OUR PARTY’S ULTIMATE ACTION AND EVALUATION TOWARDS RIGHT LIQUIDATIONIST GROUP WHO LEFT OUR PARTY
To inform the public and to underline
our orientation by making “a final statement” in reference to the
emerging developments in our party and the dissidence have shown itself
as a need. Because, we consider it significant from the point of
canalising our party to the class struggle duties in addition to the
complete information for dissidence. We are going to evaluate the entire
process by identifying its milestones and its main lines, which are
reflected in public opinion and not. We are going to express our
perspective for: what do the emerging developments mean and what do they
tell to the party public opinion. Because where we stand now is a clear
decomposition situation which its all fronts and lines are drawn, its
organizational structure is settled and its political ideology is
unveiled. In this scene, we are here to declare that how we define this
leaving group in the context of political ideology, how we will relate
with them and what will be our approach to them.
The Problems in our Party; the Current Factionalism; Fighting with this; Initiatives and its Consequences
Our Party spent long time to organize a
quite important congress/conference. At the same time this process,
also, has reflected as a line struggle. However, the hidden and the open
struggle in the leadership results from previous situations. Our party
got to the last phase of the congress/conference process and the
constituents from which it will form its new political,
-ideological-organizational orientation. However, this was sabotaged in
2015 by an opposition act.
This was an opportunity to clarify
Party’s orientation and conduce to a new period however the fact that it
didn’t take place was bad news for our Party. Even though the Party had
been sabotaged by an operation, legally there was not a political
vacuum to tidy up the process. These insecurities and ignored problems
which were taking place in the Party occurred in the leading body.
While the first milestone was the
sabotage of the Party, the second was the problems which broke out in
the leading body. This attitude which has been taking place in leading
body for three semesters didn’t embrace the problems of the Party and
led to “conspiracy, coup, doubt and factionalism” towards the rest of
the members of the leading body in June 2015. This attempt took place in
correspondence with some Party members. The two letters that were sent
addressing CC members had two different contents: the first one was
underlining the importance of solving the problems despite of different
ideas whereas the second one was about how to take control over the
Party, how to organize the coup resulting from the claim of the presence
of spies which is yet to be proven. The arrival of this letter to the
other central committee members in accordance with its natural course,
triggered the crisis in the Party. The central committee members and its
reserve members convened in June in order to discuss how to organize
this period. (The CC member who insisted the most for the meeting to
take place is insincere from a revolutionary aspect because this member
shows this meeting as a reason for dissidence.) In this meeting it was
decided to discuss the topic with the rest of the Party members
regarding the coup attempt demanding self-criticism from the concerned
CC member. In this way, the pro-coup mindset and its conspiracy were
brought into discussion to the Party members.
At the same time in the Party, the
discussion about “working/operation style” and “the method of leading
the process” started as a result of detention of the process. However,
this discussion deviated from the reality of its being a common problem
of the collective leadership and Party cadre and it tried to be
considered in a way that the responsibility will attribute to some CC
members. Also, this was converted into an explicit “attitude” towards
the elected members of CC as “weak in willpower”. On the other hand,
“party members”, who run the discussion, didn’t recognize the willpower
of CC members under the cover of “not being able to gather”. At the same
time, a reserve member who was assigned by the Central Committee
asserted that he was assigned as a CC member. The fact that there was
neither martyrization nor arrest during his reserve membership would
mean that there is no vacant position. Although he was told so, he
insisted on his attitude and this became another problem linked to the
crises in the Party.
At this stage, the current
situation is like that: one of CC member withdrew and moved away from
the struggle. Another one perpetrated a crime by attempting “conspiracy
and coup” and also, he added new ones by writing letters to the fields
of activity. This scene created a problem in gathering in the central
committee de facto but not legally. On the other hand, the problem of a
CC reserve member, who acts with the authority of CC without being a CC
member, appeared. Because of this gathering situation, some party
members derecognised CC members, who tried to extricate the party, on
account of the fact that CC members had no “willpower”. All these scenes
caused a gap between taking up the challenge and irregularity, central
incoordination and dissolution of the Party. Also, some of the people
who derecognised the leadership were in CC reserve membership position.
They declared by their actions that they could not work together with CC
members whom they “don’t like” and “criticised” and announced that they
didn’t derecognise CC.
The debate within the party reached
serious stages in a few months. This serious discussion occurred in
written form. The party clearly faced the crisis of managing the process
and being left without the leading body. In this scene, the necessity
of reshaping the Party willpower healthfully came out. General tendency
of the party was clearing up all discussions and bringing up the subject
to all Party. These discussions, completely and fully, are opened in
accordance with the requirements of the bylaws of the Party and the
purpose of establishing a leading body which will manage the period
wholesomely. We’d like to point out that “the suggestions” which had
been discussed within the process and had been imposed by threatening us
and blackmailing us, became reality and thus the same part tried to
drop it by telling “What was done was a mistake; The leading body had no
power to do these without willpower”. Party CC members made these
discussions, which had become compulsory to explain, public via Party’s
media organ called Communist. While this publication had been preparing,
some part of the opposition made threats as: in a condition of these
not being announced to the party hierarchically, they would do it by
themselves and they would get all the writings and documents out to all
other parties. The most fundamental reason that we call this segment
Trotskyist opposition is this attitude throughout the process. This
attitude continued to happen in each phase of this process. Which we can
describe it as: They opposed to achievements which were done that they
wanted in the first place when they were done by people who they don’t
like. In this respect, they were in a unique effort for maintaining the
opposition of Trotsky.
