PARTY ORGANISATION AND PARTY LIFE
It is true that some of the programmatic conclusions formalised in the 1980 Foundation Congress of our Party -"semi-feudal Turkey", "National Democratic Popular Revolution (NDPR)", etc.- are not used in party publications. This omission, however, does not imply that the theses on which these concepts are based have been totally rejected, shelved or replaced by different theses. Some people are trying to present the situation as if these concepts and the theses on which they are based have been totally rejected or amended, but this is not true reflection of the real situation.
In the Party Programme adopted in the Congress of 1980 and other party publications, Turkey is described as a semi-colonial, semi-feudal country. However, in the programme section where this identification is made and in other party documents adopted in the Congress, it is also emphasised that capitalist relations of production are dominant in Turkey. It is also noted and emphasised that Turkey is "consequently a capitalist country", which is a "semi-colony" of imperialism and a "backward capitalist country".
If one examines the records of pre-Congress documents, it will be seen that the concept of semi-feudal Turkey is used to emphasise the fact that feudal relations of production have not been fully eliminated and that they continue to exist -especially in the agricultural sector. It can also be seen that this existence is not interpreted to be in the form of a closed economy, which is the typical characteristics of the feudal mode of production. What is actually involved is a process of feudal disintegration, coupled with interpenetration and co-existence with capitalist relations of production, and incorporation into the market economy.
In the pre-1980 polemics, those on both sides of the debate on whether capitalism or feudalism is dominant in Turkey have argued that the concept of semi-feudalism or descriptions based on it are not compatible with the dominance of capitalism, that the semi-feudal, semi-colonial description can only be used for socio-economic structures where feudalism is dominant.
The content of the concepts and the process(es) or the phenomenon to which they refer can be neither interpreted nor amended in accordance with preferences. The concept of "semi-feudal" does not refer to arithmetical proportions -for example 50 percent capitalism, 50 percent feudalism- of the different modes of production that happen to exist historically within a socio-economic structure. It is neither possible nor necessary to establish either such proportions or the exact time at which one of the modes of production would become dominant. This is especially the case when you take into account the fact that social change is an evolutionary process. Attempting to establish such clear-cut points or describing semi-feudalism as a reflection of a certain proportion is not compatible with a Marxist and scientific approach. The concept in question refers to a situation where, irrespective of the dominance of either capitalism or feudalism, the socio-economic structure is characterised by the co-existence of feudal decline/ disintegration and a process of capitalist development -a combination that implies that elements of both modes of production exist side by side in an interpenetrated manner. Therefore, the concept can be used to describe processes where either capitalism or feudalism is dominant.
In fact, the concept has historically been used in this context. For example, Lenin -who argued and proved that capitalist relations of production had developed and that capitalism had become dominant in the Tsarist Russia by the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries- associated Russia's backwardness with the existence of feudal relations in Russian society, and he did not refrain from describing Russia as a semi-feudal country. This assessment can be seen in his articles devoted to the nature and tasks of the democratic revolution. Lenin, from time to time, utilised similar descriptions and definitions even for Germany of the 1920s. Our party, as it was the case before 1980, is currently using the semi-feudal concept in this context.
More than ten years have elapsed since the convention of our Congress in 1980. In contrast to the "profound" and "novel" analysis of the revisionists and the revolutionaries of the 'third phase" of the capitalist crisis (1), neither imperialism nor the collaborationist monopolist bourgeoisie has made the final offensive for eradicating the remnants of feudalism in the infra- and super-structure of the country during the last ten years or so. On the contrary, they have supported the strengthening of feudalism especially in the super-structure and alliance as well as collaboration between the two camps have become stronger. Under the conditions of on-going and deepening crisis, the country has, from time to time, experienced a process of return to old technologies in agricultural. Nevertheless, rural-urban migration has continued and capitalist relations have become more pronounced while the remnants of feudalism in the economy have been weakened.
Although the process of disintegration and deterioration is continuing, feudal remnants can still be observed under different forms and intensity in the form of serf, semi-serf relations on large landed properties -especially in Kurdistan- in some large agricultural enterprises as a means of increasing the rate of exploitation and in conjunction with capitalist relations, and in small-to-medium size commercial or industrial enterprises producing for the market and employing a high proportion of young workers. In addition to imperialist exploitation and dependency as well as monopolist capitalist relations, the remnants of feudal relations are the major obstacle to the development of productive forces and social progress. Although these feudal remnants are relatively less significant today and are going through a process of disintegration and deterioration, the total liquidation of these remnants and the eradication in a revolutionary way of medieval relations and reaction associated with them continues to be one of the most crucial tasks of the revolutionary process with which we are faced today.
There is no change in our party's opinion on the content and use of the concept of semi-feudalism. In addition, the party thinks that, even though they are in process of decline, feudal remnants continue to exist in both the infra- and super-structure and that their total eradication is one of the major tasks of the contemporary revolutionary process. Nevertheless, our party, for some time, has not been emphasising the semi-feudal aspect when describing the main characteristics of the country's socio-economic structure. Neither has it been using this description in conjunction with that of semi-colony. Although it has been clearly established in the party programme and other party documents adopted in the Founding Congress of 1980 that capitalism has become dominant in Turkey, the concept of semi-feudalism has been used from time to time and in conjunction with the concept of semi-colony to draw attention to the existence of feudal remnants. This usage, however, was not giving a clear indication of which elements -capitalist or feudal- have become dominant and which have become articulated in a subordinated way. In fact, the way in which the description is used has been causing ambiguity about the conclusions that must be derived from the party's analysis. Irrespective of the interpretations and impressions, a political movement, especially in its publications aimed at the masses, should highlight the dominant and ascending aspect of the country's socio-economic structure. This is why the concept of semi-feudalism is now not being used when Turkey's socio-economic structure is described.
In this context, the reluctance to use the concept of semi-feudalism is not a result of an amendment to the primary theses that form the backbone of the party programme adopted in the Founding Congress. Nor does it require such an amendment. That is because Turkey is already described in the programme as well as other documents as a country where feudal relations are weakening and disintegrating and capitalist relations are becoming dominant. In addition, there are various analytical statements that refer to Turkey as a country in the process of capitalist development -"in this sense, a capitalist country"- in addition to those that describe the country as a "backward capitalist country", which is semi-colony of imperialism. Under these conditions, placing an emphasis on the concept of semi-feudalism and using it in conjunction with the concept of semi-colony -in addition to its use as a concept in describing the country's socio-economic structure- does not convey quite the same meaning as the analysis which states that Turkey is "in this sense a capitalist country" or a "backward capitalist country" dependent on imperialism. That is why, the refrainment from using and highlighting the concept of semi-feudalism in describing the country's socio-economic structure is not in contradiction with the party's theses and analysis approved in the Congress. On the contrary, this refrainment constitutes a correction that is in line with those theses and analysis.
One can raise the question of why Turkey's socio-economic structure has not been defined and described in line with the analysis and theses developed above and why such a description has not been given a high profile in our party's programme and the documents adopted in the Congress. The factors inhibiting such a description can be described as follows:
If we examine the pre-1980 polemics and written material, we can see that modern revisionists and the groups influenced by their analysis tended to argue that imperialism, in contrast to the previous period, was eliminating feudal relations in backward countries at a rapid pace and that these countries have become typical capitalist countries after the World War II.
