Combining legal and illegal work
and organisation and improving them in accordance with the
changes and developments in conditions has always been one of the
most significant questions for our party, as with all the
revolutionary parties of the proletariat. It is one of the main
questions facing our party and revolutionary workers' movements
at present, and it will continue to be so.
The question of combining legal and illegal work in a systematic
way has gained greater importance under the present conditions.
These are characterised by: on the one hand, lack of political
freedoms and continuous attacks of the dictatorship and its
preparations for new attacks; and on the other, the revolutionary
workers' movement destroying schematic and narrow-minded
understandings which have their roots far in the past, and taking
practical steps in making maximum use of every opportunity and
instrument to develop its legal and semi-legal work and
organisation, at the same time as the advanced and awakening
sections of the class are organising themselves as a legal party.
The question for our party and the revolutionary workers'
movement on the national and international scale is not whether
or not to accept as a must and as a matter of principle combining
legal and illegal work systematically in every field of struggle.
The question in this respect has been solved on the international
scale in terms of the revolutionary workers' movement, having
taken into consideration the main features of the new and the
last phase of capitalism at the beginning of the century and the
tendencies generated and developed by capitalism. In this
respect, a clear line of demarcation has already been drawn with
the other - bourgeois and petty bourgeois- currents of socialism.
The Second International at its Second Congress in 1920, was held
when fascism, the most vigorous, the most terrorist and the most
reactionary form of bourgeois hegemony, had not yet appeared as a
form of state in history. At this Congress Lenin's theses were
adopted. These theses drew attention to the intensified attacks
of imperialism and reactionary forces and their plans for new
attacks. They emphasised once again that "in every country,
without any exceptions, even in the most free, and the most legal
and peaceful ones in terms of class struggle being least violent,
a systematic unity of legal and illegal work and organisation had
become a must and a necessity based on principles. When we study
these theses we can see that they do not deal with this question
only on the basis of principle, and that they emphasise the main
points with regard to legal and illegal parties.
Having stated the necessity of all legal communist parties
forming illegal organisations in order to be prepared for
systematic illegal work and for the moment when the persecutions
of the bourgeoisie begin, these theses drew particular attention
to illegal work and organisation among the soldiers, navy and
police organisations.
The theses also stressed that the revolutionary parties of the
working class should not restrict themselves to illegal work and
organisation in the countries where communist parties were banned
and therefore had to organise and carry out their activities
illegally. They went on:
"On the other hand, under any circumstances, without any
exception, it is necessary not to be restricted to illegal work,
and to carry out legal work, overcoming every difficulty and
forming various legal publications and organisations, changing
their names often if necessary." (Lenin, Selected
Works, Vol.10, p.192)
The absolute necessity of combining legal and illegal instruments
and forms in a systematic way has been proved even in the most
democratic and civilised capitalist countries at times when
democratic rights and freedoms have been restricted or completely
put aside, and when fascist dictatorships have been established.
This has undoubtedly been proved by the practice of the working
class. Moreover, the Comintern and the communist parties as its
branches in every country have improved this practice by applying
it creatively to concrete conditions.
The revolutionary parties of the proletariat have been able to
drive back the attacks of the class enemy and fulfil the tasks
they have undertaken to the extent that they have been able to
improve their abilities to combine and develop legal and illegal
work in every field of struggle and activities in accordance with
changing conditions and possible developments. Therefore, class
conscious workers and their party have a valuable historical
inheritance which they have not been able to make the maximum use
of so far, and which has been acquired at the expense of the
lives and blood of millions of the proletariat and working
people.
The process after the Second Congress of the Communist
International shows that the factors which made it an absolute
necessity and a matter of principle for the revolutionary parties
of proletariat to combine legal and illegal work and organisation
systematically have intensified rather than disappearing.
Therefore, the importance of class conscious workers and their
organisation planning and carrying out their work with this
principle in mind has not weakened but increased.
Solving this question as a matter of principle and drawing a
demarcation line with other currents has a determining
importance. However, doing this is just a beginning. Adopting a
principle and interpreting it correctly are different from, what
is most important, putting it into practice. When the history of
the revolutionary workers' movement is studied it can be seen
clearly that these are not the same things.
The history of the revolutionary workers' movement shows that, as
in all the main questions of revolution, in this question too,
the struggle between proletarian socialism and bourgeois and
petit bourgeois socialism continues uninterrupted; that this
struggle has its echo in the ranks of the revolutionary workers'
movement; that tendencies emerge reflecting the stance of these
bourgeois currents; and that these currents may sometimes become
dominant even in the most experienced and advanced parties,
causing destruction of revolutionary work.
Revolutionary Marxism and proletarian socialist current gained
dominance in the revolutionary workers' movement particularly
with the victory of the October Revolution. As a result of this,
left and right currents had to back down and appeared to accept
the principles of revolutionary Marxism. However, in fact, they
continued their struggle against Marxism and its principles.