Finally, in November, the 72nd
issue of Communist has been published. The discussions focused on some
particular points where the minority CC members were leading the
discussion. The first one is to make leadership functional again and the
second one is to strengthen the Party and to enhance this strength
through these discussions within the Party. At the same time these
turned into discussions of solving the problems with the Party by not
giving rise to discuss the leadership. The CC member, who
didn’t give his resignation but broke away from the struggle, and
another CC member who committed, were requested to terminate their
subscription from the Party and PCC membership by submitting evidences.
In this case, a suggestion for the problem of Central Committee’s
willpower –which was de facto and just about to come up juristically as a
result of these investigations, was brought forward by including the
party to the issue. Selected CC members brought forward a proposal by
defining the existed truth without using the CC power for assigning and
replacing members. It was determined that in case of some of the current
reserve members not being in accord with CC members and not showing
willpower to work together then the problem of being able to guide the
process for Party leadership would go on. Accordingly, it was expressed
to the Party that the willpower problem would be solved by assigning
some reserve members to Central Committee and by using this method,
conditions of establishing the Party leadership would be provided de
facto and juristically. He demanded his proposal to be approved by the
Party, by including all Party into this. We would also like to point out
that these reserve members were the ones who weren’t elected in 8th
Conference. They were the members who were assigned by the power of PCC
which was given to them by the Conference. This means that the power of
decision was given to PCC in Conference to assign reserve members in
case they lack original members.
This discussion had started since
November. Our Party could clarify the consequences of this discussion in
September 2016. Till that time, the gap in the leadership brought
responsibility for each CC members to maintain their duties which were
determined by Conference willpower and Party manifesto and to form field
committee in accordance with the hierarchy. However, after telling the
discussions to all Party and after having general ideas, unpleased
people and dissidents who gathered in different motives and approaches,
started to transform the power of dissidence into factionalism. In this context, throughout the period anarchism dominated the party.
While this unity was organising their cooperation secretly, they
continued their attitude by ignoring CC members’ leading based upon the
discussion of the weakness of will.
They weren’t done with this for sure.
These issues were opened to Party militia to whom they trusted by being
undisciplined. In this regard, party alignments started to have full
knowledge of these issues beginning from 2016. Especially, this
abroad-centred faction was caught on the very act with the distributed
documents in the faction meeting in May. The documents which must be read by Party members came out in the hand of our party supporters as a leaflet.
Furthermore, these are the documents which weren’t delivered to Party.
Some Party members and even CC members were able to see those documents
in the leaflets. After this stage in-party discussions spread to all
grassroots under faction mechanism. They organized activities and open
meetings with followers and sympathizers by ignoring leading ship. May 2016 is a big turn for the factionist activities.
Although Party leadership and the group
which was tied to party discipline continued to consider their attitude
which didn’t match up with party mentality and discipline as two-line
struggle. Even though factionalists were establishing their
own discipline, organizational structure and twin controlling, we
insisted and intended on solving the in-party issues and the
leading-will problem. However, the answers of one-sided imparted
knowledge were presented to party alignments by legal signatures in
accordance with party hierarchy and discipline. It was proceeded without
disrupting the unity of Party and the process despite the factionist
activity.
In October 2016, the issue on leading ship which was presented to Party willpower arrived at a solution.
But before that some developments came into question. One of the CC
members who was the subject of an investigation submitted his party
resignation in September 2016. He declared his resignation by giving
this statement: “Any PCC member who was chosen and was accepted as
leader in the 8th Conference has no right and authority to rule the
Party from July-August 2016”. Besides that, by telling the below
sentences in written letters to some fields, they aimed to slide the
Party into chaos: “From July-August 2016 any committee and …… PCC member
has no authority to rule the Party. Particularly …… PCC member, anyone
has right to be in the rule. If “….” visit you and lay down the
law/patronise you, disregard him/ignore him. Neither he nor ……. have any
right in the leading ship. We demand you to behave according to this
knowledge.” (The inappropriate adjectives used for insulting were
removed by us) However, the people with this understanding who thought that all started with them and ended with them forgot the party bylaw.
They ignored on-going discussions- which were going on democratically.
But the provision of our Party bylaw states clearly that with the
resignation CC member doesn’t lose the function. The relevant article in
the bylaw is as below: “If Central Committee cannot overcome the
willpower attenuation in despite of attendance all reserve members one
by one, it may include one third of the original members’ number to its
structure from subordinate organs. After that, in case the problem of
willpower reoccurs, it is consulted to Party willpower for solution
method. In such a resignation case, it is clear that “willpower” will
not be lost and the solution is clear. However, in spite of the bylaw
and process, this separation in the Party was based on this resignation.
Also, in the assessment, which was titled as Common Statement Towards
Faction Discussions and which was signed by the Middle East Region
Committee, dated on 10th February of 2017; TMLGB
(Marxist-Leninist Youth Union of Turkey –Türkiye Marksist Leninist
Gençlik Birli?i in Turkish, abbreviated as TMLGB); Women Committee;
International Bureau, Temporary Abroad Committee and …. Committee, it is
stated that “Starting from September 2016, due to the resignation
and in accordance with the relevant article of our bylaw, Central
Committee lost its willpower and anybody has the authority to sign and
act on behalf of Central Committee. Because of that from this date on,
the statements made and decisions taken with the name of CC are not
valid.” The attitude itself is against to the Party and is an
“anarcho- liberal” battle against provisions of Party bylaw and its
approaches not to let the Party without a leading-ship.
Just because we do not accept this approach and we stick to our Party’s
bylaw, our Party is being accused, being convicted to be the reason of
this separation! Even this factionist group is accusing us of leaving
the Party simply because we are being loyal to the Party bylaw.
The Party reached a decision in the
resulted investigation and in the discussion of power-will in October.
