaya’s analysis of Kemalism comes into play. We are not just talking about comrade Kaypakkaya’s class analysis of Kemalism, which we are talking about, do not be misunderstood, and the determination that this ideology is the fascist ideology of the dominant classes. Comrade Kaypakkaya not only decides and is content with this, but also gives an example of the communists’ approach to history and society.; “For example, as Mehmet the Conqueror is a part of the history of our people (!), M. Kemal is also a part of the history of our people (!)” And adds: “Communists know how history is turned into a weapon in the revolutionary struggle. There are folk heroes who created epics with their lives and blood in the War of Independence. For example, there is a Karayilan, we are the heirs of their struggle. We are the heirs of their inexhaustible energies, their miraculous geniuses, their infinite revolutionary forces. Those who try to suppress the struggle of the masses with blood and violence at every opportunity, not those who are hostile to them!
The Kaypakkaya comrades’ approach to Ottoman Turkey’s history and society is extremely instructive for us. In other words, in the social formation we live in, it offers a clear approach to the revolutionary dynamics that we will associate with and embrace while conducting the class struggle.
When we move from this method of the Comrade, we move forward in relating to the revolutionary dynamics of the society in which we live and wage class struggle, and in meeting these dynamics in the field of politics. In this sense, we can draw a thick line with reactionary approaches that the ruling classes propagate in accordance with their own class interests and reproduce through the ideological apparatus of the state. Why is this important? For example, Comrade Kaypakkaya gives the example of Karayılan and talks about owning his revolutionary legacy. In the current situation, how should our approach to the struggle of the Kurdish national freedom movement, which you have just asked, be evaluated based on this example? Of course, our party must embrace this struggle. Moreover, it should not only be owned but also be a part of it. Appropriation should be in practice, not in words.
Today, the Kurdish national freedom movement has become an important political actor not only in Turkish Kurdistan, but also in the entire Middle East geography, especially in other parts of Kurdistan. To relate this struggle, the dynamics of emerging revolutionary party to unite with Turkey should be the goal of our democratic revolution.
Middle-easternisation is relating with the all the revolutionary dynamics in the Middle East, especially in Turkey. It is to make these dynamics a means of influencing the class struggle. The real dynamics of the “reactionary, ignorant, religious Middle East” built by imperialism and its ideologues is where we should be fed. This is an especially important dynamic that will protect us from Kemalism.
Being Middle Eastern also means being armed with the violence and intransigence of the conflicts in the region. A people without an army, an organization that cannot defend itself with weapons, has no chance of protecting itself and gaining success in the Middle East.
As a result, we can discuss this subject in many more topics. We should underline that this approach is a political and process-oriented approach, that we take our communist colour ideologically and we do not substitute for internationalism, which is an indispensable line.
-Finally, we are going through a continually active period. In short, how do you evaluate the upcoming process?
– Actually, we just briefly touched upon the conditions we are in. The imperialist capitalist system is in a severe economic crisis. They say it themselves. They talk about being ready for possible storms.
Now, a COVID-19 outbreak has been added to this. The COVID-19 outbreak did not only deepen the economic crisis of the imperialist capitalist system. At the same time, revealed very bare the fact that the system is leading humanity to a disaster. It was seen that the cause of the epidemic was the excessive profit greed and exploitation of capitalism. However, it was understood what kind of danger policies such as the privatization of the health system posed to public health. Capitalism’s cutting down even the trees whose shadow it cannot sell causes new problems such as nature and environmental disasters and climate crisis. This situation became more visible and questioned by the masses.
The capitalist imperialist system implements new policies to get rid of this situation. It is now propagated that globalization is over and that stronger nation-states are needed again. With the epidemic, states are advocated to intervene more in the daily life of the masses, change working conditions with calls to “stay at home” and, in connection with these policies, more militarization of societies for security reasons.
The first to object to these policies implemented by the ruling classes against the working class and the people should / will be revolutionaries and communists who expose the true face of the attack.
