Issue No. 2 (October 94)
Issue No.
2 (October 94)
On 20 July 1994, a "general
action" took place in which 4 million workers and government
employees participated across Turkey. The workers thus proved
that they are prepared for more advanced forms of action.
The actions on 20 July should have been organised just as a
"general action with the aim of warning", as far as the
leadership of the trade union confederations are concerned. The
union bosses, who stressed this, were, in this way, aiming at
suppressing, from the beginning, the demand for a general strike
and resistance expressed by every workers' action and meeting. It
was obvious that "the general action" came onto the
agenda as a result of the growth of the workers' fightback.
However, the union bosses wanted to manipulate it as a means of
keeping the workers' movement and their demands at a backward
level.
Despite all this, participation by workers on July 20th was high
and production was stopped in many places, especially in
Istanbul, which was the heart of the general action. Also in
Ankara, Izmir, Bursa, Luleburgaz, Izmit, Soma-Aliaga, Golcuk,
Eskisehir, Kayseri, Mersin, Aydin, Çorum, Samsun, Kesan,
Bandirma, Trabzon and Divrigi millions of workers, government
employees and labouring masses stopped production for either a
few hours or a day, and in some places, took part in street
demonstrations and meetings. In Turkey-Kurdistan, which laged
behind the west of Turkey, in Diyarbakir, Malatya, Gaziantep,
Adiyaman, etc. the Kurdish workers and labourers joint the action
in various ways.
The main slogans chanted by the workers and labourers were these:
"Long live general strike and general resistance",
"Workers and government employees hand in hand to the
general strike", "Jobs-bread-freedom", "Tansu
(the prime minister) To America", "Government must
resign", "Down with fascist dictatorship",
"Long live the brotherhood of the peoples", "Death
to fascism, fredom to the people", "No to price
increases", "Right to unionise with strike and
collective agreement", "General strike is our
right".
Despite their relative weakness, all forces of the TDKP organised
in factories, unions, government employees and youth units tried
to carry out activities so as to turn the "general
action" on 20 July into a genuine general strike and
resistance.
This significant workers-labourers' action was evaluated from
various aspects in "Devrimin Sesi" (The Voice of
Revolution), the central organ of the TDKP, dated July 1994, no
179, with the title "The 20 July has once again proved the
necessity of a general strike and resistance with the style of
workers and labourers":
"The general action on 20 July has been an action in which
the participation in general was high and production in many
places was stopped. However, with the struggle it has shown, it
laged behind the aim of repulsing and repressing the economical
and political offensives carried out by the state and capital,
against the working class and the labouring people as a whole. It
did not reflect the true potential of the struggle of the working
class, nor its anger.
However the workers of the Bakirkoy (a district of Istanbul)
branch of Sumerbank (a public enterprise), cargo workers,
leather, road and cement workers who were marching towards Kartal
(one of the districts in which there is a meeting point)
displayed a determined attitude despite the fierce attacks of the
police. Together with this, the steps taken by the people in some
districts towards joining the workers' struggle have been the
harbinger of a general strike and resistance in the style of the
workers and labourers."
According to Devrimin Sesi, the police attacks on the
Sumerbank workers and on some others were not a coincidence.
These attacks expressed the attitude of the state and capital
towards the direction where the workers' struggle can advance. On
the other hand, the actions (in Istanbul) were not sufficient to
turn the 20 July into a day of strong resistance and struggle for
the working class and the labouring people.
"However, the action was held by destroying the barricades
of the union bosses and bureaucrats and by confronting the
attacks of the dictatorship. That has demonstrsated the
determination of the working class and labouring masses in the
struggle and also the greatness of the anger they gathered. But
only some advanced sections of the class were able to succeed in
taking this anger into the streets.
The government employees, too, made stoppages
in several places. However, the threats of the chairman of the
councils led by the reactionary Welfare Party (which is trying to
pull the discontent and the reaction of the people to its side
through religious motives) to the workers of "not to join
the action" proved to be effective. The role of the
petit-bourgeois reformism was big in that.
"With the influence of the petit-bourgeois reformism, the
stoppages coul not take place in the name of 'not to give any
chance to the Welfare Party'. The petit-bourgeois administrators
openly announced in many places that they were opposed to going
into the streets. Hence, they played the role of action breakers.
The line that was advocated by the former Dev-Yol
(Revolutionary Path) circles has once again exposed the
difference between the petit-bourgeois and revolutionary
communist lines in the struggle for freedom and democracy, and
the class base of this difference. This difference is that
between the working class and the petit-bourgeoisie and between
their political lines."
This phenomenon displayed by the action on 20 July is an attack
of the petit-bourgeois reformism to deform and stunt the workers'
movement, and to establish ideological hegemony on it. It also
wants the movement of the class to tail after it. The class
conscious vanguard worker shoul never forget this fact."
"Having such an attitude, the petit-bourgeoisie has
forgotten that it has, for the last six-seven yesars, been taking
up the struggle in the shadow of the workers' movement and
denied this fact. Having summoned up courage from the actions of
the working class in the recent years and been benefiting from
the possibilities of the class movement, the petit-bourgeoisie
has openly declared that it is, today, on the same platform with
the union bosses and bureaucrats and they complement each
other."