The Party took back the authority of these CC members who were under
investigation. In the willpower discussion, %50 supported the proposal
of the rest of the members in the 8th Central Committee; %38 proposed all members’ attendance; %12 upheld establishing a new leading-ship. In this scene Party leading-ship finalised it by enrolling some PCC reserve members as PCC members.
However, any sections who follow factionists declared that they didn’t
recognize this result. In spite of all convincing efforts and meetings,
they defended that there is not a CC anymore and Party should organize
itself as regional ruling period. In spite of majority of
the Party, this “regional period” understanding was imposed to the
Party. Additionally, in case this was not accepted, they stated that
they will run this regional period with the ones who agreed with them.
Despite all, they were invited to discuss these and to find new solutions to unite
them in the context of: a separation in this way will have a negative
and destructive effect in public opinion and won’t create a healthy
discussion platform; a separation in this way does not match with
Party’s two-line struggle; this will result in excessive fascism attacks
and all these above will demoralize people. Within this scope on the 20th
November, party members who have different perspectives met in order to
find new solutions to the problems. There was a common solution and
this was formed as a written protocol. According to it, will-power of
the Party was discussed in C-73 issue. The willpower which was formed
and resulted by %50 votes in favour didn’t give possibility of de facto
to our action and will-power unity with the objection of the other %50.
However, the solution was embodied with an offer which is: in order to
overcome the crisis and enter into the K process, they give their
consent to assign PCC reserve member. This proposal was delivered to the
supporters. The factionist- troublemaker PCC reserve member
refused the solution proposal which was accordant with the bylaw. On
the other hand, PCC stated that if the protocol built the unity, they
would accept this offer. After this rejection, all discussions went back
to the beginning and “the condition of entering the regional period
because of not having a CC” became the main topic again. That means
solutionlessness was imposed on the Party in the phase of the solution.
This attitude which stipulates contravening the bylaw and Party
understanding was not accepted. It was stated that “by not taking his
responsibility on duty, the Party wasn’t in the position of having any
other alternative; the problem was solved with other reserve members’
positive attitudes on duty and this was indicated clearly.” However, all
these warnings, based on bylaw were denied by factionists and the party
members who signed the protocol on the 20th November. The climax was
when the party members who didn’t stand behind their signature. These
members who -in the meaning of organizational power- are the main and
the central part of the factionism didn’t use this power and potential
to provide Party’s unity. They surrendered to their stakeholders with
whom they share a common fate, to their petit bourgeois arrogances, to
their lumpen approaches.
The factionists who constituted their
own organization and who established their own hierarchy by ignoring the
other Party powers reconstituted GYDK (Temporary Abroad Committee) in
spite of YDK (Abroad Committee) which have been active for 1,5 years.
Then it declared itself disgracefully in December. We called it
disgracefully because instead of declaring itself, it preferred to make a
statement with GYDK signature by using the 19th December,
Maraş and Roboski massacres. Using this signature and declaring to the
public means that: there are two committees in TKP/ML and they declare
that they separated de facto. Again, despite to all these declarations, a
new meeting was demanded on the 17th December to build the unity and it occurred. In this meeting we came to a mutual agreement: 1) We support the 20th
November proposal. 2) Persuasion process of the comrade …… (the PCC
reserve member to whom the proposal was made) will go on. In the case
that comrade wouldn’t accept the proposal, the approach of uniting GYDK
will be preserved because the problem of action and will-power unity
will go on. The activities will perform in the charge of …… However,
when the person who signed this agreement delivered it to his
stakeholders, they again denied this agreement with the known motives.
In the result of each meeting in about
two months, each common solution failed because of uncompromising
attitude. Our Party under these circumstances would either bow to the
corruption or behave like a Bolshevik Party by sharing these with the
public. Our Party preferred to wait until the end of January with the
possibility of preventing the declaration of the separation. However, at
the end of January 2017 the factionist understanding was proclaimed. On
the 11th February the lumpen- intellectual factionists chose
to reverse the truth once more in their statements which was signed by 6
committee: “Contrary to the ones who wrote this statement and grew up
in our Party, we won’t continue to discuss it more because the efforts
of uniting the Party does not come to a conclusion.” This is a sign of a
sneaky attitude which is sick from lumpenism; is sworn for manipulation
and in an attempt to seem cute to the public. After our declaration to
public, they managed to show themselves as unionist and us as separatist
by ignoring all internal Party discussion.
Our Party, once again, demanded a
meeting for the sake of providing the unity despite of all the problems,
all humiliating manipulations, all lies and cheats. In PCC’s meeting
with Dersim Party Committee, they decided to give another chance to meet
for Party unity. It was denied by the factionists and their reaction
was: “Do a self-criticism and return the sections and then we will meet
you.” They didn’t even bother to meet. The people who made propaganda as
they wanted to unite and try to protect the unity showed their attitude
in this protection. So, our last move which aimed to unite the Party
again and which carries the responsibility of revolution was rejected in
the phase of an attempt by the factionists.