Then, they will aim to attract possible mass movements and revolts into order so that the capitalist imperialist system can reproduce itself. Under conditions where they cannot do this, it will open the way for racist fascist organizations and parties on the one hand, and on the other hand, they will turn to security policies, especially armament. In the upcoming period, the pressure and the associated attacks on popular movements will increase further, especially the economic crisis, virus epidemic, climate crisis, hunger, poverty, immigration, etc. It is understood that the masses will be active and will turn to riots. The “I Can’t Breathe” actions against murder of George Floyd in the USA is a good example.
New mass movements, riots and uprisings are on the agenda both in the world and in our country. If you remember, before the epidemic, mass movements and riots were on the agenda in nearly 50 countries around the world. It is not without reason for the representatives of the ruling class in our country to mention and refer to Gezi at every opportunity. They are seriously afraid of a revolt against them, of a mass movement. They are taking measures and preparing for this. The most important of these measures is the destruction of the revolutionary communist movements if possible or their anchoring in a class collaborator position. The attack involves not only physical but also psychological, cultural, and social aspects, which are carried out using all kinds of mass media, especially ideological.
Surely this is manifest in different ways in the semi-colonial countries like the capitalist countries and in Turkey. In general, they agree to attack the working class, the people, progressive-revolutionary and communist forces, and right-wing populist personalities act as the spokespersons of the bourgeoisie as the “leaders”. It wants to create social consent to the policies implemented in the imperialist capitalist centres and semi-colonial countries by citing the virus epidemic as a reason. The aim is to prevent the revolutionary and communist movements from uniting with the class, such as the women’s and LGBTI + movement, which are opposed to the system in one way or another, producing a certain revolutionary resistance, and from turning into a higher-scale rebellion. Looking at the issue in this way, it can be better understood that the President of Religious Affairs commits hate crimes irrelevant to the issue, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s persistence in committing this crime or the Istanbul Convention is set as a target.
The Turkish ruling classes and their representative AKP-MHP government are putting different policies into effect to manage the economic crisis at the current stage. While making “domestic and national” project propagandas in the economic field, they are concerned about attracting foreign capital and finding loans to the country. Despite all manipulations, unemployment and inflation figures cannot be reduced to single digits. More than 12 million unemployed people are mentioned; The foreign debt of the state of the Turkish ruling classes to the imperialist centres has set a record in the history of the Republic with 247.6 billion dollars. The government is preparing to usurp severance pay to alleviate the economic crisis to some extent and transfer resources to the bosses.
It is trying to postpone this collapse in the economic field with the policies it tries to implement in the political field. On the one hand, it has increased its aggression domestically while engaging in military operations such as cross-border, Rojava, Iraqi Kurdistan and Libya. While the presidential regime is stuck, voting loss is also voiced by pro-polling companies. The country is tried to be governed by the Decree Laws, but this is not a solution to the failure to manage crisis.
We see that the government is in an aggression towards the people in direct proportion to its stricture. Not only the working class, the people, progressive, revolutionary and communists are under attack. In the quarrel between the ruling class cliques, it is desired to line up with the rival ruling class clique “judgment”. Even politicians who are members of rival bourgeois parties are given prison sentences. Opposition TVs continue to be shut down. The government is so stuck that it is now preparing legislation to shut down social media.
They are afraid of Gezi and make their preparations accordingly. Of course, new measures are put into effect not only in this area but also within themselves and new parties are established.
Our party is getting ready for these difficult days of struggle. There are various decisions we made in our congress on this issue. Our Party is aware at the bottom that new mass movements are fermenting and that “the mole of Marx” will come to the surface under favourable conditions. With this consciousness, it tries to catch contact points at the bottom, to connect with the mass movements whose contradictions are sharpened in concrete and that produce revolutionary dynamics.
Our party is aware that these movements and struggle of the masses must be carried to the new democratic revolution under the leadership of the communist party and channelled into armed struggle under the conditions of our country. If this task is not accomplished, the mass movements will wither away, and order will be internalized. The Gezi Rebellion is a good example.
We call on our people, especially the youth and women, to organize in our party and fight in the ranks of our people’s army. Because we have no way out but fight, no way out but fight.