These groups were also arguing that anti-feudal struggle and eradication of feudal relations were no more a task of the revolution. That is why, their argument went on, our country was at the stage of socialist revolution. Even though they accepted that the revolution was of a democratic nature, they maintained that revolutions in backward countries had to be anti-capitalist even anti-imperialist. Drawing on such theses, it was argued that feudal relations in Turkey had been eliminated and that the country had become a typical capitalist country as a result of the disintegration of the closed village economy and its incorporation into the capitalist market economy. The argument went on to indicate that the insignificant feudal remnants were being eliminated by imperialism and monopolist bourgeoisie. Consequently, the eradication of feudal remnants was no longer a task of the revolution.
In order to prove that feudal remnants and relations were eliminated or too insignificant or to be taken into account, those groups based their analysis on market-oriented production, in corporation into the capitalist market and the collapse of the closed economy. Such developments were taken as indicators of the full eradication of feudal relations of production and exploitation and of their replacement by the pure capitalist relations of production and exploitation. By reducing the feudal relations of production to the relations of a closed economy and by equating the capitalist relations with market relations, all economic units that happen to be producing for or incorporated into the capitalist market were described as pure capitalist enterprises. Under those conditions, the discussion of feudal relations and whether or not feudal remnants were existing constituted a debate on the concrete analysis of the current situation as well as on the distinctive features of capitalist and feudal modes of production.
The groups mentioned above were engaged in revising the fundamental Marxist theses on feudal and capitalist modes of production under the guise of contributing to Marxism and adapting it to existing conditions. That revision, in fact, was being exercised by using the essentially defunct theses of bourgeois political economy, a fact that made the debate on the role of feudal remnants in Turkey's socio-economic structure more significant. These conditions led to two developments: The existence of views tending to overemphasise the significance of feudal remnants in the country's socio-economic structure even though the dominance of capitalism was clearly indicated in party documents; and the tendency to put the emphasis on feudal remnants by using the concept of semi-feudalism in description or definition of the country's socio-economic structure.
There was another reason for the use of the concept of semi-feudalism for describing our country's socio-economic structure even though the dominance of capitalism was confirmed. This was related to the use of the same concept by some members of the Komintern to describe their countries even after the rise to a dominant position of capitalism in their countries. Even in some of those countries, which were the most advanced in terms of capitalist development and where the dominance of capitalism was an issue of a recent past, feudal relations were almost as significant as capitalist relations even though the former were not the dominant aspect of the socio-economic structure. This situation was especially pronounced in rural areas where most of the population was concentrated. Under such conditions, where feudal relations -even though falling short of being in a dominant position- were almost as significant as capitalist relations and determined the super-structure of the society, the countries were defined as semi-feudal and semi-colonial (or colonial).
In Turkey's of the 1980s, however, the dominance of capitalism was not a problem of the recent past (five-ten years). On the other hand, even though semi-feudal relations continued to exist, they were in no position to be considered as significant as capitalist relations. Under the conditions where Marxism and the Marxist literature were declared to be outmoded or revised as a result of new developments and phenomena by both the right and the "left" under the guise of adapting them creatively to contemporary concrete conditions, there was a failure in responding in a pro-active manner to such attempts and offensives and protecting the revolutionary content of Marxism. This failure involved both analysing the current development from a Marxist perspective and developing and strengthening Marxism as well as the world revolution on that basis. This was another factor that contributed to the use by our party of the concept of semi-feudalism in its description of the country's socio-economic structure.
In addition to what has been indicated above, there was the issue of catchword as well as concept fetishism that prevailed in the 1970s and 1980s as a result of shallow understanding of Marxism. Although our party was in a different orientation, it was inevitably affected by those conditions. This effect is also reflected in presenting or interpreting the concept of National Democratic Popular Revolution (NDPR), in addition to the concept of semi-feudalism, as a distinctive concept reflecting our party's primary theses. If you examine the party's programme and other documents approved in the Congress, you will see that other concepts such as anti-imperialist democratic revolution -a concept that is now frequently used in our party's publications- were used even though there was a special emphasis on the concept of "NDPR". Anti-imperialist democratic revolution and "NDPR" have, essentially, the same content. They reflect only difference of emphasis in conveying this content. As a result of the most critical defeat suffered by socialism and the revolutionary working class movement, peoples are now plunged into mutual massacres caused by reactionary national wars. Therefore, the struggle against imperialism has weakened and national movements are not developing as anti-imperialist revolutionary movements. Given these conditions, our party places special emphasis on the significance of defining the current revolutionary process as anti-imperialist.
The debate on the essence of the current revolutionary process has no direct relationship with the use of "NDPR" or any other concept. It is also necessary to indicate that there is no difference of opinion in our party about the anti-imperialist and democratic nature of the current revolutionary process, the relationship between this revolution and the socialist revolution, or about the uninterrupted transition from the former to the latter.
Although feudal relations are disintegrating and declining, and although capitalist relations are on the ascendance and capitalism is dominant mode of production, Turkey is a country where political freedoms are not realised, the democratisation of the infra- and super-structure is not completed, the national question is not resolved, a fascist dictatorship continue to rule, the state power is concentrated in the hands of monopolist bourgeoisie and representatives of the semi-feudal relations and imperialist control and exploitation continue. The major tasks faced by the current revolutionary process and the working class are the termination of imperialist dependence and exploitation, the overthrow of the monopolist bourgeoisie's and large land owners' fascist dictatorship, the achievement of political freedoms, the democratisation of the society in all areas including the infra- and the super- structure, the elimination of feudal remnants and monopolist relations, and the resolution of the national question. The realisation of these tasks will, of course, not ensure the emancipation of the working class. This said, however, it is the working class who have the utmost interest in the achievement of these tasks. That is because the conditions for the emancipation of the working class will become more mature and imminent as these tasks are realised fully and as soon as possible.
Our party's approach to programmatic statements such as semi-feudal Turkey, "NDPR" etc. which do not appear in party publications, but have been formalised in the party's highest organ -the Congress, or to theses that form a basis for the programme, is directly related to our current approach to the problems of the international communist and working class movement -primarily theoretical and ideological problems- that have been dealt with and explained briefly in previous parts of this interview. The essence of this approach, as indicated before, is the premise that Marxist-Leninist theory -even though some limited steps have been taken- has not been developed in line with complex global developments after World War II, when socialism and revolutionary working class movements have attained the greatest victories of their history, but have not been able to repulse the many-sided offensive of the world bourgeoisie and the support it found in revisionism.
Some aspects of the post-World War II developments and the new phenomena that they have generated can be listed as follows: Penetration into the imperialist system along new fronts, establishment of a world socialist market, contraction of the imperialist markets for investment, raw materials and cheap labour, high levels of capital concentration and accumulation, renewal of the imperialist and world reactionary forces' hegemony and their relations with the wavering intermediate strata not only in developed but also in dependent and semi-colonial countries in the face of rising proletarian and popular struggle, development of new imperialist tactics to distract the attention and ensure the support of the wavering strata, the instigation of a scientific-technological revolution with complex economic and social consequences, and the emergence of a radical change in inter-imperialist relations.