Right here and now it is important to
consider why our Party tolerated these lumpen- intellectuals and
autonomous and anarchist approaches in the organisational context. There
is a perception as how factionists wanted to unify the Party whereas
they made us seem as if we are in favour of separation. This perception
was related not only to factionist’s hypocrisy and lies but also to the
fact that Party was being patient and not behaving impetuously about
expressing itself. Because the path of being a Party and revolution is a
toilsome and long way. Each step has to be taken with patience and
caution. Hurriedness of petit bourgeois, plans to create a legitimacy
field by leaning back on someone -even cyclically-,
victimization will cause to grow and deepen the problem, also to spread
insecurity to all sides. Our Party tolerated all of these because the
matter was party understanding, the comprehension of two-line struggle
and the responsibility of revolution. Each of these are the basis of our
ideology, reasons for our being. In spite of all defamatory campaigns,
gossips, casting doubts on the Party and its cadre, the Party and its
leadership are calm and has the responsibility of maintaining the unity
of the Party. The toleration of the Party results from this
consciousness. Facing with party problems in a correct platform will
extend the possibilities of making a true move. Our Party searched all
possibilities to face with the factionists in a common
ideological-political-organizational platform. Our Party considers the
comprehension of two-line struggle and its own understanding as the
guarantee of party unity. In this context these kinds of periods will be
litmus paper in the attitude of two-line struggle. Our Party is loyal
to the approach of “Party is not a union of factionists.” However, in
the solutions of these kinds of contradictions, our Party prefers to
focus on liquidationism in factionalists’ party understanding, its line
and its organisation understanding instead of organizational
liquidation. Also, it maintains this by trying to include it into
two-line struggle. Our Party’s tolerant approach, its attempts to
provide the unity and its concerns about meeting in a common platform
mustn’t be perceived as its weakness and lack of self-confidence. Our
Party is one of the candidate party to reach revolution as a leading
staff for proletariat and labourer people from different nationalities.
These efforts in order to solve problems in our sides should be
perceived as a sensitivity to protect the values and the old and
faithful followers who have made great efforts in years for the Party. Our
Party sees the party idea in this way which sees the difficulty of
conducting a struggle, which comprehends the faction as its own product,
which believes to solve problems where it occurs. Because of all these,
we handled the subject as a struggle of providing the unity with the
dialectic-materialist understanding.
However, it is understood that there is
an understanding which goes along with the Party in the same path as a
burden. We are face to face with a petit bourgeois understanding which
shows itself bigger than it is by spreading lies and after that believes
its own illusion and also which sees our Party’s concerns about
maintaining the unity as a weakness. Beyond these, we are facing with an
understanding which is spoilt and unserious about Party problems, which
is anti-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist in two-line struggle, which is
self-centred and liberal and which prefers to have petit bourgeois’
autonomous understanding to the discipline of Bolshevik Party. All these
approaches, by becoming their character in the period of discussions,
produced themselves again and again and became systematic. The lumpen
structure in the efforts of being intellectual of petit bourgeois, found
its space in the factionists’ approaches to the problems as a class
character.
Their political and ideological forming
and their world opinion led them and formed them in the struggle with
the problems and also in the organizational struggle. The most important
problem of factionism in politics is eclecticism. Actually, the ability
of considering the problems holistically and tackling the issue
integrally became indistinct. Also, its political line was afflicted
with this eclecticism. Especially, while handling the problems of the
Party and its leadership, this disease took over the control. Dominant
perception is to think about the problems in certain periods or to
arrogate it to certain organs. While defending this eclectic party line
in its politic, it drifted away from the party line and was present in
this political attitude. The factionalism is a coalition where people
who own different political programmes, who think and live differently
from each other. It has an eclectic programme which has a necessity to
find a common point with an open temporary agreement. It has neither
patience in party line nor courage in its own line. It creates the
freedom and democracy of speech which everyone defends. This eclecticism
is objective and its existence lean on sustaining it. An opposite
attitude forces it to face the reality which will ruin it and take it
apart. In this context, its party understanding and its struggle
programme can seem as eclectic and sectional. The base of being an
organization and acting as an organization do not exist. While the
Temporary Abroad Committee (GYDK) was declaring itself as Abroad
Committee (YDK) – they removed “temporary” because they established the
Organizational Committee (ÖK)-, at the same date the people in Dersim
who stood with the factionists gave a statement as declaring themselves
as Temporary Dersim Party Committee. Their presence was based on the
reality of being far away from the dynamics of field action; from the
seriousness of the comprehension of Party Committee and Guerrilla Unit.
This situation is neither a simple organizational problem nor
miscommunication matter. It is the matter of acting without thinking. A
devoid of common party understanding, approach and operation;
unseriousness and regionalism always come our way in each phase.
Also, in this eclecticism there are
problems such as defending the separation of ideology and politics;
discussing “strategic” tendency with “tactic” theory under the cover of
finding a way to make it happen; defending the new one without analysing
different ideas despite of comprehending the flow; embracing the
experiences top down which violates the struggle idea.
The main and major problem of the
factionist understanding which was derived from the Party is seeing that
the Party’s political baseline doesn’t match with its class interests
and world perspective. It is in tendency to get rid of its burden which
will prevent of bringing itself into being and its bounds. These all
characteristics was in its background.
It had grown inside our Party as a
defective unit in accordance with the today’s zeitgeist. They are the
footprints of the people who say “We need to say something different
now”. That is why their strongest criticism to the Party is dogmatism.
This is because their assessments of socio-economic structure of
countries, their method of classifying social classes, their relations
with mass organization, their alliance policy and strategical
orientation of the revolution are afflicted with the idea of “saying
something different”. From this point of view the most important and
serious problem in political cleavages with the factionists is about the
separation in the matter of leadership. The factionist understanding
doesn’t consider it harmful to comprehend the Party as a simple medium
of class struggle and to position it in this manner.
The discussions regarding the opinion of
the Party on its programmes, the current situation of the press of the
Party, the discussions between the mass organizations and the Party,
analysis of the government and the political argumentations of their
attitude based on the “Constitutional” referendum and especially the
HBDH (Peoples’ United Revolutionary Movement) case within the Party are
the reasons for which we are demanding a changeover.
The HBDH case which is a huge discussion
within the Party is a political-ideological line separation. However,
the emergence of the putschist and the factionist attitude throughout
the organisation process is very important. It was revealed during the
organisation process of HBDH that this factionist attitude has been
taking place in a coordinated manner in this formation by ignoring the
CC members and some parts of the Party. The factionists who had
undermined the hierarchy of the Party since the very beginning by
exchanging information between them and the people who gathered around
the factionalist understanding used the Party’s signature within the
HBDH formation. This situation which is against the way that the Party
functions is undeniably clear.