"The fact that the 'general action' of 20 July could not be
turned into a strong general strike and resistance has once again
demonstrated that the influence of the union bosses and
bureaucrats on the working class has not been eradicated. The
barricade, in front of the workers' movement, put by this gang
including the petit-bourgeois officials, has to be
destroyed."
According to Devrimin Sesi, the main conclusions that need to be
drawn by the advanced worker from these attempts and attitudes of
the petit-borgeois administrators are these:
"The most significant conclusion to be drawn is to preserve
the independent political attitude of the working class; to
realise the differentiating points of other labouring masses from
itself; and to demonstrate the ability of being the leader of all
of them. The vanguard workers have to oppose the efforts of the
petit-bourgeoisie to destort the unity and the action of the
class and to have the class tailed after it. Because this is a
question of which class and leadership will be at the centre of
the struggle. Will the struggle of the working class and
labouring masses expand to apopular revolution or will it be
confined to the limits of the system, with the destroying effects
of the reactionary reformism of the petit-bourgeoisie? That is
the question that needs to be answered. From this point of view,
these two different attitudes are far from reflecting only
'the differences on opinions'. What is being discussed is the
different political lines of two different classes."
"One of the key questions of the stuggle for revolution and
democracy is the alliance of the working class with the forces
that can be its allies and its winning them to its front of
struggle. However, the working class has to preserve its
independent political attitude meticulously and ensure its
internal unity first. The winning of other labouring masses to
the struggle depends essentially on that."
Having stressed that the platform of union branches that were
created in the fight against the collaborating line of the union
centres have a significant role to play, what is said is this:
"In no ways can a premium be given to the efforts of the
petit-bourgeoisie of breaking the class movement from its roots,
being afraid of spreading the movement in factories and of
blocking this tendency under the name of the democracy platforms
(*), etc. The advanced workers have to know and realise that the
struggle goes on not only between the working class and the
bourgeoisie but also, in a different form, between the labouring
people's classes. A workers' movement that does not arm itself
with this aspect, will not show the necessary progress in
succeeding the tasks taken over. Nor will it show the political
alertness against the efforts to pull the class movement backward
and to deform it."
In this article it is said that there is a task
that could not be accomplished by the vanguard worker, honest
unionists and by the ordinary worker who wants to struggle.
"The task was that of taking the action of 20 July into the
streets by destroying reactionary barricades; of turning the
'general action' into a true general strike and resistance; and
of creating a new progress in the class movement. It is necessary
to see that the main reason why this task could not be
accomplised is the deficiency of the work within the factories.
The facts and phenomena have once again proved that the work
within the factories is the determining factor in the struggle.
If an action is not based on the factories, not organised in
there, then it cannot mobilise the main body of the working
class, have the capability and the possibility of repulsing the
offensives of the capital and of obtaining economic, political
and social gains for the working class and all the labouring
people.
Another task of the vanguard worker is this:
"While focusing its energy and attention in the factories,
the working class also has to display the capability and the
courage that will change the trend of the whole movement, by
acting with courage at significant turning points. The class
conscious vanguard worker should once again realise the
importance of educating its class brothers and sisters, of
winning and advancing them. That is one of the most significant
lessons of the 20 July.
"The 20 July is now in the past, the problems for which the
working class struggled are left unresolved and growing daily.
The struggle of the working class for the general strike and the
causes of this can not be put behind with this general action of
20 July. The class conscious vanguard workers and honest
unionists should not let the union bosses and bureaucrats to
manipulate the action of 20 July to cover the demand of the
working class for a general strike and widespread
resistance."
_____________________
(*) Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Path): It was one of the pre-12
September 1980 coup petit-bourgeois revolutionary organisations
of Turkey that had a middle-path line. The remnants of this
organisation today are advocating mainly a reformist and denying
line.
(*) Democracy Platforms have recently been formed, besides the workers' unions, in some cities in Turkey, consisting of the representatives of the unions of government employees, civil servants and of chambers that have not yet obtained legal union rights.
An article in Denge Sores'li Kurdistan, the central
organ of the TDKP-Kurdistan Organisation, dated July 1994, deals
with the debates on "cultural rights" that have
recently been brought onto the agenda with regards to the Kurdish
question. In that article, it is established that the dilemmas of
the ruling classes of Turkey regarding the "Kurdish
question" has grown, bringing with it international
dimensions.
"The bourgeoisie, reaction and the government is not
convincing, despite their efforts to reflect the Kurdish struggle
for freedom as 'the terror of the PKK' and to get support for
such ideas by mobilising all possibilities both nationally and
internationally. They are also becoming more and more isolated
owing to the reaction of the oppressed masses on the national and
international scale, to the fascist national oppression and to
the racist-destructive policy in Kurdistan. Another reason is
that it is becoming harder for the bourgeoisie and reaction to
maintain the support for the increasing naked force.