These developments, especially the renewal of the imperialist system of hegemony following the rise in proletarian and popular struggle, the achievement of new socialist victories, and the instigation of scientific-technological revolution have been utilised by the bourgeoisie in a way that has led to rejuvenation in its ideological hegemony and instigated an offensive against Marxist theory. Modern revisionism, Trotskyism and all opportunistic currents of thought have utilised those new developments in order to prove that the main Marxist theses have become obsolete and that they should be developed on the basis of allegedly new but essentially bourgeois theories dressed as Marxism -hence contributing to the consolidation of the renewed basis of the bourgeoisie's ideological and political hegemony. A wide range of currents of thought, -modern revisionism, Trotskyism and petit-bourgeois new left that takes an intermediate position between the two- have all developed a theoretical foundation for a petit-bourgeois socialism under the pretext that Marxism should be developed in the light of new developments.
Of course, the post-World War II developments and phenomena did not lead to obsolescence in fundamental theses and predictions of the Marxist theory. On the contrary, they provided new opportunities that increased the possibility of confirming those theses and predictions. Drawing on these opportunities, however, would have required the application off Marxist theory to new developments, a proper analysis of those developments and phenomena, derivation of necessary conclusions, a persistent and scientific struggle against new anti-Marxist open bourgeois liberal, revisionist, Trotskyist, etc. theories, and the development and renewal of Marxist theory on the basis of such a struggle. Although some steps have been taken in this direction, it was not possible to develop and renew Marxism in line with developments in science and technology, to analyse the new developments and phenomena -including those induced by the scientific-technological revolution- in the context of their inter-connections and at a global level, to analyse these developments from a fully scientific and proletarian perspective and with the aim of deriving universal conclusions for the purpose of changing the world. and to instigate a breakthrough in the platform of world revolution. Such shortcomings have been a feature of the development process of Marxism in the second half of this century.
Under the conditions where the Marxist theory was not developed in the way described above, it was inevitable for the Marxists of each country to be exposed either to the influence of the anti-Marxist new theories that purported to be explaining the new developments and phenomena or to stick with the theoretical heritage that, although it carried the scientific potential of shedding light on future developments, remained to be the product of the period in which it was developed and therefore could not explain fully the developments in the second half of this century and previous years can not explain the developments of the second half. Also, it is not possible either to neutralise the frontal offensive of the bourgeoisie or to preserve the achievements or positions obtained against it , let alone expanding them.
The international communist movement of which our party is a part, by drawing on the new developments and phenomena, have rejected and struggled against the open bourgeois theories which claimed that Marxism has become obsolete, that it has failed in explaining the global and universal processes and phenomena, and that is not a scientific theory as generally presumed. The same stance has been also taken against revisionist, Trotskyite or other allegedly Marxist theories that falls in between, who, under the name of Marxism, have tried to analyse the new processes and phenomena with an implicit assumption that Marxism has become fully or partly obsolete. This rejection and struggle have been focused on proving the validity of Marxism and its fundamental theses and exposing the practical-political implications of the theories indicated above.
Although some limited steps have been taken in this direction, it was not possible to link these achievements with a full Marxist analysis that -by making the utmost use of the progress in science and technology- has drawn upon the most recent global and universal processes and phenomena that have been cited in support of the allegedly new theories. Instead, there has developed a certain inertia that was characterised by a tendency either to explain the new developments and phenomena with the theoretical-practical experience of the preceding period or to claim that there was nothing new that the pre-World War II experience could not explain. This result led to two adverse consequences:
On the one hand, there was a halt to the development of the Marxist-Leninist theory, the founders of which had always indicated that the theory was not a dogma and that it should be continuously developed in line with scientific progress and global and universal developments. On the other hand, various parties and groups whose commitment to Marxist-Leninist theory and the emancipation of the proletariat was unquestionable failed to move towards the creation of an international revolutionary platform that would have enabled them to derive universal conclusions concerning the characteristics of the current revolutionary process. Consequently, there was a tendency to develop solutions to the problems of the revolution and the proletarian movement in their countries without the general guidance that the international platform could have provided.
Under such conditions that implied a lack of the guidance to be provided by world revolutionary platform and by Marxist analysis/ interpretation of the characteristics of the current period with international conclusions, the communist party or communist nucleus of each country -no matter how hard they try to analyse the concrete conditions of the revolution in their countries- was bound to commit some mistakes, to face dilemmas or to remain inadequate in developing solutions to the problems of the revolution and the proletarian movement in those countries. This would be especially the case if the main link in the task chain is not to be understood as above.
The way out of these difficulties depends on various factors, including the realisation of what has not been done in the last 30-40 years; the analysis and interpretation -in terms of their inter-relations and links- of the post World War II development that generated certain consequences in the 1950s and 1960s and are currently acquiring new features; the renewal and development of the Marxist-Leninist theory; and the renewal, within this process of the theses, theoretical foundation, programmes and practises of the Marxist-Leninist parties or groups. This is also valid for the programme of our party and the theoretical foundation and theses on which it is based.
The post-World War II developments that we have indicated only in relation to your questions have led to major global consequences in economic, social and political areas. The contraction of the world imperialist markets in investment, raw materials and cheap labour, the colossal increase in the accumulation and concentration of capital and the scientific-technological revolution have all led to an increase in the importance of even the ,marginal regions and countries that had been unattractive for imperialist monopolies and states in the pre-war period as a result of their remoteness from the market and low rates of profits. This revived interest has led to an increase in the profit rates that can be obtained in these countries and caused a large flow of capital, at levels that cannot be compared to those of the pre-war period. The emergence of new productive sectors in information technology, aerospace research, nuclear and termo-nuclear energy; changes in inter-sectoral relations and profits and in the division of labour between advanced and backward countries of the imperialist-capitalist system; the acceleration of the internationalisation of production and capital as a result of the developments in transport and telecommunications; and the relocation of some productive sectors towards backward countries; etc. represent only some of the developments that have affected not only advanced capitalist countries but also the backward countries directly as a result of the scientific technological revolution. It is obvious that these developments have had significant effects on the economic, social and political structures and class relations of the backward countries as they have accelerated their capitalist development and added new dimensions to it.
The theses which inspire our party's programme, policy line and practise have been related to attempts at identifying and interpreting the post-World War II developments -whose consequences became apparent in the 1950s and 1960s- and at analysing their implications for our country. Nevertheless, it must be indicated that they have been formulated under the conditions mentioned above and within the framework determined by the theoretical and practical platform of the international communist movement. If you take this statement together with the perspective explained in other parts of this interview, the result to be derived is obvious:
Our party has already embarked on a process of renewing, improving and deepening not only the theses indicated here but also the entirety of its programme and the theoretical foundation on which it is based. This task, obviously, cannot be realised by reading a few classical works and compiling some statistics. It requires a multi-dimensional and, more importantly, a scientific study based on a long term project closely linked the class struggle and covering a range of areas from culture and art to philosophy and from political economy to natural sciences.
Our party's attempt at improving and consolidating the correct parts of its theses and overcoming the mistakes or inadequacies associated with them is taken as a part of this general project. It does not take this question at its face value and treat it in isolation from the steps mentioned above. Our party in contrast to other groups is not of the habit of proposing solutions to essentially international problems -without any effort to secure international solutions. Such attitude will only result in holding of continuos congresses and conferences and publishing corrections to every concluding documents resulting from such gatherings, or in updating of the analysis by inserting new paragraphs in between the statistics provided by the State Institute of Statistics.