Claiming to be interpreting these principles, applying them
creatively to new developments and concrete conditions, and
improving them, they were in the meantime trying to dominate the
workers' movement. In this respect, the most extended and most
effective attack in terms of its consequences took the form of
modern revisionism after the World War II. Opportunist trends
which had been prevalent before revolutionary Marxism, whose
influence in the workers' movement had weakened but not vanished,
and the bourgeois strata which constituted the social basis of
these tendencies in the workers' movement, made use of the
many-sided developments which took place around the world after
the World War II. Modern revisionism became dominant within the
revolutionary workers' movement under the conditions when
imperialism and world reactionary forces launched a new attack,
uniting all their forces under the leadership of the USA. The
dominance of modern revisionism in the revolutionary workers'
movement led to many-sided developments whose effects still
remain at the present time. This includes and goes beyond the
transformation of the revolutionary parties of the proletariat
into reformist and counter-revolutionary parties, and the
collapse of socialism, except for the Socialist People's Republic
of Albania.
With the dominance of revisionism, as a kind of bourgeois
socialism, over the revolutionary workers' movement, the passing
of the practical and theoretical gains and experiences of the
revolutionary workers' movement on to the young generations of
the working class and socialist-leaning intellectuals was
interrupted, and most importantly, the key arguments in
fundamental points became blurred. The petit bourgeois
interpretation of revolutionary theory and practice became
influential amongst the young generations of revolutionary
workers and intellectuals, and within their movement.
The proletarian socialist current in Turkey developed at a time
when there was just such a confusion in the international arena,
and when an unfinished process of differentiation was still
taking place between the proletarian socialist current and petit
bourgeois socialism. The proletarian current developed from
within the ranks of a petit bourgeois radical movement, which was
following a left path isolated from the working class, also,
however, opposing the modern revisionist treachery with a petit
bourgeois socialist perspective. This movement was undergoing a
process of self-criticism.
It is inevitable that the new always bears traces of the old
which gave birth to it. And it was impossible to eliminate those
traces all at once and completely. The powerful effect of the
elitist revolutionarism, which was inspired by the Kemalist
movement and its belief that things change from the top down, the
dominance of bourgeois socialism among the advanced workers, the
historical weakness of the revolutionary movement of the lower
strata, etc., all these caused those traces to remain for a long
time. One of the fields in which these traces have remained
strongly evident has been that of legal and illegal work and
organisation, and the relations between them.
Moreover, the problem is not just limited to the revolutionary
communist movement having traces of the petty bourgeois
radicalism which gave birth to it. There are other factors which
constitute the basis for deviations and the emergence of
different tendencies on this question, as on the other questions
of revolution. Among them are: the undeniable effects of
bourgeois ideology and perspectives on the workers; many-sided
bourgeois attacks on the revolutionary workers' movement; people
from other strata and classes joining the working class, and
their carrying with them the perspectives and habits of the
classes they once belonged to; the workers and the young
revolutionaries who organise and struggle in the revolutionary
party of the workers not being able to rid themselves of those
effects at once, etc.
Above all, combining legal and illegal work in a systematic way
is a practical question which directly depends on
concrete conditions, and which needs constant renewal in
accordance with the changes in these conditions. The
conditions in which the revolutionary party of the proletariat
struggles change constantly in every aspect - social, political
and economic. In accordance with these changes and developments,
the party always needs to review, renew and reorganise its work
in every field. If the party does not renew and reorganise its
work in time, it cannot improve its relations with the masses or
drive back the attacks of the class enemies. Also, the relation
between and the form of combining legal and illegal work and
organisation is the other element which needs constant renewal.
It is insufficient for the party just to do some partial
reorgansing, keeping its existing structure intact, at times of
turning points leading to important changes in political
conditions and in the balance of power between the forces of
revolution and counter-revolution. In such times it becomes
unavoidable for the party to reconstruct itself at all levels and
in every field of work and organisation. The later the party
comprehends the situation and makes the necessary fundamental
changes, the heavier the destructive consequences will be.
The September 1980 military coup and the following period was the
most obvious and striking example of this. Another example is the
1990s, not as striking as the military coup period but not less
important in terms of its consequences, and whose effects lasted
longer. The former was characterised by the dictatorship's launch
of a new wave of attacks, and the change in the balance of power
in favour of counter-revolution. The latter, however, was
characterised, under the conditions of intensifying repression
and terror, by the expansion nevertheless of the field of
existing democratic rights and freedoms. The workers' movement
gained the possibility of having a daily paper and forms and
instruments of parliamentarian struggle, and was able to organise
as an independent party, and to obtain new positions in the
unions.
As far as our party is concerned, the September 1980 coup and the
following years showed the inadequacy of the party in
reconstructing its work and organisation in every field and the
relations between them in accordance with the then changes in the
objective situation. However, the 1990s showed the party's
success -despite its delay and shortcomings- in reconstructing
and renewing itself in accordance with the new changes and in
overcoming its mistakes and shortcomings. This development has
posed new problems as well as new opportunities.
Since the process of its formation, our party has sincerely
accepted and tried to put into practice the idea that no form of
struggle and organisation should be rejected or fetishisied, and
that in particular legal and illegal work and organisation must
be combined in a systematic way. However, on the other hand, the
history of our party in this respect is the history of making and
then correcting mistakes in combining and improving these two
things in accordance with the conditions; it is also the history
of the emergence of different tendencies and the struggle against
them.