In recent days, the main theme of the meetings held by Demirel,
the president, with the party leaders, has been the debate on
'what kind of steps can be taken regarding the Kurdish question'.
When the US and the European countries bring to the agenda,
beside other things, the closure of the DEP(*), its MPs being
arrested, the ban on the Kurdish language and the attacks against
the 'civilian population', and when they draw attention to 'the
need of taking a flexible position on these matters', all leaders
of the bourgeois parties embrace, with a complaining manner, the
demagogy of 'the independence and indivisibility of Turkey'. It
proves that the external troubles of the Turkish state have grown
much more when compared to the previous period."
The imperialist bourgeoisie needs "the defence of human
rights" more today in order to maintain the system in
Turkey. When considered with other indicators, the following two
developments indicate that the imperialists have increased
the "inculcations" towards the fact that it would be
wiser to soften the traditional Kurdish policy:
The European Conference for Security and Cooperation and the European Council have decided to send delegations to Turkey in order to investigate human rights violations and the situation of the DEP's members of parliament.
John Shattuck, the vice foreign secretary of
the US, met with the chairman of the Parliament, the Minister of
Law and the chief authorny general of the State Security Court in
Ankara and announced that they wanted "the trial of the
DEP's MPs without arrest and the cultural rights of the Kurds to
be recognised".
According to the Denge Sores, Prime Minister Ciller's statement
during her journey to France is far from being convincing, which
stated that 'a Kurdish TV, newspaper or school is possible; but
the official language and school will be Turkish'. "It was,
essentially, stated to divert the agenda and the aims of the
struggle of the working class and the labouring masses". On
the other hand , this statement itself is a reflection of the
vehement debates and meetings that have recently begun
within the government and state institutions. All these facts are
considered as the signs that the opposition has increased and the
following conclusions have been drawn:
"The state is now in a position that it can no longer carry
out its traditional Kurdish policy in old forms. Because the
people's struggle for freedom has put the bourgeoisie and the
dictatorship into a dilemma in Kurdistan and made it difficult
for them to reign by denying the existence of the Kurdish people.
The dictatorship and government continue their offensives without
stopping with hundreds and thousands of soldiers and police. They
force uninhabitancy by means of tortures and bombings. They
implement forced settling in accord with the decision of
the General Staff, which is "...the acceleration of the
purification of the region from the civilians and of the
migration of the inhabitants to the west (of Turkey) and to other
regions". Despite all these they cannot ensure abandonement
of the Kurdish labourers and masses from the demand of their
national rights.
The depening economical crisis and the piling political problems
are compelling the Turkish ruling classes "to do
something" and to seek for a "solution"
which will not give any harm to the system or ensure the least
damage. Despite the frictions within them and the statements that
'no steps will be taken which would mean a concession to the
terrorists', they all have, in this or that way, realised that
the 'old way' can no longer work. They have also realised that
hundreds of trillions of warfare appropriations and the
continious operations carried out with the rethorics 'nearly
finished' are not sufficient to get a nation to surrender. The
main policy of the dictatorship and the government is, no doubt,
based on denial and distruction. This policy will not be
abandoned with all its conclusions, unless the struggle of the
Kurdish and Turkish workers and labourers reaches to a level
which will make this policy completely invalid. However, the
bourgeoisie, having learnt from the international experiences,
knows that the Kurdish people obtaining limited rights in
language and in cultural areas within the system is
preferable to their obtainment of the national liberation. It is
possible for the bourgeoisie to take this step if it is
obliged to."
The concerns of the imperialists to the "Kurdish
question" is not new. They are in difficulty in supporting
the policy of the Turkish state towards the Kurds as a whole.
However, what is essential, in terms of the imperialists, is
their own interests.
"Both the US and the European imperialists
are trying to keep the Kurdish people dependent, to have an
influence on Kurdistan and to keep the dependent statutes
of Turkey by blocking the united, anti-imperialist struggle of
the Kurdish and Turkish peoples. In reality, the imperialist
concern for the Kurdish question is not for human rights -they
are violating these rights everyday. Their concern, in terms of
each imperialist state, is originating from the desire to
manipulate national contradictions in order to establish,
consolidate and maintain their hegemony in the region.
The imperialists, mainly the US and Germany, on the one hand,
consider it necessary to keep Turkey in hand and the 'solution'
of the Kurdish question within the present statutes of Turkey
through the 'recognition of the cultural rights'. They, on the
other hand, find it corresponding to their interests to keep the
alternative of a dependent Kurdistan available. That is why they
are interested in the 'Kurdish question' and talk about the
rights of the Kurds in the realm of so-called defence of human
rights.
The Kurdish people does not need imperialist lawyers (defenders).
On the contrary, our people has to keep away from the trapping
approaches and plans of the imperialists. It has to rely on the
support and the struggle of the world proletariat and labourers,
mainly the Turkish people and the working class of Turkey. There
is no doubt that the obtainment of cultural rights, free use of
the language, the Kurdish school, TV and newspaper or, for
instance, the ruling classes being compelled to recognise some
political rights, cannot be refused just because the imperialist
bourgeoisie wants these rights to be recognised in terms of its
interests. When utilised correctly, the obtainment and use of
these rights are important -as reforms- to march forward, for a
people with the statutes of slavery. The use of these rights
would serve the progress of the struggle for freedom and social
emancipation, in the hands of the workers and labourers.
