
e Have Not Forgotten May 18, and We Will Not Let It Be Forgotten!
İBRAHİM KAYPAKKAYA IS OUR COMPASS!
It has been 53 years since the
assassination of the communist leader İbrahim Kaypakkaya. This
period of time—long for a human life but short for societies—has
validated a significant portion of the theses İbrahim Kaypakkaya put
forward. The class struggle and social practice have more than
sufficiently confirmed the views he defended as a young communist
leader. History has proven İbrahim Kaypakkaya right. As his
successors, we continue to draw inspiration from his struggle and
expand his legacy by internalizing his stance toward life—the very
stance that enabled him to create miracles.
The 1960s and ’70s were years
when political, social, and national liberation struggles developed
and intensified, both globally and in our country. The momentum
gained in ’68 had, by the time the ’70s arrived, undergone a
qualitative leap within the framework of political struggle; the
tools, methods, and paths of political struggle underwent a radical
transformation. The youth’s struggle merged and developed with the
spontaneous actions of the working class, peasant masses, and the
laboring people as a whole.
The “1971 Armed Revolutionary
Uprising” was a revolutionary breakthrough resulting from this new
search for and understanding of political struggle, and it took place
under conditions where fascist attacks were intensifying. In this
sense, the ’71 uprising was the culmination of the
anti-imperialist, anti -fascist struggle of the youth—characterized
as the “’68 Generation”—which began in the ’60s, the
working class’s June 15–16 Resistance and increasing strikes,
peasant actions, and the world-shaking impact of the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution—all converged to shatter the
reformist line that had become dominant following the massacre of the
Mustafa Suphi group. This makes the ’71 Uprising a significant
milestone in the history of the Turkish revolution. İbrahim
Kaypakkaya was the communist face of this uprising.
One of the key factors
distinguishing Kaypakkaya from his contemporaries was the lessons he
drew from the developing working-class struggle, particularly the
Great Workers’ Resistance of June 15–16. Drawing on the
experience of this resistance, he clearly demonstrated that the
struggle for power would succeed not through reformist or
parliamentary means, but by organizing the struggle of the masses.
Kaypakkaya did not advocate for the “revolution” (!) of a handful
of intellectuals and the “vital forces” of the army that were in
vogue at the time, but rather for a revolution led by the working
class, grounded in the peasantry, requiring the participation of the
masses, and led by the Communist Party.
In this sense, Kaypakkaya is not a “peasant
revolutionary,” as he has often and mistakenly been portrayed in
propaganda. He emphasized the vanguard and leading role of the
working class in the revolution and defended a line of armed struggle
based on the fundamental worker-peasant alliance under the leadership
of the working class. This was one of the defining points that
distinguished Kaypakkaya from other revolutionary leaders of the
time.
Another key point distinguishing
Kaypakkaya from other revolutionary leaders of the time is his
approach to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR).
Kaypakkaya took a stand in favor of the GPCR, which was a decisive
development for the International Communist Movement of his era. He
adapted the universal lessons of the GPCR to the practice of class
struggle in our region; he concretized this by stating, “Our
Movement is a product of the GPCR.”
Kaypakkaya clearly declared his
stance in the international arena regarding the polarization within
the communist movement between Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and modern
revisionism. Furthermore, in this ideological struggle, he achieved a
definitive break by taking a firm stance against the revisionism and
reformism entrenched within the TKP, fighting these ideologies on the
basis of MLM, and by founding the TKP-ML, he raised the banner of
communism. This point is crucial for understanding Kaypakkaya’s
role within the TDH. His fundamental understanding and orientation
during this process were characterized by a clear stance against
revisionism, the exposure of the true nature of Kemalism, a clear
position and analysis regarding the national question/Kurdish
national question, and a clear stance on issues such as state
analysis and armed struggle.
Theory Derived from the Practice of Class Struggle
The fact that the views Kaypakkaya put forward remain
relevant today is directly linked to his approach to the struggle of
the masses. Kaypakkaya was never a “desk-bound revolutionary”; he
immersed himself in the masses’ class struggle practice at every
opportunity. He was able to synthesize the lessons and experiences
gained from these practices with the science of MLM, the most
advanced science of our era.
From this perspective, we can confidently state that
Kaypakkaya’s theses were shaped within the practice of the masses’
class struggle; as he learned from the masses’ practice, he
synthesized these experiences with the MLM science. His revolutionary
method has ensured that his theses continue to live and exist within
the practice of the masses’ class struggle even today.
For example, his revolutionary
work in the Kurdish provinces led him to advance his theses on the
“National Question” specifically regarding the Kurdish national
issue; subsequent social practice and the development of the Kurdish
national movement have confirmed the importance of these theses.
Kaypakkaya’s approach to the national question—not from the
perspective of the oppressor or oppressed nation, but from the
standpoint of the proletariat’s class interests—has led to a
clear demarcation among those who identify as communists or define
themselves as revolutionaries under today’s conditions.
A similar situation applies to the
evaluation of Kemalism—the official ideology of the Turkish ruling
classes—the definition of the Turkish state apparatus, the
leadership of the Communist Party, the path and methods of the
revolution, and all other such decisive issues.
He approached every contradiction in line with the
interests of the working class and the toiling masses. It can and
must be said that, under today’s conditions, the criterion for
being a communist should be evaluated based on one’s approach to
İbrahim Kaypakkaya’s theses. Because his theses were distilled
from the actions and practices of the masses within the class
struggles of our region.
His ideological development and
the process of concretizing MLM science in our country—beginning
with his involvement in mass struggles within the TİP (Turkish
Workers' Party) ranks, particularly among the student youth; the
intense questioning of the ideology guiding the TİP while he was in
those ranks; his subsequent break with parliamentarism and reformism;
his alignment with the National Democratic Revolution ranks; and his
critical approach to and break from that ideology; followed by the
clarification of the role of the masses in the revolution and his
alignment with the ranks of the Proletarian Revolutionary
Enlightenment, his subsequent break with the Dawn Revisionists—the
successors of this movement—as a result of his critical analysis,
and finally, the presentation of his programmatic theses, all of
which can be summarized as the MLM period.
As can be understood from this, Kaypakkaya carried
out a continuous break with the MLM direction in the practical,
political struggle within the ideology of the working class, the
proletariat; he “discarded the stale and embraced the fresh,”
condemning the forms that bourgeois ideology had taken while breaking
with the past, and advanced continuously through intense struggle.
This is the meaning of his being the communist face of the
Revolutionary movement of Turkey.
Don’t Forget May 18!
İbrahim Kaypakkaya’s
differences are strikingly clear and systematic. In the struggle
between right and wrong, discarding what is wrong and erroneous and
replacing it with what is right; concretizing this in the next
practical orientation; the ability to bring potential, dynamics, and
power to the fore; a practice of work and organization rooted in deep
trust in the masses and a firm belief that the revolution will be the
work of the masses…
All of these are of such value and importance that
they will serve as our compass in every revolutionary practice, large
or small, carried out under today’s conditions. The fundamental aim
of all these revolutionary efforts is to reach, organize, and build
broader masses by adopting Kaypakkaya’s revolutionary method.
The process we are going through
necessitates the task of defending Kaypakkaya’s revolutionary line
against revisionism, all forms of reformism, and parliamentary
illusions, and of forging a revolutionary communist line within the
masses. As preparations for a new imperialist war of partition
accelerate, as the Turkish ruling classes reposition themselves
through NATO meetings in anticipation of this war, and as the
“expiration” of armed struggle is declared, and under conditions
where every revolutionary resistance hub is being targeted for
elimination under the banner of “Turkey Without Terror,” our
compass must be the Kaypakkaya line, and our practical orientation
must be the revolutionary tasks of the moment!
Wherever we are, whatever revolutionary work we
undertake, our motto must be: “Do Not Forget May 18!”
In the words of our Leader, “for
a tighter, stronger, and more resolute struggle”,
with his boldness and courage, let us fan the flames of rebellion
wherever the working masses stand against imperialist wars,
exploitation, and poverty!
İbrahim Kaypakkaya Is Immortal!
Long Live Our Party TKP-ML, TİKKO, KKB, TMLGB
Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!
TKP-ML Central Committee
May 2026
Link:
https://www.tkpml.com/tkp-ml-central-committee-ibrahim-kaypakkaya-is-our-compass/?swcfpc=1