The discussion regarding HBDH programme
clarifies the line separation within the Party despite the attempts of
concealing. In the following period, it was clear that they didn’t agree
on the topics like Party leadership role, on politics of front, on
Rojava, on regional and country level revolution and on Kurdish national
issue. The suggestions which have been made regarding the changeovers
were under the cover of criticism of dogmatism and changing conditions
have been an obstacle for our Party. Our party has put an end to the
discussions about the reason why our Party left HBDH, the fact that HBDH
had aims beyond the unification of actions in other words the
discussions which was about HBDH corresponding to a front organization.
We are not going to repeat the declaration which we have made before.
However, the essential historical role
of the Communist Party is not giving up on the theory which is shaped
according to the interests and the ideological positioning of the
proletarian class. Any act to overshadow this, would mean that the
political party will distant itself from its historical role. This
factionist approach tries to simplify the leading role of the Party and
to isolate it from its historical role and to prompt people to change
with the mood of the political failure of the proletarian. This approach
was dominant in the HBDH discussions. They had an attitude of
restraining such an important topic to an organisational field but it
was them who blamed us for their organisational crimes which were
committed while joining into HBDH. However, by doing so and they tried
to cover up once more the line separation that is going on.
This is because the front issue is
directly related to the political leadership problem. It is one of the
medium of establishing the communist party leadership. In this
discussion we were dealing with the party’s leadership role and its
mission whereas they opportunistically tried to cut its connection with
reality by saying that “this is not front”. Straightforwardly they did
the math of hiding the political-ideological problems and clearing of
the Party from its leadership role.
The source of their deviation in the
political line of right liquidationism is their approach which denies
the role of Party leadership. The distrust to communism and to the
organisation which would make communism stable lies at the root of the
problem. Their criticism of “powerless power fantasies” regarding the
class struggle in our first declaration on faction fits in this context.
It took its strength from an ideological stance which became
distrustful to power struggle instead of discussing the Party leadership
in a correct line, building it and strengthening it or getting to the
crux of the problems which derived from universal and authentic
conditions. Our Party doesn’t defend itself as it is in a good point in
power struggle and leading. Our Party accepts that we have problems; we
couldn’t handle these problems; we are in ideological-political
recession and we couldn’t manage to convince the masses by foreseeing
the flow of the political process. However, these don’t mean that the
problem should be searched in its communist characteristics and
qualifications or in its model which aims to take over the power. This
does not lead us to the conclusion of postponing the party’s argument
nor giving up. If this happens then the Party is no longer a communist
Party. It can even be said that the main source of our problem is being
not able to clear up the growing distance between claiming the power and
the leadership within the Party. In that aspect, one of the most
important features which a Communist party should preserve is its
mission and its historical role. If this feature is lost then it results
in bigger line separation within the Party. At the end of the day the
political line is essential and determinant in struggle. If there is an
understanding which loses its line and acts like a chameleon or stands
with great powers, these show that it is weak in historical dialectic
understanding of M-L-M; in defending the proletariat struggle in hard
conditions and in uniting the other friends and allied parties in
communist party line. These are the signs of right liquidationism which
tries to save the day.
This right wing
liquidationist factionalism attacks to the Party’s communist essence
under the cover of dogmatism. These attacks are nothing new. This right
wing liquidationism is just a spoiled, ignorant and a bad copy of the
ideological attacks which have been made to Ibrahim Kaypakkaya and to
Maoism. The relation between the original liquidationist attacks and
the factionist attitude is in its natural flow. They are in solidarity
with each other and forming an ally against the Party.
This approach and attitude pose a
serious danger by presenting it as partisanship for party. It is
destitute of declaring an honest and a clear political line. What is the
thing they attack as dogmatism while telling the change constantly? The
only point that they refer on this topic is the approach on Kurdish
national issue. The factionists have used Rojava issue as an elevator
for their sake while positioning themselves in “United Kurdistan”
implicitly. They have shyly expressed their tendency to the theory of
regional revolution and have told that opposite approaches would have
difficulty to understand the new aspects of regional contradictions and
Kurdish national issue. In this regard the factionists have been
targeting the Party line with a baseless “social chauvinism” criticism.
It must be known that our Party, while leaving the HBDH, didn’t and
cannot evaluate the political leading of PKK as a problem. It took it in
principal base and evaluated its own attitude at the core of its
programmatic views. Again, our not being in Rojava has been used as our
insensitivity in the struggle of the Kurdish national issue by the
factionalists. Whereas our Party sees and defends being in Rojava as an
international solidarity. Our Party forces in Rojava took sides with the
factionists in the discussion within the Party; this is the situation.
It is still our duty to be with our comrades and allied revolutionary
forces who are in abroad and Rojava and to position behind the front.
This has nothing to do with HBDH. From past to today, our
Party has a common struggle perspective, strong relations and alliances
with Kurdish national struggle by expressing our ideas explicitly and by
keeping our line and by criticising. We fought together in the same
guerrilla units and lost our comrades in this fight, so it will be.
However, this doesn’t mean that we won’t criticise the line of Kurdish
national move and their tendency. The relation of friendship is as a
common struggle against the enemy, and as a political-ideological
struggle with each other. This line which has been followed by our Party
since the beginning faced with the liquidationism as a result of the
faction.