It must be born in mind -not only by our party, but also by all groups and currents sincerely committed to communism as well as all the forces of the international communist movement- that it is not possible to deal with theoretical-programmatic problems on the basis of the existing perspective that has dominated the international communist movement for the last 30-40 years. Any attempt that fails to take this into account will end up with only a partial re-assessment of the existing theses, as any diagnosis will be based on partial impressions derived from partial identification of the mistakes. This is the easiest way of dealing with problems.
Our party is rejecting and will continue to reject the adoption of this method, as it is bound to lead world communism and international working class movement to defeat. It will also prevent them from achieving either a victory against imperialism and world reactionary forces or from resolving the current problems on the basis of a theoretical and practical progress that is in line with historical evolution.
The approach of our party to the solution of the programmatic, theoretical problems, in the form indicated above, has been debated and assessed in party organisations and circles to the extent that illegal activity and security conditions have allowed. The issue for our party today is not to secure a unity of will about the correctness of this approach -this has already been achieved. The problem is to realise the duties that this approach implies and to deploy all resources in the most effective way both at national and international levels.
Irrespective of whether they exist and function under legal or illegal conditions, political parties -or political groupings exercising the functions of political parties, even though they are not yet political parties- are the means of the struggle between classes, of the political struggle that is centred on seizure of the state power. This struggle, to the extent that it develops and matures, takes the form of inter-party struggle. Any discussion on or interpretation of party life, democracy in the party, and democratic centralism that is detached from these basic functions of the parties, their objectives, and their class character is nothing but an exercise in useless chattering -reflecting the bourgeois stupidity of discussing the principle of democracy and democratic centralism at a bourgeois liberal platform.
As it is the case with other parties, the factor that determines the party life, and consequently the democratic centralism and the party democracy that it implies, is the founding objectives of our party, the conditions of its existence and its function. Our party has no objective other than the short- and long-run interests of the working class. It has been established for the purpose of organising the working class as an independent social force and ensuring its emancipation. This feature of our party determines not only the aim of its struggle and activity, the conditions for its existence but also the development process of its life and relations, and the way in which it approaches, interprets and implements the principles of party democracy and democratic centralism. From the viewpoint of our party, democracy in the party, progression of party life and implementation of democratic centralism are not isolated from party aims and functions. On the contrary, they must always be subordinated to the realisation, under all conditions, of its function and aims described in its programme.
If one examines the history of socialism and working class movement, it will be seen that the debate on the general issue of working class organisation and on the particular issue of its political party is neither new nor isolated from the debate on other issues. This debate is directly related to questions about the conditions under which the emancipation of the working class be achieved, the ways in which those conditions will develop, and whether the liberation of the working class will be achieved through social reform or social revolution.
The debate on the working class party and on how the working class should organise is essentially a debate about whether the working class party should be a party of social reform or social revolution. In other words, should the working class party be a reformist party who fights against the consequences of capitalism and limits its struggle to the improvement of the workers' living and working conditions? Or should it be a revolutionary party who fights for the elimination of capitalism and focuses its efforts on seizing of the political power -with the struggle for reforms being made dependent on this objective?
Obviously, a party who fights against the negative consequences of capitalism and limits its struggle to the improvement of the workers' living and working conditions will be trade unionist/ parliamentarian party who operates on the basis of parliamentary methods, becoming an element of the spontaneous working class movement. Such a party will have a lax organisational discipline and its relations will be sloppy. On the other hand, a party who does not limit itself to the struggle against the adverse consequences of capitalism, who leads a fight aimed at abolishing capitalism and seizing the state power through revolution will have to be a different party. It must be well versed in the scientific laws of the class struggle. It must pursue a strategy based on preparing and organising the revolutionary uprisings of the masses. It must also be based on a prior willingness to strict organisational discipline and relations and not an endless discussions. That is because such a party must reflect a unity of will and action and it must be a fighting organisation under all conditions.
The life and relations of the party and the interpretation and implementation of the principle of democratic centralism will depend on answers given to questions about the party's organisational structure. This factors will also depend on whether the working class party will be a party of social revolution or social reform characterised by trade unionist/ parliamentarian (and conspiracy or semi-anarchist) orientations.
In contrast to bourgeois and petit-bourgeois socialism, Marxism envisages that the genuine working class party can only be a party of social revolution. Therefore, it assesses and analyses the internal relations and life, the organisational structure of the working class party on this basis. In addition to other features of this party, party life, internal relations and party structure, etc. will be crystallised as the struggle for the eventual emancipation of the working class and social revolution develops. The contributions by Lenin to Marxist theses on the revolutionary party of the working class are directly linked to the transition of capitalism to the stage of imperialism as its highest stage and to the development of the proletarian revolution into a practical task to be realised.
Marxism was distinguished from all other socialist currents of thought before it and became the only guide and theoretical basis for working class emancipation as well as working class party not only because it identified the negative consequences of capitalism and fought against them, analysed the conditions of the existence and the eventual emancipation of the working class, and unambiguously and scientifically established the historical revolutionary role of the working class. The distinguishing aspects of Marxism were due also to its equipment of the working class with the knowledge and means required for the latter's eventual emancipation and its analysis as well as assessment of the working class organisation from this perspective.
When the history of working class movement and socialism is examined, it will be seen that proletarian socialism emerged in connection with Marxist theory and that it developed in the struggle against bourgeois, petit-bourgeois socialism. it will also be seen that this struggle has assumed different forms, but continued without any interruption. In the initial stages, the struggle of the bourgeois, petit-bourgeois socialism against proletarian socialism and Marxism was an open and frontal one. However, as a result of the supremacy that Marxism had established within the working class movement, the isolated bourgeois, petit-bourgeois socialism had to accept this supremacy and continue its fight against Marxism and proletarian socialism under the guise of defending Marxism. The main orientation of the bourgeois, petit-bourgeois socialism was the attempts at eradicating the revolutionary and proletarian class content of Marxism and proletarian socialism and trying to control the working class movement by presenting itself As its representative or at least as a fraction of it, in order to obtain the opportunity of dominating the workers' movement.
The theory and practise of the new Leninist party require the following:
Adapting and improving the Marxist theses on the working class party in line with the conditions of the new stage of capitalism, i.e. imperialism; dealing with the obvious and damaging consequences of the bourgeois, petit-bourgeois orientation indicated above; blocking the infiltration of the bourgeois, petit-bourgeois socialism into the working class party; and equipping the working class and its party against them. The Leninist party theory deals with the issues of party democracy and freedom of opinion within the framework of defending Marxism and proletarian socialism and realising the tasks of the proletarian revolution. The Leninist party theory and practise have been attacked both by the bourgeoisie and by bourgeois and petit-bourgeois socialism for its deprivation of the bourgeois, petit-bourgeois socialism of the opportunity to fight against Marxism and proletarian socialism and transform the revolutionary party of the working class into a discussion club.
With Gorbachev's ascendance to power, especially following the collapse of the bourgeois-revisionist system, attacks on the theory and practice of the new type of Leninist proletarian party and on the Leninist interpretation and implementation of democratic centralism as its essential feature have intensified. It has been argued that the theory of the new type Leninist party and the Leninist interpretation of the principle of democratic centralism that governs the party life and internal relations of the party are not universal as they are specific to Russian conditions. Therefore, the argument continues, those concepts have become obsolete and must be revised in line with the new conditions of today. It has also been argued that the principle of democratic centralism has prevented democracy and freedom, destroyed what is specific to the individual, made impossible the development of initiative and talent, encouraged the development of bureaucracy, and permitted the establishment of hegemony by a bureaucratic and dictatorial elite.