If the Kurdish people continues the struggle without forgetting
the fact that genuine liberation expresses the emancipaion of the
workers and labourers from the capitalist slavery and without
falling into the traps of the compromising Kurdish bourgeoisie,
which is seeking for imperialist support, it will not give a
chance to the continuation of national slavery by means of the
changes in statutes within the system. US, British, German and
French imperialism, today, are trying to penetrate into the
struggles of the oppressed dependent peoples in order to dominate
their lives. The Kurdish workers and labourers, having taken this
situation into account, must utilise the contradictions between
the imperialists, or between the imperialists and their servants.
They must advance the struggle against them. This should
involve not believing the so-called independence plans of the
Kurdish reformist bourgeoisie, who are relying on imperialism, or
their deceptive relationship with imperialism under the name of
diplomacy. The way to do this lies in massively rising against
the economical political, national, etc. oppressions of the
bourgeoisie and the government, and in combining this struggle
with the struggle against imperialism. It is necessary to
struggle to obtain the cultural rights; but it is a well-known
fact that such rights are insufficient. The struggle for national
freedom must be tied to the struggle for revolution, without
rejecting individual reforms. It must broaden to become a
workers-peasants' revolution and be directed to the aim of the
elimination of the bourgeois dictatorship and capitalism.
When the Kurdish workers and labouring masses
act accordingly (with such a conception), "they will see the
imperialist traps clearly. They will have the possibility to
utilise, in a revolutionary manner, the crisis in which the
dictatorship is engulfed and to take further steps to reach to
the aim. They will also broaden the possibilities of marching
towards genuine emancipation, in a line where reforms are
utilised for revolution, by making ineffective the Kurdish
reaction and the reformist-burgeois policy tied to it."
"Such an attitude has to be that of the Kurdish workers
before anyone. Only this attitude can prevent the debates on
'cultural rights' from diverting the aim."
__________________
*DEP (Democracy Party): It is a bourgeois-reformist party
consisting of the Kurdish MPs mainly elected from
Turkey-Kurdistan. It has recently closed down by the
Constitutional Court with the reason of "devisive
behaviour". Because it was talking about the oppression on
the Kurdish people and advocating some changes within the
capitalist system, on the present statutes of Turkey-Kurdistan
through reformist-parliamentarist means. Nowadays, some of the
party MPs are being tried, with a threat of execution.
(This article of which the first
part has been published in the previous issue is summarised from
Devrimin Sesi, the central organ of the TDKP, dated May '94,
number 177.)
In the history of civilisations and of imperialism, the Balkans
has been one of the most important regions of turmoil and war .
The big powers, especially in the last century, have been the
provacateurs of the conflicts among the Balkan countries. They
have also shown interest in having the regional nations and
peoples submitted, and controlled by their
hegemony in the region.
The roots of the contradictions among the Balkan countries, and
of the problems, originated from the contradictions that lie in
the historical fight for hegemony. The fact is that the
contradictions that prevent stability and peace in the region and
lead to conflicts and wars between the neighbouring nations and
states are not, on their own, insoluable contradictions. However,
the Balkan peoples and states cannot prevent from falling into
meaningless (reactionary) enmities and wars. There is no doubt
that the main reason for that lies in the hegemony of the
imperialist countries established on the regional peoples. It
also lies in the frequent inter-imperialist fights for hegemony,
demanding changes in the "status-quo".
The present violent national wars and frictions in the Balkans
are, in reality, not frictions or the settling accounts among the
regional nations and peoples. On the contrary, they are frictions
between the imperialist states which are after hegemony and
influence, and between their collaborator national reactions.
This fact does not change, despite the fact that the ones which
are, at present, in conflict and war are the regional national
forces whilst the imperialist countiries seem in a "peaceful
position". The imprialist countries are presently carrying
out "their work" by means of their collaborators. It is
known that the turmoils and wars in the Balkans are explained to
be "temporary", originating from"the prevention of
the forces of the old regime to the transition to the free market
and democracy". There is no doubt that such
"explanations" of the imperialist governments tend to
deceive the workers and labourers and to prove the external
interventions to be "right".
There is only one acceptable reason for the special interest of
the imperialist countries to the Balkans and for the tense,
turmoil and wars in the region becoming fare ground: The dragging
of the Balkan peoples into a profound deception and the big
capitalist countries making use of this deception to seize the
Balkan countries completely. It is quite obvious that the
imperialist states stand behind the turmoils and wars in the
Balkans.
There are two main reasons why the Balkans are important in the
fight of the big capitalist powers for hegemony: Firstly, the
Balkans is the most advanced market among the backward dependent
regions. Secondly, it is one of the few regions that have the
greatest military-strategic importance in the inter-imperialist
struggle for hegemony.