But that was not the only thing that
they are trying to liquidate regarding the Kurdish issue. At the same
time, the leadership role of the party in solving the national problem
of Turkey Kurdistan was facing liquidationism. In that aspect, a
separation like “Democratic Autonomy in Kurdistan, Democratic Popular
Revolution in Turkey” is supported by this factionist approach. This is
nothing other than giving up one’s own identity, one’s revolutionary
programme and one’s claims. Moreover, it means an acceptance of the
ideological-political core of Democratic Autonomy, which is rejected by
our party. The claim to take the leadership role in the Kurdish National
Issue is a programmatic position of our party. Which part of Kurdistan
that concerns is obvious and indisputable. Our Party defends the right
of nations to self-determination as a revolutionary solution in national
issue; accepts the democratic popular revolution as its party programme
and is responsible to set out its principles and policy to accomplish
this goal. An idea which denies all these by embracing and defending the
programme of “national liberation” corresponds to a principal
deviation. Being allied with this movement or having a common struggle
with it was not the matter. This was about adopting a way of struggle
which the Party does not support by giving up on its own programme. The
right-wing liquidationist faction was representing this specific
attitude within the Party. In that aspect, it also highlighted one more
time the liquidationism towards the Party’s political separation line
which corresponded to social chauvinism in political line and had been
refined ideologically on the basis of the rejection of the right of
self-determination.
The right-liquidation factional
mentality also suffers from a reformist attitude and perspective. The
factionist approach especially towards the Party’s political separation
line makes the tendency to this political feature inevitable and because
it can be seen that reformism is spreading on an international scale.
The effects and reflections of this strong ideological wave unfolded by
imperialism after the fall of the Russian Social Imperialism in the 90s
continue today in various new forms. The movements which were first
affected in this period were the revisionist movements that considered
Russian social-imperialism as “socialist.” However, this period was not
limited with only these people. There were many more aspects to this
such as the fact that the working class and the oppressed were affected
very deeply just like their struggle. The revolutionary and the
communist movements were not in a strong position in terms of the
ideological-political and organisational effectiveness and they drew a
line of defence that was limited to be insisting on revolutionary and
communist positions. Certainly, this attitude and positioning were very
important, considering the characteristics of that time. However, this
counter-revolutionary wave was not enough to satisfy the needs of the
class struggle at an organisational, ideological and political level. As
a result, this situation which appeared as a liquidation in the class
struggle, affected naturally revolutionists as well as the communists.
At an international scale, the political streams like reformism and
consociationalism had distanced themselves from ideas like dictatorship
of proletariat, political power and armed revolution and developed
itself by fighting against them at the ideological level. This
ideological break weakened the belief in socialism and in the revolution
and had resulted in a stream where individualism was considered as a
solution. Any difficulty in organizing broad masses for the cause of
communism and socialism, any theoretical and ideological problem in
encountering these difficulties, increased the influence of the break
and the liquidation. These processes clarify the new one as well as
making the innovative attempts which aim to solve the problems
inevitable. Certainly, such times require an openness that understands
the qualities and character of the process, without abandoning the
fundamental principles. Without performing this task, it is impossible
to raise the awareness of the working class and oppressed workers and to
prepare them for the revolutionary struggle. During these processes
revisionism, reformism and any kind of anti-MLM movements are effective
and have a determinant effect on the masses. Every argument in favour of
Marxism and any statement which claims that the class struggle is
necessary have even a greater impact and power on the revolutionists.
However, in case of not subjected to a well-founded MLM criticism, they
form the breeding ground for all the toxic and harmful ideas of the
time.
The political failure on an
international scale resulted in the questioning of a stronger political
line. During these periods, the opinions which were successful in the
struggle of freedom and rights tend to become in the centre of the
attention. Their ideological, philosophical and intellectual influence
becomes more effective. In our country, above all, the PKK’s resilience
in the national liberation struggle against all attacks and
extermination operations and their development, despite the defeat
phase, increased the influence of their paradigm which developed in
accordance with the spirit of the times. The Kurdish National Movement
has formed a paradigm not only relating to the Kurdish nation’s freedom
but also relating to a universal social liberation. This movement has
influenced the communist and the revolutionary movement as much as the
intellectuals and highbrow people by their analyses of the problems of
socialism and by the conclusions that it draws from these problems. This
paradigm determined a fundamental line that disregarded power, rejected
the dictatorship of the proletariat, focused on a compromise policy,
defined peace as a goal to be achieved, defended common life awareness
of the classes in their democratic coexistence. Even though it
formulates this through the legitimacy of self-defence form, its real
orientation is based on the coexistence of hostile classes based on
peace and compromises. It admits the existence of both the compromises
and the conflicts however it argues that the essential dynamic is the
conciliation and not getting into conflicts. In other words, it
systematizes a philosophy which considers the conciliation as the main
way and the conflicts as a secondary road in the relationship between
things. This approach is in line with the international trend, which is
based on a compromise between classes.
All these factors raised the rates of
profit and intensified exploitation through infinite and limitless
freedom of movement of capital and goods for imperialist global
monopolies. Also, the reduction of bureaucracy in the superstructure
institutions of all states and the strengthening of “civil society”
increased the legitimacy of “bourgeois systems” in the eyes of the
masses. This situation was manipulated by claiming that it increases the
“participation” and “control” role of the masses through a civil
society attitude to the social issue. As a result, there was also a
situation as state approval of “freedom” as long as it remained within
the system, not based on violence and not interested in power. Above
all, a policy concept spread to wage class struggle without seeking the
seizure of power, to stay away from power even by legal and
parliamentary means, and to achieve goals by mass organizations; and a
political climate emerged that is dominated, determined and shaped by
this concept. This situation created an idea and a political formation
that considers the leadership and avant-garde unnecessary and assumes
the possibility of a struggle without a power perspective. This differs
greatly from the classical “reformism” and “economism” and corresponds
to the concept of “civil society”, which represents an ideological
attack, which limits the masses to control and limited
social-economic-political-democratic demands and perspective of taking
the power.