The proposed alternative to the Leninist party theory and practice are parliamentarian-trade unionist parties that are supposed to embrace all those purporting to be socialist, allow for factions, and provide unlimited freedom of discussion. At the international level, this vision implies the unity of all allegedly socialist currents. It also implies the obscuring of the distinction between proletarian and bourgeois/ petit-bourgeois socialism as well as the liquidation of proletarian socialism as an organised force.
In the second half of this century, as a result of the factors indicated in previous parts of this interview, the bourgeois, petit-bourgeois socialism has become dominant in the working class movement under the guise of Marxism and dealt the heaviest blow to Marxism and proletarian socialism in its history. This ideology increased the ability of the bourgeois ideology to establish its supremacy in its direct form and consequently led to its own demise. That ideology represents a deliberate attempt at gathering strength by pulling the proletarian socialism and revolutionary Marxism into its orbit and eventually liquidating them as organised political movements. This strategy has transpired as attempts at achieving the unity of socialist or communist at both national and international levels. This is the essence of the attempts at expanding their networks of relations and of the slogans about the unity of all socialist and communist at both national and international levels.
These attempts have been closely related to the collapse of the last model of bourgeois socialism, revisionism, and the bourgeois/ petit-bourgeois socialism following the tracks of revisionism. It must be recalled that these revisionist and bourgeois/ petit-bourgeois socialists have been orchestrating the most vicious attack on true Marxist-Leninist parties or groups who have been defending proletarian socialism and revolutionary Marxism. Under these conditions, it becomes especially important to raise a barrier against the attempts at dissolving the proletarian socialism and revolutionary Marxism within the pot of bourgeois socialism and the petit-bourgeois socialism that follows the former's steps. This can be done only by defending the Marxist-Leninist theoretical theses on the revolutionary party of the working class, especially those related to the Leninist teaching on the new type of the proletarian party.
Our party has been and still is of the opinion that the Marxist-Leninist theory, which has been confirmed by social practice many times, is the only guide for the actions of the working class. The fact that socialism and the revolutionary working class movement have suffered the heaviest defeat of their history and that bourgeoisie have obtained an ephemeral victory should not be interpreted as indicators of the obsolescence of the Marxist-Leninist theory and Leninist party. Neither should these developments be considered as proof of either weakness or lack of competence.
The defeat suffered by the revolutionary working class movement has nothing to do with the Marxist-Leninist theory. On the contrary, our party thinks that this defeat has been due to deviation from the Marxist-Leninist theory. In spite of some limited steps in the right direction, the failure in developing the theory in line with global developments and creatively applying it to the conditions of the last five decades has been another reason for this defeat. That is why, our party thinks that it is essential to defend the Marxist-Leninist theory as the only source of inspiration for both the working class and its eventual emancipation.
It is also essential that we organise the revolutionary party of the working class on the basis of the Marxist-Leninist theory and its theses on the revolutionary party of the proletariat. This stance is especially important under the current conditions where attacks on the Marxist-Leninist theory have intensified and flirting with bourgeois liberal theories has become the fashion of the day. Our party has been and still is organising on the basis of the Leninist theory on the new type party and its adaptation to the objective conditions under which we operate. The guide for our party in its life and internal relations as well as in its attempts at implementing and interpreting the principles of party democracy and democratic centralism is the Marxist-Leninist theory, especially the Leninist theory on the new type party.
Following the defeat suffered with the incoming of the 12 September coup and other development associated with it, attacks at the Leninist theory and practice of the new type of proletarian party and convergence towards bourgeois liberalism in the area of internal party life and relations gathered a new momentum. Liquidationist tendencies pulled our party towards this platform too. An unlimited freedom of discussion and irresponsibility was considered as the only way of resolving and transcending outstanding questions. Also, a practice corresponding to this understanding was developed.
Under these conditions, the defence and implementation of the Leninist party theory and the principle of democratic centralism as well as the struggle against all signs of convergence towards bourgeois liberalism have become vitally important. Had it not been possible to insist on such a perspective in our interpretation and implementation of the principle of democratic centralism and the Leninist party theory, our party would not have been able to make any progress.
The Leninist party theory and the principle of democratic centralism that constitutes an integral part of it -although influenced by the particular condition of Russia- have, nevertheless, a universal dimension too. Our party, undoubtedly, is examining the experience of the Bolshevik party and trying to benefit from that experience. This attitude, however, does not imply copying of that experience. What is involved here is an implementation of the general principles in the light of our objective conditions.
No. There is no confusion at all. It all depends on what you understand of development and renewal. In other words, it depends on how you interpret these terms. The renewal and development of the Marxist-Leninist theory in line with new developments and phenomena and its implementation in the light of concrete conditions is not a new argument that is put forward for the first time by our party. Neither is it an innovation of the modern revisionist who eradicate the theory's revolutionary content and proletarian class character and transform it into an appendage of the bourgeois hegemony and ideology. Nor is this to be created to those semi-revisionist, semi-Trotskyites who are known as "intermediate currents" or "revolutionaries of the third or forth crisis" in our country. These groups tend to fall between two stools and transform the Marxist-Leninist theory into petit-bourgeois socialism. The theory that had been founded by Marx and Engels was developed by Lenin and his faithful disciple Stalin. All these leading contributors to the theory have spent their lives developing it and they have always stated that Marxism is not a dogma, but a scientific theory which should be developed and renewed continuously.
All those who have attempted to develop and renew Marxism along bourgeois, petit-bourgeois lines have reduced the fundamental theses of the Marxist theory -which preserves its validity in this period of imperialism and proletarian revolutions- into vulgar materialism. They have done this openly or timidly in a way that made the Marxist theory acceptable for the bourgeoisie either by distancing those theses from the class struggle or by reducing them into the principles of Marxist dialectics -the Maoists modified this too- and vulgar materialism. Although there are differences between these orientations towards bourgeois or petit-bourgeois socialism, they all have attempted to allegedly develop Marxism by declaring that all Marxist theses, with the exception of the most general ones that have been decoupled from their implications have become obsolete. For example, the representatives of bourgeois socialism who revised Marxism from the right have argued that the Marxist thesis on the necessity of destroying the super-structure through revolution and establishing the dictatorship of proletariat as a pre-condition for the establishment of communism and emancipation of the working class has become obsolete because of the post-World War II developments and it is no longer a universally valid principle.
On the other hand, the representatives of petit-bourgeois socialism who revised Marxism from the "left" have claimed that Leninist party theory has become obsolete, that this type of party was specific to Russian conditions, that the process of evolution and revolution have merged. By arguing that the revolutionary situation has become permanent, these petit-bourgeois socialists have reduced the leadership of the proletariat to ideological leadership and developed allegedly new semi-Narodnik theses such as vanguard struggle and politicised military warfare. The common feature that has characterised both bourgeois and petit-bourgeois current mentioned above has been arguing that Leninist theses on imperialist war has become out of date because of the post-World War II developments, especially the emergence of nuclear and thermo-nuclear arms.
The fashion of the day now is the projects of allegedly renewing and developing the Marxist-Leninist theory. These attempts are based on the acceptance of the claims that capitalism has proved its supremacy over socialism. They are aimed at the historical achievements of the Marxist-Leninist theory and the revolutionary working class movement.