Beside their economic importance for the capitalist monopoliies
and imperialist states, the Balkan countries have also greater
importance in terms of their political and military position. The
Balkans is in a region where the world trade routes and energy
transport lines are intersected. It is, at the same time, a
region overlooking these routes and lines (Suez-Gibraltar).
Therefore, when the re-devision of the world is on the agenda, in
striking, controlling and defending the Middle-East,
Mediterannean, North Africa, Caucasus and even Europe, it becomes
the most important foothold for controlling three continents.
For over 30 years, the Balkan peninsula, except Albania, had been
divided into the English-American and the Soviet Russian
spheres of influence. The collapse of the Soviet Russia has
opened new spheres of influence to the English American
imperialism. It has also led to the attack of the German
imperialism, which was waiting in shadow, and to its emergence as
a power that has a say in the Balkans. Germany has penetrated
into the English American "status-quo", become dominant
in Slovenia and Croatia and a power in Albania, Romania, and
Bosnia-Hersegovina. That inevitably led the Anglo American
governments, which had constituted a barricade against the
Soviet Russia for thirty years, to enter into a bolder struggle.
In just the same way, these countries have backed, even though
concealed, the Serbian reaction, strengthened their relations
with Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia-Hersegovina, and have not
sacrificed the international public opinion. Russia, in the mean
time, has not stayed aside of this struggle for hegemony. Neither
has it abstained from emerging as a focus increasing its pressure
on Romania and announcing its brotherhood with Serbia.
As the facts have proved, in the conflicts in Yugoslavia, the
European countries -except Britain- including Germany have taken
position on one side and the Anglo American and Russian
imperialists, even though with adverse plans, on the other. The
reasons why the conflicts in the Balkans have turned into chronic
ones lie, no doubt, in these groupings and attempts that
constitute the corresponding form of imperialist intervention and
wrangle to the existing "relations".
The big imperialist states acting with the UN
"resolutions" that suggest "peaceful
solution" to the warring sides and use arms
"jointly" from time to time should not mislead anyone.
It is true that these states act in "alliance" in
the intervention to the Balkans, as , in general, is the case
everywhere. However, this "aliance" consists of adverse
interests and includes "damaging" demands against each
other.
If the behind door participants of the turmoils and wars in the
Balkans are the big powers, how can they intervene together? How
can, for instance, the US war planes bomb the Serbian positions
whom they back? On what basis can Germany threaten Croatia, its
collaborator?
The answers to these questions lie in the following two
phenomena: Firstly, although the process is developing towards
international open conflicts, the inter-imperialist
contradictions have not yet deepened or harsened to the point
that will lead to a complete break away, an open confrontation
against each other or to open blockings as enemy blocks. The
economical and political phenomena compel the imperialist
governments to ally in their interventions against the oppressed
nations and peoples. They, on the other hand, are compelled to
carry out their contradicting interests and fight for devision by
means of their collaborators and of policies covered with
diplomacy of pseudo "peace" and "democracy".
Secondly, the attempts of the regional rectionary forces to
expand and strengthen against each other have contradicted the
general interests and the policies of the imperialist
powers backing them. Therefore, the necessity of bringing these
reactionary forces into "line" compels the
interventionist powers to act as "the United Nations".
The fight of the imperialist states for the hegemony in the
Balkans is not limited to the present interests or to the
possibilities of exploitation and of profit. The chief
imperialist countries have , for a century, been implementing
their Balkan policies according to the needs of their strategy
for the redevision of the world. The policy pursued by the
Anglo-American, German, French and Russian imperialists is to
become the dominating power in the Balkans; to use their hegemony
in the region as a base for their fights in other regions ; and
to obtain a strategic foothold when the time comes for the
definitive settling of accounts.
Turkey is one of those rare countries that does not have
good relationships with any of its neighbouring countries. It has
been, especially since the World War II, pursuing a policy of
tension and war in the Balkans, as it is the case with all its
neighbours. Owing to its policy and attitude, the reaction of
Turkey has got important and dangerous problems and conflicts
with the bordering Greece and Bulgaria. Its problems with Greece
on the Aegean continental shelf, Cyprus, the Turkish and Greek
minorities, and with Bulgaria on the Turkish minority have been,
until recently, the most significant "external"
problems in the "western" border of Turkey. The
incidents took place in the Balkans in the early 1990s and the
imperialist intervention have led Turkey to incite the
contradictions and conflicts in the region and to create new
problems.
The reactionary forces in Turkey have not only pursued a general
policy provoking war in the Balkans, but also incited an
interantional offensive, and sent troops to the region. On the
other hand, it has escalated its conflicts with Greece and its
threatening it with war has become a line.
Turkey has been, especially for the last five-six years, pursuing
a line of intervention in all the problems and conflicts in
the Balkans. It has become one of the diplomatic and military
pawns of the Western countries, mainly of the US, as is the case
in the Middle-East and Caucasus.