It is an undeniable fact that the revolutionary communist
movement, which differs from other currents in its orientation
towards combining legal and illegal work in every field, has not
however shown its ability to fully utilise legal opportunities.
It has not been able fully to renew the relations between the
legal and illegal work in line with the changes in conditions; it
has also been influenced by the theses and practice of petit
bourgeois socialism in this aspect; and that it has not been able
to distance itself from schematic approaches. Although it has
weakened in the present period, one cannot say that we have
completely erased the confusion and prejudice caused by this
petit bourgeois left influence in the approach to legal and
semi-legal work and organisation, as well as illegal. In other
words, there are still beliefs which belittle the importance, in
terms of the revolutionary workers' movement, of the most limited
democratic rights and positions, which the ruling classes and the
dictatorship have had to recognise.
The process undergone shows that serious blows have been dealt
against schematic understandings, but they have not been overcome
completely. They still show themselves in different forms and
cause distortions on the same basis but in different directions.
Every militant of the revolutionary workers' movement must
analyse their understanding and practice, being aware of its
shaping under the influence of petit bourgeois radicalism and
socialism fed by the Kemalist upper-strata revolutionarism which
can be summarised as "for the people but despite the people,
above the people and independent from the people". They must
free themselves from these influences, learning from life itself
and from the steps taken by the revolutionary workers' movement
of which they are a part, and from the possibilities presented by
this movement. It is not unusual that the prejudices caused by
schematic understandings stemming from superficiality and petit
bourgeois influences, with the addition of mental laziness,
prevent us from learning from the theory and international
experiences of the working class taken from life and the struggle
itself. In this respect we sometimes lag behind those workers who
have just joined the struggle, and we do not show the ability to
learn from them. This also prevents us from systematising and
improving what we do and adopt, and from renewing our
consciousness and the theoretical equipment which constitutes the
basis of this consciousness.
Legal and semi-legal work,
organisation and revolutionary work
Although in the present era, that of imperialism and proletarian
revolutions, it is an absolute must and a matter of principle to
combine legal and illegal work in a systematic way. The question
of how this combination can be achieved and the form it should
take will obviously vary from country to country as well as
according to the period the country is going through.
The conditions in Turkey are different from those of capitalist
countries which are run by bourgeois democratic regimes, and
where, despite restrictions, democratic rights and freedoms have
been gained and guaranteed under the laws and constitution of
that country. It is a reality of our country that although the
capitalist relations of production have been dominant for a long
time, there has not developed a revolutionary-democratic movement
of the lower classes which would enable the democratisation of
society on a bourgeois-capitalist basis or at least launch this
process by overcoming the obstacles in front of it. Democratic
traditions are weak; political freedoms and democracy have never
been achieved, and as a result of this the national question has
not been resolved.
As a result of the struggle of the oppressed and exploited
classes, particularly the workers, the revolutionary workers'
movement has gained significant positions which cannot be
ignored, and the scope of de-facto political freedoms has
widened. However, there are still legal and constitutional
restrictions and prohibitions in speech, press, media, strikes,
trade unions and collective bargaining, meetings and
demonstrations, and breaches of personal and residential
immunities which deny democratic rights and freedoms. Despite all
"democratisation" and "liberalisation"
packages, these restrictions, rather than being lifted, have
become tighter in some respects. These restrictions do not allow
the workers and the oppressed to organise and struggle for their
long and short-term demands and interests and to participate in
political and social life as an independent force.
This is a country where even the bourgeois socialist parties
which have no real power among the masses, and those bourgeois
parties which have challenged the official line of the ruling
core of the state are being taken to court, closed down, and
their leaders charged. This makes it an absolute necessity and a
matter of principle to combine illegal and legal work in a
systematic way. This is necessary not only in order not to be
caught unprepared for the possible attacks of the dictatorship,
but also to make its existing attacks ineffective, to carry out
revolutionary work, and to improve legal work and organisation
according to a revolutionary line.
The working class movement cannot develop as a revolutionary
movement by remaining within the limits of the existing
constitution and laws or the limits determined by the rights
gained and used de facto. Under such conditions neither is it
possible to organise and carry out an uninterrupted revolutionary
work. For this reason, the revolutionary workers' movement cannot
limit its work and organisation to laws or to restricted and
incomplete de facto gained rights. Let alone in our country, even
in the most democratic and civilised countries, it is not
bourgeois laws and legality but the short and long-term demands
of the working class which determine the limits of the work and
organisation of the revolutionary workers' movement. In this
respect the revolutionary movement of the working class differs
from the bourgeois liberal workers' movement and bourgeois
socialism.
Under the present conditions of our country, the revolutionary
workers' movement must have an illegal base. Even its most open
work has to go beyond legal limits; it has to be combined
systematically with illegal work which should also be the
determinant of its content. As stated by Lenin -although under
different conditions- "in terms of the form of
organisation, the illegal organisation adapts itself to the legal
one; but in terms of the content of our party's work, legal
activities adapt themselves to illegal ideas". (Lenin,
On the Question of Organisation, p.85)
The revolutionary workers' movement does not organise and work
according to bourgeois laws and legalities, but according to the
short and long-term interests and goals of the working class and
to the requirements of the struggle for its ultimate
emancipation. However, it has to utilise fully the opportunities
presented by bourgeois laws and legalities, no matter how
restricted they are, and the institutions and organisations,
including the most reactionary ones, which are supported and
joined by the masses. As long as it is getting the support of the
masses the revolutionary workers' movement carries out activities
even in the most reactionary institutions, including parliament,
which is used as an instrument to deceive the people, as well as
in every kind of economic, political and social organisations of
the masses. Its work is based on the ultimate emancipation of the
working class. If necessary it forms new organisations and tries
to utilise fully every kind of right and position without
underestimating them, even though they may be restricted. It is
not satisfied only with this, it also struggles for the
improvement of rights and positions gained legally and used de
facto.
The revolutionary workers' movement considers it as its task to
utilise these positions for the improvement of revolutionary
work, and believes that legal and semi-legal work and
organisation can be developed according to a revolutionary line.
This is what differentiates it from other currents. The
revolutionaries and their organisation, devoting themselves to
the emancipation of the proletariat, cannot behave like
narrow-minded petit bourgeois on this question, as on other
questions.
A narrow-minded revolutionary, without thinking, considers the
illegal work and organisation of a petit bourgeois radical kind
as revolutionary, and the legal and semi-legal one as reformist,
criticising it for remaining within the limits of the system.
With this kind of understanding they fetishise illegality; and
either refute legal or semi-legal work from the beginning- but
this stance is no longer seen very much in our country- or, at
best, claim that the legal and semi-legal should in every way be
subject to the illegal, as they have heard the argument from
somewhere that reforms are subordinate to revolution. With such
understanding, the narrow-minded petit bourgeois and their
organisation consider the legal and semi-legal work and
organisation merely as an instrument which should serve and
strengthen the illegal. Therefore, all mass organisations like
trade unions and other professional associations and the work in
these organisations become in their eyes mere instruments in the
service of the illegal organisation. Just as with every other
question, here the form and the essence are mixed up. The
question of reform or revolution is therefore reduced to the
relation between forms and instruments, which represents an
example of complete confusion. Yet this question is inseparable
from other things such as the essence of work and organisation,
the program and tactics which determine this essence, and the
political line. (1)
The conclusion to be drawn by class conscious advanced workers
from the narrow, limited and temporary nature of the
possibilities presented by legal and semi-legal struggle is that
they should not belittle them but utilise them fully. Even the
most limited and incomplete legal rights and positions gained de
facto constitute an opportunity to be used fully for the
development of the workers' movement and revolutionary struggle,
and a weapon to be used against the enemy. Contrary to what is
supposed, the importance of the systematic improvement of legal
and semi-legal work and organisation is not lessened, no matter
how tight the scope of democratic rights and freedoms and of
legal and semi-legal opportunities may get. A party which does
not make maximum effort to do this cannot escape from becoming a
marginalised organisation divorced from the masses. Neither can
it succeed in joining with the broad masses of workers and
working people and developing their movement, winning over its
fundamental and auxiliary allies, and isolating any wavering
forces.
Furthermore, even the most reactionary, the most terrorist and
the most aggressive bourgeois dictatorships cannot absolutely
destroy the opportunities of legal and semi-legal struggle, as
was the case even with Hitler's fascism. However, it is clear
that as conditions deteriorate it will become more difficult and
risky to utilise and develop these opportunities in a
revolutionary way. The question is one of showing the ability and
determination to utilise and further these opportunities even
under the most difficult conditions as well. We must improve our
perspective and readiness to use legal and semi-legal instruments
and forms in a revolutionary way even at times when the attacks
of the dictatorship intensify and legal rights are further
restricted. Also a systemic combination of the illegal and the
legal under every condition is a must to make this a reality. An
organisation which bases all its work and organisation on
bourgeois legality, and which has no illegal basis, or one which
is inexperienced in developing legal work and organisation cannot
achieve this under difficult conditions at all.
The revolutionary workers' movement, when utilising legal
instruments and opportunities, will not limit itself, especially
in the content of its work, to legal boundaries. It will push
these boundaries outwards, but also will refrain from an attitude
which would make it impossible for it to utilise these
instruments and opportunities in a systematic way. For this
reason, so long as political freedoms have not been completely
won, the legal and semi-legal work and organisation of the
revolutionary party of the working class will inevitably have
different levels of restrictions, depending on conditions.
Therefore, it is necessary to face these obligations and not to
pay any attention to the distortion of this necessity by small
groups which are completely distanced from the mass movement.
The revolutionary workers' movement will overcome these
limitations by combining legal and illegal work and organisation
in a systematic way in all its ranks and organisations. When the
wrong understanding of the traditional left has been overcome, it
will be seen that this is what is being done. This wrong
understanding considers illegal work and organisation as
something isolated from the masses and from their movement and
organisations. The question is to make this work of combination
more systematic and to take it forward, away from the style of
the petit bourgeois revolutionary, to the style of the workers.
We must also mention the fact that one of the outcomes of the
dictatorship's prohibitions and restrictions, its indifferent
violations of its own laws, and its fierce attacks on factories
and workplaces, is that the breaking of laws starts becoming
legitimate in the eyes of the masses. Their prejudice towards
obeying the law starts to weaken, and the awakening and
struggling workers start orientating towards utilising the forms
and instruments of illegal struggle. This expands the grounds and
instruments for combining the legal with the illegal. In
combining and advancing the legal and illegal, the workers are
often more creative and talented than the experienced
revolutionaries.
We should learn to make use of every gap skilfully, apply the
rules of war when necessary, override legal boundaries and gain
the greatest possible advantage without getting bogged down in
formalism and secondary issues, and without losing the
opportunity of using in a systematic way the tools we have in
hand. In this respect we cannot deny that we have made childish
mistakes. However, another fact we cannot deny is that despite
our errors and the vast number of things we still need to learn
and improve on, we have become more experienced, mature and
advanced in using legal and semi-legal instruments and forms.
We cannot be satisfied with the advances we have made so far. We
are not yet in a position to utilise legal and semi-legal
opportunities in the most productive and best way. (2) Despite
the progress we have made, there are still limitations, and most
importantly, the continuation of existing habits, in the use and
improvement of instruments and forms which would develop our work
and organisation as a whole and in every aspect. We have still
not overcome completely judgements and habits stemming from the
kind of work and organisation peculiar to narrow illegal circles.
More importantly, the application of these methods and forms to
legal work and organisation is hindering progress in these areas,
preventing legal opportunities being used in the most advanced
way, and also hindering the broader section of the awakening
working class and people from organising and joining the
struggle.
In the last few years, the revolutionary working class movement
has made advances in breaking the petit-bourgeois schematic
understandings and practices, in improving legal and semi-legal
work and organisation and in utilising instruments in this field.
However, although these are weakening, there are still some ideas
persisting which disregard legal and semi-legal work and
organisation, and consider it secondary to illegal.
Leaving aside the bourgeois socialist parties and currents which
limit their work and the workers' movement completely within the
laws of the dictatorship, there is a strong tradition in the left
in our country of belittling legal and semi-legal work and
organisation. Illegal work is considered to be revolutionary, and
legal to be reformist or an alternative which weakens illegal
work and organisation, and may be even a trap to be kept at a
distance from. Moreover, the restricted nature of legal and
semi-legal opportunities and the arbitrary practices and terror
of the dictatorship violating its own laws, when combined with
theoretical backwardness and superficiality and traditional left
influence, have caused the emergence, especially within the
revolutionary youth, of tendencies which underrate and belittle
legal and semi-legal work and organisation. What also feeds ideas
underrating legal and semi-legal work and organisation is lack of
understanding of the necessity of being prepared for the possible
attacks of the dictatorship, and of the need to have an illegal
basis to do that, and lack of concern with the long term
interests of the movement.
Legalism, and relying on and limiting the struggle to bourgeois
legalism is confused with the importance and the necessity of
developing legal struggle and organisation. What differs
proletarian socialism from bourgeois socialism and the
revolutionary workers' movement from the reformist movement has
nothing to do with minimising the development of legal and
semi-legal work and organisation, or with not fully developing
and using legal instruments and forms. It has to do with carrying
out one's work and organisation according to a revolutionary
line, without limiting them to legality, and with systematically
combining the legal with the illegal and developing both. The
revolutionary workers' movement, fighting to destroy the hegemony
of capital and to found a new society, has to fulfil this aim by
using the legal and semi-legal instruments and forms at the
highest level and to the greatest degree possible. In this
respect it has to be ahead of all other currents and parties.
The precondition for developing legal and semi-legal work and
organisation on a revolutionary basis is the existence of an
illegal basis, an iron core which does not limit its programme,
tactics, organisational structure and relations or any of its
work to the existing laws. This is the actual leading force of
the movement with its combination of elements, theoretical
equipment, relationship with the masses, devotion to its class
duty, and determination. In other words, it is the accomplishment
of an organised unity of the most advanced and determined
elements of the working class. This unity has iron discipline and
is based around a programme and tactics reflecting fully, with
the perspective of ultimate emancipation, the short and long term
interests and aims of the class. Such a core will be able to
repulse the attacks of the class enemy and renew its work and
organisation in accordance with changes in conditions. Also, it
will and should use every concession and every limited right
given by the enemy to placate the people. This should be done
with the perspective of organising the people, and advancing
their struggle and revolutionary work and organisation.
Preparation for possible developments, illegal work and organisation
It is a reality of our country
that the limited rights recognised by the law as well as those
not recognised but practised de facto can fully or partially be
arbitrarily put aside in parts or the whole of the country. The
existing constitution and legislation allow this to be a natural
practice of the political regime. It has become natural for the
state, particularly for its intelligence organisations, police
and special teams to violate its own laws and set up special
organisations for this if necessary. It has become a known fact
for the workers and working masses that the country is not ruled,
even in appearance, by representative institutions and by the
so-called governments set up within these institutions, but
rather by the core made up of the military general council and
the generals. It has become more and more obvious that the
constitution and legislation are drawn up by this core. According
to this ruling core's analysis of what is required to deal with
problems arising for them out of a certain period, new
legislation can be immediately passed and/or implemented as law,
and then inactivated when no longer necessary.
The international situation and the trend of its development, the
place of Turkey in this process, and the economic and political
situation of the country have together demonstrated that the rise
of class struggle and of new attacks from the dictatorship aimed
at the existing limited rights are not issues belonging to the
far future. In the coming period, in the area of democratic
rights and freedoms, as in other areas, the level of positions
gained de facto or legally will depend not only on international
factors but also on the struggle of the oppressed and on the
balance of power between the ruling classes and the ruled, as
well as on many other factors which we cannot predict today. Gaps
may widen in the ranks of the dictatorship and legal and
semi-legal opportunities may become greater as a result of
internal contradictions and the struggle of the proletarian and
working masses. However, conscious workers and their organisation
should not forget that these opportunities are always temporary
unless the hegemony of imperialism and the bourgeoisie is
overthrown. The wider the sphere of political freedoms and the
better use that proletarian and working masses make of them, the
closer the possibility of the ruling classes putting to one side
or denying the gained freedoms and legal opportunities, and the
occurrence of civil war.
In the same way as the expansion of the scope of political
freedoms and democratic rights does not remove or decrease the
necessity and importance of illegal work and organisation, so the
restriction of the scope of legal work and organisation does not
remove its necessity, or decrease its importance.
It is generally understood on the left that fulfilling the
movement's requirements, being ready for all possible
developments and being the representative of the short and long
term interests and aims of the movement, must mean to found an
underground organisation ready to meet the intensifying attacks
of the dictatorship, and to position its forces accordingly.
Although this is not openly and exactly expressed in this way,
the expectations and understandings are in this direction. There
was a time when the idea of forming an organisation which would
be able to survive under any circumstances emerged in our ranks.
This idea was re-ignited by the "left"-appearing
liquidators especially after the September 1980 coup, in the name
of criticising the past. It is necessary to eliminate this idea
and expectation in order to fulfil the tasks of the present day,
and to prepare ourselves for possible developments.
It is not possible to foresee how the forthcoming period will
take shape, with what forms and content the attacks of the
dictatorship will be carried out, and what stages they will go
through, and with what characteristics the struggle of the
oppressed and exploited classes will develop. This depends on
many national and international factors whose direction of
development we cannot predict in the present period. Therefore it
is not possible to build an organisation from today which could
meet the requirements of unknown conditions of the future. Nor
does the working class need such an organisation.
When the question of being prepared for possible developments
arises, pessimistic and hopeless petit-bourgeois first think of
the future period as one of intensified attacks from the
dictatorship, of an unbridled terror, of intimidation of the
oppressed and exploited classes, and of the complete removal of
every kind of legal and semi-legal position and opportunity. The
idea of and attempt to form an organisation framed to meet a
period of intensified attacks by the dictatorship, before these
conditions have emerged, means turning one's back on the real
tasks of the period, separating legal and illegal work and
organisation from each other, isolating the cadres and
organisations which should carry out revolutionary work among the
masses, weakening revolutionary work, and most importantly,
sabotaging revolutionary preparation. An organisation which does
not fulfil the tasks and responsibilities required by the present
conditions and period, which cannot show the ability to use all
its energy and opportunities in an effective way, and which does
not organise and position its forces accordingly, cannot prepare
itself for the changing conditions of the future.
The only basis of preparation for the conditions when the attacks
of the dictatorship will intensify (as well as for the
revolution) is to fulfil the tasks of the present period, and to
position and organise our forces in the most effective way to
fulfil these tasks. It is to use all forces and opportunities to
raise the level of consciousness and organisation of the masses
and their determination and capacity for struggle. It is to
develop among the masses, especially the advanced forces of the
proletariat, the spirit of resistance against all attacks and of
struggle for their short as well as long term demands, no matter
in which direction conditions may change. It is to establish a
nucleus and basis in the main fields of organisation and work
such as mass organisations, schools, factories and workplaces, a
nucleus and basis which knows what to do without standing
helpless in the face of changing and tough conditions, which
reorganises itself and the masses in accordance to changing
conditons, and which has the ability to re-arrange all its
relations and work. The more experienced, advanced and broad
these nuclei are, the more prepared the revolutionary workers'
movement will be when faced with intensifying attacks from the
dictatorship and other possible developments.
Although the main elements mentioned above are fundamental, they
are not enough when considering the conditions in our country in
connection with the international situation and the trend of its
development. The revolutionary workers' movement needs to have a
minimum illegal basis and relations in order to reorganise itself
and its work under the conditions when the dictatorship launches
new attacks. These attacks may take the form of a state of
emergency, martial law, a military coup, etc. and include banning
political parties, trade unions, the press, and legal and
semi-legal work and organisations, either temporarily or
permanently, partially or completely, and conducting a mounting
campaign of arrests. The party must have an illegal basis not
only because of this but also in order to be prepared for new
tasks emerging from the leaps and explosions of the mass
movement.
The need for the revolutionary workers' movement to have a
minimum illegal basis and relations which will enable it to
reorganise itself and its work in the face of possible
developments, including the most intense attacks by the enemy, is
different from founding an organisation framed to meet conditions
before they have emerged. The former implies the restructuring of
the work and organisation of the revolutionary workers' movement
depending on the changes in conditions, the repositioning of its
forces, and having the minimum basis to carry out this
restructuring and repositioning. However, the latter does not
preoccupy itself with the issue of restructuring and
repositioning, but argues instead for the formation beforehand of
an organisation structured and ready for future conditions which,
in fact, cannot be known beforehand. The former, being dialectic
and materialist, depends on the development of class struggle,
thus it is progressive and realistic; while the latter, being
lifeless, metaphysical and idealist, is therefore regressive, a
futile talking, exhausting revolutionary energy and possibilities
in vain.
In the present period, the illegal organisation of the
revolutionary workers' movement must be as tight as possible, and
it must consist of the most determined, the most advanced, the
most experienced and tested elements of the movement. Its illegal
basis and work must be one that goes far beyond our comprehension
and practice so far. The revolutionary workers' movement does not
need to reactivate the work and organisation of its previous
period, adapting them to the present or readjusting those aspects
which do not fit properly in the present. Any attempt in this
direction would play not a progressive role but a regressive one
in terms of the movement; and it is bound to be unsuccessful.
We are going through a period of renewal and advance of legal and
semi-legal instruments and forms, work and organisation. However,
this is also a period of reconstruction of the illegal basis
which is imperative under any circumstances (organisational
structure, its relations, its style of work, etc.), and of
reshaping its relations with the legal. As far as the most
experienced elements of the revolutionary workers' movement are
concerned, this process has to be one of re-education and
re-organisation as an illegal organisation with the most
conscious, most determined and most devoted new and fresh forces
of the working class. The question before the revolutionary
workers' movement today, as was the case yesterday, is not
whether or not to accept this necessity, but how to raise its
activities to a level that meets these requirements.
What is of special importance is the need to improve the quality
of illegal work and organisation, to organise the leading core of
the revolutionary working class, the most conscious, determined
and sacrificing elements of the working class, as an illegal
basis of the movement and develop them in illegal work. It is to
renew this basis constantly, and to turn this organisation into
one that combines those elements who give practical leadership to
the movement. This is an important point because it is completely
different from the work of those parties and currents who
organise outside the working class and independently of it, who
consist of non-class elements, and who impose themselves on the
workers' movement as the party of the working class, their
vanguard force, general staff and leadership. It is different
from their attempt to seize the leadership of the workers'
movement. This is one of the touchstones which distinguishes
various currents of socialism from each other and reveals their
position vis-a-vis the working class and their movement.
As might be the case in other countries, it is a tradition in our
country as well that the intellectuals who first come face to
face with socialism and revolutionary theory, even at their best,
substitute themselves and their self organisation in place of the
advanced sections of workers. They then present the organisation
they have founded as the party of the working class. They carry
out their activities with a perspective of increasing their
party's influence among the workers, and deal with the question
of relations with the workers on this basis. (3) Yet, the actual
task of these intellectuals is to establish links with the
workers; to carry out a systematic and uninterrupted agitation
and propaganda and organisational work among the workers; to give
maximum assistance to the awakening sections of workers in order
to raise their level of consciousness, their experience of
struggle, and their ability to organise, and to enable them to
organise as an independent force, i.e. as a party. They should
consider themselves as no more than a part of this organisation.
To the extent that the illegal basis of the revolutionary
workers' movement is based, in terms of its combination, on the
advanced sections of workers leading the movement, and that the
most conscious, self-sacrificing and determined elements of the
class make up the organisation of the actual leading core of the
movement, illegal work and organisation will become more settled,
and the possibility of combining it with legal work and
organisation will expand. This combination should be realised in
a systematic way and according to a line which will strengthen
and advance both aspects. If this is not implemented, illegal
work and organisation will be, at best, on the margins of the
workers' movement, and it will have limited links with the
workers. Under circumstances when attacks are intensified, even
its limited existing links with the masses will break, and the
organisation and work will not be able to stop becoming narrowly
intellectual and facing many impasses. Nor will it be able to
avoid suffering heavier blows at every attempt at reorganisation.
From what has been said above it is clear that an illegal
organisation is not one which is cut off from and outside legal
work and organisation. On the contrary, under the most severe
conditions when legal and semi-legal work and organisation become
narrow, the illegal organisation, apart from very special
technical apparatuses and cadres, in fact, consists of
organisations which are based in legal and semi-legal workers'
organisations (trade unions, cultural, economic, political
organisations, etc.). These combine legal and illegal work at
every level with differing degrees of illegality. It is in fact a
question of whether systematic work will be carried out among the
masses whatever the circumstances, and whether relations with the
masses will be maintained. Moreover, especially under the
conditions when the party is organised as an illegal
organisation, it is a question of whether the party will
represent the organised unity of the most conscious and
determined elements of the class, with ever stronger links with
broader section of the working class; or an organisation which is
isolated from the class and which is condemned to call on them
from outside, despite its desire to join with the workers'
movement.
This is because the organisation and movement of broad masses
does not have an illegal character even under the most grave
conditions. What is illegal is the movement and organisation of a
small minority.
No matter how radical its slogans are, an organisation or
movement which binds its work and organisation within the narrow
boundaries of illegality, in fact, submits to the ruling classes
and their dictatorship, and to the laws which determine their
prohibitions. Reformism and petit bourgeois extreme leftism are
therefore two sides of the same coin.
The reconstruction and development of illegal apparatus and work,
and fulfilling its requirements is not a particular task of any
one organisation within the revolutionary workers' movement. It
is one of the fundamental tasks of all its cadres and
organisations, although mainly of the most experienced and
advanced. Any contrary approach to this question is a reflection
of an understanding which considers legal and illegal work and
organisation in isolation and as an alternative to each other,
and which approaches illegality with a Blanquist understanding.
It is also a reflection of a distorted understanding of the
responsibility of the revolutionary workers' movement to
reorganise itself in accordance with any fundamental changes in
conditions.
The revolutionary party of the working class, and the most
advanced elements and organisations of the revolutionary workers'
movement, differ from other currents in their practice, in
fulfilling the tasks and responsibilities of the period they are
in, always taking into consideration the long term interests of
the movement, its general trend and possible developments.
Representing not only the short term but also the long term
interests of the movement is not only limited to the question of
the relationship between programme and tactics on the one hand
and strategy on the other. It also necessitates penetration into
and determination of all aspects of daily practical work and the
relationship between them. While the revolutionary workers'
movement tries to improve its legal and semi-legal work on a
revolutionary basis using all possibilities, it also carries out
this work with a perspective taking into account possible
developments and in a manner which leaves the class enemies and
the dictatorship the minimum possibility of obtaining information
about its work. Its legal and semi-legal work should not narrow
the elements and instruments of illegal work and organisation,
but should improve and consolidate them.
The most open work of an organisation which does not limit the
content of its activities to within the law has to override the
law in terms of its instruments and forms. A form of work which
centralises all internal relations without taking into
consideration possible attacks from the dictatorship, and which
limits itself to the instruments of communication under the
dictatorship's control, is not a form which takes into account
the conditions of the country, anticipating the future and long
term interests of the workers' movement, and improving activities
among the masses. In this respect too, it is important that our
activities, organisations, and all our relations must be
concentrated in factories, work places, and working class areas.
The organisation of educational work among advanced workers and
revolutionary youth, paying attention to the necessity of illegal
work and organisation, should constitute one of the aspects of
our work, which should not be postponed or underestimated. This
work should be combined in a creative way with instruments and
forms not limited to those under the full control of the
dictatorship.
One of the most important gains of the revolutionary workers'
movement over the last ten years has been the demolition of
schematic understandings moulded by the influence of petit
bourgeois socialism. The movement, thus, has orientated towards
the maximum possible utilisation of legal opportunities.
Moreover, in relation to this development, an open legal workers'
party has been founded, new positions have been gained in the
trade unions and in cultural fields. Undoubtedly, these gains are
increasing the opportunities for the most advanced section of the
class to improve the basis and area of illegal work, and most
importantly, to demolish the misinterpretation in relation to
this side of the problem: that understanding which reduced
illegal work and organisation to conspiratory organisation and
work. But it is important not to adopt an attitude which hinders
the advanced workers from making maximum use of legal
instruments. This would also hinder the awakening workers from
organising themselves in their own class party, would discourage
their initiatives, would weaken the most significant gains of the
last ten years, and impede their further development.
(Text from: Devrimin Sesi
-Voice of Revolution, central organ of TDKP- No.201, April 1999)
________________
(1) Another
example of this confusion of petit bourgeois revolutionary
appears in considering forms of struggle. They fetishise violence
and the armed actions of narrow groups which are in fact nothing
more than individual terror. They declare peaceful forms of
struggle reformist and non-peaceful ones revolutionary, without
considering their politics. They mix up essence and form in this
question too, and sacrifice the former to the latter.
(2) Their reflections have been emphasised in
the previous issues of Devrimin Sesi (Voice of Revolution), as
well as in other materials of revolutionary workers' movement.
(3) This is generally attached to the fact that
socialism and revolutionary theory develop outside the workers'
movement, that within the narrow framework of spontaneous
movement the workers are not able to acquire socialist class
consciousness and the workers' movement is not able to become a
political movement. It is true that revolutionary theory is
developed by the intellectuals who have the possibility of
obtaining and developing scientific knowledge, and that, despite
some exceptions in every country, intellectuals are the ones who
come face to face with the revolutionary theory and socialism in
the first place (However, it must be emphasised that this does
not happen independently of the working class and its movement;
that, on the contrary, it is one of the many-sided consequences
and reflections of the emergence and development of the working
class and its movement). It is also true that, within the narrow
framework of spontaneous movement, the workers will not be able
to acquire political class consciousness, and the workers'
movement will not be able to develop as a movement putting
ultimate emancipation at its centre. This is a result of the fact
that the means of production and distribution are in the monopoly
of the bourgeoisie, and, as an inevitable consequence of this,
scientific knowledge is in the monopoly of especially its
intellectuals, and that the workers and working people in general
have been pushed into the whirlpool of ignorance. However, the
question here is not whether we accept this fact or not, and it
should not be limited to the discussion of this fact. On the
contrary, despite all the distortions of bourgeois and petit
bourgeois socialist, the problem begins after the acceptance of
this fact, in other words, with regard to the conclusion which
should be drawn from this fact, to the steps which should be
taken, and to the line which should be followed.