Our party's approach to and the way in which it tackles the problem is completely different from the attempts of bourgeois and petit-bourgeois socialism at eradicating the proletarian class content of Marxism by revising it either form the left or from the right. In our party's view, the universal basis of the Marxist-Leninist theory is still valid. having said this, however, this basis cannot be isolated from its implications for either the class struggle or its orientation. Neither can it be reduced to Marxist dialectics as a set of laws. On the other hand, it must also be indicated that the Marxist-Leninist theory can be neither renewed nor developed by either declaring it to be bankrupt or rejecting the historical legacy of socialism -even though the latter is currently liquidated. On the contrary, as long as we are talking a sincere attempt at renewing and developing the Marxist-Leninist theory in the light of objective conditions and on the basis of applying it to these conditions, renewal or development must be based on defending the fundamental theses of the theory and the historical legacy of socialism.
In its assessments of the new events and phenomena observed in the second half of this century as well as the heavy defeats suffered by socialism and the working class, our party does not arrive at conclusions claiming that the Marxist-Leninist theory should be replaced by new theories to be used as its fundamental theses on social development, on capitalism, and on imperialism as its final stage. Neither does it agree that communism and its process of construction have become obsolete without any scientific character. On the contrary the practice reflecting the achievement in socialist construction until the second half of the 1950s and the emergence of socialism as a world system have confirmed the validity of the Marxist-Leninist theses concerning capitalism, imperialism as its final stage, the establishment as well as the nature of the communist society, the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the revolutionary party of the working class. An example from the beginning of this century will help clarify our party's approach and its attitude.
It is a well known fact that Lenin was accused of being orthodox when he argued that the fundamental theses and content of Marxism were still valid. This criticism came from the revisionist circles of the time who attempted at revising Marxism on the grounds that the emergence of monopolies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the onset of imperialism as the final stage of capitalism had made the Marxist theory obsolete. It is also a well known fact that it was Lenin who developed the Marxist theory and applied it to the new conditions of capitalism and imperialism on the basis of defending the validity of the theory and its fundamental theses.
Of course, the developments of the early 20th century were different from the developments and phenomena of the second half of the century. Contrary to what the new bourgeois revisionist or Trotskyite currents would like us to believe, capitalism did not enter into a new stage after World War II. Although capitalism did not enter into a new stage, various important developments that have been indicated in the previous parts of the interview took place: The construction of economic basis of socialism, the emergence of socialism as a world system, the scientific-technological revolution, neo-colonialism, and the renewal of the theoretical as well as the political system of the bourgeois ideological hegemony (the emergence of the social liberal state).
Following these developments, we have witnessed the destruction and liquidation of socialism as a system, the restoration of capitalism under new forms, and finally the collapse of these forms that have been presented as the collapse of socialism. Our party is trying to analyse these developments in the light of the Marxist-Leninist theory. It has also put into its agenda the development and renewal of the theory -whose validity has been confirmed by the course of events. That is why, there is no contradiction between the development and renewal of the Marxist-Leninist theory into the party's agenda on the one hand and defending (i) the validity of the Leninist theory on the new type of proletarian party (ii) the establishment of our party on this basis. On the contrary, these two approaches are complimentary rather than mutually exclusive.
According to the Leninist theory on the new type of working class party, the revolutionary proletarian party, in addition to its other aspects, is the highest form of organisation for proletarian struggle and combat. The party is not an anarchist discussion club where everybody can say whatever they like in addition to other features, it must have an iron discipline and reflect a unity of will as well as action in order to be able to become the highest form of organisation for proletarian struggle and combat, to elevate the working class struggle to the level of final emancipation, and to act ass a headquarters guiding the struggle of the working class. The unity of action and will is not something that will be cast in iron unless the party becomes historically redundant. This principle should be assessed and renewed in line with new developments, especially at major turning points. The principle of democratic centralism is both the means for ensuring the unity of will and action and the guide for the renewal and development of party life and relations in the party. That is why, the principle cannot be taken in isolation from the particular conditions and tasks of the current situation. Neither should be taken independently of the class struggle. The conditions and task of the current stage will determine how the principle will be implemented and through which mechanism.
The period following 12 September coup has been characterised by: heavy blows dealt to the revolutionary-democratic movement including our party, suppression of the rising proletarian and popular movement wide-spread disillusionment and confidence crisis as well as desertion from the cause and disunity and chaos. Our party came to the point of liquidation during these developments. in that sense, the post-1987 period has been a period of reconstruction and reorganisation for our party. this period has been characterised by reorganisation and reconstruction not only because putting an end to a process of liquidation requires the transcendence of the mistakes and shortcomings associated with the past, but also because it involves a new process of struggle and organisation, renewal in all areas including ideological theoretical and political-organisational ones and the escalation of the struggle to a new level as well as expanding its possibilities.
This is one of the factors that have shaped - for the last five years- development of our party in general and the party life in particular. For all revolutionary proletarian forces as well as and for our party as a part o f the international communist movement, the task in the current period is not limited only to the ideological/ theoretical issues dealt within the previous parts of the interview and to the renewal of the programme as a whole. It also involves issues such as party-mass relations, work among the masses, party life and relations, party mood, etc. which are closely inter-linked. The task also covers other issues like renewal of internal as well ass external practical activities and relations and fighting against bourgeois revisionist influences.
We know that socialism and the working class movement (together with the movement of the oppressed people as their main ally) has escalated between the October revolution of 1917 and the second half of the 1950s -even though this escalation had its ups and downs. From the second half of the 1950s onwards, however, they suffered the heaviest blow of their history -with extremely damaging consequences leading to a period of defeat. The collapse of socialism in Albania -the last socialist country of the world, the collapse of disintegration of the bourgeois revisionist camp that has been presented ass the collapsed of socialism are the last links in the chain of developments that threw into the open damaging consequences of the blow mentioned blow.
The contemporary generation and forces of the world communism are those of a period of defeat. Their mood and practice have been shaped by the typical features of the period and therefore they could not escape the adverse effects of these developments. Irrespective of demagogic bourgeois campaign, the capitalist-imperialist system is heading towards a new stage in it crisis. This fact increases not only the feasibility of ridding ourselves of the mood and practice fostered by the defeat. It also increases the urgent need of renewing and strengthening ourselves. That is why, renewal and development are of an international dimension. They must be dealt with within an international perspective.
We know that the communist and working class movement as well as the revolutionary-democratic movements of our country have suffered a heavy defeat as a result of the 12 September military fascist coup. This defeat has led to the emergence of a general sense of defeatism, lack of resolve, erosion of moral values, ideological drift, and inclination towards bourgeois liberalism, which are typical features of a period of defeat. From mid-1980s onward, we have been faced with two contradictory developments that have impinged on these shortcomings. On the one hand, the strengthening and development of the working class movement, together with the participation of other labouring strata and classes, have facilitated the transcendence of revisionist camp that began with Gorbachev and was presented as the collapse of socialism, the international developments that followed suit, and the anti-communist campaign that accompanied these developments had adverse effects that extend to our country as well. That is why, the second aspect of the multi-dimensional process of renewal and purification must be based on the transcendence of all of the negative consequences of the post-12 September period.
It must be emphasised clearly and unambiguously that there are two sets of requirements to be met before any claim can be made about becoming revolutionary proletarian parties -i.e. proletarian vanguard regiments. On the one hand, the post-1950 platform on which the international communist movement and our party have been based must be transcended. On the other hand, all remnants and indications of opportunistic mood, surrender, disunity and chaos that ruled the reactionary period must be eradicated. That is why, the issues of party life, party relations, democratic centralism and party democracy must be dealt with in conjunction with the renewal and regeneration of the party itself.
Given the renewal and regeneration process through which our party is going, it is essential that the implementation of the democratic centralism principle must be realised in a way that ensures the mutual strengthening of both democracy and centralism. That is why our party does not deal with the implementation and improvement of the party democracy in a way that allows for freedom to anti-Marxist and anti-proletarian tendencies with which it is faced. Nor is it possible to allow these tendencies to hold back the party from its attempt at developing its class content.
Turkey is a country where political freedoms do not exist, a fascist dictatorship is established, the struggle between revolution and counter-revolution is intensifying, and instability is becoming dominant. Our party is faced with the attacks of the dictatorship aimed at its eradication. That is why, illegality is the sine qua non condition for its existence. Obviously, this factor imposes constraints on party life, party relations and the development of party democracy. It also implies differences in both the ways in which and the means through which the principle of democratic centralism is implemented in our party compared to other parties pursuing their activities in a legal environment. Nevertheless, our party is still committed to the development of the means through which party life and relations as well as party democracy can be implemented in the most effective possible. This is to be done without jeopardising the security of the party and the conditions of legal activity.
It is true that a new congress has not been convened after the founding congress. Although a new congress has not been convened yet, it is also true that some programmatic postulates ore no more referred to. It is also true that the party has already taken onto its agenda the issue of renewing the theses of our programme as well as the theoretical basis of our party itself. These developments, however, do not indicate that party life and relations are not evolving in the light of the principle of democratic centralism.
The convention of representative organs such as congress and conferences in a regular and periodic manner is and indispensable means of ensuring the unity of will and action, implementing the principle of democratic centralism, and improving party democracy. This requirement, however, cannot be taken independently of existing conditions and as an abstract condition. Neither is it correct to reduce the development of party democracy and party life to regular conventions of such organs. In fact the convention of such organs for the sake of convention and without taking the minimum measures required for creating the necessary conditions will be a self-defeating exercise. Let alone achieving the desired objectives, such an exercise may only lead to the degeneration of both the organs and the principle of democratic centralism. Instead of functioning as a means achieving a real progress in the working class movement and party activity, they may become the vehicle for stagnation or regression. In fact, in a period when the bourgeois-liberal wind is evolving towards a storm, such attempts are bound to lead to such conditions. Such conventions in Turkey have neither resolved the fundamental problems of the working class movement nor have they constituted a turning point in a process of real development. They have only served as a means of "resolving" the internal problems of small groups whose concerns have been irrelevant to the development of the working class and labouring people. They have been used as a vehicle to conduct a liberal bourgeois discussion in successive gatherings. That is why, such conventions are being debased under the guise of ensuring unity. Our party has not pursued and will not pursue such a line.
As I have indicated in one of the replies to your questions, our party had come to the brink of liquidation towards mid-1980s. That was due to two factors: the blows suffered under the fascist dictatorship and the hegemony of the right opportunists over the party structure, which was accompanied by the emergence of liquidationist tendencies. The reorganisation and rebuilding of the party began towards the middle of 1987. This task was and has been carried out by a small nucleus, the participants of which represented the party in a period of reckless discussions and lack of organisational discipline.
The reorganisation and rebuilding of the party has been a process of preparation for the First General Conference of the party which was convened in February 1992. During this process, the party periodical Yoldas (Comrade) was published and the reckless discussion was replaced by a disciplined one, conducted by those communists actively involved in a party organ and charged with a specific task. Even though it was not as clear and mature as we would like to be today, the Central Committee Report that was submitted to and approved by the Conference contained the views expressed in various parts of this interview or at least some elements of them. In addition, the views expressed today have been discussed and debated in the party -and to the extent that the conditions of security and illegality permitted- by all active members who participate in party activity. That is why it was possible to realise the unity of will and raise it to a higher level without convening either a congress or a new conference. This was achieved not only among party organisations, but also among all party circles participating in party activity.
What has been said above does not suggest that our party has already resolved the issues related to the development of party democracy and implementation of the principle of democratic centralism. As it was also indicated in the party's conference report, there are various factors that inhibit the development of party democracy and generate bureaucratic leadership styles. These include the laid back attitude to innovative thought that is specific to oriental societies, backwardness in understanding and implementation of the Marxist theory, the lack of democratisation in almost all spheres of our society, etc.
Our party has not considered and will not consider the issues of improving democracy, participation in the determination of party tactics, advancement of life and relations, etc. as issues limited to party framework. The mass party publications as well as the party's central organ Devrimin Sesi (the Voice of Revolution) and Denge Sores'li Kürdistan (the Voice of Revolution in Kurdistan) are open to contributions of all readers. if you examine these publications, you will see that we are always encouraging such contributions. We even enter into discussions with our readers and encourage such discussions between readers. our party's efforts to encourage such discussions are not limited to these examples. We are even trying to provide platforms -both legal and illegal- for expression of opinions by all those fighting against dictatorship and capital.
Until recently, our party has been generally conducting its debate on ideological-theoretical and fundamental tactical issues in the framework of party organisations and publications only. The only exceptions to this tendency has been the some declarations and discussions. For some time now, our party has been pushing these limits and extending discussion to all those who actively participate in party activity. The party has already completed the preparation for publishing a periodical in which not only party members but also all workers, labourers and young people who take part in party activity and subscribe to a specific task. This periodical will be published under the title of Komünist Militan (Communist Militant). All ideological-theoretical and political-organisational problems of our party, the international communist movement, and the movement of working and labouring classes will be discussed in this publication within a certain plan and agenda. The Second Congress of our party will be convened as a result of major steps in the direction of developing and consolidating the party's theoretical basis and its programme. This process will unfold on the basis of discussion not only among party members but also among all workers, labourers, young people and intellectuals who actively participate in party activity. In this sense, the congress will be an expression of our party's becoming the sum of workers' organisations.
Our party operates in major factories where the main sections of the proletariat are concentrated. These enterprises are located in major industrial cities of Turkey and Turkey-Kurdistan and in areas where the mining industry is concentrated. A great majority of our party publications, especially the party's main organ Devrimin Sesi (the Voice of Revolution), are being distributed heavily among workers. Party publications are being distributed in all areas where the working class is concentrated. They reach the majority of the factories in those areas. We have established relations in major factories, which contains party circles that may be large or small.
There are various factors that have inhibited the consolidation and growth of party organisations and party circles. Among these the most significant factor is the failure in linking in an appropriate manner the agitation , propaganda and exposition activities and the organisational work with changes in existing conditions. This situation caused a divergence between our influence and the growth of party relations and circles in factories. In spite of the errors and shortcomings of our local party organisations, the party is increasing its strength within the working class.
Our relations with workers constitute the major proportion of the party's relations with the masses. Workers constitute 40% of the party membership. This, however, does not mean that the most resolute and progressive elements of the working class are already organised in our party. We have not reached this stage even when working class activities capable of leading the workers are concerned. Nevertheless, this percentage indicates that our party moving in the right direction towards achieving this objective. It is possible to state that we have taken major steps in the direction of making our party the party of the working class even though the objective of making it "the organised unity of working class members" is not yet achieved. Our party is now in a position that has never been achieved in its history.
First of all, I would like to draw your attention to one point: our party's illegal-clandestine press is a means of both organisation and agitation, propaganda and exposition. These dual functions reinforce the activities in both spheres and therefore they cannot be taken in isolation. That is why your question must be dealt with from the perspective of whether a legal publication can contribute to the realisation of these functions even though it has similar qualities in terms of agitation, propaganda and exposition.
our party is a Marxist-Leninist party. Therefore it differs from other parties and political forces in the sense that it aims at establishing the communist society where all types of exploitative relations and social inequalities are eradicated. This aims determines the party's agitation, propaganda and exposition activities as well as the illegal party press as the most effective means for those activities. Therefore, the starting point in dealing with your question should be the question of whether it is possible in the current period to publish a legal periodical that would serve our purposes. in other words, have legal opportunities improved to the extent that it is possible to publish a legal periodical that would be of the same content as our illegal publications?
If we leave the organisational function to one side, a legal publication must be published and distributed regularly and without interruption in order that it fulfils its function of agitation, propaganda and exposition. Therefore, the second point to be considered is whether a legal publication with a content indicated above can be published regularly and without interruption.
Under current conditions, the revolutionary party of the working class must be able to make use of all existing legal opportunities. It must try to expand such opportunities and link legal activity with existing legal opportunities. Nevertheless, it must take the illegal activity as the principal mode of operation. Even though legal opportunities make the establishment of a revolutionary working class party and its open activities feasible, the party must have an illegal structure that needs to be strengthened and consolidated. Illegal party publication is an essential means of creating and maintaining illegal activity and relations. The third point to be considered is whether a legal publication can contribute to the fulfilment of this task.
From mid-1980s onwards, legal opportunities in Turkey have been increasing and becoming more diversified even though this process has been unfolding in an unstable way. This tendency can be observed in the area of legal publication as well. This expansion of opportunities, however, has not reached the level required for publishing a legal periodical in a regular, uninterrupted way and with the same content of illegal publications. Despite the auto-censorship applied by existing publications, there have been various attacks on legal publications. These have been in the form of court cases, confiscation, raids on publishing-printing shops, and political murders of press workers. Each issue of a legal publication to be published with the same content of illegal party publications and without applying an auto-control will definitely be subject to confiscation and court cases and its distribution will be inhibited. This implies that a legal publication with the same content of illegal party publications will not be printed and distributed regularly. The result is waste of revolutionary energy and impossibility of making use of legal opportunities.
Although legal opportunities are expanding in the area of publishing and press, these opportunities are not safeguarded by legal and constitutional provisions. On the contrary, the constitution safeguards the right of the state to limit and take away the existing freedoms -whether they are granted by law or established by people in a de facto manner. Each statute or proposal that have been put forward with the alleged objective of expanding the freedom of press has also contained measures about how and through what measures this freedom can be curtailed. Without making any amendment to the constitution or relevant statutes, the limits on the freedom of press are either reduced or increased depending on changes in the political situation and power relations. The effect of the decisions and declarations of the MGK (National Security Council) on these limits is a well known fact. Also known is the influence of the MGK Generals on the amendment of existing laws or the enacting of new ones. A decision of the MGK where the generals are influential is sufficient to amend or introduce laws.
In addition to what has been said above, there is another point to be made: the achievement of press freedom at a level that would allow for legal publications with the same content as illegal party publications is not a matter of some legal and constitutional arrangements only. This is an inseparable part of democratising the society at the levels of both infra- and super-structure. Unless the state and the army as one of its main institutions as well as the infra- and super-structure of the society are democratised, democratic rights and freedoms (and the freedom of press as an integral part of these rights) will not be achieved and secured to some extent.
Turkey is not a country where a democratisation process is well established. Therefore, it is not a country where political freedoms and the freedom of press are established in an irrevocable way. In addition to this, the country is not going through a stable process of development. Turkey -including Kurdistan- is in the midst of economic and political instability. All existing evidence suggests that this instability will persist and that the country is heading towards an intensified struggle that would resolve the conflicts between the exploited and exploitative classes as well as the revolutionary and reactionary forces. In a country such as this, any right that has been achieved either through legislation or in a de facto manner can be neither permanent or stable.
Just as it is the case in other areas, the limits to the freedom of press and related legal opportunities will be determined by tactics of the dictatorship, the relations and conflicts between its functions, and international oppression, etc. as well as the relative strengths of the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary forces that are essentially variable as a result of variations in mass struggle. Under such conditions, the expansion of legal opportunities will inevitably follow an unstable trajectory. Let us leave to one side the question of whether legal opportunities will expand to a level that would allow for publishing a legal publication with the same content as illegal party publications. We cannot even be sure whether a compromised publication that would be feasible under current conditions will survive. This depends on various factors that are essentially variable and difficult to determine in advance.
A legal publication, unlike an illegal party publication, cannot function as a means of strengthening and consolidating the illegal activity, organisation and relations of the party. Various types of activity, organisation and relations -legal as well as illegal- can improve, reinforce and develop each other if they are linked together in line with existing conditions. Having said this, however, it is necessary to indicate that the means of different activities cannot substitute for each other. In addition to the lessons of international experience, the lessons and results of the post-12 September have clearly shown that illegal activity and organisation can be neither carried out nor consolidated through legal means. Each type of activity and organisation can only be strengthened and consolidated by the use of suitable means.
What has been said above suggests that even if it is possible to publish a legal organ with the same content as illegal party publications, the former cannot substitute for the latter. Not only that, any attempt towards such a substitution will be suicidal in the sense that it will disarm the working class and the revolutionary party in their struggle against the dictatorship. It will also make it impossible to make use of existing legal opportunities with a revolutionary perspective. These are the factors to look at when one tries to understand why our party has been "devoting so much of its technical and human resources" for illegal party publications.
under current conditions, it is essential to pursue a dual strategy. On the one hand, we should not ignore the possibility of maximum utilisation of all existing legal opportunities in areas publication as well as other activities. On the other hand, however, we have to reinforce and consolidate the illegal party structure, activities and methods and link all these to legal ones. Our party does not perceive of legal and illegal methods of activity and organisation as alternatives. On the contrary, it tries to combine and consolidate both methods.
As the mass movement develops and as the relative strength of the revolutionary and its forces improves against that of the counter-revolution, legal opportunities in general and those concerning press and publication may improve and expand. Our party will then try to make use of these developments and develop the necessary means in an efficient way, but without compromising its illegal publications.
The central organ of our party, Devrimin Sesi (the Voice of Revolution) appears twice a month regularly and has a print and circulation of about 20-25 thousand on average, although this figure sometimes fluctuates as a result of some significant blows suffered in some regions. Devrimin Sesi Gençlik Eki (the Youth Supplement of the Voice of Revolution) appears every month and has a print and circulation of about 12 thousand . The organ of our party's Kurdistan Organisation Denge Sores'li Kürdistan appears every month and has a print and circulation of about 12-15 thousand. in addition to these publications, 17 propaganda booklets have been printed and circulated. Recent booklets had a print and circulation of 8 thousand. Another result of re-organising and rebuilding the party from the middle of 1987 onwards has been the establishment by local party organisation of a network of print and circulation that has enabled them to spread fairly quickly the party's declarations, announcements and other agitation, propaganda and exposition materials to the masses. in the last May Day campaign, approximately 1 million leaflets, invitations and booklets were printed and distributed within one month as a means of agitation, propaganda and exposition.