The extract of the image that the Turkish bourgeoisie and
reaction want to create in Turkey's public opinion, regarding
their interventions and attempts in the Balkans, is this: Turkey
will become a political power in Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and
Albania. Hence, it will get the possibility to restrict the
influence of Russia in the region and to compete with it. It will
siege Greece by allying with Albania, Bosnia and Macedonia.
Finally, by basing on "the Economic Cooperation of the Black
Sea" it will seize new and profitable markets in the
Balkans. Having had such a strong position in the Balkans, Turkey
will be taken into consideration by the allied big powers and
have a say everywhere as a big leading country that has
guaranteed its security. That is the brief picture drawn by the
Turkish government and diplomacy to the people of Turkey
regarding the situation of the country and its possibilities in
the Balkans.
However, the bourgeoisie and the reaction of Turkey, in fact,
know that reaching these aims, in the present relationships, is a
hollow daydream. Because they also know that the Balkan
countries are more developed than Turkey and that the imperialist
states did not leave any sphere of hegemony to Turkey.
There are two main objectives of the attempts of Turkey in the
Balkans: the first one is to seize the superiority against the
collaborator reactions in the region; to have the possibility to
market itself with a higher price; and if possible, to realize
regional alliances against Greece and Russia and to get the
support of other imperialist countries for its attempts. The
second objective is to prevent the working class and the people
from acting as a class and people; to spread in the ranks of the
people nationalist and imperialist sentiments and animosity
towards other nations; to make people accept the
bourgeois-imperialist interests as "national
interests"; and to render the repression and terror in the
country continuous and efficient.
There is no doubt that the bill of the crisis
the system is in, of aggressive foreign policy and of the
armament, its inevitable consequence, will be shifted on the
shoulders of the workers and labourers.
The offensives of capital on the workers and
labourers are intensifying in Turkey, day after day, in the form
of privatisation, subcontracting and dismisals. Besides that, the
unionists on the side of the workers are also face to face with
the offensives of the trade union bosses and bureaucrats.
The advanced workers and honest branch leaders came together a
few years ago and formed the workers' platforms of union branches
against the offensives and the compromising attitudes of the
confederation centres.
The following article gives examples of how the honest unionists
who support the workers. are being attacked. It has been taken
from the 20th issue of a weekly current affairs and
interpretation magazine called GERCEK (the Reality) dated 13
August 1994. It is published in Turkey and has a circulation of
over 10 thousand both in Turkey and Europe.
The steps taken by the workers' platforms in line with the
economic and democratic demands of the working class led to the
intensification of the offensives of the union bosses and
bureaucrats on the unionists siding with the workers.
At the Izmir workers' assembly of Turk-Is (the biggest of the
three union confederation in Turkey), Bayram Meral, the chairman
of Turk-Is, and other bureaucrats did not refrain from openly
reflecting their anger, when Sukru Gunsili, the branch leader of
TUM-TIS (Transport Workers Union) said that the solution of the
problems of the class lie in a general strike and resistance.
Meral said, pointing to Gunsili, "how can Turk-Is defend
this friend who is attacking us, if he is taken by the
police?"
While the union bosses and bureaucrats were not doing anything
against privatisation, subcontracting and dismisals aof the
workers, the sensitive unionists, branch leaders and advanced
workers organised meetings. With the initiative of the Istanbul
branch of the workers' platform, 40 union branches made a call to
the leadership of Turk-Is 'to go on a general strike'.
Such attitudes as siding with the class have bothered capital.
Munir Ceylan, the chairman of Petrol-Is (Oil Workers Union), has
been sentenced to a 20-month-imprisonment and banned from working
as a unionist because of his 'divergent' attitude towards the
Kurdish question and his efforts to lay claim to the problems of
the class.
Owing to his statement, Atilay Ayçin, the chairman of Hava-Is
(Airport Workers Union), too, has been sentenced to a
20-month-imprisonment. In addition, the leadership of Turk-Is has
got angry with Ayçin's call upon them to resign and opened an
investigation about him under the pretext of not having joined in
the actions on 20 July, while nothing has been done about others.
Hatice Gorgu, the chairperson of no. 1 branch of Tek Gida-Is
(Tobacco, drink and food industry workers union) and a member of
the executive committee of the Istanbul branch of the workers'
platform has also been the object of the union bosses'rage. She
has been banned, by the general centre of the union, from working
as a professional unionist. The workers stated that it was not
only an attack on Hatice Gorgu but also on the working class.
These are not the only examples of the dual offensives on the
unionists siding with the class. Sabri Topçu, the chairman of
TUMTIS (transport workers union), Yurdal Senel, its secretary,
and tens of others are still being tried owing to their
opposition to the Gulf War. Many others have been punished for
joining the Mayday celebrations.
Riza Turgut, the chairman of the Istanbul branch of Seluloz-Is
(cellulose workers union) and a member of the executive committee
of the Istanbul branch of the workers' platform, and Ercan
Atmaca, the chairman of the no.1 Istanbul branch of Yol-Is (road
and construction workers union) and th espokesman of the Istanbul
branch of the workers' platforms have been warned of being
'undisciplined' by the general centres of their unions."
-------------------------------
They are not the only ones who are being subjected to the
offensives of capital. There are 104 prisoners of conscience
(except those from illegal organisations) in Turkey where there
is no freedom of speech (the number worldwide is 700). Social
scientists like Haluk Gerger, Ismail Besikçi, Fikret Baskaya,
Ragip Zarakolu,etc. journalists, publishers, unionists and even
the members of the parliament (one independent and four from DEP)
are among them. Newspapers -and even legal parties- are being
closed down or being compelled to pay fines of hundreds of
millions of Turkish lira. All these, as Haluk Gerger, who is in
prison now because of a message he sent to the commemoration of
the execution of Deniz Gezmis, stated, are the indicators of the
crisis of the ruling classes to reign.
15 communist parties and organisations met in
Ecuador for a four-day-conference at the end of July. Holding
this conference had been decided at the meeting of 13 parties and
organisations in Europe, last year in November. The items on the
agenda were these:
* The present crisis of capitalism and the situation of the
workers' movement;
* Revisionism; and
* The fundamental features and the valid norms of the
organisational platform of the international movement.
It was announced that the conference of the fraternal parties
will be the principal -but not superior to the
decisions and wills of the individual parties- organ where the
ideological, political and organisational problems of the
proletarian and communist movement are discussed and joint
decisions and solutions are reached on some certain themes . It
was also decided to form a coordination committee elected by the
conference and to publish a theoretical magazine as a means of
improving the ideological discussion and unity and the
international solidarity.
On the last day of the conference it was decided to launch a
campaign for Francisco Caraballo, the general secretary of the
Communist Party of Colombia-ML and the commander of its military
wing,EPL, and for Hamma Hammami, the spokesman of the Workers
Communist Party of Tunisia, who both have recently been arrested.
The following proclamation and the statements of the solidarity
with Francisco CARABALLO and Hamma HAMMAMI were produced at the
end of the conference.
COMMUNIST PROCLAIM TO THE WORKERS AND PEOPLES
In the last decades, the communist and workers' movement
has been badly hit. The process of capitalist restoration
that generalised with the 20th Congress of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union and that has developed in
events such as those of Eastern Europe, in the ex-USSR,
the treason in Albania, etc. are part of the action of
imperialism and all reactionary, revisionist and
pro-capitalist forces. The historical limitations,
inexperience, the lack of development of theory, the
underestimation of the contradictions that belong to the
socialist society, bureaucratism and isolation of the
Communist Party from the workers and peoples intervened
as causes by which communists, workers and peoples could
not defend their conquest and avoid capitalist
restoration. We could not either avoid the upraisal of a
new bourgeois class, with the mask of
"socialist", that took power and destroyed
socialism.
After the last and general assault of imperialism and
capitalism, which pretended to wipe out Marxism-Leninism,
scientific socialism, communism, proletarian revolution
and anti-imperialism, we are rising again in all
continents. Communists are born again in each workers'
strike, in each popular mobilisation, in each struggle of
the working class and peoples for freedom and democracy,
in each youth revolt and in each guerrilla group. We
reorganise, unite, draw lessons from what has happened
and continue to march forward.
We will not give up our endeavour until we accomplish our
historical mission.
We are the millions of human beings in struggle. We, the
workers continue to be the main producers of all wealth,
everywhere and under the different conditions in which
the means of production develope. Nothing in essence will
change as long as others live from our sweat and as long
as we cannot achieve the transformation of this society
into a higher type.
What type of innovation, what type of
technical-scientific revolution can displace us as the
main axis of the contemporary society? All scientific and
technical advances and discoveries do not absolutely
change the proletarian nature. Neither do they avoid the
means of production continue to be in capitalist hands.
The richness produced by our work has been and continue
to be the material base for all scientific and
technological developments.
The class struggle cannot be abolished, neither
will it disappear as long as the existance of private
property on the means of production maintains. Yet, we
shoul take into account these scientific and technical
developments, learn how to control and use them in the
benefit of the peoples and revolution.
No other social class or stratum can achieve these
objectives. This is a proletarian task. The proletariat
is the most revolutionary class in the society, with the
highest practical spirit, able to unite and to lead other
exploited classes and strata in the struggle against
capital.
We are present and active in the present day epoch. We,
the working class and the peoples have not set aside a
single instant from the struggle for our objectives.
Nothing substantial has changed from the epoch as Lenin
defined it. It continues to be the epoch of imperialism
and proletarian revolutions. (...)The fundamental
contradictions of the epoch remain the same.
Imperialism and the bourgeoisie fiercely attack
Marxism-Leninism and proclaim its invalidity. We ask: If
this theory is useless, why to attack it so fiercely?
Simple, because they know that this theory is up to
date and standing. Marxism-Leninism is based on the
continuously developing scientific knowledge, on social
development of experiences and on progressive human
thought. It is a theory with a revolutionary character
which represents the historical interests of the
proletariat and of all humanity. It progresses
dialectically; breaks barriers and engenders the new. We
Marxist-Leninists are conscious of our weakness in
comprehension, application and development of
Marxism-Leninism. That is a question of our own
limitations; a question that we will surpass. The
historical experience has demonstrated the vitality of
Marxism-Leninism. If there are outphased and obsolote
ideologies and theories that belong to the past, these
are the bourgeois ones. Marxism-Leninism is the present
and the future.
According to their class interests, revisionists and
opportunists of all shades brought about
anti-communist conclusions. They want to preserve their
position as "great leaders" and their
privilages; they want to handle the workers' movement to
avoid that the workers take their destiny into their own
hands; and thus serve the bourgeoisie, causing a great
damage to the working class. On the opposite, communists
struggle against these deviations, and put apart these
servants of the bourgeoisie, and help the working class
to rely on its own forces and advance.
Revisionism is a danger for the revolutionary process,
for the communist parties and for the construction of
socialism. Revisionism and opportunism of all shades
continue to be a danger against which
the struggle cannot be relegated or underrated.
(...)
Communist parties are the indispensible instruments to
organise revolution in each one of our countries. We as a
whole, are the International Conference of the
Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations, the real
alternative of the working class and peoples. The flame
of the proletarian revolution and the hope of the peoples
continue to be in the hands of the communists.
(...)
Imperialism has always been and will continue to be the
source of aggression and plunder wars. in the recent
years Iraq, Somalia, Panama, Yemen, Ruanda,
ex-Yugoslavia, ex-USSR, Haiti, etc. have been sceneries
of the aggressive, racial and reactionary wars. We
denounce the truly character of these wars. It is
required to organise and support popular movements
against these imperial war policy. We, the workers,
peoples and communists should be at the head of this
struggle.
(...)
We combat for revolution. We defend the revolutionary
violance of the peoples in seizing power. That demands
fom us to learn how to use all forms of struggle.
We ratify our decision to hold aloft the Marxist-Leninist
banner, to fight for its application and to convert our
parties and organisations into a political, social and
organisational alternative, both national and
internationally. Our parties and organisations restate
our pledge to fight on the side of the working class and
peoples for the proletarian revolution and for the
independence and soveigrenity of the peoples, together
with democrats, patriots and progressive persons, and to
oppose to capitalist and imperialist domination.
We hold alive the spirit of the Paris Commune, the
October revolution and all revolutionary processes and
experiences, based upon the principles elaborated by
Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.
(...)
PROLETARIANS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!
August 1994, Quito-Ecuador
Communist Party of Germany (KPD)
Communist Party of Colombia-ML
Communist Party of Chile (Proletarian Action)
Communist ML Party of Ecuador
Communist Organisation October of Spain
Workers Communist Party of France
Organisation for the Construction of the Proletarian
Party of Italy
Communist Party of Mexico-ML
Communist Party of Labour of Dominican Republic
Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey (TDKP)
Red Flag Party of Venezuela
Revolutionary Communist Party of Upper Volta
SHOW SOLIDARITY WITH F. CARABALLO AND H. HAMMAMI
The parties and Marxist-Leninist organisations, signing below,
meeting in Ecuador, express our communist solidarity with comrade
Francisco Caraballo and his fellows detained by the Colombian
army.
Caraballo, first secretary of the Communist Party of Colombia
(ML), commander of the Popular Liberation Army, of the Simon
Bolivar Guerrilla Coordination, revolutionary fighter since his
early youth, embodies a communist militant model. His self-denial
has always been exemplary and at all times he has placed the
interests of the Colombian revolution above any other
consideration.
Francisco Caraballo is also an ardent internationalist who
proclaims the unity of the world communists, as an indispensible
factor to cement active solidarity of the peoples of the world in
the common struggle against imperialism and reaction.
His arrest is a harsh blow to the Colombian revolution, a blow
that we resent directly. Notwithstanding, we are convinced, that
following his first secretary and commander example, the
Colombian communists and the EPL combatants will be able to
overcome this cruel blow, redouble their revolutionary ardour and
to march forward by the revolutionary path, taking into account
his words:
"We, the EPL commanders and fighters, have been peace
partizans; but the political realm itself and the blows of the
reaction have compelled us to become armed man."
We show our solidarity with Francisco Caraballo and his comrades,
along with all Colombian fighters and their people.
------------------------------------------------
After having been detained by the Tunisian police, Hamma Hammami,
the spokesman of the Workers Communist Party of Tunisia, has been
subjected to heavy physical and moral tortures and left to rot in
the worst conditions in dungeon. Various human rights
organisations have protested, several times, at the situation of
the prisions in Tunisia and the ill treatments towards comrade
Hammani.
The only accusation directed to him by the authorities is
"to be a member of a banned political organisation".
That means the violation of a principal right, namely the right
to oppose a regime which is the enemy of the people.
Up to now, in Tunisia, in many African countries and in France,
various activities have been carried out to protest against the
attacks and the ill prison conditions to which comrade Hammami
has been subjected and to demand his release.
We demand the release of Hammami and call upon all progressive
forces to raise their voices to rescue Hammami from the paws of
the reactionary regime in Tunisia.
Ecuador, July 1994