It was impossible for our
party to completely escape the influence of this extensive
ideological-political climate. It should be stressed at this point that
the most affected party members by this attack in our Party was the
people who were the right-liquidation faction. The inadequacy of
organizing the revolution and mobilizing the masses in the long history
of the Party not only created distrust of our line, but also created a
form which is anarchistic and autonomous in their organizational
understanding; is liberal and reformist in political formation under the
influence of the above-mentioned political climate. This is a political
formation representing the petty bourgeoisie, which let alone grasping
the role of the masses; rejects a policy appropriate to its will and its
demand for power and sanctifies a fragmental and spiritual combat
perspective. So, this is the breeding ground of right-wing liquidation
and one of the ideological-political formations and perspectives that
grip the party and its line as an obstacle and a burden on their
shoulders and insist on going their own way. The right-wing liquidation
can and, more importantly, does not want to be free from its influence.
These ideological, political, and
organizational causes and purposes ushered in a process that prevented a
healthy course of the two-line struggle within our party and made the
split tendency a concrete and fundamental one. Certainly, our Party and
party leadership could not handle this process in a healthy way. Great
difficulties arose in assessing party reality and the dimensions of
ideological-political diseases within the Party and their reflection in
organizational units. The influence of these tendencies has been
trivialized. And they did not manage to deal with them during the
process. After all, the factional mentality is a product of the party.
According to the reality of party’s being a course for the class
struggle, not being prepared the whole party for the worsening class
struggle and not doing the requirements for this, problems accumulated
and the domination problem deepened. Despite all its shortcomings and
mistakes, and although some of the liquidators’ weaknesses also exist in
the party, our party has fought a battle to defend its communist line.
It insisted on continuing this struggle both in terms of its party and
organizational understanding as well as its general political line and
ideological attitude. The party view, the two-line struggle within the
party, and the general political line are issues of strategic relevance
to communists. The party has shown an attitude to preserve this to the
extent that its strategic relevance has been grasped. However, during
this process it also became apparent that the party and its leadership
had inadequacies in understanding and resolving these issues. Our party
is claimant, decisive and insistent to use that fact as a lever for its
further development.
At this stage, our Party thinks that the
factionists made their own way irreversibly with their own discipline,
their own rules, their mentality and the “organizational structures”
they have created. In this regard, the factionist attitude has left our
Party and now is an external fact. The demand of this factionist
attitude for “unity” was a kind of “petty bullying” from the beginning
which was just an attempt to trick the public opinion and was trying to
take advantage of the reaction of the mass and the party grassroots.
This is contradictory to their political position and it is definitely
not honest. All the attempts aiming to hold the Party together was made
by our party and its leadership. The factionist attitude didn’t not play
a single role in holding the party together. While the Party and its
leadership was trying to hold the party together, this factionist
attitude was dealing with conspiracies, coup, and creating doubts within
the Party. At the same time, they were creating their own organisation
within the Party. This is crystal clear and has been clearly
demonstrated at every stage of the process and proved with documents.
At this point we have to respond to the
allegation that the party allegedly used violence. That’s not true. Our
party has not determined a violent policy in this separation. It did not
publicize the tension inherent in the nature of this process with a
miserable and cheap policy. But the faction which is deprived of
revolutionary culture prompted our Party to be isolated and be exposed
by the aspersion of using revolutionary violence. The matter of taking
the office was a right that our party was entitled to. It was a task
change and we acted accordingly. Apart from the fact that no force was
used, no resistance came from the other side, which could have led to
violence. The party leadership is the right holder and the authorized
unit to initiate such a task change. In addition, in that time the
separation was not clearly decided and the struggle against the faction
still was on going. Moreover, a series of tension arose during the
process. Also, there were actions against us which ranged to violence.
However, our party history clearly shows that such friction and tension
can occur at such times. We did not think that was a problem, did not
think that the other side had a violent policy, and did not make it
public, because if we had acted that way, we would not have told the
truth. Nevertheless, we would like to emphasize once again that in these
frictions also came violence against our comrades. There was one event
that could be called violence, and it was the result of a spontaneous
tension. That does not refute our general policy. On the contrary, this
event, which is an exception, confirms the general line, considering the
friction that occurred during the process.
The factionists’ efforts to persuade
other revolutionary and progressive parties and movements by claiming
that we were violent, were to some extent fruitful. At this point, our
party could not explain itself sufficiently, because couldn’t set up the
necessary networking. We admit our deficiency. However, by just
listening to the matter unilaterally and by ignoring the tension which
may be expected in such processes and by adding fuel the flames, the
parties and the organizations which act and struggle with revolutionary
goals maintained their attitudes which is “political opportunism” and an
idealism that revealed itself in the form of its treatment of
contradictions. We evaluate these attitudes as neither constructive nor
reparative, but as destructive and diffuser of revolutionary distrust.
Our party faced much greater and more direct violence during the 1994
separation. However, at that time neither did the two sides gossip about
it nor did they condescend to a policy of exposure and isolation which
would embarrass our Party. Once again, a greater sense of revolutionary
responsibility was evident in revolutionary movements. The seriousness
and responsibility of the revolutionaries should entail that one obtains
complete knowledge of the matter by listening to both sides, and then,
if a position should be taken based on that very knowledge. While some
of our revolutionary friends tackled this matter with seriousness and
positioned themselves accordingly, others with the least attitudes and
behaviour and pragmatism preferred to increase our problems. But it is
true that these attitudes planted the seeds of mistrust between
movements and parties that today cultivate solidarity with one another.
Because of the fact that the revolutionary process is not a process just
happen today. It has never seen in the history that a relationship
based on temporary interests and calculations could survive. That will
continue to be the case.
Since this is relevant in this regard,
we would like to take this opportunity to address our party’s position
on the battlefield/land. The factionists also were organized among our
guerrilla forces in Dersim, but could not achieve much success. Finally,
there was also “a separation based on fractionism”. How did our party
organization and forces behave? This vanishingly small and powerless
group was not subjected to any particular isolation, on the contrary
they were given weapons and logistics, provisions and all technical
mediums and so the separation was peaceful on that stage. In this
context, an attitude was observed that corresponded to the general line
of our party. And what have the factionists, which has no idea of its
own organization, done in this process? They tried to provoke political
organizations and our party base by telling them that they were worried
about the lives of their friends in the said area, did not receive any
news from them, etc. An attitude that their own inability to communicate
with their own organizational structures, to blame the Party should
serve as a negative example. While they were doing this propaganda, a
statement by the “Temporary Party Committee – Dersim” appeared in the
media. So, the factionists could experience the line of their own
organizational structure. What we know for certain is that political
organizations and our base would be provoked with quite a big shout
against the party if that statement had not reached the media. While our
party was acting responsibly and with revolutionary concerns, the
factionists didn’t want to give up its propaganda that stirred mistrust
of the party. This is a “political style”, but a rotting and degenerate
one.
In the end, the factionists, which we
have long described as a right-wing liquidation group, took the form of a
separate “organization”. It publishes central statements under the name
“Organizing Committee” (ÖK) and seems to have its own hierarchy. The
separation was complete and final in all areas. Given this fact, the
class character of this faction is THE RIGHT WING OF THE URBAN PETIT
BOURGEOISIE. This class character is essentially a consuming one. It has
a structure which is isolated from production and the masses, which
would like to be intellectual and arrogant, but at the same time which
becomes lumpen. Its political line has liquidation-opportunist and
reformist tendencies. Its organizational line is autonomous, random and
anarcho-liberal. Its liquidation is essentially based on the erosion of
the Party’s ideology and political leadership.
For this reason, from now on, our party
will no longer call it a FRACTION but a right-liquidatorial
petty-bourgeois movement. The fact that our party ceases to define it as
a faction is linked to its policy, which determines our view and
attitude towards this group. Our party does not want to impose a ban on
this group, nor does it consider it a group that could not be cooperated
with. Our Part sees it as an element and supporting subject of the
class struggle, as one of the forces in the people. Here again we
declare that the general political line, orientation and organizational
concept of this group has nothing to do with our party TKP/ML. The right
thing and the scientific thing would be that this group would rename
itself to cause no confusion in public. Certainly, they possess a right
to decide for themselves what they represent. But they should do their
naming according to the fact that they have left our party.
The relationship between this group and
our Party will not be tight due to a series of unsightly, stressful and
distrust-based events. But in general, we have no fundamental attitude
to rule out cooperation. Judging them as one of the forces of the people
does not requires that we treat them as if nothing had happened, or
that we sympathize with their destructive attitude towards the party or
regard it as any party or organization. However, all of our forces need
to realize that we need to say goodbye to an escalation-based policy as
soon as possible, remove the issue as quickly as possible from our
party’s agenda, and not treat it as an internal issue. Our struggle
against this movement will continue on a political-ideological basis, as
well as ideologically and practically on every front. Our Party forces
should remove this movement as quickly as possible from their agenda and
focus on the class struggle to create a line that meets the
revolutionary needs of the working class and oppressed sections of the
population. Our party should adopt an approach that compensates for the
loss of power due to the separation by focusing on organizing in the
areas where the party is weakened and re-organizing in the lost areas.
The parts of our base that remained on the side of the right-wing
liquidators should be persuaded in time by a long-term and proper
revolutionary practice and be won back for the ranks of the party. This
is a process that includes the ideological-political struggle. Our
relations with the parts of our base that are on the side of the said
group should intensify and become more convincing.
Now this group has nothing to do with
the problems of our party. They should stop their behaviour that spreads
distrust in our party and its cadres, and stop spreading defamations
and rumours. No matter who spreads rumours and mistrust, our party will
not be silent. Any rumour and denunciation that goes beyond the bounds
of ideological and political criticism is treated as a
counterrevolutionary activity. No matter who it is, whether
“connectionless” or “connected”, our party will not stand by silence.
Acting with a revolutionary sense of responsibility in this respect, it
will be possible to create a foundation that is focused on the duties
and requirements of the revolution, that will not mistrust revolution
and revolutionaries, and that will not give the enemy an opportunity to
provoke. That’s what the revolution and the people need. Suspecting an
outside party or organization and its cadres, spreading rumours about
them and denouncing their cadres are not parts of revolutionary acts.
Our party feels and bears this responsibility from the beginning. We
have the right to expect the same sensitivity from everyone.
Even if this separation gives the
revolutionary public, our people and the international proletariat a
negative image of the loss of power, our party is in possession of the
willpower to overcome the destruction that was caused by the group,
which is no longer a part of our party structures. Our Party had
experienced separations and withdrawals with more serious consequences,
that’s why its experience and knowledge are high and also it has the
capacity to tackle these issues. Nobody should doubt that.
Our Party, the leading communist staff
of the international proletariat in Turkey and Turkey Kurdistan, by
dressing its wounds, by overcoming its inadequacies, by gathering its
forces and by leaping into the class struggle against the enemy will
continue its revolutionary duties and its struggles for the cause of
popular democracy, socialism and communism in Turkey. It is able to
create this historical necessity.
Long live our party, the TKP/ML and the under its leadership TIKKO and TMLGB!
TKP/ML-MK
(Central Committee of the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist)
October 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment