PRESENTATION OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION TO TKP / ML 1st CONGRESS DECISIONS :

TKP / ML was built in 1972 by İbrahim Kaypakkaya by creating programmatic ideas. Representative of Turkey of the international proletariat has thus taken its place in history. After the murder of Mustafa Suphi and his comrades in 1921, the TKP, which anchored in the revisionist-pacifist line, did not play a role in maintaining the communist worldview and class struggle. Kaypakkaya put an end to this 50-year gap by stating that he is the successor of the TKP led by Comrade Mustafa Suphi. About a year after the establishment of the party, Founder and Theorist Leader Kaypakkaya was murdered by fascism. Many leading cadres were arrested. That caused an interruption in the party’s organization and struggle process. Based on the programmatic ideas of Kaypakkaya, the party gathered and organized again in a short time. It has managed to continue its struggle uninterruptedly in line with the line of the People’s War. It has fit 8 conferences in its history, gave hundreds of martyrs and managed to wave the flag of communism in the most difficult times.

In 2019, it held its first congress, where Kaypakkaya’s programmatic ideas were systematized, developed and enhanced. The historical section in which this congress takes place is important. In 2015, with a systematic attack based on the right line, splittist activities within the party started to grow. This splittist activity has acted by trying to turn party law into a means of establishing the right line, taking over the leadership and making its political line dominant. It carried out his work by sabotaging the democratic mechanisms operating with the clamor of “the leadership does not represent the party” “there is unlawfulness in the party” and, ultimately, by not accepting the decisions made with these mechanisms. Leaving the party without leadership, by defending the disorganization that recommends that each committee act as it knows, by defending the class compromising line in alliance policies and current politics, by obscuring the leadership role of the party in the class struggle, it almost entered an orientation by seeing the Communist qualities as an obstacle to development and massification. As a result of the struggle waged by the communists within the party by collecting around the party leadership against this orientation, this right-wing understanding first left the party ranks and then the war ranks with the same speed and established its own structure. On the one hand, the comprehensive attack of the Turkish state and the European imperialists, on the other hand, the attack of this rotten right-wing liquidation inside surrounded the party. The Party managed to hold its 1st Congress under all this wave of siege and attack.

1st Congress is not just a simple organizational and political gathering. This will is the name of the precise and decisive waving of the flag of Communism. The scientific ideas of Comrade Kaypakkaya have been embraced and equipped by preserving the foundations of 47 years of experience, quantitative changes, and social movements. This is a historical achievement as well as a historical move.

The will and attitude of the 1st Congress has been revealed by the decisions in this document. The Congress has clearly declared that it will act in the lightened path of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and that the victory of the People’s War is committed to the organization. The English translation is the aim of disseminating of the congress documents through all available channels for informing and getting criticism and evaluation of the international proletariat, the international parties and organizations that follow and strive to follow its footsteps, all the revolutionary public opinion, the parties and organizations engaged in social and national struggle against imperialism and reactionism,

We present the decisions of the TKP / ML 1st Congress with the hope and purpose of contributing to the class struggle.

ON THE PATH OF THE 1st CONGRESS, GIRD ON PROLETARIAN REVOLUTIONISM, CHALLANGE LIQUIDATIONISM, RAISE THE GUERILLA WARFARE!

Our Party has entered an historical juncture. We held the first congress of our Party that we awaited with hope, excitement and yearning, on the 47th year of its foundation. We greet all our cadres, members, militants and fighters who made it happen, who witnessed this historic moment, who took a role, who contributed to it and allowed it to happen.

Our Congress is the crowning of the accumulation, the claim and the hope that hundreds of martyrs of our Party have created for the future of our Party, for the enhancement of the cause of communism, for the end to the suffering of our toiling people from the Turkish, Kurdish and various nationalities and for the freedom of all oppressed social strata.

Our Congress has an historical accumulation and continuity that allowed hundreds of thousands of people to turn their faces towards it for the hope for the future with thousands of cadres and militants in a duration of 47 years. The founding philosophy, the method, the period of its foundations and historical conditions have determined the essence of our Party. Our leader Ibrahim Kaypakkaya had founded our Party in a period when the class struggle was promoted in an international level, when the revolutionary movement was dynamic and at a time when rich theoretical debates were being held. He has made “the courage and positioning” created by the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, “the destructiveness” of social ideas and attitudes in the international level and revolutionary ideas and attitudes in the national level, “the ideological sharpness” in the polarization and the struggle between the communist camp and the modern revisionist camp in the world scale, “the shakeout” of the ’68 revolutionary movement from the 50 year long pacifism, “the rupturism” of the 15-16^th of June Great Workers’ Resistance and the land squatting of the peasantry, “the directiveness” of the dialectical and historical materialism the foundational bases of our Party. Based on this foundation, our Party has managed to follow a tenacious and challenging line against the organizational liquidation attempts of imperialism and fascism and against the ground that they have created for ideological liquidation for 47 years.

The communist line of our Party has been attacked due to the inevitable result of the two line struggle inside the party by the bourgeois liners for 47 years. There has been no period in which the opportunist-reformist-revisionist attacks against the line of our Party has not existed. Our Party has always managed to avert these attacks with its cadres, militants and sympathizers who are fed with the proletarian revolutionary essence of our Party. AND AT THIS MOMENT WE ENJOY THE WAVING OF THE RED FLAG RAISED BY OUR LEADER COMRADE KAYPAKKAYA ON HIS 70^th BIRTHDAY AND ON THE 46^th YEAR OF THE ANNIVERSARY OF HIS DEATH BY HOLDING OUR CONGRESS WITH THE CLAIM OF BEING WORTHY OF HIM. AND WE DECLARE ONCE MORE: THE GLORIOUS RED FLAG OF THE INTERNATIONAL PROLETARIAT CONTINUES TO BE RAISED IN THE LANDS OF TURKEY WITH THE 1^st CONGRESS OF OUR PARTY

To the Proletariat of Turkey of Turkish, Kurdish Nations and of Various Nations and to our Toiling People;

Our Party held its 1^st Congress at a very compelling and a critical period and juncture. This compelling and critical period both applies to our party and to the forces of the people, as well as to the imperialist-capitalist system and to the fascist dictatorship.

The recklessness of the imperialist-capitalist system in which the imperialist-capitalist system continues to expand its economic-military attacks against the oppressed peoples and the nations of the world and in which they impose the choice of either enslavement or liquidation continues to deepen. The drying influence of the capital that wraps the whole world exposes itself clearly with all its ugliness. The parasitic imperialist capital is concerned with re-producing itself by feeding itself with the blood of the toilers and by draining the power of the all oppressed strata. However this also symbols its crisis-based structure. The imperialist-capitalist system means crisis, war, annexation, high profit and a machine of blood and tears. Today, the power groups of the imperialist system realize their market wars more bloodily, more sharply and more ambitiously. The young and dynamic Chinese social imperialism is increasing the competition by creating an influence at a serious level with its development velocity in its evolution from exporting commodities to exporting capital in the markets of the regressing USA imperialism. The Russian imperialism and the Chinese social-imperialism has created a serious influence in the military-political scene through the alliance that they have established. As the contradictions deepen and the competition embraces a serious character in the “Western imperialist” bloc led by the USA imperialism, the relations between the Chinese social-imperialism and the Russian imperialism becomes stronger. Together with the existing economic-political crisis this situation intensifies the market wars and bring about a reality of a serious conflict-war in all the controversial fields. The Middle East and Africa are the most prominent ones in this conflict zones. Also in Latin America, that is considered to be the backyard of the USA, the US sovereignty is being shaken, and cracks that might lay the ground for social unrests, pursuits and struggles for new balances are being shaped.

This picture of the world is not independent of the course of our country. The reality of semi-colonial, semi feudal economic-social-political structure requires the country to be affected by international circumstances and developments immediately. Together with the political crisis that it is in, the fascist dictatorship continuously increases the level of its attacks and seeks to find a suitable political form in order to make its attacks possible. This search for a form, as it serves the sovereign faction that leads the system to consolidate its power, at the same time instigates a conflict between the sovereign classes. Another phenomenon that contributes to instigate the conflict between the sovereign classes is the intensification of the conflict between the imperialist powers.

But finally the fascist dictatorship that is shaped around the AKP-MHP alliance and led by Tayyip Erdogan has been maintaining its campaign of complete aggression for the last 4 years. The masses of people are under a very intense political assault. It is as if all their basic economic, social and political rights are being usurped and their right to organization is being held down through the laws of fascism, decree-laws, jurisdiction, military, police and the civilian fascist organizations.

There has been a stronger and a more intense attack towards oppressing the revolutionary, progressive and democratic forces. Particularly the movements that are waging armed struggle, the revolutionary forces have come under the attack the most. Our Party too, is greatly a target of this assault. 25 of our comrades have immortalized in this war of destruction and tens of our militants and sympathizers have been arrested.

The Kurdish National Movement and its struggle are among the basic and primary targets of fascism during this period. Particularly the Kurdish guerrilla forces, all the national struggle forces in the legal and the democratic field are being forced to subdue and being tried to be isolated from the other social forces. The Kurdish policy of the fascist dictatorship is in the form of intense political-military assault both inside and outside the country. Together with this orientation, fascism initiated the occupation of Rojava, Afrin has been occupied and other cantons have been tried to be surrounded. However, this picture has not become a relief for the political crisis of the sovereign classes but has become the reason for the re-production of the crisis. The already structural and continuous crisis in the economic field has created a scenery where contradictions of the masses of people with the system has gained new dimensions through the periodic crisis that deepens the political crisis. Within the context of the Kurdish issue and regional developments the fascist dictatorship acts, shapes itself and embraces an orientation while being aware of its existential crisis and juncture. In this sense, the future phases of this period are creating the fertile ground for political and social crises and explosions in all ways into maturity.

Essentially our Party and other subjects of the popular forces have dominance over the characteristics of such critical and skimming processes. However, the approaches of the sections that act with a programme of revolution in this period where the revolutionary situation has the tendency to deepen, are being appropriately synthesized in unison with their class characters. Revolutionary movements and other popular forces are not essentially ready for this period where “outside the system” is being enhanced and the revolutionary struggle and the revolutionary will for intervention is being intensified. Particularly after a specific period, the multi-directional effects of liquidationism, “within the systemism”, consociationalism and reformism have wrapped around these movements. The situation has worn away the approaches that takes the world into consideration, interprets it and shapes itself in accordance from a class perspective and created a degeneration in the manners that embrace the perspective of revolution. This is a determinant aspect for the popular forces as an ideological problems that is to be overcome.

Our Party as well, has been experiencing all the effects of this period. It has embraced a line of a sharp and a continuous struggle against this process. In this current period, our Party has not only gathered its highest party organ that will again sustain the unity of will and action but at the same time has taken a strong step by holding its Congress, achieving a first in the history of our Party.

Our Congress has taken place in January as planned. It has been organized with top level security and systematic. The platform that the participation of all the fields of our Party has been achieved and has taken place in accordance with the measures that the regulations of our Party mandates. All security measures had been taken and our Congress was brought to completion safely and securely and all the participants have returned to their new fields of activities without any problems.

Our Congress has held its discussions over three basic topics. The first of such being, “The handling of programmatic opinions and issues”; the second being, “Organizational problems and consideration of the current situation”; and the third being “Our orientation towards the future period”.

The preparations for the Congress were finalized with the discussions that stretch over a long period of time. In the preparation stage, together with the blows received by the enemy, “putschist and factionist” approaches have surfaced and finally this process has ended by the self-dismissal of “a band of party and war deserters” from the Party. Besides these, our Party has confronted the organizational strikes of the enemy during all this period and had to deal with the mordacity of war and the losses and problems created by the war. In this sense there has been a loss of concentration especially in the preparation process of our Party’s Congress. Organizational problems and developments have naturally contributed to this process. These conditions had reflected themselves to all activities and preparations. Ultimately, despite this scenery and intensified attacks of the enemy, our Party has brought its Congress to completion by holding the aimed discussions in security.

On programmatic discussions:

• Considerations were made on the social and economic structure of the country, discussed through the already existing works and new works. The designation of the semi-feudal, semi-colonial socio-economic structure the country by comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya was confirmed in our Congress. In respect to this issue, it was determined that our comrade’s theoretical position and method was in essence correct. Discussions were deepened through focusing on the quantitative changes that have taken place since the time of our comrade up to this day. Especially the inadequacy of our Party in regards to the characteristics of semi-feudal economic structure and its theoretical projections were emphasized. The theoretical designations on character that this economic system has embraced in the age of imperialism and its permanent characteristics were approved. The inner laws of capitalism and feudalism, the historical quality of imperialism, the historical characteristic of capital accumulation process, relations of production and relations of property that defines them, the relation in between the rural and the urban and examinations on the changing demographic structure were evaluated. In the discussions that were held on the economic and social configurations as a whole, it was determined that semi-feudal structure was sustained and continues its existence as the dominant production relation by re-producing itself. Our Party has shaped its position after a period of 6 month long investigations, researches and discussions held.

• The Road to Revolution: (The Protracted People’s War): The 47 year long struggle of our Party is shaped with a line focused on the goal of New Democratic Revolution and in the path of the Strategy of Protracted People’s War. This is our basic strategy of revolution in our programmatic views. Our line of organizing and expanding the three weapons of revolutions, the Party, the Army and the United Front has been uncompromisingly maintained. In the strategy of revolution the working class has been designated as the vanguard and the peasantry has been designated as the essential force. Our strategy of Democratic People’s Revolution based on the worker-peasant alliance continues to be valid despite all the social, economic, political developments and quantitative changes. The decrease in the population in rural areas has not brought about the change in the goal of seizing the power piece by piece through Red Powers which finds its essence in the Peasant Guerrilla War. The New Democratic Revolution (Democratic People’s Revolution) and the Strategy of Protracted People’s War which KAYPAKKAYA has covered and drawn the general lines in his Five Basic Documents continues to be valid. Our Congress has approved this. Within this context, our Party has discussed the situation of our revolution in the strategic defence stage and has embraced the approach of designating, concretizing and staging our war policy and tactical orientations. The 47 year long accumulation and experience has determined the obligation to embrace Guerrilla Warfare in the direction of the Strategy of Protracted People’s War more strongly by concretizing the necessity of being a fighting party, the stages of evolution and regression and the situation that we are currently in.

• In the discussions held on Revolution, New Democratic Revolution (Democratic People’s Revolution) and Socialism, basic Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principles were emphasized. It has been decided that the matter of revolution cannot exist without a leader and a vanguard, without a party and that all approaches towards “revolution” and uses of the word of revolution obscure the fact that revolution is a matter of turning upside-down. It has been observed that particularly in the international scale, some particular consequences brought about by spontaneous movements being defined as a revolution does not fit the reality and that these approaches and concepts disregard the real and the class essence of revolution. It is clear that the presentation of requisite forms that the system takes through popular movements without being destroyed creates a false consciousness among the people and alienates them from an idea of revolution that will take place by destroying the system as a whole and breaking it into pieces through organized and armed struggle and thus creates an illusion. Against these, our Party still holds its attitude and approach that it has embraced all along. Within this context a decision has been formed in the issue of the essence and quality of the revolution of our country and that this problem cannot be imprisoned to the “democratic content” that includes the limitations on political and social freedoms created by fascism. Including all these, our revolution has the character of a New Democratic Revolution that takes land revolution as the essence and wipes away all feudal, semi-feudal forms of relations. Particularly the existing ambiguity regarding this issue is considered as a deviation. It has been emphasized that it is essentially an ideological attitude and an approach that the solution to the problem of democracy in the country is the duty of the New Democratic Revolution which is a part of the proletarian revolution and that the Socialist Revolution will be constructed with the leadership of proletariat and that it is an obligation to continue until Communism with Proletarian Cultural Revolutions. Our Party has established that one of the most critical problems in this period is to rid of lack of confidence towards most importantly to socialism, to the ideological problems in the popular movements and the ambiguity among the masses of people over the regressions from socialism and its reasons. Within this context that ideological fractures have created their reflections on the communist and revolutionary movement together with regressions from socialism. In regard to this, our Party basing itself on the approaches of the comrade Mao Zedong and the experiences of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution has established a will to deepen the ideological struggle, to rid of the existing lack of confidence and to enhance the class struggle. Another issue is the discussion over the state, and fascism as a form of state. It has been emphasized that fascism is a necessity and an obligation that is imposed by the continuous political-economic crisis and the dependency of comprador bourgeoisie and big landlords to the imperialist-capitalist system. Besides this, the approaches upholding that fascism is the form of a sovereignty of a clique of a sovereign class or a party dictatorship is refused. It is emphasized that the term Fascist Kemalist Dictatorship is sound and correct and that is the unique ideological-political definition in our country. It has been decided that all definitions and approaches besides this one are caused by the confusion in the understanding the quality of the Turkish sovereign classes and through these approaches the essence of the problem is being obscured.

• The National Issue and the Issue of Nations: The Congress of our Party adopts the approach and the manner of comrade KAYPAKKAYA over the multi-national social structure. Our Congress declared that it will follows the scientific approaches of our leader towards the National Question and particularly the Kurdish Question. It has been established that the National Question is essentially a Market Question, that Right to Self-Determination of the Kurdish Nation must be accepted unconditionally and only under these circumstances the National Question can be settled and that the matter of the liberation of the Kurdish Nation is one of the most important questions of our revolution. It is an obligation that a complete and an essential solution to the National Question in the age of imperialism to be a part of the proletarian revolutions and that the proletariat is obliged to lead in this matter. The approach that the Kurdish National Question will be fully resolved through New Democratic Revolution in the large basis of including autonomy, that the right to self-determination will be guaranteed was embraced. Discussions have been held on the new situation of the Kurdish National Question since the time of comrade KAYPAKKAYA, its place in the social and political life and its place in revolution. The Kurdish nation have made progresses in obtaining a national consciousness, reaching a national liberation programme, and having the current level of the National Movement compared to its stage 47 years ago. The Kurdish national consciousness and the struggle around it have gained characteristics that affect and define the political processes. In this sense, even though it doesn’t have the character of defining the essence of our revolution, it holds the character of affecting the political and social dynamics. The Kurdish national consciousness develops every passing day and has gained a more organized and a political level within a programme. Within this context the historical tendency of national struggles to found a state has become a stronger tendency in the Kurdish nation for these reasons. These developments have created the approach to focus more onto this problem, to be concerned about it more, to take this contradiction as a more dynamic element of our social revolution in the Party. Our Party has discussed this question at every stage of its existence, and went at it with the current point that the National Movement has reached. Our Congress has adopted the approach of leaning on the accumulation that our Party has obtained within the years. At this very point it was determined that in regards to the essence and the quality of the National Question there has not been any changes, however, it has increased its influence on the social contradiction and political processes with its gained national consciousness and demands, and its combative characteristics. Our Party views this question as one of the essential points of the struggle for revolution. Our Congress is determined to act by bringing forward the political oppositeness character of the problem and by embracing the existing line to turn it into a political power. Our Party views the paradigms of “Democratic Autonomy” and “Democratic Confederalism” of the Kurdish National Movement to resolve the national question as a result of the changes in the international developments and balances. This paradigm is considered to not include the revolutionary resolution of the National Question, being in contradiction with the tendency to obtaining self-determination that will provide freedom to the oppressed Kurdish nation and seen as a an essential compromise given to the Turkish national sovereignty. The critical position towards it being within the system and having the character of being class reconciliatory is maintained. Within this context the Kurdish National Movement is viewed by the Party as an Armed Reformist National Movement. Having this character the consideration of being a political movement that it is an ally of the revolution, it is among the forces of the people is sustained.

• Besides these issues, in the matter of “imperialist-capitalist system and its general state” which includes programmatic opinions and is indeed a matter of programme, our Party has especially re-evaluated the issues of “ultra-imperialism”, “new imperialist centres and forces”, “the above the state character of monopolies”, “globalization and conformation of imperialist monopolies based on non-competitive cooperation”, “imperialist hegemony and the role that imperialism plays in semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries”. It has been emphasized that especially in the international and national scale the war, plunder and parasitic structure of imperialism has decreased its characteristics of it having the character of exporting capital and within this context the bases laid out by firstly comrade Lenin and later by comrade Mao, that on essence of imperialism, its class structure and its orientation the criteria laid out by these two great masters continues to be valid.

• Another issue that our Congress views as important issues of the social revolution and has discussed on a programmatic level is the issue of women as an oppressed gender. Included in the oppressed gender issue, LGBTI holds an important position in the struggle. Especially in the 8^th Conference and the period after, our Party that has been timid about this issue since its past has experienced positive developments in its focusing and consideration of the issue. However deviations within the Party have been found. It has been decided that our Party will continue to maintain its existing focus on the social character of the issue, to relate it to the process of revolution, to take it into consideration with its unique contradictions and characteristics. Our Party has adopted the decision to never miss out on the unique character of this social problem and never disregard its inner-relations but at the same time keeping in mind the approach to view it with a class perspective. The struggle with the oppressive gender has a dynamic route in the class and social struggle. There are various women movement that are subjects of this struggle. This struggle continues to develop and move forwards together with the already existing problems. It has been decided to keep the current approach and develop a relation of alliance in the basis of creating unities of actions with the organizations and forces that wage a “civil rights” struggle in the face of this problem.

• The issue of oppressed beliefs: Our society has a multi-belief structure and historically oppressed beliefs have been deprived of basic freedoms and their democratic rights. Not only this, the belief systems that fall beyond the Sunni belief system has always been subjected to intense oppression, massacre and policies of assimilation. Due to this reason the issue of freedom for other beliefs beside the Sunni belief system is one of the issues included in the struggle for New Democratic Revolution as being viewed as a democratic right. Our Party has a process of struggle and experience in regards to this issue. This contradiction has a dynamic that is in the favour of revolution. Instead of fitting the issue into within the system solutions and limits, our Party leans on the democratic consciousness and dynamics for struggle that this contradiction creates. The perspective should be laid on these dynamics. After all, all democratic rights that are limited, disregarded and usurped are a matter of class struggle. The character of contradictions that are based on difference in belief that cover the surface of class conflicts and push them away as agendas requires our Party to see the equality among beliefs problem as a democratic problem and as something that has to be eliminated. Our party adopts the struggle against the society to be divided through beliefs and struggle against the seeds of enmity that is placed between the oppressed sections of the society based on this matter.

• In addition to all these above, our Party has discussed programmatic approaches and has taken decisions on the political issues such as the Environment, Youth, Culture, the Back Front, Short Party Programme, Short New Democratic Revolution Programme, Publications and the International. Also various suggestions on the regulations of the Party has been discussed and the decisions to edit and re-arrange some particular articles were taken.

On organizational problems and the approach towards them:

Undoubtedly one of the most important agendas of the Congress of our Party was organizational problems and the assessment of the current period. The period since the 8^th Conference has been examined and various assessments have been done. Various discussions were held on the line of the 8^th Conference, on the state of the 8^th Party Central Committee, on its orientations, its way of leadership, on the activities of all fields and committees, the state of the Komsomol activities and on the guerrilla field and the point that the war has reached.

The state of our Party was divided into two sections, one being the period until 2015 and the latter being the period since 2015 up to this day. Our Party has been subjected to an extraordinary putschist-factionist attack and eventually a group that has proven itself to be party and war deserter has left the ranks of the Party. The necessity to approach the process in two distinct periods originates from this situation. Within this context an assessment has been done on the Right–liquidationist, Party and War Deserter band that became systemized in January 2017 and finalized its course in October 2017 and the assessment made in the 8^th Broadened Meeting of the Party Central Committee has been approved by our Congress. In the following period this band has managed to commit a series of crimes as wearing away revolutionary values, attacking the party with the backing of the police and the mafia, being deserters in the field of war, stealing the weapons and ammunition of the party and handing them to the enemy. At this point this band took its place in the stage of history as having committed a series of practices that serve the counter-revolution, having weakened its revolutionary veins, existing at a symbolic level in the country, having lost its ties with the problems of the revolution in the country and essentially becoming a band that is based in the abroad. In addition to the approaches and assessments of the 8^th Broadened Meeting of the CC, these designations have been made and approved in our Congress.

Our Congress considers the orientation and decisions of the 8^th Conference as being MLM in essence. The determined orientations and the assessments over the period include correct and farsighted approaches.

The main problem of the 8^th Conference is the shallowness in the approach towards the reality of the Party and towards the issue of leadership. The 8^th Conference undoubtedly has not been able to carry out its duty of developing the responsibility, the approach and the method to resolve the reasons behind the fact that the 7^th CC had not been able to lead in that period, the fact that the CC had conflicts with the Party for a period of time and the reasons behind the fact that the CC had received the criticism of being “sectarian” in the face of these conflicts. The CC of the Party was not able to examine the criticism of being sectarian in regards to not being able to predominate the Party and predominate the process in a correct and in a scientific way. This situation have become an obstacle in creating the ground for a healthier leadership to the party, to saving the leadership from being ordinary and carrying out the responsibility of the party will.

Eventually the leadership of the 8^th CC of Party continued to operate with the legacy it received from the previous leadership and dominating the party, dominating the problems and performing developed leading skills and being the force for the solution have not taken place due to the superficial approaches of the 8^th Conference towards the problems.

During the 8^th CC of the Party not being able to dominate the party, and even elements of the CC of the Party not being able to dominate one another has after a while given birth to “left” sectarianism” and in some occasions liberalism which crippled the organizational line of the Party. The ground that the inner-party problems grew, the emerging reality of the Party and the corresponding emergence of right liquidationist factionalism are due to party leadership not being able to dominate the Party and its elements adequately. The dominance problem of the CC of the Party had reflected itself to the reports and subjective assessments towards the fields of activity. The greatest problem of the CC of the Party is its weakness and incapability to dominate and rule the Party which turn the leadership into something ordinary. This situation was ongoing during the aforementioned period. On the other hand the emerging picture was one of a climate of non-confidence that emerged in the leadership and spread to the Party and at one point got on top of everything. Eventually this “ground swell” grew bigger among the Party and surfaced as a virus of NON-CONFIDENCE. This situation was embittered with a group of party members having distrust towards the Party’s general political line and the following ideological fracture. This political, organizational and ideological convergence has resulted in an explosion that broke the leadership from the party, systematically embraced an opportunist-reformist and anti-MLM line and tried to use the distrust towards the party as “the main confidence” as a lever.

Undoubtedly this picture stems from the attitude of the 8^th Conference that does not portray the dynamics for development and dynamics for leading in unison with a focus on the Party and leadership realities that examines these concepts. This situation conditioned the birth of a situation that hinders the shaping of the Party in accordance with its reality, the ability of the leadership to dominate the Party and the existence of an appropriate leadership. The Party has experienced the problem of not being able to dominate the leadership and the leadership has experienced the problem of not being able to dominate the Party. Since a healthy relationship between the Party and the leadership was not maintained, a CC of the Party that has a claim and that can lead was not shaped. On one hand the progressive, strengthening and dynamic aspect of the contradiction between the CC of the Party and the Party was not revealed and on contrary a character that is destructive and that creates problems became dominant. This picture dominated the successful and unsuccessful assessments towards the fields of activities and the shaping and intervening abilities of the leadership.

The scenery laid out by the CC of the Party for the party leadership and the fields of activities of the party was assessed together with this wholeness and reality. In this scenery the responsibilities that the Party should take on, the necessity of CC of the Party to dominate the Party in order to lead it, creation of opportunities and channels for such a dominance and an obligation for more realistic goals and orientations with a stricter mechanism that is more critical and more prone to examine were emphasized.

Within this context, an understanding of creating a leadership that acts as a whole, has more willpower in the face of the struggle of the Party and the class struggle, that is more dynamic, more homogenous in its political and ideological approach was adopted. The fact that the Party has these opportunities was seen through the general situation and the discussions that were held.

On this basis a special focus was directed on the weak position of our Party in the class struggle, its inadequacies, its shortcomings in approaching problems with a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist methodology and its regression. Approaches towards the Problems of the Party, the Problems of the Class Struggle, the Problems of the War, the Cadre Problems, the Problems in the matter Organization, the Deviations in the Line of the Mass, Inadequacies of the General Political Line to Transform Into a Political Power, the Matter of Alliances and Unity of Actions were thoroughly discussed. These problems as a whole were discussed within the scope of the assessments of the CC of the Party, assessment of the fields of activities and conclusions were drawn from the re-consideration of our existing organizational reality. Undoubtedly the assessment of the period were done through the international situation, the problems experienced in the objectivity of the class struggle, the ideological attacks of the bourgeoisie and its reflections on our Party. In a multi-directional way our ideological, political and organizational picture was the main topic of this agenda. Since the upcoming orientation is to be based on this subjective and objective reality, the problem was dealt in the broadest and multi-directional way possible.

Orientation for the upcoming period:

Our Party has identified the main problem as the organization, expansion, enhancement, empowerment of the Party and scaling up of the war. Accomplishing a Party and an organization that is combative and militant has been determined as the essential orientation.

Our Congress, has determined that even though the fascism conducts its attacks of oppression, limitation, disorganization, liquidation and if possible concession in an increasing rate of intensity and depth in order to overcome its political crisis, it has not succeeded to resolve its crisis. Even though this aggression has created a regression and weakness in the revolutionary situation, the class, national, social etc. contradictions have gotten deeper and the policy of keeping the masses inactive and accepting of the current situation essential has failed.

The level of conflict and tension between the sovereign classes has increased and due to the decrease in the total economic exploit rooting from the economic crisis, parallel to the sharp competition in between, both the inner clique conflict and the conflict in between alliances has deepened. All-out attack carried out by the fascism had its reflections on the revolutionary, progressive forces and in the most general meaning of the word for the masses of people. Nonetheless, this destructive and negative scenery has not been able to produce success in its policy of full surrender. By digging deeper into its grave, fascism have managed to gain time for itself. The upcoming developments seems fertile for a ground on which the revolutionary situation and consequently the activity of the class struggle will rise. The fascist dictatorship that is stuck in both internal and external politics will experience a stronger and a sharper crisis of rule.

This scenery provides a ground for new opportunities for our Party and the revolutionary movement to make progress. The all-out attack carried out by the fascist dictatorship not only develops itself by creating oppression, violence, destruction, denial, occupation and a wave of chauvinism. At the same time it lives through creating a climate of hopelessness and desperation that produces intimidation.

Again it has created a siege that will lead to an ideological erosion in the forms of within-the-systemism, parliamentarism, living together in peace, legalism, “winning with evolution without a revolution”. Today all the negative effects of this ideological influences and poison finds its reflections among the subjects of the popular forces. Our Party is in the process of building a barricade against this ideological submission that dreams “a power fantasy without a power”, that is reformist and liquidationist for a period of time. From this aspect in the ideological struggle and in creating dominance over its own reality our Party is in an advantageous position to detect its ideological weaknesses and its strengths.

Although the erosion in the proletarian revolutionary line, the regression and not having a claim should be viewed as a problem that has to be detected without any hesitations. Today approaching contradictions from the perspective of communism and from the perspective of proletarian revolutionary attitude, holding a strong grasp on the principles and developing tactical politics in accordance is being demonized.  The essence of these approaches stem from the contradiction in between the proletarian revolutionism and petty-bourgeois revolutionism. Petty-bourgeois revolutionary style, method, expectation, hope, forming and orientation has a rather strong political influence. This situation makes itself felt stronger as it attacks the proletarian revolutionary line.

Turning bourgeois line of revolutionism upside-down, confronting it, scattering its siege is only possible by the strengthening and self-realization of the Communist party in theoretical, organizational, political and intellectual level. Whatever the conditions are, proletarian revolutionism is not to forget the historical role of the working class and believing that the working class will accomplish the New Democratic Revolution and continue it. Every greying in this field will end up shaking like a leaf against the wind and even to drying out.

The existence of the Communist Party is the provision of proletarian revolutionism. The ideological orientation of our Party will be the development and strengthening of proletarian revolutionism that is knit up with masses, comprehension of the historical role of the working class, and grasp of the spirit of the time. The revolutionism that is needed is the one that can show the will to resolve the emerging contradictions, that is equipped against the bourgeois type revolutionism of all sorts and a one that can ideologically convict them, that has a grasp on the facts, occasions and developments and that possesses the strength to analyse them to come up with solutions. In this sense our Party will adopt an orientations that exposes the contradiction between the proletarian revolutionism and petty-bourgeois revolutionism and strengthens its line from this point onwards.

Undoubtedly the creation of solid party organizations is only possible by having a level of militantship that fits a fighting party. Our Party will adopt a line that takes the consolidation within the class struggle and a strict education as essentials in order to solidify its organization, expand its organization and turn it into a closed-chamber system for the enemy.

Another important point is the matter of WAR. This will be one of the most important pillars of our orientation. This period in which the revolutionary situation shows tendencies of increase, a fighting Party and a line that is focused on the Guerrilla Warfare and that intervenes in the contradictions with the critical power of the weapon is crucially important. We have a structure of a society that everything awaits solution through force and that this situation is influential and determining. War is for the revolution, it is required for the needs of the revolution and it is the only way for the revolution to take place. This comprehension and approach brings about a correct positioning against every conflict. This conditioned obligation of our Party for revolution and communism will bring the war to adopt the most effective, the most destructive and the most constructive character.

Our Party has found its shape for the last 47 years with this consciousness and orientation and has built a ceaseless line of war. The Guerrilla Struggle which is the main artery of our revolution is conducted by the People’s Army led by our Party. In the current conditions the enemy has adopted a serious war of destruction against the Kurdish National guerrilla movement and against our Party. Our Party has been resisting against this war of destruction by paying tremendous prices. Our Party will not take a step back from its insistence to seize the power piece by piece through Red Political Powers and through the People’s War Strategy of our revolution and continue to resist against all the desperation, hopelessness, attempts of liquidation and ideological surrender. At the expense of paying great prices in this period, the process will be met with the approach of tactical attacks in the strategical defence position. Our Party will meticulously implement the self-preservation rule which is the fundamental law of the Guerrilla Warfare but it will adopt the approach of wearing down the enemy, tiring down the enemy through tactical attacks for the sake of self-preservations and expansion.

The shaping in accordance with the war policy of our party will be essential for all its activities. All activities and orientations will be dealt in order to feed and enhance the war. Undoubtedly the expansion of People’s War means the implementation of the most creative and rich revolutionary line and politics, organization and mobilization of large masses on this base in all fields that we are at. This at the same time means the active use of means of struggle that are based on force and their creative application against contradictions.

Waging war while getting organized, getting organized while waging war. Fighting while organizing, organizing while fighting. As organizing large masses will re-produce the war, the line of war based on the guerrilla struggle will also mean that all organizations will have to re-produce themselves. This is a reality that is created by our social structure. The critical power of weapons under the leadership and command of our Party will not only scatter the chains in the minds of the oppressed masses of people but it will also serve to increase their ambition to organize and struggle, as comrade Mao states, “it will rid us of all our dirt and dust”.

In this historical juncture, under the conditions that liquidationism and reformism is swarming the place, we are obliged to raise the guerrilla warfare, to create a combative organization and passing the threshold with this will power in order to lead and establish a marching column which is stronger and more effective for the dream of communism. Our Party comprehends this obligation and it will accelerate its struggle by convincing masses that are close to us or far away, by organizing to spread this understanding and by its perspective for the political power.

Comrades, Our People, Our Friends;

Our Congress undoubtedly created its willpower by adhering to its confidence in its historical responsibility, to its belief in the people, to its loyalty to its comrades, to the promises made to our martyrs, to the rage and venom of the families of our martyrs, to its responsibility to friendly forces, to the solidarity spirit of its friend and sister organizations and to the parties in the international level and to the scientific approach that leads our way, sheds light to our path which is the sharp blade of the international proletariat, of the path of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao.

Our Congress has adopted the scientific programmatic standpoints that guides our Party for the last 47 years and that were established by the leader Ibrahim KAYPAKKAYA with a better comprehension.

The determination of the 25 People’s Fighters who have been immortalized in arms, who chanted out the slogans of the Party and declared loyalty to its line in the last 4 year long period has given the spirit to our Congress at a time that non-confidence towards our party was organized in a planned and organized fashion, at a time the blunt knife of the bourgeois line was hold against the throat of our Party, at a time theories of desertion and hopelessness swarmed the place against the guerrilla struggle. Every single one of our 25 party militants, the fighter of our People’s Army has sacrificed their lives with the dream of communism and their loyalty to the Party line. They who wrote name of the hope with blood, at this point of history, have turned every bullet that was fired against the enemy as an ideological force against the desertion and defeatism. Our Party has given hundreds of martyrs to the glorious cause of communism in the past 47 years. The pain of the Families of the Martyrs who toiled for the raising, development and characters of our comrades who have been immortalized in this cause, those who saw their causes as their own is embodied as rage and determination in our Party. Our Congress declares that it promises to embrace the legacy of our comrades and that the essence and the root of our Party is their dreams, to all the families of the martyrs. Let our families have no doubt: their children will live in the spirit of our Party and our comrades and will continue to live.

Our Congress greets our prisoners who honoured the name, the line, the war and the militantship of our Party in the dungeons of the enemy with their resistance and have turned them into the front-most trenches, with communist feelings and revolutionary passion. They are the ones who give the meaning to the price demanding character of the struggle by resisting and embracing the fight without any hesitation to pay the greatest of prices. The lines of our prisoner comrades that produces and resists for communism and for the class struggle in the hardest of conditions feeds are blood and souls of our comrades and the Party. Let the Congress of our Party be a present to all our prisoner organizations and to all its elements.

Our Congress declares with our infinite belief in communism and our loyalty to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, to the representatives of the international proletariat in various countries and to the fellow communist parties that the TKP/ML, the representative of the international proletariat in Turkey is now stronger and more determined in struggle with its 1^st Congress. The Communist Movement of the World has significant and serious problems. Revisionist, opportunist, liquidationist and reformist attacks towards MLM are now more furious and reckless than ever. Against those who drop the red flag in the face of regressions from socialism, and those who give in to the anti-MLM currents instead of leaning on to Maoism, we once again wave the red flag stronger with the struggle for New Democratic Revolution, Socialism and Communism. We have the determination to build a common marching column that is equipped with proletarian internationalism and MLM against the attacks that develops in the international scale. The worldwide crisis of the imperialist-capitalist system will make the ground for People’s War stronger in semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries and will offer these centres of storm of revolution the opportunity to rush forward. Today in India, in Peru, in Philippines and in various other semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries in a larger or a smaller scale exists a fire of People’s War. We might be at a state of being a spark but we are students of a master who says, “a single spark can start a prairie fire”. We carry our claim to start a prairie fire with our historical consciousness and obligation. In order for our single spark to spread we will put all our effort, energy and focus. Glory to the international proletarian movements, organizations and fellow parties who walk on the enlightened path of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

To the Toiling People of Turkey of the Turkish, Kurdish and Various Other Nations;

Our Congress declares its main slogan as “On the Path of the 1^st Congress; Gird on the Proletarian Revolutionism, Challenge Liquidationism, Raise the Guerrilla Warfare”. This slogan is the synthesis of the orientation of our Congress. We will unite around this slogan and prepare for “the glorious years of struggle to come”. Our Congress has determined a main orientation that focuses on enhancing and developing the party and raising the war. This orientation is a goal to meet the developing revolutionary situation. It is aimed for all our party members, militants, sympathizers and the public whose attention is on us to be shaped in the direction of this orientation. It is aimed for our party organizations to shape their organization in this direction, for our militants to take a step forward, for our sympathizers to improve their level of organization, for the ones who are not organized but their hearts beat with our Party to rapidly get organized and join the boundless sea of the class struggle in the ranks of our Party. In order to reach our goals we invite everyone to give ear to this call of ours, to partake in our voice, to be comrades to our steps.

NOW IT IS THE TIME TO TAKE A STEP FORWARD!

It is the time for the one who sits to stand up, for the one who stands up to walk, for the one who walks to run.

It is the time for all those who pin their hopes on the goals of New Democratic Revolution, Socialism and Communism to step forward.

It is the time to raise the Guerrilla Struggle, enhance and embrace the People’s War.

It is the time to unite around the Party that is the command centre of these goals.

It is the time to raise the class struggle, challenge fascism, not to leave any space for within-the-systemism and to make our Party a political force of life.

Our Party is predestined to organize and achieve these goals. It is the time for all party members, militants and sympathizers to use their energies full time. The communists hold the claim to meet this period with their belief in revolution and organize the revolution. The greatest achievement of our Congress is the certain and determined realization of this will.

This will that is portrayed by our Congress promises a determination in the struggle for obtaining freedom in the largest sense, with the goal of New Democratic Revolution to the proletariat of Turkey, to the oppressed strata of peasantry, to the urban petty-bourgeoisie, to the Kurdish and other oppressed nations, to oppressed belief, to the oppressed genders of women and LGBTI, to the popular youth and to all democratic forces. Let our promise to imperialism, fascism, feudalism and all sorts of reactionaries be that they will definitely come to an end and that our Party will never stop and give in, and continue the struggle for this cause with arms at hands.

– Glory to our 1^st Congress!

– We Will Drown Fascism in the Blood That It Shed!

– We Will Scatter the Fascist Blockade With the Organized Struggle of the People!

– Glory to the Liberation Struggle of the Kurdish Nation!

– Organize and Struggle against the Imperialism and All Its Footmen!

– Revolution is an Obligation, People’s War is Freedom!

– Revolutionary Struggle is Legitimate, Revolt is a Right!

– Learn through War, Move Forward through Organization, Clamp Together in the Line of the 1^st Congress!

– On the 70^th Birthday of Comrade Kaypakkaya, to the Power in the Red Route of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

– Scatter the Fascist Blockade, Move Forward with the People’s War!

– We Will Destroy the Comprador Boss-Lord State, We Will Establish the Democratic People’s Power!

– Long Live the Proletarian Internationalism!

– Glory to the Victorious Path of the People’s War!

– Glory to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

– Glory to our Party TKP/ML, Glory to our Popular Army TIKKO and Glory to our Youth Organization TMLGB!

COMMUNIST PARTY OF TURKEY/MARXIST LENINIST – CENTRAL COMMITTTE POLITICAL BUREAU

TKP/ML- CC PB

MAY 2019

DOCUMANTS OF THE 1. CONGRESS THE TKP/ML

ON THE PATH OF THE 1st CONGRESS, GIRD ON PROLETARIAN REVOLUTIONISM, CHALLANGE LIQUIDATIONISM, RAISE THE GUERILLA WARFARE!

1. The Socioeconomic Structure

Definition of semi-feudalism: All the stage where feudal mode of production is shaken off by its foundation and begins to break down and scatter and nonetheless the capitalist mode of production is not yet dominant, and all the modes of production that comes into existence within this stage are named as semi-feudal. It is known that the transition from feudalism to capitalism covers a long period in the history. We know that in the 14^th century when cities in Europe undergone developments in every aspect, the first conditions for capitalist mode of production appeared as feudal mode of production was deeply shaken and reached a stage of dissolution. Fulfillment of these conditions and transition to capitalist mode of production completely and the unique developments in the 16^th and 17^th centuries should never be considered as determinant factors in the emergence of capitalist mode of production. It is necessary to look into the production itself, not the incidents that affected, or in this case accelerated the mode of production while considering this emergence. Nevertheless the emergence of a mode of production or it becoming dominant in the economic structure of a society inevitably includes a series of incidents and unique properties. The property that we point out is the fact that the capitalist mode of production did not emerge with the dissolution of the feudal mode of production and that this process extends over a long period of time. Marx, while saying that this transition generally follows two paths, he does not overlook the fact that the domination of the capitalist mode of production is an inevitable result…

At that we can say that semi-feudalism is a transition stage in the progress from feudalism towards capitalism and a form of a society that is neither completely feudal nor completely capitalist comes into existence in this period. The quotations from Marx and though having the same content from Lenin are determinant in the comprehension of this transition phase. The general two paths that are followed from feudalism towards capitalism will also show us the points that we need to focus on while examining the society.

“The transition from the feudal mode of production is two-fold. The producer becomes merchant and capitalist, in contrast to the natural agricultural economy and the guild-bound handicrafts of the medieval urban industries. This is the really revolutionising path. Or else, the merchant establishes direct sway over production. However much this serves historically as a steppingstone – witness the English 17th-century clothier, who brings the weavers, independent as they are, under his control by selling their wool to them and buying their cloth – it cannot by itself contribute to the overthrow of the old mode of production, but tends rather to preserve and retain it as its precondition. (…) This system presents everywhere an obstacle to the real capitalist mode of production and goes under with its development.” (Marx, 2009, pg. 226)

Lenin too, in his book “The Development of Capitalism in Russia” defines the two main lines that the Russian revolution of that time could follow: “Either the old landlord economy, bound as it is by thousands of threads to serfdom, is retained and turns slowly into purely capitalist, “Junker” economy. The basis of the final transition from labour-service to capitalism is the internal metamorphosis of feudalist landlord economy. The entire agrarian system of the state becomes capitalist and for a long time retains feudalist features. Or the old landlord economy is broken up by revolution, which destroys all the relics of serfdom, and large landownership in the first place. The basis of the final transition from labour-service to capitalism is the free development of small peasant farming, which has received a tremendous impetus as a result of the expropriation of the landlords’ estates in the interests of the peasantry. The entire agrarian system becomes capitalist, for the more completely the vestiges of serfdom are destroyed the more rapidly does the differentiation of the peasantry proceed.”

 Lenin continues to repeat these two paths in other words: “In other words: either—the retention, in the main, of landed proprietorship and of the chief supports of the old “superstructure”; hence, the predominant role of the liberal-monarchist bourgeois and landlord, the rapid transition of the well-to-do peasantry to their side, the degradation of the peasant masses, not only expropriated on a vast scale, but enslaved (…)Or—the destruction of landlordism and of all the chief supports of the corresponding old “superstructure”; the predominant role of the proletariat and the peasant masses, with the neutralising of the unstable or counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie; the speediest and freest development of the productive forces on a capitalist basis, under the best circumstances for the worker and peasant masses at all conceivable under commodity production (…)” (Lenin, 1988, pg. 22-23)

Two different ways in the transition from feudalism is one of the fundamental subjects in our comprehension of the semi-feudal social order. Mostly this transition period is not emphasized. Thus, “the transition conditions” in the countries where these two paths have not taken place and where rather quite different struggles are brought to agenda with the novel conditions are explained with superficial assessments and assuredly with the “dominance of the capitalist mode of production” and yet remains unanalyzed. But in fact, “capitalist relations that develop on semi-feudal basis” incorporates major and unique problems as pointed out by Marx and Lenin even though for different periods. The progress of a semi-feudal society towards a capitalist society besides the regressive, protective, spoiling, aggravating, enslaving and blinding factors that Marx and Lenin define is hindered at every level by newer and stronger factors.

Marx mentions in his Capital that thinkers who had lived in semi-feudal societies could not analyze the complicated and undoubtedly – due to the new way of production – incomprehensible problems that they had encountered: “The capitalist mode of production completely abolishes this relationship; a process which may be studied on a large scale particularly in England during the last third of the 18th century. Thinkers like Herrenschwand, who had grown up in more or less semi-feudal societies, still consider, e.g., as late as the close of the 18th century, this separation of manufacture from agriculture as a foolhardy social adventure, as an unthinkably risky mode of existence.” (Marks, 2009, pg. 573) The situations regarded as “a risky mode of existence” since they were incomprehensible to these thinkers, with way more comprehensive and complicated features together with “unreasonable” outcomes caused by imperialism are seen in semi-feudal societies.

Of course differing from one another, while in one situation prospective and novel developments are incomprehensible where in the other hindering and regressive forces and relations are in question. It is not surprising that we are face to face with understandings that are condemned to be disconnected or fall distant of the class point of view with theses that are far away from explaining the reality, that are eclectic, dogmatic and superficial, with understandings that incorporate analyses that start incorrectly and end up nowhere, with understandings that are constantly misinterpreted and do not take production processes and “similar” appearances of different modes of production as basis.

One of the common comments that we see quite often is that the semi-feudal form of society as a “transitional society” cannot be interminable form of society and that it would be inevitable overthrown by the new mode of production. Marx has laid this “inevitable” outcome several times. Lenin too, in the specificity of the Russian revolution has underscored this outcome. Mao Zedong who had lived in a semi-feudal society too, draws attention to the same outcome: “As China’s feudal society had developed a commodity economy, and so carried within itself the seeds (mengya) of capitalism, China would of herself developed slowly into a capitalist society even without the impact of foreign capitalism.” (Mao Zedong, 1922, pg. 313) Moreover, Mao Zedong states that foreign capitalism speeds up this process in appearance as such, “Foreign capitalism played an important part in the disintegration of China’s social economy, on the one hand it undermined the foundations of her self-sufficient natural economy and wrecked the handicraft industries both in the cities and in the peasants’ homes, and on the other, it hastened the growth of a commodity economy in town and country.” This means that the existence and commonness of properties that belong to capitalism in the semi-feudal system is not a phenomenon that we reject. Nonetheless, this issue does only consist of this; and this even is not the essence of the issue.

In order to comprehend the essence of the issue let us go back to what has been written about the “transition process”.

The non-revolutionary path of the two paths that Marx explains should be the essential one in regards to our subject. Producer becoming merchant and capitalist (revolutionary path) directly means the change in the mode of production; in this change work force directly becomes a commodity and the producer as being the owner of the capital through collecting the means of production in its hands comes to the level to buy the work force in order to create surplus value in production as the owner of the production condition. This means a new production condition and relation. On the contrary, the other path, namely the path taken with merchant having the voice in production not the producer, great and difficult obstacles appear in front of the new mode of production. The analysis of Marx provides us with unique information in the sense that it shows at which points these obstacles accumulate.

First of all Marx states that, as a step in the historical aspect, merchant having direct voice over the production does not deterministically cause a new mode of production, on the contrary he says, “it cannot by itself contribute to the overthrow of the old mode of production, but tends rather to preserve and retain it as its precondition.” He speaks of the 17^th century English clothiers as an example of this: “witness the English 17th-century clothier, who brings the weavers, independent as they are, under his control by selling their wool to them and buying their cloth.” This action prevents the producer to gather the means of production in its hands and to buy work force to create surplus value in production; and consequently to the transition to the new mode of production. “The manufacturer in the French silk industry and in the English hosiery and lace industries, for example, was thus mostly but nominally a manufacturer until the middle of the 19th century.” When he states these words, Marx lays out that the production continued with the old mode of production until the mid-19^th century under the control of the merchant. When there is no change in the mode of production and when the merchant is dominant over the production conditions as someone who make the producers work for it, the capitalist mode of production cannot develop. “Without revolutionising the mode of production, it only worsens the condition of the direct producers, turns them into mere wage-workers and proletarians under conditions worse than those under the immediate control of capital, and appropriates their surplus-labour on the basis of the old mode of production.” (2009, pg. 226). Continuing with the examples, Marx shows us where the focus of examination should be on once again: “The same conditions exist in somewhat modified form in part of the London handicraft furniture industry. (…) The whole production is divided into very numerous separate branches of business independent of one another. One establishment makes only chairs, another only tables, a third only bureaus, etc. But these establishments themselves are run more or less like handicrafts by a single minor master and a few journeymen. Nevertheless, production is too large to work directly for private persons. The buyers are the owners of furniture stores. On Saturdays the master visits them and sells his product, the transaction being closed with as much haggling as in a pawnshop over a loan. The masters depend on this weekly sale, if for no other reason than to be able to buy raw materials for the following week and to pay out wages. Under these circumstances, they are really only middlemen between the merchant and their own labourers. The merchant is the actual capitalist who pockets the lion’s share of the surplus-value…” (ibid., pg. 226-227) When the merchant has the real say in the production process (the ‘actual capitalist’ definition in the quotation is a definition that roots from merchant seizing the created surplus value. Besides this, this merchant that seizes the surplus value in terms of circulation of capital back into the production is not a capitalist. Due to this property “the old mode of production” continues.), since it moves in a manner that oppresses the capitalist mode of production, the transformation of the mode of production in all these styles becomes cumbersome and painful. In all the examples Marx shows that the analyses should be directed at the production process: The process is defined over the answers to the questions of who dominates the production process, who seizes the surplus value, in which way the circulation of capital back to production is sustained.

Again in the same part of the Capital, another consideration in respect to the transition process, that is our subject, incorporates the same approach as an outcome.

“There is no doubt – and it is precisely this fact which has led to wholly erroneous conceptions – that in the 16th and 17th centuries the great revolutions, which took place in commerce with the geographical discoveries and speeded the development of merchant’s capital, constitute one of the principal elements in furthering the transition from feudal to capitalist mode of production. The 226 Chapter XX sudden expansion of the world-market, the multiplication of circulating commodities, the competitive zeal of the European nations to possess themselves of the products of Asia and the treasures of America, and the colonial system – all contributed materially toward destroying the feudal fetters on production. However, in its first period – the manufacturing period – the modern mode of production developed only where the conditions for it had taken shape within the Middle Ages. Compare, for instance, Holland with Portugal.5 And when in the 16th, and partially still in the 17th, century the sudden expansion of commerce and emergence of a new world-market overwhelmingly contributed to the fall of the old mode of production and the rise of capitalist production, this was accomplished conversely on the basis of the already existing capitalist mode of production.” (ibid, pg. 292) Thus, Marx allows us to understand the role of merchant capital in history, that contributed to the circulation of commodities and at the same time production of them under conditions where the capital cannot establish dominance over production; that this capital exists in every old mode of production that is not developed on the basis of capitalist mode of production, it causes the exchange of commodities by only existing in the field of circulation and with this function fundamentally preserves the mode of production and make it continuous. If an economic system has developed in the basis of capitalist mode of production merchant capital this time would serve it and gives momentum to its development. Consequently merchant capital being developed with all its functions, having privileged roles in the circulation of commodities by being dominant in the production process definitely cannot be interpreted as the replacement of old mode of production with the new. This interpretation would be, as Marx states, an interpretation that “causes incorrect results all over”. The only method of comprehending which mode of production is essential is to examine the production itself. “…On the other hand, all development of merchant’s capital tends to give production more and more the character of production for exchange-value and to turn products more and more into commodities. Yet its development, as we shall presently see, is incapable by itself of promoting and explaining the transition from one mode of production to another.” (ibid, pg. 287-88)

Marx’s comments here would allow us to understand the change in semi-feudal societies, increasing production of commodities, consequent intensification in circulation of commodities, increase in capital, even integration with the world markets, producers deteriorating instead of becoming capitalist, and becoming time to time waged laborers and proletarians etc. The Marxist view of the historical role of the merchant capital and at the same time its functions have not generally been understood and especially in its state of reflection in the conditions of imperialism in which the general situation is not comprehended, is especially not understood. Statements of Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong but especially Me Zedong are distinctive in this sense and are indispensable in comprehending all the problems of the class struggle of our day.

Imperialism and Semi-feudalism

As Lenin explains that feudalism will be overthrown through an endomorphism or a revolution and conditions for an ultimate transition would be established, he states that the foundation for this transition is “the liberation of small peasant farming”. The dissolution of feudalism and its breaking down has taken long years; due to the mode of production that is to replace it, even though its end has come and it has collapsed, we can say that it takes time for it to be buried in history. We can even say this: no mode of production goes out of existence unless a new mode of production develops and liquidates it. This is the form of resolution of the problem of production by societies. Production for the society or the production towards the society inevitably requires a mode of production; a production that is solely based on the individual and for the individual cannot go beyond a Robinson Cruise life and we now that this life is unfeasible! In respect to feudalism this can be said: tens of reasons and phenomena can be sorted for the collapse of this form of society. Wherever it may come, the phenomenon that takes place in the foundation of this collapse and transition process is the free progress of the small producer. Tens of reasons and phenomena that can be sorted has affected the speed and of course the extent of this progress. This process is also found in the foundation of the semi-feudal society: the free progress of small production. The continuity of feudal remnants and the never-ending impoverishment of sections of small producers established the fundamental dynamic of the semi-feudal economy. It is clear that the revolution process that is based on this dynamic would carry the weight of petty-bourgeoisie. The sections in question both are owners of property and have the tendency to become proletarians. These are two opposite ends of the same process. The answer to the question which will take place of the two main lines that Lenin describes will be the answer to the question how this process will be completed. Today, the entire matter is that as a result of the level that the new mode of production, namely capitalism has reached on the world scale, it stands as an obstacle in front of endomorphism which is one of the two ways, that the capitalist progress again blocks its path on its own. Before imperialism nothing could stand in the way of the new mode of production, eventually every obstacle would be overcome. Against the entire conservative, parasitic character of merchant capital, Marx says ultimately it has a function that serves the new mode of production. In fact this capital has been stuck onto the old mode of production during the emergence stage of capitalism which is the new mode of production and even after for a while and by establishing dominance over the production process dragged the producers to increasingly horrible conditions. The ability of the new mode of production to overthrow the old as gotten rid of this property of the merchant capital. Nevertheless, all bourgeois economists and of course a large section of petty bourgeoisie who are distant or have become distant to the Marxist point of view deny this fundamental property of the age of imperialism. For these, capitalist mode of production in the age of imperialism continues to have the ability to overthrow feudalism with all its remnants, and for these again, this victory of capitalism over feudalism is possible also in this age, and will be possible!

The fact that the semi-feudal socio-economic structure is a mode of production that is not exactly feudal but neither capitalist, should be taken into consideration with the reality that this mode of production includes feudal and capitalist societal relations. Consequently, we should know that the commodity economy which is the ground for the progress towards capitalism, the circulation of commodities that develop together with his and naturally the market is a property in the semi-feudal socio-economic structure and has a growth that is unique. The dissolution of feudalism, and the tendency for self-sufficient natural economy to dissolve from its foundations as a result of this and even its dissolution in time are the reasons behind our definition of semi-feudalism. It should be clear that these features also especially include the economic life in the rural areas. Production of commodities, increasing and accelerating circulation of commodities, production for the market, and even integration with the world markets is in conformity with the semi-feudal economy. The negation of semi-feudal economy is the capitalist mode of production. However, only when this “new” mode of production develops one can speak of the liquidation of semi-feudalism, in other words, radical liquidation of feudalism will be possible. Consequently the actual matter is the quality of the foundation that the commodity economy that we see also in the semi-feudal socio-economic structure but know that it reaches the highest level in capitalism, is based on. This foundation is guided by which classes and which political and economic forces and the production that takes place on this basis creates what kind of a form of society?

Mao Zedong, after explaining that the feudal Chinese society had progressed towards the commodity economy, and since it carried the seeds of capitalism within, if the push from foreign capitalism had not come, would transform into the capitalist Chinese society on its own, speaks of the dissolution of feudalism in China, that the natural economy tended to dissolve and modern classes effectively appeared in the historical scene. In all these, he especially draws attention to the distinctive contribution of imperialism. These words of his are especially are remarkable in this sense: “However, the Chinese proletariat emerged and grew simultaneously not only with the Chinese national bourgeoisie but also with the enterprises directly operated by the imperialists in China. Hence, a very large section of the Chinese proletariat is older and more experienced than the Chinese bourgeoisie, and is therefore a greater and more broadly based social force.”

The first visible state of the effect of imperialism in countries that are under semi-feudal economic conditions is the destruction of the natural economy, this self-sufficient of economy by the hands of imperialism. With the dissolution of the feudal mode of production the process that settles, we can call this “the transition process”, is the semi-feudal process which Lenin defines as “the liberation of small farming” and here, the level of development of means of production are not adequate for the dominance of the capitalism mode of production yet. Imperialism, when included in this process, rapidly destructs the natural economy and provides for the emergence of some certain objective conditions and possibilities for the development of capitalist production; this at the same time includes the rapid progress of commodity market. Mao stating that the Chinese proletariat was born earlier than the Chinese bourgeoisie thanks to foreign capitalism is an outcome of this reality. This at the same time means that the conditions for the purchase and selling of labor as a commodity has emerged and the market for labor force has developed. The dispossession of small farmers and dragging the shopkeepers, artisans to poverty are the visible and distinct properties of this process. Both the development of capitalist production conditions that are caused by imperialism and the destruction of natural economy which is not independent from this and developments towards proletarianization has almost one to one correspondence with Marx’s narration of merchant capital establishing dominance overproduction, thus directly hinders the development of the producer to become capitalist, makes the old mode of production permanent and maintains the conditions. The quite commonly quoted words of Lenin too explain this effect of imperialism in semi-feudal and feudal countries: “The export of capital influences and greatly accelerates the development of capitalism in those countries to which it is exported. While, therefore, the export of capital may tend to a certain extent to arrest development in the capital-exporting countries, it can only do so by expanding and deepening the further development of capitalism throughout the world.”

The “capitalism” referred to here by Lenin is capitalism linked to imperialism, which we call “comprador capitalism“ (Kaypakkaya). “Capitalism dependent on imperialism” can neither be defined as “development of capitalism” nor “dependent capitalism”. Both of these definitions include the thesis that bourgeois revolution has taken place in semi-colonial countries or through endomorphism capitalist mode of production has become the foundation of the economic structure. But in fact, “capitalism dependent on imperialism” is capitalism that has come to being carrying all the properties of imperialism within and capitalism “from outside” in the semi-colony. Of course there are semi-colonies that have been successful at realizing the bourgeois revolution and liquidate feudalism from the foundations of production. Greece and Portugal are well-known examples of this. The dominant mode of production in these countries is capitalism. Nonetheless, in countries that have not achieved this, “capitalism dependent on imperialism”, has destroyed the possibilities for also dependent capitalism. Shortly, “developing capitalism” or “dependent capitalism” puts the emphasis on the capitalist economy that came to being in the society. And on the other hand “capitalism dependent on imperialism” puts the emphasis on capitalism that comes from outside. This opinion is what exactly Ibrahim Kaypakkaya puts forward while using the term “comprador capitalism”. We should say that this opinion is determinative for the comprehension of semi-feudalism. At this point the properties of the relations that imperialist capital establishes with the semi-feudal countries are determinative here.

In order to comprehend these relations, underlying properties of capitalism at the imperialist stage should be mentioned. One of these is the realization of the monopolistic tendency of capitalism in the stage of imperialism around the world: the tendency has become the reality, imperialism is monopolistic capitalism.       

“Half a century ago, when Marx wrote Capital, free competition was considered by the majority of economists as one of “nature’s laws. Official science attempted through a conspiracy of silence to kill Marx’s book, which by its theoretical and historical analysis of Capitalism proved that unrestrained competition leads to industrial concentration, and that concentration upon reaching a certain point results in monopoly. (Lenin)” The monopolistic stage of capitalism points out to a process that fundamentally changes the relationship of capitals with forces of production; now the laws of development of capitalism are different than before.

“Here we no longer have competition between small and large, between technically developed and backward enterprises. We see here the monopolists throttling those who do not submit to them, to their yoke, to their dictation.” (ibid, pg. 33)

“Translated into ordinary human language this means that the development of capitalism has arrived at a stage when, although commodity production still “reigns” and continues to be regarded as the basis of economic life, it has in reality been undermined and the bulk of the profits go to the “geniuses” of financial manipulation. At the basis of these manipulations and swindles lies socialised production; but the immense progress of mankind, which achieved this socialisation, goes to benefit . . . the speculators.” (ibid, pg. 33-34)

In summary, monopolies are the fundamental property of capitalism at the stage of imperialism and at any place where the imperialist hegemony is realized, the laws that the monopolies dominate apply! The monopolistic oppression and tyranny that Lenin draws attention to several times are the typical properties of this dominance and hegemony. In all semi-colonies and of course especially in semi-feudal countries new forms of productions that are developing and that are possible to develop – once again let us remind that in the foundation of this lies the liberation of small farming – are strangled by the oppression and tyranny of monopolism!

As if directed against the ones who do not comprehend this relation of dominance or somehow choose to deny it, Lenin writes these words, which he expresses as typical in his book, “Imperialism”: “The old capitalism has had its day. The new capitalism represents a transition towards something. It is hopeless, of course, to seek for “firm principles and a concrete aim” for the purpose of “reconciling” monopoly with free competition. The admission of the practical men has quite a different ring from the official praises of the charms of “organised” capitalism sung by its apologists, Schulze-Gaevernitz, Liefmann and similar “theoreticians”.”

(…)

“…Thus, the twentieth century marks the turning-point from the old capitalism to the new, from the domination of capital in general to the domination of finance capital. (ibid, pg. 51)

The quality of this type of capital is determinatively signification in also the comprehension of semi-feudalism. As Lenin lays down the quality of this capital with several examples, speas of the “resources of profit” as such: “Finance capital, concentrated in a few hands and exercising a virtual monopoly, exacts enormous and ever-increasing profits from the floating of companies, issue of stock, state loans, etc., strengthens the domination of the financial oligarchy and levies tribute upon the whole of society for the benefit of monopolists.”

(ibid, pg. 58) And continues “Imperialism, or the domination of finance capital, is that highest stage of capitalism in which this separation reaches vast proportions. The supremacy of finance capital over all other forms of capital means the predominance of the rentier and of the financial oligarchy; it means that a small number of financially “powerful” states stand out among all the rest.” (idib, pg. 64)

Consequently subsequent to the emphasis on that the semi-colonization process is based on intense transfer of capital, the first determination to be done is that this capital that takes a hold of semi-feudal countries is essentially finance capital and this as a capital that is fed by founding companies, emissions, public debt etc. what kind of contribution it can do to “capitalist development”.

“Typical of the latest stage of capitalism, when monopolies rule, is the export of capital.”

(ibid, pg. 66)

As it is known, capitalism is the production of commodities at the highest level of its development. The limitless development of production of commodities and profit-oriented the growth tendency of capitalism makes the uneven and bouncing development inevitable in capitalist countries. As several businesses, sectors of the industry rapidly obtain a superior position in the production of commodities; in others such a development does not take place at the same level. For instance, in developed capitalist countries, since agriculture does not bring as much profits as in sectors of industry, the agriculture has remained behind of the development in industry! As a result of uneven and bouncing development, in develop capitalist countries monopolistic unities come to existence and at the same time the monopolistic position of few states around the world is created. Thus, the same property also emerges among the states. Export of capital being the fundamental property of capitalism at stage of imperialism is a result of this. The bourgeoisie that records an enormous progress in the accumulation of capital by being monopolist, arrives at the situation that obtains the profit that it cannot through export of commodities, with export of capital. Because in countries where the capital is to be exported, which are not yet capitalist or at the first stages in capitalism, thus are backward in this sense capital is inadequate and weak but raw materials and work force is cheap. Exporting commodities to these countries is not adequately profitable. In fact, export of capital is profitable at tremendous levels. Lenin explains the conditions of export of capital as such: “The need to export capital arises from the fact that in a few countries capitalism has become “overripe” and (owing to the backward state of agriculture and the poverty of the masses) capital cannot find a field for “profitable” investment.” (ibid, pg. 67)

The emergence and the spread of imperialism is “completely” a result of capitalist development; the level that the commodity production has reached resulted in overflow of capital from the national borders. This overflow, has gained a “new” quantity, capital starting in the form of commodities and ultimately as money, as export of capital. The distinctive property that the export of capital has is both the basis of this export on monopolistic unities and the superior existence of states that are in the positions of monopolies. As Lenin emphasizes: “Finance capital, has created the epoch of monopolies, and monopolies introduce everywhere monopolist principles.” (ibid, pg. 69) The monopolies has spread to the countries where capitalism has not yet developed or just has begun to develop and even partially developed, through privileges from head to toe, due to the shrinking of fields of profit in their own countries. This property has also determined the influences of imperialist states on countries that are economically undeveloped.

In summary, seeing the results of the properties of the finance capital and the bases that it rests against together with imperialism in almost every corner of the world cannot be considered a mere coincident or temporary; these are inevitable, spontaneous and consequently usual outcomes. It is as bright as day that capitalism develops through widening and deepening all around the world and that at the center of this result finance capital is present. Exactly this property is the essential reason behind semi-feudalism!

It is a reality that in every country it enters, imperialism develops the conditions of capitalism, causes the feudal structure to dissolve, hinder the natural economy thus creates large spaces for its commodity economy and make self-sufficient economy impossible in time, and directs peasants and producer farmers to wage labor etc. That at a stage of history the feudal society will have no possibility to live on, and capitalism has concretized this with its development is an undeniable reality of science. Nevertheless, this reality is just one face of the phenomenon. We should not forget that every form of economic relations or – with a more general expression – every form of society is destined to maintain its existence acclimating to the new one by gaining new forms, to hold on to the stage of history.        

“These various conditions, which appear first as conditions of self-activity, later as fetters upon it, form in the whole evolution of history a coherent series of forms of intercourse, the coherence of which consists in this: in the place of an earlier form of intercourse, which has become a fetter, a new one is put, corresponding to the more developed productive forces and, hence, to the advanced mode of the self-activity of individuals – a form which in its turn becomes a fetter and is then replaced by another. Since these conditions correspond at every stage to the simultaneous development of the productive forces, their history is at the same time the history of the evolving productive forces taken over by each new generation, and is, therefore, the history of the development of the forces of the individuals themselves.

Since this evolution takes place naturally, i.e. is not subordinated to a general plan of freely combined individuals, it proceeds from various localities, tribes, nations, branches of labour, etc. each of which to start with develops independently of the others and only gradually enters into relation with the others. Furthermore, it takes place only very slowly; the various stages and interests are never completely overcome, but only subordinated to the prevailing interest and trail along beside the latter for centuries afterwards. It follows from this that within a nation itself the individuals, even apart from their pecuniary circumstances, have quite different developments, and that an earlier interest, the peculiar form of intercourse of which has already been ousted by that belonging to a later interest, remains for a long time afterwards in possession of a traditional power in the illusory community (State, law), which has won an existence independent of the individuals; a power which in the last resort can only be broken by a revolution.” (Marks-Engels, 2013, pg. 73-74)

Marx and Engels who have handled and comprehended the self-realization of individuals within some certain economic relations in the history of societies, different stage of economic relations that emerged in this history and interests that are based on classes, stated that this can continue for hundreds of years by merely being dependent on dominant interests in this manner. The interests of finance capital represent the dominant interests in the age of imperialism.

After explaining that imperialism has fueled the progress towards being a capitalist society on its own in feudal China, that it has developed the conditions of development of commodity economy with its principal aspects says that, “However, the emergence and development of capitalism is only one aspect of the change that has taken place since the imperialist penetration of China. There is another concomitant and obstructive aspect, namely, the collusion of imperialism with the Chinese feudal forces to arrest the development of Chinese capitalism.

It is certainly not the purpose of the imperialist powers invading China to transform feudal China into capitalist China. On the contrary, their purpose is to transform China into their own semi-colony or colony.

To this end the imperialist powers have used and continue to use military, political, economic and cultural means of oppression, so that China has gradually become a semi-colony and colony…” (Mao Zedong, 1992, pg. 314)

Lenin too, after saying that the same property caused the export of capital to develop capitalism all around the world by widening and deepening, expresses it in different words: “The capital-exporting countries are nearly always able to obtain certain “advantages”, the character of which throws light on the peculiarity of the epoch of finance capital and monopoly…”

(…)

Finance capital has created the epoch of monopolies, and monopolies introduce everywhere monopolist principles: the utilisation of “connections” for profitable transactions takes the place of competition on the open market. The most usual thing is to stipulate that part of the loan granted shall be spent on purchases in the creditor country, particularly on orders for war materials, or for ships, etc. In the course of the last two decades (1890-1910), France has very often resorted to this method. The export of capital thus becomes a means of encouraging the export of commodities. In this connection, transactions between particularly big firms assume a form which, as Schilder “mildly” puts it, “borders on corruption”. Krupp in Germany, Schneider in France, Armstrong in Britain are instances of firms which have close connections with powerful banks and governments and which cannot easily be “ignored” when a loan is being arranged.” (ibid, pg. 68-69)

The relations that Lenin mentions, “some certain advantages” that are provided, “firms that are not to be skipped in loans” are the stones in the vicious circle that semi-colonial countries enter with imperialism and undoubtedly the circle is not only composed of these. All semi-colonies have been imprisoned in a similar vicious circle and in every single one of them the creation of this has almost the same properties. Moreover, applications and structures that maintain this vicious circle in the later times of history have been increasingly institutionalized and implemented with the same properties in semi-colonies. Some principal institutions such as The IMF, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and the OECD are organized to maintain endless continuity of these vicious circles. All principles of these institutions are based on determining te rules that semi-colonies are liable to follow. Except of the powerful, developed states, the relations with these institutions, as Lenin draws attention to, is based on the realization of “some certain advantages”. Undoubtedly this is done through the discourses of “regulating the international economy and commerce, protection against crises.” They act as if the answers for the questions whose economy and which economy have already “given” eternal answers…

But in fact, imperialism is moribund capitalism. Exactly at this point Lenin uses a special concept: “From all that has been said in this book on the economic essence of imperialism, it follows that we must define it as capitalism in transition, or, more precisely, as moribund capitalism.” (ibid, pg. 128) “Capitalism in transition…” This is a special concept that refers to transitioning capitalism. Following to this Lenin, with concepts such as “interlocking”, “disappearing of solitude” speaks of the bourgeois economist banally copy the external, random and complicated, arrived at this special conclusion: “…that private economic and private property relations constitute a shell which no longer fits its contents, a shell which must inevitably decay if its removal is artificially delayed, a shell which may remain in a state of decay for a fairly long period (if, at the worst, the cure of the opportunist abscess is protracted), but which will inevitably be removed. (ibid, pg. 128-129) In this “transition” process of capitalism which is now completely mature and “consists of a shell”, the results of the oppression it established on the economies of producers in semi-colonies would undoubtedly be intense at a level that is not comparable to the oppression of merchant capital in the conditions of developing capitalism. Because, even if the giant monopolies and states that the instruments of force and ready for duty for imperialism would have the same function as the merchant capital, we cannot anymore speak of the development conditions of the capitalist ode of production that subjugates the merchant capital to itself in time, that process has long been history and it is replaced by moribund capitalism, “the relations of hegemony and the dependent force” that has wrapped the whole world around; there is now no place for free, peaceful and honest competition.

In other words: in countries where feudalism is dissolved but the capitalist mode of production has not developed there is no possibility for the revolution way in which the producer becomes the merchant or the capitalist. Every time “the producer attempts to change its mode of production to increase its hidden productivity instead of making do with the current mode of production” is met with the rapid economic oppression of imperialist of all sorts. This economic oppression organizes an exploitation that realizes on the bases of the essentials of the old mode of production. “The primitive capital accumulation” now is realized to be transferred to giant monopolies and imperialist states. But in fact, we know that, for capitalist production to be settled, to stand on its feet requires “unique laborers” and at the same time this requires an accumulation of wealth of one class to create surplus value, namely this functioning and production of this unique labor. Imperialism is the force that has a voice over this accumulation of wealth in every field and at every level. The ones who seize the surplus value and surplus labor product in semi-feudal countries whose all production processes are wrapped around with networks under the control of imperialism, are mostly indirectly but sometimes directly imperialist monopolies, and their collaborationist “local” dominant classes. It should be clear that the dominant local classes are the remnants of feudalism and the forces that are representative, extensions and dependents of foreign capital in these countries.

We should note that the exploitation of imperialism that essentially has a usurer character, more concretely that is based on money-rentier, includes the negation of theses of the reality that neither labor continues to create surplus value nor the labor is still the only real creator of the surplus value. This only means that its effective role in the development of the organization of labor and production forces of capitalism is now history. Capitalism at the stage of imperialism “is composed of a shell that does not fit its content”. Of course we cannot assess imperialist only with giant monopolies in countries that it is developed and with the capital there; it exists with the same properties all around the world and imposes these properties through force that is based on its relations of hegemony. Consequently, in countries were feudalism tends to dissolve and in a state of collapse, the aim of imperialism is not to change these places on the basis of mode of capitalist production, namely in a way that would create the organization of labor and the development of means of production. On the contrary, preservation of the current mode of production and exploitation of all values through the use of extra capital that stands still becomes its purpose. Semi-feudalism is also the inevitable consequence of seizing the surplus values created in these places. Thus, colonization and semi-colonization should be considered as the full supporter and a ground of semi-feudal economy’s transition from feudalism to capitalism, in other words – and to refer to Lenin’s definition in regards to imperialism – transitional feudalism, more correctly moribund feudalism. It is in this case self-evident that capitalism dependent on imperialism is again one of the essential elements of semi-feudal society.

In order to repeat once again, we can shortly summarize the consequences that imperialism causes in countries where feudalism tends to dissolve and capitalism has not developed: the attacks and all established economic, political, military and cultural relations of imperialism on one hand sped up the dissolution of feudalism and the development of capitalist elements and thus allowed to be arrived at the level of semi-feudal society and on the other hand has semi-colonized the country in unison with this. These two properties of a semi-feudal ad semi-colonial country are properties that support one another.

The dissolution towards capitalism that is caused by imperialist most often is misinterpreted. Not only the dissolution caused by imperialism but also the deterministic rotting of feudalism that increases in time and tends to dissolve too is mistakenly misinterpreted as prevailing of capitalist mode of production. But in fact, dissolution of feudalism cannot be defined as the deterministic settlement of capitalist mode of production. It should not be forgotten that capitalist mode of production is a unique production relation. Capitalism could develop on the basis of mode of small production, producer revealing the hidden productivity in the process of production and of course together with the existence of other determinative factors that conditions this, and the dissolution of feudalism is not a simultaneous process that goes hand in hand with this. Consequently, the development of capitalist mode of production under the conditions of moribund feudalism should be considered separately. The dissolution process of feudalism on the lands of Turkey has not been completed with the prevailing of capitalist mode of production that develops step by step on the basis of small production. The force that accelerated this dissolution and developed “a unique” capitalism has been imperialism. This has brought comprador capitalism in front of us, namely capitalism dependent on imperialism; a capitalism that is dependent on feudalism, that is born late and that develops under the hegemony of monopolistic capitalism and as Marx states “The producer becomes merchant and capitalist, in contrast to the natural agricultural economy and the guild-bound handicrafts of the medieval urban industries. ” (Marks, 2009, s. 293) not under capitalism that develops with the “the path that really revolutionizes” the producer, that develops based on semi-feudal foundation.

As Ibrahim comrades meticulously emphasizes while explaining the quotation from Lenin, what Lenin mentions is “the capitalism that we call comprador capitalism that is dependent on imperialism. These conditions create the foundation of the bureaucratic capitalism thesis of Mao Zedong’s distinctive contribution to Marxism-Leninism.

Comrade Ibrahim laid out the process of comprador bourgeoisie in Turkey with a direction from his own observations and investigations and from the brochure of “the Proletariat of Turkey” of Schnurov. Let us repeat some principal properties as the foundation of our theses:

“In his book New Democracy comrade Mao Tse-Tung quotes comrade Stalin as saying “A Kemalist revolution is a revolution of the top stratum, a revolution of the national merchant bourgeoisie…”

“The upper class in question were the Turkish comprador big bourgeoisie that grew within the Committee of Union and Progress, and were lackeys of firstly German imperialism and, after the defeat of German imperialism in World War one, moved close to British French imperialism.”

“We know that the Turkish bourgeoisie initially organised around the Committee of Union and Progress and that this class along with the officers and nobles led the Young Turk revolution in 1908. After the Committee of Union and Progress had come to power, due to global conditions and the continuing problem of Turkey’s semi-colonial structure, it went into collaboration with German imperialism. While on the one hand a wing of the bourgeoisie grew and flourished, constituting the Turkish big bourgeoisie, on the other the comprador bourgeoisie, comprised of in general the minority nationalities, that had existed since the time of Abdul Hamit maintained its presence. The Committee of Union and Progress represented the interests of the former, and as the loyal lackey of German imperialism became the sworn enemy of the working class and other toilers. The growing comprador wing of the Turkish bourgeoisie (that is, the Turkish comprador big bourgeoisie) became fabulously wealthy during the First World War on account of trading in military vehicles, railway monopoly and profiteering on essential goods. Significant wealth and capital was accumulated. With the collapse of German imperialism and the consequent threat to their domination they began to flirt with the allied powers and take necessary steps.

It is these which comrade Stalin called the upper strata.” (Kaypakkaya, 2012, pg. 82-83)

“Again Schnurov says that “the feudal gentry are also agents of large commercial firms that by agricultural products wholesale.” It is known that in those years the “large commercial firms” were to a large degree under the control or in the possession of the imperialists.”(ibid., pg. 83)

Ibrahim, stating that Turkey remained as a semi-colony following to the Kemalist revolution, from the direction from Schnurov lays out that the abolishment of the sultan, ending of some certain privileges of imperialists has not changed almost anything in the economic life as such:

“It is true that foreigners no longer had any more or special rights than Turkish citizens, but then this was equality amongst the unequal. That is, how can powerful European capital be equal to Turkish capital? It is natural that there could be no question of equality. New installations were being established by both Turkish and foreign capital.”” (ibid, pg. 85)

“‘Turkey’s largest capitalists are foreigners. Apart from all the mining concerns, most of the railways and the factories that process agricultural products are in foreign hands.!’” (ibid, pg. 85)

“Turkey is an underdeveloped, semi-colonial country. French, German and British capitalists are securing fortunes from the backs of Turkish workers and peasants.”

(ibid, pg. 85)

Comrade Ibrahim explains the state of Turkish bourgeoisie after the Liberation War as such: “Of course, a significant section of the old landlords maintained their dominance. A part of the new Turkish bourgeoisie establishing power had from long before had a comprador nature. We have pointed this out. The comprador nature of another part of the bourgeoisie began immediately after the War of Liberation and gradually increased. The covert collaboration between the Turkish bourgeoisie and imperialism that began in the war years developed in the economic sphere after the war and the semi-colonial structure that remained in place rendered this collaboration even more inevitable. This was certainly not due to the ill intentions of the Turkish bourgeoisie, but the natural rule of things. The Turkish bourgeoisie desires to be wealthy, but its capital is puny. Large and abundant capital is in the hands of Western Imperialist bourgeoisie. To compete with them is fatal, so the most advantageous and profitable route is to cooperate with them for a suitable share.…” (ibid, pg. 86)

With the quotation below, he points out that comrade Schnurov too draws attention to the same reality:

“In the end many Kemalists became partners of various foreign companies. These foreign companies also benefit from close contacts with government offices and from their partners. (ibid, pg. 86)

All these quotations and similar contents and data that can be presented showcases that capitalism rose on a foundation that is dependent on foreign capital (specifically Western European capital), that is born late and that is semi-feudal. Under these conditions capitalism could not have realized the liquidation of feudalism. Undoubtedly it would accelerate the dissolution of feudalism and make the economy of commodities more common by developing the conditions of capitalism however the obligation for the liquidation of feudalism was the change of mode of production. And capitalist that is dependent on foreign capital was not a product of the new mode of production that develops with the change in the mode of production and the revealing of the hidden productivity in production. Marx’s analysis on the merchant capital is a pathfinder in this regard:

“So long as merchant’s capital promotes the exchange of products between undeveloped societies, commercial profit not only appears as out-bargaining and cheating, but also largely originates from them. Aside from the fact that it exploits the difference between the prices of production of various countries (and in this respect it tends to level and fix the values of commodities), those modes of production bring it about that merchant’s capital appropriates an overwhelming portion of the surplus-product partly as a mediator between communities which still substantially produce for use-value, and for whose economic organisation the sale of the portion of their product entering circulation, or for that matter any sale of products at their value, is of secondary importance; and partly, because under those earlier modes of production the principal owners of the surplus-product with whom the merchant dealt, namely, the slave-owner, the feudal lord, and the state (for instance, the oriental despot) represent the consuming wealth and luxury which the merchant seeks to trap, as Adam Smith correctly scented in the passage on feudal times quoted earlier. Merchant’s capital, when it holds a position of dominance, stands everywhere for a system of robbery,4 so that its development among the trading nations of old and modern times is always directly connected with plundering, piracy, kidnapping slaves, and colonial conquest; as in Carthage, Rome, and later among the Venetians, Portuguese, Dutch, etc.” (Marx, 2009, pg. 225)

After stating that the merchant capital, separate from production is in regards to the functions of the process of circulation Marx speaks of why and how this capital supports the dominant mode of production after explaining why and how this capital is the dominant mode of production. Together with this, he again mentions the effects of merchant capital on the old mode of production. Exactly at this point Marx shows us the way. In the specificity of our subject, what is essential is the foreign capital. This capital is the capitalist capital that the capitalist production creates and expands. The export of this capital to semi-colonies undertakes the function of the merchant capital. The purpose is not to develop the capitalist mode of production but to grow. And the way for that is to seize the raw materials, cheap labor, created surplus value and surplus produce in semi-colonies. That is why it increases the economic works, accelerates the circulation of money and encourages these countries to create more and more exchange value etc. However, these are not phenomena that are to directly affect the mode of production. These to take place over any mode of production is possible. The effects of these on the mode of production would ultimately be determined by the quality of the mode of production and its internal validity. Comrade Marx’s determination that merchant capital was through pillaging in old and recent times, pirating, stealing slaves and seizing colonies shows us the position of foreign capital. All the partnerships, all the investments and all the agreements of foreign capital includes the essentials of “colonization” and especially is shaped with a relation that is in accordance with the essentials f the current mode of production. Exactly for this reason, the industrial revolution which the capitalist mode of production caused under the dominance of foreign capital has never taken place in semi-colonies!

The factor that conditions such a revolution, together with the inclusion of developments and discoveries in various fields is nothing but the “the already existing capitalist mode of production.” This determinative “factor” has not been created in the vast majority of semi-colonies. Capitalism that is dependent on imperialism on the basis of semi-feudal foundations through an operation over money-capital and commodity-capital has made exploitation permanent.

In developed capitalism, money-capital moves towards the creation of production capital, production capital moves towards the creation of commodity-capital and commodity-capital moves towards the realization of money-capital. However this operation malfunctions quite often in the age of imperialism because in this stage of capitalism what is essential is the tendency for rate of profit to drop and in conditions of crisis these three types of capital often disintegrates from one another. Transfer of production capital to semi-colonies is essentially impossible however the liquid property of money-capital and commodity-capital makes it easy for these to be transferred. This property also explains the “national” character of the capitalist mode of production. Here, it is important to comprehend Marx’s law in regards to the “drop in rate of profit”. Especiallythe tendency towards mechanization that provides for the productivity of labor decreases the rate of realization of surplus value in commodities. Against the increasing rate of growth of capital the labor of the waged laborer remains at the same level or decreases even more. This situation means a decrease in the rates of profit. In the age of imperialist this law of capitalism showcases itself in a more effective and strong manner. This situation is significant in order to understand the policies that imperialism follows in semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries. This means imperialism to stand against to obstruct the development of capitalism as we know it, with all its strength. Imperialism does not carry the new mode of production to colonies and semi-colonies however it carries almost all derivations of the new mode of production. This is why money-capital and commodity-capital is in varying and intense levels that cannot be compared with the material conditions of production, level of technological development and accumulation of capital of all sorts of colonial and semi-colonial countries. The transferability of money-capital and commodity-capital and its increasing intensity are quite often spoken of as if these are considered as production capital. But in fact, this is merely a delusion.

The exploitation imperialism maintains through circulation of commodity-capital but especially money-capital realizes through the control it established over the current mode of production anywhere this capital enters. At this point the states also have determinatives roles.

We have stated that the collaborators of imperialism in the comprador character determine the capitalistic development in semi-feudal countries and a capitalism is created under the hegemony of imperialism that also is dependent on feudalism. At a certain stage of the development of this creation integration with the instrument of state takes place. The “connections” that comrade Lenin speaks of are especially significant at this point. Because imperialism, while gaining some advantages inevitably needs a states as it realizes them. The situation that the already existing state meeting these necessities is a golden opportunity, if this is not the case works are done for a state that suits these connections. Comrade Mao comprehended the entire capital of comprador capitalists, feudal lords and usurer-merchant capital as the foundation of bureaucratic capitalism and the integration of this capital with the state instrument is a significant milestone in the development of bureaucratic capitalism. Capital that cannot sustain its existence without the state inevitably serves the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, landlords, big usurer-merchant class, and thus a new clique which we call “bureaucratic bourgeoisie” is born as a product of this service.

“It is a matter of mobilising all the possibilities of the state to enrich and develop the Kemalist bourgeoisie. The state monopolies also served this purpose. The Kemalist bourgeoisie, by creating state monopolies and utilising them in their own service, eliminated most competition in these spheres and thereby mercilessly exploited the workers and peasants for high monopoly profits. On the other hand monopolist-state capitalism, as indicated by Schnurov, combining enterprise with membership of the government, added a bureaucratic character to the bourgeoisie, that is, it brought forth a bureaucratic bourgeoisie. (Kaypakkaya, 2012, pg. 91)

In the quotation that we made from Marx, it was stated that the merchant capital once dominant is in favor of pillaging everywhere. It is beyond doubt that this property is due to the non-productive structure of the merchant capital. Naturally, it does not show any other tendency but heading towards “the produced” wealth and seizing the surplus value. This property applies to the capital of bureaucratic bourgeoisie since it has the same quality. With a direction from Schnurov, comrade Ibrahim lays out that this capital is composed of comprador bourgeoisie, landlords and usurer-merchant capital. There is not data that shows otherwise. Exactly for this reason, namely since bourgeois capital based on capitalist mode of production is not created, a radically incorrect thesis of “creating national bourgeoisie by the hands of the state” has been put forward. Because in order for capitalism to develop there is a need for capital in the quality that it can transform the current mode of production and that stems from the production processes. Let us state that the matter is not the existence of this capital “in respect to its amount”, the matter is the opportunity of realization of this capital on the bases of which mode of production and under what kind of economic conditions. This capital cannot utilize the capitalist mode of production because this is not a liquid capital, as Marx defines; it is “in favor of pillaging.”

The use of state by this capital most often has been interpreted as the realization of “state capitalism”. However both in the last period of the Ottoman Empire and in the Republic process the state never had “its own capital”. In all these period the capital was at the hands of certain forces. Moreover, these forces had a state that was obliged to pay debts to imperialism. Given that, speaking of the ability to create national bourgeoisie by the hands of the state means ignoring the dominant forces and consequently undermining the struggle.

At this point it is important to touch upon the usurer, merchant character of the Turkish bourgeoisie and its obligation to be hand in hand with the feudal remnants due to comprador quality of the bourgeois class and to how this obligation becomes the condition for its existence in the age of imperialism. We have touched upon the fundamental structure of the usurer, merchant capital and its properties with its general guidelines. Marx, in the third volume of Capital speaks of properties of this bourgeois class as such: “It does not alter the mode of production, but attaches itself firmly to it like a parasite and makes it wretched. It sucks out its blood, enervates it and compels reproduction to proceed under ever more pitiable conditions….

Usurer’s capital employs the method of exploitation characteristic of capital yet without the latter’s mode of production… What is sought from the owner of a hoard is not capital, but money as such; but by means of interest he transforms this hoard of money into capital, that is, into a means of appropriating surplus labour in part or in its entirety, and similarly securing a hold on a part of the means of production themselves, even though they may nominally remain the property of others. Usury lives in the pores of production,” (pg. 463) Marx does not put forward developing capitalism as the fundamental property of merchant capital. He determines it as playing a historical role in the development of capitalism. It centralizes money-capital but it never changes the mode of production and production relations. It preserves and maintains its existence within the dominant productions relations. It sticks to it like a vampire, it sucks its blood, it makes it miserable and it deprives it from the capability of reproduce itself. At the level that it dissolves and destroys all property relations in the entire production relations before capitalism, undertakes a role for the development of capitalism and creates the ground for a situation that is historically more forward. Together with capitalism establishing its influence over the entire social life and in production activities, is becomes subjugated to the capitalist production, namely to the industrial capitalism. It maintains its existence as a parasite within the realization of its production and within the framework of the rules established by it. However, it functions not as an element that provides for capitalization, not as a dominant element but as an element that is dependent and connected to it.

As it known, the ground where usurer, merchant capital most freely develops and grows is the existence of small producers. The merchant capital is as strong as the small producer’s area and its opportunity to realize itself is as strong in proportion with it. That is why the usurer capital plays a role in the dissolution of feudal property in the feudal production relations and in the development of small production. Small production at the same time is the production and social ground for capitalist relations. Before capitalism reaches social production conditions, the economic, social and political ground for capitalist development is born as a result of the typical destruction of feudal forms of property. Marx defines the form of small production in the third volume of Capital as such: “…Ownership of the land is as necessary for full development of this mode of production as ownership of tools is for free development of handicraft production. Here is the basis for the development of personal independence. It is a necessary transitional stage for the development of agriculture itself.” (pg. 807)

And Lenin as such: “But what is small production? The most usual answer is that small production is one that does not use wage-labour.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 16, pg. 431)

And Marx touches upon the influence that small production creates in the first volume of Capital as such: “The private property of the labourer in his means of production is the foundation of petty industry, whether agricultural, manufacturing, or both; petty industry, again, is an essential condition for the development of social production and of the free individuality of the labourer himself. Of course, this petty mode of production exists also under slavery, serfdom, and other states of dependence.” (pg. 725)

These determinations of comrades Marx and Lenin in regards to the role that small production plays in the social progress and production process should not be forgotten. The prevalence of small production and its strength has historically created the ground for the destruction of feudal production relations and the dominance of capitalist relations. However, small production whose effect has weakened in accordance with the accumulation and development tendency of capitalist private property and capital can maintain its existence as long as it benefits the socialized production relations of capitalism and in accordance with the needs of the capital accumulation and the process of reproduction and its existence is defined within these borders. In regards to the liquidation of small production within the tendency of the capitalist law that is based on dispossession in the relationship between capitalist private property and socialized production, utters these words in the first volume of Capital: : “It is compatible only with a system of production, and a society, moving within narrow and more or less primitive bounds. To perpetuate it would be, as Pecqueur rightly says, “to decree universal mediocrity”. At a certain stage of development, it brings forth the material agencies for its own dissolution. From that moment new forces and new passions spring up in the bosom of society; but the old social organisation fetters them and keeps them down. It must be annihilated; it is annihilated. Its annihilation, the transformation of the individualised and scattered means of production into socially concentrated ones, of the pigmy property of the many into the huge property of the few, the expropriation of the great mass of the people from the soil, from the means of subsistence, and from the means of labour, this fearful and painful expropriation of the mass of the people forms the prelude to the history of capital. It comprises a series of forcible methods, of which we have passed in review only those that have been epoch-making as methods of the primitive accumulation of capital. The expropriation of the immediate producers was accomplished with merciless Vandalism, and under the stimulus of passions the most infamous, the most sordid, the pettiest, the most meanly odious. Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent labouring individual with the conditions of his labour, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally free labour of others, i.e., on wage labour.” (pg. 726)

Whether be it in agriculture or manufacture, small producer is subjected to destructive competition, tendency of monopolization, dispossession and destruction through the desire to accumulate capital, shrinking and liquidation to an extent by capitalism within the capitalistic production relations. It is beyond doubt that the merciless and savage dispossession of small producers as Marx states is not a compulsory law for all processes of capitalization. And again as Marx states, every country’s own historical and social conditions and situation creates a situation that determines the realization and development of capitalism. This has taken place differently in England and differently in France. While small producers has managed to preserve and maintain their existences as effective elements of capitalism within the capitalist relations in France, on the other hand in England they have been savagely ripped of their means of production and have been dragged to the labor market. This situation does not ignore the common property of the tendencies and laws of capitalism that determine the production relations. It proves that the production relations of capitalism that is based on commodity production and accumulation of capital is realized in every society in its own unique ways.

Since the last period of the Ottoman Empire the destruction based on small production has taken place parallel to the development of usurer, merchant capital and together with the steps taken for capitalist development. The classes that grow with commerce and usury in the Ottoman Empire has gained a character on one hand rots the feudal form of property and sticks to it as a parasite and on the other deeply connected to the capitalist exploitative states and parallel to their intense export of commodities. The export of capital of imperialism has gained greater dimensions with this process. The last period of the Ottoman Empire, in parallel with the development of capitalist relations of merchant capital, caused it to gain a character that its comprador quality that is dependent on imperialism to sharpen. All remnants of the feudal relations of production has become the condition for its own reproduction in ways to direct the economic life, to be determinative in the way of usurping labor, to create the basis for the independent development of usurer, merchant capital. The export of commodities of the capitalist colonialism and together with the subsequent imperialist character of this colonialism and the intensification of export of capital brought about the complete destruction of the processes of first accumulation and primitive accumulation. Imperialist capital had affected the social structure of the Ottoman Empire that entered the primitive accumulation process with its own internal contradictions in two opposite ways:

Firstly, imperialist capital undertook the destructive duty by shaking the natural economy, unifying local markets, creating the proletariat, growing the circulation of commodities and increasingly growing the production of commodities. Thus, it accelerated the primitive accumulation process by making it dependent and subjugated to itself and provided for the creation of the objective conditions of capitalism.

But on the other hand stood against the development of capitalism by pillaging the raw materials, indebting, taking away the accumulated primitive capital, supporting the pre-capitalist production relations and hindering the development of a national industry and tried to encapsulate the social labor into the backward production relations.

These two opposite effects of imperialism are due to the law that governs the accumulation of monopolistic capital and finance capital. Consequently, this is an internal contradiction of imperialism. While actualizing this process, the dependent local bourgeoisie entered an alliance with the landlords who were the dominant forces in the pre-capitalist period. This is a historical alliance that emerged as a natural outcome of the parasitic, usurer character of imperialism.

It is beyond doubt that this situation together with the foundation of the Republic continued on the new ground through Armenian and Greek massacres and genocides by the Turkish comprador bourgeoisie and landlords to collect and grow the capitals of Armenian and Greek bourgeois’ who controlled the commerce. By accepting the imperialist headlock, the Republic of Turkey preserving the economic and social foundation that it took over from the Ottoman Empire became a state that is shaped with a new political form.

Now the capitalist development in the social structure continued by preserving a course of development that is in accordance with the interest of the historical alliance of Turkish comprador bourgeoisie and big landlords and in accordance with the needs of the usurer imperialist capital. The Turkish comprador bourgeoisie that is in the usurer, merchant capital character, on one hand created a painful dissolution in feudal relations and on the other hand created a situation that preserves the pre-capitalist production relations or feudal remnants and reproduces them due to the quality that is dependent on the, as comrade Lenin says, “an enormous usurer capital” of the imperialist finance capital. The absolute hegemony of the imperialist capital and the dependent comprador bourgeois capital, instead of creating differentiation from peasantry and providing for peasants to escape from their feudal chains and become free producers has created a situation in which it hinders and chains them. The determination of comrade Lenin in his book, “the Development of Capitalism in Russia,” that says, “the independent development of merchant and usurer capital postpones the differentiation in peasantry”, has now become a property of semi-feudal production relations in the age of imperialism.

Imperialist capital made the dependent local comprador capitalism grow in a natural and compulsory way with its ambition for high profit. However this growth has become a property that causes the realization of semi-feudal production relations not the development of capitalism. There has been left no other way for the differentiation of peasantry but the revolutionary path. Comprador bourgeoisie and big land lords stuck onto the small producer who was dominant in the land property with the force of the capital and the state and whose labor was usurped in semi-feudal ways like a vampire and strangled it; then on imprisoned it into semi-feudal relations that determine the entire social, economic life and blocked its way for transformation. This situation also applies to the small commodity producer manufacturer businesses in the cities that belong to the feudal period. The high profit ambition of the imperialist usurer capital and comprador bourgeoisie who take a share of it allowed the usurer capital to infiltrate to all the pores of production and to the social relations in its entirety with its desire for easy heists.

The realization of the exploitation of this parasitic capital in our country takes place within the semi-feudal production relations. From the last period of the Ottoman Empire to this very day, an essential change has not yet taken place in the land property and this parasitic capital has created the ground that it sticks and exists over like a parasite on the back of impoverished and middle peasantry without depriving them of means of production. The dissolution it creates in the feudal property relations is just like a vicious cycle. Peasantry that cannot transform besides the capitalist way are being subjected to an intense usurping of labor and exploitation in the claws of usurer networks such as cooperatives and banks by the hands of the state. Peasantry whose produces are presented in the market as commodities is condemned to a process where it cannot produce its un-capitalized products in the status of free producer. Since an essential change has not taken place since the last period of the Ottoman Empire to this day, the form of property that is determinant in the productions relations seems to have not undergone changes in terms of property relations and division of the lands in comparison with the data of 1952 and 2013. Besides a 1-2 percent change, one cannot speak of a change in regards to this. While indications towards monopolization of lands are not existent, also a division based on the division of inheritance too is nonexistent. The fact that the ownership of land has not changed is the realization ground for the preservation of relations that are based on semi-feudal productions relations and determine the life of the entire society in a way that the interests of the usurer capital would make maximum profits in capitalist means.

The relationship between the entire usurer-merchant capital and the small producer maintains its dominance as the essential form of exploitation. Through this usury, sweet heists are obtained. And on the other hand the social and economic relations that this is based on in the age of imperialism are the semi-feudal production relations.

In the pillaging system that is constructed on the semi-feudal foundations, the fact that state has significant functions should be considered as an important reality. The integration of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie with the state is determinative in comprehending of its quality.

It is clear that capitalism that develops in dependence with imperialism naturally would be shaped in accordance with the existing mode of production. The question is designation of with which mode of production this capitalism meets. It is known that the Ottoman Empire did not transited to the capitalist mode of production and thus collapsed. Actually what collapsed was the whole economic system that this empire was based on; since the feudal, semi-feudal structure could not have been maintained the empire was open for pillage. The one that came for the plunder is imperialism that is developed and matured based on capitalist mode of production. Consequently, the foreign capital that came to the lands of Turkey had no objective of developing capitalism; it is monopolistic and functions in order to deteriorate the situation of the producers directly due to its monopolistic and pillaging character without making a rooted change in the mode of production. That is why the capitalist that is dependent on imperialism has no activities of “capitalization”, on the contrary due to its monopolistic character it suppresses the development of capitalism.

It is more appropriate to call this capitalism “capitalism that is dependent on imperialism”. Even if the definition dependent capitalism seem to incorporate the concept of “connected capitalism”, it fits the definition of capitalism of coming to existence initially as independent or developing as a mode of production but in time has become dependent.

In fact we claim that the capitalist mode of production has not been created or developed. If there had been such a development it is beyond doubt that the feudal dissolution would be in the direction of capitalist development. Lenin’s book “the Development of Capitalism in Russia” is the narration of this process with all its details. This book speaks of how the capitalist mode of production infiltrated all forms of feudal dissolution. On the other hand in Turkey semi-feudal mode of production, labor-service forms have infiltrated and infiltrate the feudal dissolution, not capitalist mode of production. That is why on one hand peasantry continues to dissolve but capitalism cannot develop and the consequence of all the development is industrialization, excessive indebting and inevitably increasing transfer of wealth. What is called “the growing economy of Turkey” is the transfer of wealth in accordance with the increase debts; more precisely pillaging!

As a conclusion: This reality of the social and economic structure causes three big mountains to rise in front of the social structure: Imperialism, feudalism and comprador-bureaucratic capitalism. These reactionary forces are based on a historical alliance and have the quality of having interest in the continuity of semi-feudal production relations. These forces are obstacles in front of the transformation of production relations to the capitalist mode, disappearance of obstacles in front of the freedom of labor and in this sense force of production to enter the process of production relations. This situation gives birth to the destruction of all social freedoms by feudal remnants, imperialist hegemony and fascist state mechanism.

There has not been a from top down, bottom to up “bourgeois democratic revolution” process in our country to entirely rid of feudal remnants. This situation caused the interminable continuity of the land question, the dominance of feudal remnant over production, usurping of surplus value and these productions relations to be determinative. The transformation of peasants has not been actualized in a way to make feudal remnants disappear, the capitalist relations that have entered the social life has continued to dissolve feudalism, has rotten the production relations based on this, destroyed and destructed them however has not liquidated them. These production relations that has not been actualized and that cannot be actualized causd the production of a reality of a social-economic structure that is regressive, deteriorating, enslaving, blinding and rotten. This is the picture of the state of our country.

Capitalist relations that do not develop and that do not become dominant stand as serious obstacles against the freedom and progress of labor and in the realization of classification in the society. This is a situation that influences all social relations both in the cities and the rural, the class relations that depend on them, the mode of production, the way of usurping of labor, the role and function of means of production. In this sense, in front of our social revolution there stands the duty of complete destruction of feudalism, comprador capitalism and imperialism. Without these forces that the emptied and rotten production relations find their basis in being defeated by a social revolution, the obstacles in front of labor and the flow of forces of production to socialized production relations and its realization is impossible. In the age of competitive capitalism this duty had been loaded to bourgeoisie in accordance with its interests. However together with the age of imperialism bourgeoisie has eternally been drive away from this historical role, possibilities and power to organize a revolution of this type. Bourgeoisie has been isolated from the conditions that it will make its interest common with such social revolutions. There have not been any markets that the imperialist-capitalist system has not yet stepped on, and exploited like a vampire. This situation, as we have stated is the ground for the dissolution of feudalism and at the same time the ground for the existence of emptied, rotten semi-feudal production relations. This means the developments and strengthening of the proletariat. A revolutionary process from bottom to top, in the “peasant type” is the condition and the ground for strong proletarian movements to enter the process more effectively with their organized political programs. In such a political fight for power the fear of bourgeoisie to lose everything at hand and experience the fear of being isolated from all property relations is inevitable. This causes it to absolutely be subjugated to imperialist bourgeoisie and brings the obligation to connect its capital relations to this parasitic financial oligarchy. The power of its capital and the share that it will take from the sweet heists are now more in unison with its historical interests and more preferable and more significant than the uncertain path of revolution and the coming great commotion.

That is why the vanguard force of the anti-feudal, anti-imperialist fundamental structure of our social revolution has to be the proletariat. The ground that the Democratic Revolution will take place has completely changed in our era. The ground that the feudal remnants will disappear is strictly connected to a revolution of the peasant type. The history has closed its gates to a revolution that is top to bottom, painful and compelling, it has closed the process that would make the capitalist form of hegemony dominant and of a revolution that would be led by bourgeoisie.

This brings the peasant type revolution an obligation in our country which has not accomplished its democratic revolution and consequently its production relations are imprisoned in semi-feudalism.

A process that could liquidate the semi-feudal production relations from top or from bottom has not been realized since the Ottoman Empire. Some certain opportunist currents claim that this process had been completed in 1908 and some other point towards 1923, and some other to 1950 when the country transited to multi-party system and some others to 1960 military fascist coup, and lastly some others to the 12^th September, 1980 coup… At this point there are various theories, approaches and idealistic shreds that deal with manipulating the history in the revolutionary movement in Turkey. The common point that they meet in regards to this question is that somehow feudal relations that dissolved within any of these processes are not liquidated in the direction of some certain interests. Imperialist that is the fundamental base in the semi-feudal production relations that is proven by the science and social progress and the properties of the age that it causes, according to these currents is described as a dynamic and force that dissolves feudalism. There are approaches that point towards imperialism in regards to the liquidation of feudal remnants in our country. This establishes the connection point of production relations that cannot be liquidated without a social revolution.

Communists will close their ears to these deviations and will be loyal to the examination of the forms of usurping of labor through the examination of property relations, social relations and means of production based on production relations and will determined the quality of our social revolution and complete its historical role. In our age, on the shoulders of communists there is the responsibility to accomplish the New Democratic Revolution under the leadership of the proletariat within the reality of semi-feudal social structure. This responsibility is shaped as a product of a consciousness in respect to the creation of all the material bases of a historical course that is connected to socialism and there on goes to communism, not a revolution in itself. They will play their role of vanguardship shaped all their minimum and maximum programs, class alliances, revolution strategies, orientations and tactics and relations in between classes based on this historical reality and tendency.

1. Path to Revolution (People’s War)

People’s war is one of the most essential contributions of comrade Mao Zedong to scientific socialism which is one of the three components of Marxism and it is valid in semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries. The strategy of People’s War is the strategic line that is going to accomplish the New Democratic Revolution against imperialism, feudalism and comprador bourgeoisie, of the revolution struggle of proletariat which puts its perspective to the political power. The national question rooting from imperialism, its historical ally feudalism and the land question created by the semi-feudal wheels of exploitation which arise from comprador bourgeoisie has brought the issue of Democratic Revolution in front of us in a historical manner. Here, People’s War is the complete revolutionary war strategy that includes the accomplishment of it. The fundamental force of the strategy is peasantry and its vanguard is proletariat, the strategy that advances from weak to strong, from small to the big, from simple to complicated; that progresses in a protracted war while getting stronger and that is based on the besieging of cities from the rural.

1. The People’s War strategy in our country is based on the semi-feudal, semi-colonial structure. This economic structure is the fundamental element that determines the class distinctions and differentiations, the class alliances that are based on these and the one that determines the allies of the vanguard class proletariat. Today the revolution in Turkey is based on two stages. The first stage is dependent and undemocratic structure that is due to the semi-feudal, semi-colonial economic structure and is a result of the headlock of imperialism and feudalism to be restored by a social structure that is independent and democratic. And the second stage is the construction of socialism through ceaseless continuation of this revolution. Both of these duties have become historical liabilities of proletariat in the age of imperialism and proletarian revolutions. The one that is going to realize it is the Communist Party which is the most advanced organization of the proletariat. In our country the vanguard and the leader commander of these revolutions is the TKP/ML, the representative of the proletariat of Turkey of Turkish, Kurdish and various other nations.

Our Party, since its foundation has not yet realized the first stage of the revolution of Turkey which is the stage of establishment of an independent and democratic society. The character of our independent and democratic revolution is the New Democratic Revolution where the proletariat is the vanguard, the peasantry is the essential power and other petty-bourgeois classes and the national bourgeoisie are the allies of the revolution. Our country is a country that has missed the democratization and revolution process and train of “the bourgeois type”. In the age of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, the bourgeoisie that is the vanguard power of the democratic revolutions of “the bourgeoisie type” that is to tackle down feudalism has run out of its progressive gunpowder, and in countries such as ours where feudalism has not dissolved the wheels of exploitation and political regimes have been formed with the historical alliance of the bourgeois class that has the comprador character and the feudal powers. The semi-feudal economic structure has transformed into production relations that imperialism and comprador capitalism are based on for maximum profit. Within this sense, the bourgeois class has hit the road of historical reactionism in countries of this kind and has started to see the democracy of the bourgeois type as a liability rather than a necessity. By establishing the semi-feudal relations that is loaded on the back of the society as the basis, it has usurped the democratic rights of all the oppressed classes and has permanently rid of its historical responsibility. This change has not made the obligation of the realization of this historical stage or the demand for an independent and democratic structure of the society, disappear.

This revolutionary duty that is loaded on the shoulders of the proletariat by the unique contributions of comrade Mao Zedong has brought about taking a strategy of revolution as an outcome in respect to how it is going to be accomplished. Comrade Mao Zedong, synthesizing the class struggle experiences of the proletariat managed to equip the proletariat with a theory of revolutionary war which is the duty of New Democratic Revolution which proletariat needs to accomplish and is a democratic revolution of the new type, and its war strategy People’s War. In our country too, the process of the realization of the New Democratic Revolution which is still the first stage of the revolution is going to be through the Strategy of People’s War. Our Congress has defined and underscored this duty and this responsibility.

1. Comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya has determined principals of the character of the path to our revolution, our revolutionary war. These principals still continue to apply. Comrade Kaypakkaya has essentially determined the beginning stage of our revolution both with his revolutionary theory and his revolutionary practice. Our leader comrade by determining the character of the revolution, the distinctions between a friend and an enemy, which classes are vanguard, essential and substitute powers and positioning of these classes in the course of our revolution, and in continuation by identification of the direction of the revolution and the fields where the revolutionary war can be developed, has clarified the issue of commencing a study that grounds on these points… It is necessary to determine the most suitable moment for the initiation of the revolutionary armed struggle and to prepare the party in accordance. Without these preconditions, the initiation of war is to move without knowing what one does. Our Party principally resolved this issue in its organization stage. There have been series of discussions stretching out from past to this very day in our Party on the revolutionary war line that comrade Kaypakkaya determined and his process of this determination. While the 1^st Conference of the Party criticized comrade Kaypakkaya of being subjective and falling into “left deviation”, this determination has been condemned in the subsequent conferences. Our Congress approves that comrade Kaypakkaya fulfilled the duties that are to arise in the beginning stage of a revolutionary war. It acknowledges this ground as the fundamental basis of our Party. The claims and the approaches that comrade Kaypakkaya was in “left deviation” during period that he initiated the People’s War are a result of an incomprehension towards the necessity of our war that does not closely examine the processes that our revolutionary war and comrade Kaypakkaya have been through. The leader comrade constitutes a communist rupture in the ’71 revolutionary outburst where adventurist currents grew and bloomed. He has formed the revolutionary war line and organized the front of struggle within both against the right-pacifist approaches and on the other hand against the war of this adventurist line with an ideological and political struggle. Comrade Kaypakkaya making a full analysis of the general developments in the world, the course of the class struggle in the country, the intensification of the contradictions and the conditions where fascism ran havoc initially organized the Party and ceaselessly initiated the People’s War. He has given the start to the struggle with settling essential discussions and perspectives on the theoretical, political, ideological fundamentals and together with completing minimum organizational preparations. Namely, the rise of comrade Kaypakkaya is a rise that meets the spirit of the People’s War which is the war strategy of the proletariat and its necessity, and it is a rupture from the adventurist line that became concretized in THKO and THKP-C. Our Congress considers the rise of comrade Kaypakkaya as the full command over objective conditions and adaptation of subjective conditions in accordance. His rise is based on fully and correctly reading the contradictions of the moment and the future.
2. The People’s War struggle which comrade Mao Zedong established the universal rules of and comrade Kaypakkaya adapted to the genuineness of our country with his analysis on social-economic-political contradictions of the country is the main guide and the route of our revolutionary war. As comrade Mao Zedong states for every revolution, “The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution. This Marxist-Leninist principle of revolution holds good universally, for China and for all other countries.” It holds good for all revolutions that revolution, consequently political power cannot be achieved without war. The People’s War has the character that it has the systematic that anticipates the continuation of this revolutionary civil war from the beginning of the process to the end, that has the integrity of internal relations and being the revolutionary war strategy. Since in societies such as ours, violence and the instrument of force is a reality that constantly is in use is the resolution of class struggle, social relations and a series of social contradictions. The continuation of the struggle for the political power must be maintained for its effectiveness and for it to obtain results in the face of masses. People’s War is a strategy of revolution where the form of armed battle is the determinant from the beginning to the end. In this war what is essential is the seizure of power piece by piece. The organization of the people’s armed forces against the enemy and its evolution to an army is one of the determinant elements in the People’s War. The social and economic structure provides a ground that allows for such a structure to be generated. The People’s War has the character that organizes the battle from rural to the cities and ultimately captures the cities that are the central bases of the enemy and completes the process of power. This situation is a result of the state of not being able to make the capitalist production relation dominant, of dependence on imperialism and of the situation that roots from the feudal production relations. The social structure as a whole is in the wheels of exploitation through the situation that dependence on imperialism brings about and is within the claws of semi-feudal production relations. This situation as far as possible limits the opportunities and the ground for “peaceful” forms, even in the development of the struggle for freedom and independence, gaining of democratic rights and organization of masses. That is why the revolutionary struggle of the working class and of other sections of the people has the reality that cannot stand straight and that cannot maintain the program of revolution aimed for the power without taking the armed form. That is why all the struggles, the mobilizations, gaining rights, all the movements that are peaceful or not peaceful in form; the uprising, the struggle, the legal and illegal forms of organizations of the working class and other sections of the people must take the armed struggle as the basis. It is not possible for a class struggle, a revolutionary line that is not based on this to realize itself. This applies to the struggle that continues from the beginning to the end. The working class and the masses of the people who do not organize, function and is formed in accordance with this are baseless and defenseless and are doomed to fail against offensives of the enemy. Within this sense, the spirit and the essence of People’s War is an obligatory revolution strategy in our country for the organization of an armed struggle and armed struggle becoming dominant throughout the whole course of the revolution, and for the administration of all contradictions and for the creation of a formation that aims political power.

People’s War is a revolution strategy that is protracted, wholesome and systematic and encompasses three strategic stages. People’s War has the content that includes the working class and large masses of people that are weak, dispersed, unorganized and isolated from instruments of power to become a power against the organized and strong dominant force that holds the political power, and seizes the power. According to this necessity, it includes rendering the organization, mobilization, positioning and the struggle of the working class and the masses of people the most effective and active. Its characteristic that includes maintaining it in the armed form requires a structure that is suitable for it. Right at this point, the struggle that is to be conducted through guerilla organization is at a rather pretty determinative level. Comrade Mao Zedong states that, “It is the indispensable and therefore the best form of struggle for the people’s armed forces to employ over a long period in a backward country, a large semi-colonial country, in order to inflict defeats on the armed enemy and build up their own bases…” in regards to this war. This is a clear and a conclusive designation in respect to why the guerilla warfare is necessary and is a requirement.

The guerilla struggle is at a key role in the struggle to seize the power through piece by piece protracted war. Likewise, in order to construct and establish zones of power it first has to be shattered. Besides being an instrument of war where the weak power is utilized against the stronger one, the guerilla struggle at the same time aims to disperse the authority and dominance of the enemy through its organization within the process and through the critical power of weapons in order to construct zones of power. This struggle is one of the principal forms of struggle in the organization of revolution in countries such as ours. Only the guerilla struggle is the engine of turning the weakness into advancement and strength. It is not the ultimate mean of war; the guerilla struggle will be positioned as the most important complementary force of the ultimate war. It is the most important pillar for the core of the organization of the people’s army and process of its organization in order to make certain of the victory against the armed forces of counter-revolution. That is to say that it includes not only to be the tool of full seizure of the power but the construction of power piece by piece, turning the weakness of the revolution front to strength and turning upside-down the power balance with the enemy.

The guerilla struggle principally is in the character of Peasant Guerilla Warfare. Its field of organization is based on rural areas. It organizes the war from here, it advances the war from here and it focuses on the construction of zones of power from here. The strategic important of the regions of peasantry in our country is based on two reasons. The first is due to fact that not-dissolved feudal relations, the feudal form of exploitation still carries the character of being determinative in the peasantry and their processes of production. This situation requires our revolution to have peasantry as the essential force and the main basis of our revolution. That is why People’s War and the guerilla struggle tend to rapidly grow in these regions and rural areas tend to become the driest areas of the battle. This at the same time also points out to the existence of the most suitable conditions for the necessity of revolutionary forces to become an army. The decrease in population in rural regions, the liquidation process of agriculture through imperialism-centered policies brings along the emesis of the excess population. Without liquidation in production relations, the decrease in population in villages requires semi-feudal relations to be reproduced. The flow of population from the rural areas weakens the relationship of large masses with the village, although this doesn’t bring along a rupture from property and production relations. The social-economic relation is not a transformation, rupture from the framework of production relations, it does not bring along the intertwinement of urban-rural relations, it does not bring along rupture of distribution of population with clear lines but bring along it becoming complex and mixed. It is not possible to speak of an essential change or liquidation in regards to property relations and social relations. Within this sense the population that accumulates in the cities and decreases in the villages does not change the quality of the war and especially the Peasant Guerilla Warfare. On the contrary it expands the sphere of influence of the guerilla struggle. It increases the importance of the organizations in cities. Within this context the reality of semi-feudal structure that is being kept and that reproduces itself is the main pillar of the Peasant Guerilla Warfare. As for the second point, it is the fact that the law of uneven development of capitalism that is introduced by the structure that is dependent on imperialism is stronger in semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries. The policies of imperialism for high profit and efficiency, debiting and deepening of the dependent structure provides for the bringing of large cities to a more safeguarding state, the concentration of enemy forces and the strengthening of enemy forces in these areas. Besides these, the consequences of the semi-feudal structure directly reflect on the production relations, form of exploitation, level of organization and the state of the working class. What provides for the strength of the enemy at the same time causes the weakness of revolutionary classes and masses. “A country’s being semi-colonial or colonial also adversely affects the relationship of forces in the cities for the revolution. These two conditions together necessitate the rural regions being the primary sphere of struggle and the pursuing of the strategy of “encircling the cities from the countryside”. Even in the event of a gradual dissolution of feudalism and the shrinking of the peasant population linked to it, this strategy will still be valid, because the conditions of semi-colonialism (or colonialism) have changed the relationship of forces in the big cities in favour of counter-revolution.” (İ. Kaypakkaya) This situation still holds true. Enemy classes and forces constantly consolidate their power in cities and through the protection of the semi-feudal economic structure and fascist system, the situation does not allow the working class and other revolutionary classes – even though the increase in population in these areas – to get stronger. The essentiality of rural areas and village areas is exactly the second important pillar of the strategy to besiege the large cities through the war that is to rise from these areas.

Right at this point we need to remark that the enemy; in parallel to the development of technology, production and sciences, increases its strength and opportunities both in cities and in rural areas. Especially in its war against the Kurdish National Movement, its governance and domination of rural areas is far beyond what it was yesterday. Again, increase in production, the new and more advanced situation that the circulation of commodities and the need for markets create expands the economic-political-ideological influence of the enemy in these areas. It is a reality that is not to be ignored. However, this generally is in relation with the level of advancement of the enemy. These advancements are far more beyond in large cities. In this sense, these advancements do not point out to a change in the relations between the urban and the rural or in the balance in cities and the rural areas in respect to the ability of the enemy to conduct war. These are evidences of the fact that the enemy has increased its power of war, control and sphere of influence. The enemy is stronger in relation to yesterday. For the economic relation an exact opposite situation applies. The wheels of exploitation and policies of the enemy that does not reduce the contradictions in rural areas but instigates them are at work. This situation that roots from here keeps the rural areas still as the weak point of the enemy. When it comes to the organization and the realization of the revolutionary war the rural areas still remain in their positions as the strong rings. The fact that the enemy is far stronger than the revolutionary forces and classes, the fact that it is far stronger in the rural and in the cities in comparison with yesterday is not a factor that changes this situation. It means that the revolutionary war is to struggle with and struggle against harder conditions with more difficulties.

People’s war is a revolutionary war strategy of proletariat that includes entirety. This is an emphasis that the People’s War should not be comprehended only as the guerilla warfare. People’s war is the prosecution of revolution with armed struggle from the beginning to the end but it is not a war that is solely based on guerilla struggle. People’s War includes large masses of people to become equipped with in issues such as the reality of war and the approach of communists towards the war, the ability of solving the contradictions of war, the relationship between war and politics, the goals, targets, stance of our revolutionary war which aims the power, the dynamic role of the human in war, the strategic and tactical problems of the war, the resolution of all class and social contradictions in a manner that will enrich the war together with strict adherence to the perspective for power and directing them. In this sense, People’s War Strategy is the entirety of a revolutionary war that will lead masses to focus on the power, to connect around it and continue proceeding towards it. It does not aim to seize the power through accumulation of power in one hit, namely through massive insurrectionist approach but it aims to become the power piece by piece to corrode and destroy the whole institutional structure of the enemy and to dissolve it by weakening it through armed force. In this sense, People’s War is an instrument for the struggle for power that includes creating zones of power since its very beginning and getting in formation in accordance with it. The way to channelize all emerging mass movements, all continuing struggles, and all existing organizations to the struggle that has the power in its perspective is possible through the implementation of the essentials of the People’s War Strategy and materialization of the policies that are required by this war strategy. Once for all, People’s War includes the gaining and organizing large masses throughout the protracted war. This process requires the correct comprehension of desire for the struggle and war of the masses and organizing it with an approach that follows the axis of armed struggle. In this sense, every field of organization and every revolutionary action must have militancy and a content that is based on this. The politics of accumulating power in large cities and looking for opportunities is not based on promoting peaceful means of struggle and putting them into the center. Large cities are not direct and essential fields of war of the People’s War. But they are a part of the war. Within this context the organization and the struggle is formed in accordance with the essentials of this war and are strived to be mobilized in this direction. The mean of struggle that is based on arms is a form that should be used from the beginning to the end in accordance with the realities of large cities. It is clear that the large cities are more intertwined and have stronger ties with the fundamental areas, the war and the guerilla struggle in relation to yesterday. The spread of the influence that war and especially the guerilla warfare create is larger in comparison to yesterday. Again, the migration that intensifies from rural areas to the cities and the strong character of the level of relationship of this mass of migrants with the rural areas are determinant in this. The fact that large cities are collateral does not bring about an approach towards taking the actions here solely for accumulation of forces and organization for preparation for war. Large cities are today is one of the most important human resources of the war. Within this sense, the responsibility to prepare for the ongoing war, to be in acts that suits the war and to create a formation in accordance is in question. This situation cannot be comprehended solely as military organization and military actions. This is not the only content of People’s War. It is a political-military war strategy. In this sense, People’s War is the positioning of a militant line in unifying the contradictions that the people live with the struggle focusing on the power, to disconnect them from the system, to position in accordance with the necessities of this situation and again in this sense, by portraying the most correct approach towards the contradictions within the conditions that they are in to solve them in a militant line. Militancy here is having the perspective for power, having comprehended the consciousness of the enemy and the attitude of conducting it in accordance with the ends of the revolutionary war. What is determinative is the large cities is the shaping of the organization, ongoing struggles, advancing mass movements, works of mass organizations as a whole in a militant orientation. This situation, at the same time, means a formation that is ready for war and that is suitable to become a force of war. This is a situation that also requires intervening in social contradictions in large cities in armed forms or in a general sense in forms that are based on force. This is a situation that is brought about by the objectivity and that is created by the social-economic conditions. The character of People’s War Strategy that besieges the cities and that shapes them, requires it to be comprehended and to be put in action in the most effective and quickest way possible. Looking for opportunities, accumulating forces, focusing on the collateral field work that is isolated from this perspective, mean taking distance from the revolution strategy that is based on the essentiality of war. In order to execute all these tasks in large cities, conducting a more widespread and intensified mass work, creating widespread and strong forms of organization in accordance with principles of clandestinity, making use of larger and more widespread opportunities, a proper formation for the reality that struggle based on peaceful methods are more common here and embracing the policy to acquire efficiency, conducting patient and effective works with mottos that will be embraced by the large masses of the society and will convince them into the struggle, carrying out ideological-political struggle that will bring already existing mass organizations more adaptive to the general political line and preparing them should be the orientation. Every single of these should be embraced as essential targets that aim to target every opportunity to first and foremost raise fighters to our general political line, to the war that is organized from the rural to the cities and to the struggle that takes Red Political Power as its perspective.

1. Mao has laid out the organization of the Party, the Army and the Front as the three big weapons in his People’s War Strategy. The policy of alliance in People’s War and correspondingly the policy of the Front are pretty important. There are various classes, strata and sections that have interests in revolution in accordance with the current social, historical, economic structure. This varies from one historical period to another. Due to this, the classes that fall into the sections of the people that has interest in the revolution changes in every historical period. In our country the peasantry is the essential and the working class is the vanguard force. Besides these, all the petty-bourgeois class and strata and the national bourgeoisie are allied forces to the New Democratic Revolution. This creates a reality in which a rather large section has an interest in the revolution. The Party aims to unify these forces, to establish alliances with the political elements of these forces and ultimately organize these revolutionary popular classes in suitable conditions under its leadership to the People’s United Front. It constantly carries out a policy of alliance with the designated classes and strata against fascism, imperialism, feudalism in accordance with the line that is determined in the party leadership from the beginning to the end and it efforts this through unities of action and other formations that are based on creating common ground. This issue is a strategic issue for the organization of the revolution. The classes and the strata besides the national bourgeoisie are trustworthy allies throughout the war. On the other hand national bourgeoisie due to its two-faced character time to time rests against proletariat due to its interest in the revolution and time to time to dominant reactionary classes and imperialism. The policy of People’s United Front comes to realize in the historical period that will encompass all sections of the people in unison with this social and class reality. This happening or not depends proletariat and the Party to become the determinative, directing political and organizational force. Within this context the Front policy is the most implementable instrument of the policy to narrow down the opposite front and widen its own. The Party enables the Front policy when it reaches the strength and opportunities to organize also the national bourgeoisie around the interests of the people and take it under its leadership and when People’s War exhibits serious advancements, in the struggle for power as an active instrument. Under the conditions where the Party cannot sustain such a force and under the conditions that it cannot lead, the Party has the duty and the responsibility to organize the conditions for the Front policy. However communists do not favor and do not take part in any policy for a front that is to put proletariat under the leadership of another class and that is to limit independent actions, goals, targets and leadership of the proletariat. It specifies the target and the goal to establish the Front policy which is one of the three weapons of the people, under its own leadership as one of the strategic problems of the revolution and as one of the most important requirements for People’s War.
2. Before anything else, the strategy of People’s War must depend on the existence of the Communist Party and its leadership. Without the party, the organization, continuation and the success of the People’s War is not possible. The party that Mao lays out as one of the three weapons of the people in the revolutionary struggle for power is indispensable in conducting and leading, directing, commanding and locking on to the goal of political power. Without the party no war, no instrument of struggle, no matter which form that they use, is not People’s War and cannot be. People’s War is the channelization of large masses of people to the revolutionary struggle for power under the interests and historical responsibility of proletariat and under the leadership of the party. People’s fight, its participation in war and in armed uprising is only an aspect of the People’s War. This is the most important aspect. But conducting this war under the party leadership is the aspect that gives the People’s War its character. For the piece by piece construction of the New Democratic Revolution, organizing the proletariat with the perspective of communism from the very beginning of the war, strictly adhering to the phenomenon of political power and ceaselessly providing for the transition to the stage of socialism, the party is an imperative organism.

The influence of the war on the party and the formation of the party in unison with these needs are as important as the imperativeness of the party leadership in the war. The state of the war and its course and the way that the party commands it should be seen as factors that influence the party in the degree that the state of the party determines the People’s war. Our Party considers this form of relationship at a level that is crucial. Our Party knows that it will develop and mature, form, deepen within the perspective for political power and become an ideological-political force. Since its very beginning, our leader comrade since the first steps has turned this into comprehension and this has been shaped in accordance.

Comrade Mao Zedong determines the responsibility of the party in regards to war as such: “…The main task of the party of the Chinese proletariat, a task confronting it almost from its very inception, has been to unite with as many allies as possible and, according to the circumstances, to organize armed struggles for national and social liberation against armed counter-revolution, whether internal or external. Without armed struggle the proletariat and the Communist Party would have no standing at all in China, and it would be impossible to accomplish any revolutionary task.” This situation laid out by President Mao also holds true for our country. The Party cannot fulfill its fundamental duty, namely achieving the revolution and the march towards socialism and communism without specifically organizing also the People’s War. In the conditions of our country, the People’s War is the revolutionary reality itself and that the revolution will take place through this way. Proletariat and its scientific teaching have the liability to find, dominate and realize this reality. The relationship of our Party with the People’s War too, must be on this basis. Our Party will find the opportunity to improve itself, as it corrects its ideological and political wrongs and as it locks on to the war. Every piece of insecurity to internally appear towards the general political line of our Party, every piece of distrust, every piece of disbelief will cause problems in Party’s comprehension of war and its conduct. The history of our Party is the concrete evidence of this.

The obligation to be a party that shape in accordance with the war must be based on the difficulty and the comprehension to stand without the war. It is pretty difficult to meet the needs of the class struggle, to find determined and clear solutions to contradictions and to be consistent in the will against mistakes and in the will to correct them without the war. The obligation for whole party to shape in accordance with war is requisite to be a militant party, to be a fighting party. Comrade Mao Zedong states the obligation for party in accordance with the war as such: “In most of China, Party organizational work and mass work are directly linked with armed struggle; there is not and cannot be, any Party work or mass work that is isolated and stands by itself. Even in rear areas remote from the battle zones (…), party organizational work and mass work are co-ordinated with the war, and should and must exclusively serve the needs of the front. In a word, the whole Party must pay great attention to war, study military matters and prepare itself for fighting.” Our Party will not avoid experiencing ideological problems and overcoming its problems as long as it does not undertake this responsibility and focus on this responsibility. In the genuineness of our country the field of reproduction of the proletarian ideology will be possible through strong loyalty to the war strategy that is capable to achieve revolution, an absolute adherence and a complete interlocking around it. It will not be possible for a communist party or a communist to reproduce themselves without comprehending this reality and taking a position that is shaped and intensified by this and that is intertwined with this. That party’s immunity against bourgeois and petty-bourgeois diseases will not be advanced. The most important pillar of ridding of bourgeois diseases and defeating them, in this sense, is formation in unison with the People’s war and an appropriate militancy and positioning in accordance.

On this basis our Party determines the serious shortcoming in respect to be shaped within the war through the obtained experiences from its historical process. The responsibility to create a militant party that is intertwined with the war and to expand the war should at the same time be comprehended as an obligation of a party that marches while getting stronger and that enhances itself in this course for the achievement of revolution. This comprehension will lead to the transformation of the complete comprehension of the relationship between the People’s War and the Party.

1. On Revolution, New Democratic Revolution (Democratic People’s Revolution) and Socialism

1 – Our age is the “Age of Imperialism and Proletarian Revolutions”. This era that started with the Great October Revolution essentially refers to the objective ground of the revolutions that are going to take place under the leadership of proletariat and to the impossibility of liberation of the oppressed peoples and nations worldwide without leadership of the proletariat in social and national liberation revolutions. Even though 100 years have passed, this reality still holds true with all its principles intact. Within the last 100 years in half of the world there have been experiences of social and national liberation struggles, revolutions and powers. Under the leadership of the proletariat and its representative communist parties tens of popular revolutions and socialist revolution have taken place. Almost half of the world has seen and lived the socialist system and lived the experience of political power under the leadership of proletariat. The political power experiences of the working class and masses of oppressed peoples due to the fact that a series of proletarian dictatorship class struggles were ongoing together with the success acquired by the revisionist bourgeoisies through internal struggles entered a capitalist road in a sneaky way under the dominance of bourgeoisie through waving red flags. These returns that have started with the 20^th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956, making the “last castle” fall within the socialist bloc all around the world together with the death of Mao Zedong in 1976 achieved a wholesome success in returns. In 1991, together with the Russian Social Imperialism not needing a socialist mask anymore, a series of bureaucratic-bourgeois regimes that were not socialist in essence but appeared so, have fallen. This situation has been turned into the cry that the age had now changed, the imperialist-capitalist system obtained an absolute and a permanent victory and that the age of revolutions had come to a close. The working class, masses of oppressed people and oppressed nations by being taken under a massive ideological siege, an immense campaign that created a huge and widespread distrust towards the class struggle was initiated. The imperialist-capitalist system, its extension intellectual-liberal sections and revisionist CPs emerged as the most important trivets of this campaign. The working class had been tried to cut out from MLM and submit into full submission and disbelief into class war. In this process the most important and the biggest blow was developed against the idea of armed revolution. Several national and class liberation struggles both ideologically and politically, and also organizationally was besieged. And again, several revolutionary national liberation movements took their share of the same siege. All around the world thousands of “sinister” theories, ideas and historiographies emerged in respect to the invincibility of the imperialist-capitalist system. First and foremost armed revolutionary national liberal movements and several armed social and class liberation movements in time, together with this ideological siege, also weakened under the organizational and military siege and bled out. However, organizations, parties and movements that against all odds resisted and kept both the struggle for communism and the idea of revolution alive, in the face of cries that socialism is an utopia and unreal, that the great rhetoric of nothing can be resolved through arms, managed to continue their existence and carry themselves to this very day. At this juncture our Party too, took its place in these ranks through its uncompromising and continuous struggle and by consolidating its consciousness of its historical responsibility.

2- Against returns from socialism, against the reality of socialist masked bureaucratic-bourgeois dictatorships, among the revolutionary movements the most equipped ones and the ones that were in control of the situation were Marxist-Leninist-Maoist forces. That, they also were the ones who did not compromise from their lines and their loyalty to communism and the ones who were the least surprised when Russian Social Imperialism took off the socialist mask in 1991. Likewise, the new phase of science, Maoism has provided the essential comprehension in regards to the properties of the new age that we are in, to the returns, to the fact that class struggle continues under socialism, to the fact that the cutthroat struggle continued in between the capitalist road and the socialist road under socialist regimes. It is not possible to comprehend the contradictions in today’s world, the ideological essence of the period that we are in, the obligation for revolutions, the path that goes to the revolution, the fundamental characteristics of imperialism and the reasons behind returns from socialism without acknowledging Maoism. At this juncture Mao Zedong has created a unique comprehension for the revolution and the problems of revolution, socialism and its problems, revolutionary classes and their problems, imperialism and its course through the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR). Our Party was constructed on this ground, embraced a line of continuous struggle by resting against this ground and continues its revolutionary claim by remaining on this ground. Today we have the reality of carrying the MLM sword that has the perspective of revolution, socialism and communism the strongest. However neither our Party nor the international Maoist party and organizations have been able to make use of the science in our hands at an adequate level against the ideological siege of the imperialist-capitalist system and of revisionist currents. Serious steps that are to make large masses of people comprehend the reality and that are to continue the wave of revolutions have not been organized. Even though experiences of People’s War that reached a serious level and strength in this period in countries such as Peru, Philippines, Nepal and India were developed in this period, in time this development has not been transported to more forward leaps. However today, Maoist forces still strictly continue to carry the claim to organize the revolution and are in ideological and political efforts for proletariat to play its vanguard and leader role in accordance with the character of the age. The successful attempts that have created a wave of excitement all around the world, such as in Nepal, again, has evolved into a line that has gotten revisionist through the dominance of the bourgeois line in the struggle between the bourgeois class and the proletarian class within the party. The laws of class struggle put forward on the basis of MLM continue to apply and as much as proletariat achieves success, it also experiences defeats.

But still MLM has the most equipped and the clearest approaches in dominance over the revolution, the character of the revolution, its leadership and its class nature, and all the internal contradiction of the revolutionary process. Within this context our Party embraced the fundamental theses in regards to MLM definition of revolution, the character of the New Democratic Revolution, the problems of socialism and returns; and it has designated its route of ambitious and determined struggle against all the existing ideological obscurations and the deviations within the popular forces. Within this context it has been determined that it is needed not to give any compromise from the stance that examines and takes into consideration the reality with a class perspective and that is far away from pragmatism, that there appears a need to deepen towards overcoming the inadequacies at this juncture.

3- Today, there is a serious confusion and ambiguity over the definition of the issue of revolution in revolutionary, democratic and progressive movements at an international level. All sorts of ideological offensives and ideological dominance of bourgeois reactionism has been effective in matters of laying out returns of socialism with all its faces, the path of revolution, its method, its leadership etc. It has become indistinct that revolution an overturning, ultimately an uprising that is going to take place based on force, based on the organization an mobilization of large masses and that requires the destruction of the state which is the ruling instrument of dominant classes by also the influence of revisionist, opportunist and reformist currents. There are a series of revisionist, opportunist currents that defend that armed revolutionary war and a revolution through this has come to an end even though the history has not come to an end, and there exist a liberal-bourgeois section that inspires them. These sections initially attempted to found the historical role of the working class on a thesis that the world has entered a process of liquidation within the production relations. And they have crowned this thesis with the un-necessity of its organization in regards to its fundamental leading and the vanguard role in the political sphere. Initially the Bolshevik party understanding was targeted and a climate was created that is to influence the public opinion about the impossibility of revolutionary wars under its leadership to take the organized political subjects under its sphere of influence. Attempts have been made to develop ideologies of stateless social liberation over the experiences of socialism, phenomena such as the dictatorship of working class and the oppressed have been taken under fire and these have been embraced by substantial amount of large masses. The claims that nothing will change with armed struggle and armed uprisings anymore, that revolution through such a method have long been history were released to market with thousands of theses and theories. This has shown its reflections on first and foremost national liberationist movements that wage armed struggle an on a series of petty-bourgeois social liberationist movements all around the world and even on MLM movements, as seen in Nepal. On this basis serious ideological diffractions and approaches that liquidate armed warfare have emerged and bloomed.

Though the imperialist-capitalist system and dependent sovereign states that are the other links on the chain in order to isolate the working class and sections of the people from all of their instruments of struggle, organizations, claims and their struggle to win the future, put stronger offensive policies of exploitation, oppression and submission into practice. Against the entire siege, persecution of the masses of people to despair and having no future the class struggle between the ones who oppress and the oppressed has continued. The social, economic and political rights of the oppressed sections of the society have continuously been restricted through extensive attacks and neoliberal economic policies have deepened the contradictions of masses of people. Keeping the unstoppable class struggle without a leader and a vanguard has been set as the main goal. Within this context the desires and demands for change by the masses against the dominant classes have ceaselessly continued. This has time to time turned into massive upsurges, uprisings and street movements. Reactionary dictatorships that have long ruled have been overthrown by a series of street movements and uprisings. Again the parliament has been polished at a level that will blur the consciousness of the masses in this period and its actual role and function has been tried to be covered. A process of ideological acceptance that claims important social and national problems can be resolved through elections and constitutional regulations has been organized. In Latin America, Bolivarian and “left” and left discoursed movements sat on the seats of the government through parliament. Again in old Soviet Union countries popular movements have developed and changes that would be famous by the name “orange revolutions” have taken place. And lastly street movements and uprisings, named “the Arab Spring” that produced results in North Africa and the Middle East have taken place and a series of reactionary dictators have been overthrown. Throughout this process the changes that have taken place through street actions, parliament and peaceful mass outbursts have been presented to the masses of people “as revolutions”. By the words “the type of the new model of revolution” an ideological hegemony in which liberal-bourgeois sections, opportunist, revisionist, and reformist currents were a natural propagandists of, has been created. When the unorganized, dispersed and leaderless outbursts of the right and legit rage of the people took it to the streets, the resistance performed against all the oppression and methods of force has taken down the degenerating forces that do not conform to the orientation of the imperialist system. This change, though it had not destroyed the production relations of the system, it had not touched upon the dominant classes, though it had not targeted the dominance of imperialism was presented as a “revolution” by large groups. At the same time this illusion has also been presented together with the discourse that change does not necessarily has to be through armed force, armed civil war and uprising, that it can take place without a leader and a vanguard. Similarly, first and foremost Venezuela and all Latin America have been given as the examples for the propaganda that a revolution can actually take place through parliamentary elections.

The revolutionary character of these uprisings and stances that portray the desire for a change, no submission to tyranny and no acceptance of oppression and intimidation has been turned into a lever and has been told as stories to the people that tell the revolution has taken place. With the propaganda that what happened was a revolution over the fact that especially the movements were spontaneous, lacked organizational compositions and leadership, it was consciously aimed to create a level of consciousness that was consisted of the discourse that political revolutions could be realized and changes could be brought upon without a leadership. The propaganda that promotes the idea that without abolishing the system, the dominant classes, the existing form of dominance and all the state apparatus a revolution could indeed happen only through mass movements provide for the fading of the revolutionary energy of the masses through tagging the desire for revolution to the system by the easiest way possible. Through this, the creations of political advancement and leaps of masses are hindered, mass movements are compartmentalized within the system and a distance is brought about from the idea of a real revolution, an armed revolution in action. Our Party, in excitement and in enthusiasm, considers the great uprisings and upsurges of masses as an opportunity for the revolutionary movement to advance. However our Party will be in a struggle and an ideological position that stands strongly and clearly against defining the make-up presented by the regimes and dominant systems for the mass movement as revolutions. Our Party stands against the stances that are going to give way for the illusions for the masses in regards to revolutionary struggle, that are going to obscure the political actions and the perspective for political power that require the destruction of systems and states and that are going to make them tag along after the forces of system. Our Party draws a clear line of demarcation between revolutionary processes and the actualization of revolution. Ultimately the period that we are in takes place together with fundamental ideological arguments such as legalism, parliamentarism, blessings towards having no leadership, rejection of the obligation of revolution to be based on force, reconciliation with the system, pacifism. These approaches stand exactly opposite to the full resolution of the contradictions of the working class, large oppressed masses of people and oppressed nations; to the laws of class struggle, and to the conditions of realization of freedom. The obligation to draw a clear and a thick line in between improvements, reformism and revolutionism at the same time is a precondition for the working class and the oppressed to lay a hold of the political power. Our Party grounds on waging ideological-political struggle against all sorts of conceptualizations and political approaches that are to break this level of consciousness of masses.

4- The character of the revolution of our country is New Democratic Revolution. The New Democratic Revolution (Democratic People’s Revolution) has the essence and the quality that targets the full democratic rights of the oppressed social classes under the leadership of proletariat which undertakes the responsibility to complete this historical advancement due to the fact that bourgeoisie has become reactionary and has run out of its progressive gunpowder in the age of imperialism in countries that have not realized their bourgeois democratic revolutions and where feudal relations has not been liquidated, the capitalist development has been hindered and the process has not yet been completed. What is targeted is the full realization of democratic relations and freedoms, and establishment of the hegemony of the oppressed classes that are isolated from political power under the leadership of the working class. Comrade Mao in regards to the essentials of the New Democratic Revolutions states these words: “The third kind is the transitional form of state to be adopted in the revolutions of the colonial and semi-colonial countries. Each of these revolutions will necessarily have specific characteristics of its own, but these will be minor variations on a general theme. So long as they are revolutions in colonial or semi-colonial countries, their state and governmental structure will of necessity be basically the same, i.e., a new-democratic state under the joint dictatorship of several anti-imperialist classes. In present-day China, the anti-Japanese united front represents the new-democratic form of state. It is anti-Japanese and anti-imperialist; it is also a united front, an alliance of several revolutionary classes. (…) In the new-democratic republic under the leadership of the proletariat, the state enterprises will be of a socialist character and will constitute the leading force in the whole national economy, but the republic will neither confiscate capitalist private property in general nor forbid the development of such capitalist production as does not “dominate the livelihood of the people”, for China’s economy is still very backward. (…) Without a doubt, the present revolution is the first step, which will develop into the second step, that of socialism, at a later date.  (…) The present task of the revolution in China is to fight imperialism and feudalism, and socialism is out of the question until this task is completed. The Chinese revolution cannot avoid taking the two steps, first of New Democracy and then of socialism. (…) The “theory of a single revolution” is simply a theory of no revolution at all, and that is the heart of the matter. (…) For the present period, New Democracy, and for the future, socialism; these are two parts of an organic whole, guided by one and the same communist ideology.” New Democratic Revolution has the character of a revolution where all feudal remnants are to realize a revolution together with other revolutionary classes under the leadership of proletariat. In this sense, it cannot be considered as a revolution in itself; it is a transitional revolution where political-cultural-educational-juridical systems are establish to direct the processes where all the obstructions between the production relations and productive forces are abolished on the path that leads to socialism, the economic base that will allow the development of productive forces that will provide for the ceaseless transition to socialism is constructed. The bourgeois’ of the countries that have not completed their capitalist development processes through the relationship that they have built with capitalism has become compradors and have established suitable political regimes to their historical alliances with feudal classes. The historical alliance of these two reactionary classes has at the same time become the ground for the implementation of the policy of colonialism of imperialism and the realization of imperialist exploitation. Within this context in countries such as ours the situation that renders the economic and political crises of the impoverished economic and social structure and of dependence on imperialism, a constant. Under these circumstances the need of dominant classes for form of fascist regimes that are products of the age of imperialism is constant and permanent. In our country a foundational philosophy that has a fascist character and another form of oppression, feudal compulsion that is complementary of and intertwined with it exists. Oppressed classes are deprived of their democratic rights and freedoms under the political and social character of fascism and feudal compulsion. The main problem what directs the contradictions in our social structure that has not realized its democratic revolution, what commands them is the land question. The limiting of freedoms in the social structure of feudal remnants (semi-feudalism) and hindering of the dynamics of development being the main problems are due to the feudal relations in the form of land property. In this sense, it is only possible to abolish these remnants of feudalism and to rid of these chains in the feet of the masses of people through abolishing all feudal forms and its reflections of the productions based on land. The New Democratic Revolution will initially resolve this problem. In this sense the main problem of our revolution is the land question. And it is the essential contradiction that it has to resolve. These feudal remnants have a determinative aspect for the obstacle in front of the development of the working class, the democratic struggle consciousness and the gaining of democratic rights and freedoms. Without comprehending this essence related problem of the revolution, without targeting the change of all phenomena that roots from this problem, all of its emerging forms and the property relations that are based on it the sources of the essential problems of revolution, lifting of the obstacles in front of the development of the working class and the reasons behind the reactionary siege and mangle that all sections of the people are subjected to, cannot be comprehended.

Approaches that limit the question of democratic revolution and democracy to solely to the social and political field, that limit it with the fascist regime and to its oppressive, restricting, chauvinistic and the most reactionary practices besides being off target of the essence of the question, at the same time is incapable of drawing correct results in regards to the historical political process of our country and the reasons behind durability of fascism. Big comprador bourgeoisie due to its historical qualities is weak in essence. Due to its state of being weak it has connected and swarmed with feudal remnants and its representatives and has partook in an alliance with them. This situation brought about the most violent forms of use of fascistic and feudal oppression. The system has crushed and continues to crush the demands and desires of the oppressed masses of people, their expectations for rights and freedoms through blood, force and all sorts of oppressive forms. In this sense, the question of democracy appears in front of us pretty rooted, multi-layered and in the form of a historical and current problem. A revolution and a Democratic People’s Revolution that are defined solely by democratic problems that occur in the political field will give birth to a situation that is limited in perspective, that neglects essential problems, that hinders the correct and proper analysis of contradictions. This picture will cause to be estranged from correct definition of the reality of fascism and its bases, to hinder the establishment of a correct perspective for political power, and the obstruction of the struggle with correct instruments and methods. The problem of freedoms that are observed in the social and political field appears as a problem that is internal to our revolution. But it is not the essence or the essential aspect of the question. In this sense, the essence of the Democratic People’s Revolution that is going to take place under the leadership of proletariat in our country is the land revolution. The comprehension of this reality is vitally important in the organization of revolution, and in understanding the quality of developments and changes in conjunction.

1. State and Fascism as the Form of State

1 – The correct and real definition of the political regime of the country is pretty significant. Within this respect the definition of the form of state is as important as the definition of the phenomenon of state. It is obligatory to achieve clarity when it comes to the definition of with which social sections it constitutes opposition, with which instruments should it be struggled against and with what kind of a political consciousness. There have been various ideas, approaches and theories within popular forces from the past to this very day in regards to the form and quality of the state of Turkish dominant classes. Undoubtedly there are several commonly-held approaches that cause rather serious confusions. In this sense, again serious incorrect assessments are visible in the period that we are inside in regards to the form and quality of the state and in regards to the power balances among the dominant classes. It is clear that this incorrect perspective stem from an incorrect theoretical formation and the incapability to comprehend the essence of the problem when it comes to the issue of state and state forms. Our Party has theoretical positions that were determined for the most fundamental questions such as the state, the form of the state, the quality of the dominant classes, the social-economic reality of the country; within its process of organization under the leadership of comrade Kaypakkaya. At this point a complete rupture had been realized from all right and left opportunist, revisionist and reformist understandings and their theoretical positions. Based on MLM bases, clear and distinct definitions and conceptualizations have been made about significant issues such as the political history of the country, the composition of the state, the quality of the dominant classes and the relations in between, and the function of the parliament. 47 years have passed since the theoretical theses of comrade Kaypakkaya and this 47 years that have passed has confirmed that the correct position and approach has been taken in the fundamental theses, conceptual and theoretical approaches that he portrayed. Successes have been obtained in interpreting all the contradictions, relations and changes that emerged and once again reaching the correct point, and maintaining the embraced communist line based on making these fundamental approaches a guide. Today we are witnessing MLM theories, theses and approaches being questioned, manipulated and even revised by various groups, in the light of important issues such as especially the period that the Turkish dominant classes are in, the needs and orientations that meet the needs, the structure of the disintegration and struggle among the dominant class cliques, the current state of imperialism and the positioning of the Turkish dominant classes. Within this context it is visible that serious deviations that will render large masses of people unequipped, that will confuse them, that will hinder them from understanding the developments and contradictions and in this sense play into the hands of dominant classes in regards to the state and the form of the state are taking place. Our Congress has a stance and an approach towards these issues that are surrounded by confusion.

2- Fascism is the form of state of the most reactionary and the most chauvinistic section of the monopolistic bourgeoisie that is based on violence and tyranny in the age of imperialism. Fascism is a form of administration that targets disregard towards most fundamental and democratic rights of first and foremost the working class, and all oppressed classes, nations and sections, even the suppression of these demands through the force of state in the most violent form. The age of imperialism is the age of war, crisis, usury, relentless monopolization and degeneration. The objective situation that stems from a result of monopolization has created the ground that gave birth to the fascist form of state at the point that the form of state in the form of “bourgeois democracy” became inadequate to establish ideological-political hegemony of monopolistic bourgeoisie over the oppressed in order to realize its class interests, and could not provide cures for the economic-political and social crises of it. In this sense the fascist state form is the result and the product of the social-economic-political reality of the imperialist age. It has emerged as a need to produce cures to the crises on the social-economic basis. Its economic foundation lies in the monopolization of capital. And its social foundation is the most degenerate chauvinism and most vulgar racism. The form of fascist dictatorship is a form of state that historically imperialist monopolistic bourgeoisie applies to from time to time. The fascist state form is a form that is periodically needed in capitalist-imperialist centers due to its properties of appropriating the cost of its crisis producing economic-political social structure to colonies and semi-colonies, due to its advance social structure and to the consciousness of democracy that the bourgeois democratic revolutions implanted in masses. The fact that the social-economic and political crisis of the semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries and societies that are directly dependent on imperialism and a ring on its chain, the fact that this should be the main tendency gives rise for fascist form of state to find stronger social-economic bases in these countries. That is why fascist form of state in countries of this type becomes continuous and determined. In order to adapt its political regime to the needs and requirements of imperialist policies and to protect this ground, it attempts to maintain itself with the most oppressive, the cruelest, and the most tyrannical policy of violence. Fascist form of state appears as an obligation in accordance with the characteristics of the age, experiences and accumulations of reactionary dominant classes and the monopolistic period and the objectivity that it creates. In countries that has the semi-feudal social structure bourgeoisie has a rather weak capital structure and consequently a rather weak political identity. This weakness creates a compulsory situation in which it has to form historical alliances and connect with feudal remnants. Within this context the most important social bases of fascist regimes in these countries are feudal elements, culture and formation. It secures the regime through fascistic and feudal forms of oppression and shapes its system basing itself on these foundations and essentials.

3- As big landlords and big comprador bourgeoisie leading the “national struggle” in Turkey built their new states with an alliance of this form, together with accepting dependency on imperialism gained the status of semi-colonial and constructed the fundamental foundational philosophy in the fascist character. Together with the international developments and the spirit of the period, it has consolidated and reinforced its fascist, unitary ideological structure, its social formation and political regime. It has injected the one nation, one leader, one religion, one language, one flag argument which was popular at that time to the whole political and social life. This formation was operated through a bloody period that included ideological, political, military offensives and massacres in order to suppress the multi-national, multi-faith and multi-cultural structure of the geography that it has established hegemony over. It has evolved into a policy of national homogenization through religious-national homogenization that was based on the Armenian genocide and maintained through Greek and Assyrian genocides, the assimilation of the Kurdish nation right after the foundation of the Republic, disregard towards their national rights and oppression of struggles that developed around them. Moreover, other oppressed nations too had been subjected to this policy of oppression and suppression and it has turned into an intense and effective Turkification and assimilation policy over dispersed and weak structured nations. The Turkish state had enmity since its foundation towards ideological-political approaches that defines all sorts of differences besides the “unified and fused” national identity that disregards class distinctions. In this sense it has been in a clear and determined anti-communist ideological formation. Besides, it has never presented a ground of existence for all sorts of democratic bourgeois opinions. All sections in opposition to the system have been defined as enemies and this situation has been perceived as a matter of survival. The demands of the working class, peasantry and other oppressed nations for rights and freedoms have been disregarded. Their own organizations have not been allowed, they have been imprisoned in a complete state of disorganization. The regime has embraced a fascist ideological formation and a form from head to toe with its written laws and non-written social rules of law. The unique conceptualization of this form of fascist state that has become unique to our country, today too is the fascist Kemalist dictatorship. At this point the analysis of the state and analysis of Kemalism of leader Ibrahim Kaypakkaya in spite of new structures and formations that take shape in accordance with political developments and all changes and developments in the world still hold true. The fascist Kemalist dictatorship as a state regime that has maintained its continuity remains alive with its fascist characteristics that protects and looks after the interests of comprador bourgeoisie and all sections of big landlords.

4- The fascist quality of the state in our country is continuous. Without a social and political revolution this structure is not fit for a change. The state of dominant classes and their economic-political formation puts forward this form of state as an objective need. Our Party defines the definition of the political and periodical formation towards the needs of imperialism as a change in regards to the fascist essence, as incomprehension and backwardness in understanding fascism and the social and economic bases that it is based on. Our Party rejects the understandings that limit fascism to party dictatorship, that measure it with the lack of multi-party and parliamentary regime, that define it in accordance with its periodical policies, that make a consideration over the consequences created by the imbalance of forces in between the cliques, that base it to changeability that arises from the multi-dimensional and deepened crisis of the system.

5- Within this context, especially in the last period Tayyip-AKP clique becoming rather stronger within the system and experienced changes and the form that the state tries to embrace in accordance with the role that imperialism has undertook in its policies in the region have brought about serious deviations in the assessment of the quality of state and in the definition of fascism. The policies followed under the name of “opening and democratization” in a series of social problems including The Middle Eastern policy, EU orientation and the Kurdish question of AKP and Tayyip Erdogan, attempts to rid of the most degenerate military-bureaucratic elements of the system in the inter-clique conflict, the use of elections and parliament as a more functional instrument in the inter-clique struggle led the way for a long time for discussions surrounding “the arrival of democracy” to the country and subsequently led to a very strong wind of liquidationism and reformism among the popular forces. Tendencies, theories and stances that projected deep ideological fractures and that tackled the issues not through their essence but through the foam that appeared on their surfaces in respect to this clique being in conflict with the traditional values, philosophy and ideology of the state, that it has a political identity towards changing it. Expecting democracy from sections that do not have essential problems with the most fundamental values of the system and its fascist ideological structure and that are merely cliques and representatives focused on the actualization of the interests of comprador bourgeoisie that is connected and dependent on imperialism and big land lords is indeed, being at a state of breaking off the reality of which regime those classes need from the problem completely. This wind that blew throughout the 10 year period of AKP-Tayyip clique, started blowing from an opposite direction together with the deepening of the conflict in between dominant cliques, the deepening of the political crisis of the system and the consequences that rose from the regional crisis. The change that was portrayed in policies and in orientation by the dominant classes and their dominant AKP-Tayyip clique who thought that they entered an equation of survival with especially the regional crisis, the dimension that the Kurdish question arrived at, the Syrian question and the political crises that took place in the general sense has carried the existing expectation for democracy in the issues of state, its quality and fascism to extremes. The all-out offensive of the fascist dictatorship, it having no tolerance towards any different voice or stance, its policy of intense suppression and massacre towards large masses, its military aggression and invasion orientation in Syria and the Syrian Kurdistan, again in the Kurdish issue it rapidly anchoring itself on the denialist, exterminationist and massacrist line, has resulted in the evolution the propaganda into being that the clique that was “expected democracy from” until yesterday, has now established its own “Islamic fascist” power independent from the state and has turned into a Bonapartist dictatorship. Especially at this point it is apparent that there is a serious confusion and a rupture from class approaches in regards to the definition of fascism over the Erdogan clique, of the quality of the state and towards the relationship between fascist cliques and their essence. The strengthening of AKP-Tayyip clique in actualization of the interests of the Turkish dominant classes together with having loyalty to economic-political interest of imperialism, its success in its periodical alliances with different fascist cliques and the force that it gathered in parallel to this and the effective use of this force and even its unilateral operation that exceeds the limits of normality increased the already existing confusion and deepen the ambiguities in regards to the quality of the state and the regime and ideological fractures. Definitions such as party fascism, Bonapartism, “Islamic fascism”, are outcomes of an approach that misses out rooted and essential issues such as the political history of the Turkish dominant classes, the state tradition and foundational values and that considers the reality of today in at ideologically shortsighted level. The Kemalist fascist dictatorship stand as it was with its essential values, its foundational philosophy, its ideological bases, and with the reality of dominant classes which the state actualizes the interests of. Approaches that present the existence of the parliament, the relative life space that the opposition can find, the relative existence of the right to organize and do politics on a revolutionary basis, the existence of universal suffrage, the continuation of the opportunities of the working class and other oppressed social classes to organize as evidences for the non-existence of fascism, do not stand back from defining the situation that these continue to exist even though they have been narrowed down with concepts such as Bonapartism, “Islamic fascism”, one-man dictatorship. These approaches are dangerous approaches from the perspective of exaggerating the role of the dominant clique at the steer of the state, obscuring the reality and the state of other dominant cliques and leading the oppressed to a class collaborationist path. Within this general approach stances that are to obscure especially the essence and quality of Kemalism, too bloom. Through this, in the period ambiguities over the fact that Kemalism is a fascist ideology appear as a serious problem in front of us. The progressive role that is casted upon Kemalism is being promoted and this intellectual-ideological problem is once again being resurrected in the period that we are in. Due to this very confusion of revolutionary and democratic subjects there is an increased likeliness that anti-fascist, progressive, democratic masses can enter sphere of influence of Kemalism. Within this context there still is the problem of rendering the account of Kemalism and having an ideological clarity over its essence and quality. The evident form provided by the social and political developments that Kemalism is a fascistic ideology and it is the foundational philosophy of the state is becoming less and less clear in the current period. It is as if the positions of middle class, liberal-intellectual circles of 1960s that perceived Kemalism as left, progressive and anti-imperialist are becoming resurrected as zombies and large masses are being brought to positions that they sympathize with this poisonous, fascist ideology over their opposition towards AKP-Tayyip. This picture is the consequence of not being ideologically and politically clear and of the ambiguities about state and fascism. Our Party rejects these approaches and emphasizes in a clear and determined manner that the fascist Kemalist dictatorship still reigns with its spirit and being, and that this reality is not to change with the replacement of dominant cliques in balance of power.

1. Capitalist-Imperialist System and Its General State at the Present Situation

1) Adjectives such as “mega”, “ultra”, “new”, etc. that were taken over from the past century are being continued to use in an unlimited way in our day. The disease projects itself to the left literature as being put in front of various political concepts. It is as if you say a lot when you put an adjective in front of terms but in fact as long as you do not change the content for them you do not say anything. Conscious of this fact, our 1^st Congress has given the answers to the questions below that confuse the consciousness of people as being presented as “the new stage” of imperialism in today’s world and that has been rehashed again and again together with new revisionism.

*Super monopolies or international cartels

*Supra-state character of monopolies
*New imperialist countries
*Globalization and harmony of imperialist monopolies based on non-competitive cooperation
*Imperialist hegemony and the role that imperialism plays in semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries
*International production, formation of “working class of the world” based on this and the watering down of the term worker

2) Before we jump onto these issues, it is necessary to shortly lay down the connection and the difference in between capitalism and imperialism. The reason for that is especially the ambiguity of the definition of imperialism on a world scale, rather vulgar use of measures in the definition of imperialist powers and identification of various semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries including Turkey too, as new imperialist countries. This situation is not a particular deviation; it is the case that various opportunist, revisionist currents in our country and in the world base themselves to these analyses or defend these analysis in varying extents. Our Congress here dwells upon only, as we have stated above, what the connection and the difference in between capitalism and imperialism is.

As Lenin named his book, imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. Though, what does this mean? It means that if a country has not yet completed its capitalist stage, that it cannot be imperialist. Namely, for a country to be an imperialist country it has to go through the capitalist stage. Lenin says, “If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.”

Lenin does not separate capitalism and imperialism, on the contrary he points out the close relationship in between them. In his same work, as he makes the large definition of imperialism he again underscores this point: (1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.

As it can be understood from the quoted passage, even though imperialism stems from capitalism, that it is not the same thing. It has significant differences. It is beneficial to consult Lenin on this matter once again: “Typical of the old capitalism, when free competition held undivided sway, was the export of goods. Typical of the latest stage of capitalism, when monopolies rule, is the export of capital.” “The characteristic feature of imperialism is not industrial but finance capital.”

Our Congress sorts the relationship and difference in between capitalism and imperialism in summary as such:

* Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism.

* Imperialism is monopolistic capitalism.

* Imperialism is the fused state of bank capital found in capitalism and the industrial capital.

* There is free competition in capitalism whereas free competition disappears in imperialism and replaced by monopolies.

* The key feature of capitalism is export of commodities whereas in imperialism it is export of capital.

* The distinctive property of capitalism is industrial capital whereas in imperialism it is financial capital.

* Banks that are modest mediators in capitalism hold the financial capital through unification with industrial capital.

This is the alphabet of the matter. However, they are vitally important. A deviation that might occur in the definition of imperialism is a deviation in the revolutionary line. As Lenin states in his debate with Kautsky: “…Of course, it is not proper to argue about words. You cannot prohibit the use of the “word” imperialism in this sense or any other. But if you want to conduct a discussion you must define your terms precisely.”

Today various opportunist and revisionist movements make the definition of Lenin’s imperialism so loose that our Congress, risking the possibility of repetition had to lay stress on this issue. The ones who attempt to change Lenin’s definition of imperialism – and this means the rejection of Lenin’s thesis of imperialism – should do this openheartedly. Our Party believes that only through this openheartedness a discussion on a scientific basis can be carried out. Otherwise they must accept the relationship and the difference in between capitalism and imperialism that we have put forward under the light of several quotations that we have made from Lenin above.

Super Monopolies and International Cartels

3- International movements and movements from Turkey that are various derivations of “new” revisionism use the terms super monopolies, internationalization of capital or international cartels (that all mean the same) as if they are newly discovered and as if they are indicators of “the new stage” of imperialism to showcase as an evidence of a change in quality in imperialism. If we are to more clearly write down their “new” path to the revolution based on their “new discoveries”, what they attempt to do is to patch regional and international revolution onto the science of MLM. As it turns out Lenin in the spring of 1916, in his work “Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism”, widely covers this issue showing that he gives the necessary weight to it.

“Monopolist capitalist associations, cartels, syndicates and trusts first divided the home market among themselves and obtained more or less complete possession of the industry of their own country. But under capitalism the home market is inevitably bound up with the foreign market. Capitalism long ago created a world market. As the export of capital increased, and as the foreign and colonial connections and “spheres of influence” of the big monopolist associations expanded in all ways, things “naturally” gravitated towards an international agreement among these associations, and towards the formation of international cartels.

This is a new stage of world concentration of capital and production, incomparably higher than the preceding stages. Let us see how this supermonopoly develops.”

Lenin in his aforementioned work by examining the issue in depth with the AEG example that had partnerships in more than ten countries at the time, shows us the existence of super monopolies (of international capital, of international monopolies, of international cartels) and how they became dominant in world. Within this context no one has discovered anything new. Today, in several sources it is stated that the world economy is run by 500 super monopolies and thus it is claimed the parties that call themselves communist should change both their organizational formations and their styles of struggle. In fact, Lenin states from Liefmann as such: “…calculated that in 1897 there were altogether about forty international cartels in which Germany had a share, while in 1910 there were about a hundred.…” It is important to note that these numbers belong only to Germany. Since we do not have the numbers of that day we do not know how close that number was to 500 of today. But if there is something that we know it is the motto of, “…for the forms of the struggle may and do constantly change in accordance with varying, relatively specific and temporary causes, but the substance of the struggle, its class content, positively cannot change while classes exist.” Conscious of this fact, our Party has declared in its 1^st Congress that it will continue its struggle in the same direction.

The “Supra-state” Character of Monopolies

4- There is a big difference in between monopolies acquiring international character and them being supra-state. The problem is that the ones who are dazzled by the shininess of the packaging are not able to perceive the content of the package. More than one national monopoly that is dominant in different countries, through this way or that way (merging, share acquisition, bilateral sharing agreements, representation in different countries etc.) comes together and constitutes international monopolies. Time to time these cartels may appear under new names. What significant here is that not to forget that these monopolies are essentially are dominant powers in imperialist countries.

Lenin, in his work “the State and Revolution” states that, “According to Marx, the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another.” The state is not supra-class (above classes) and it is not, as bourgeois ideologists claim, a mediator of classes. On the contrary it is an instrument of oppression. The real face of the state might not be seen at times that the class wars regress and the struggle is not sharp. This does not mean that its real character has changed. It merely means that due to the objective conditions it can conceal itself and periodically fool the large oppressed masses of the people.

Understanding that view the international capital above states fall under the charm of the illusion created by bourgeois intellectuals in regards to state. Every monopoly (be it either national or international) needs an imperialist state that is going to defend its interests due to its nature, that is going to put up walls of customs, that is going to demolish the walls in front of it through agreements that it seals and that is going to pick wars for it. The fact that the capital is in a multi-national character is only good for using at most a couple of states in its favor. It is against dialectics and the nature of imperialism that different international monopolies that dominate same imperialist countries (we can add colonies and semi-colonies too) do not confront one another. In this sense, “…inter-imperialist” or “ultra-imperialist” alliances, no matter what form they may assume, whether of one imperialist coalition against another, or of a general alliance embracing all the imperialist powers, are inevitably nothing more than a “truce” in periods between wars.”

As the respectable cadre of Communist Party of Greece/Marxist-Leninist and at the same time an honorary member of our Party Grigoris Konstantopoulos says, “What is called ‘globalization emerges right after the fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc as an ideology.” The purpose of this bourgeois ideology is to make the working class and the oppressed to accept course towards “the end of history”, “the end of work”, and “the end of ideologies”. By the courtesy of this they wish to create a world that the class struggles do not exist ad its purpose becomes ambiguous. Acknowledging the monopolies as supra-state is a right deviation that both make the target that the struggle gravitates towards and its purpose obscure. As the existence of international capital has not abolished borders, it also does not put forward world revolution in front of the proletariat of the world. The situation is that the ones who shyly defend regional revolution due to international monopolies essentially revive the Trotskyist understanding that a revolution cannot take place in one country and they again shine this understanding as Marxism.

New Imperialist Countries

5- At foggy and tough times that the caravan of revolution cannot move forwards, together with the frustration that emerges within the ranks of revolution some particular searches, ideas, theses come to surface. Some of these might have strong arguments. “The news imperialist countries” thesis is one of them. Our Party, absolutely do not reject the idea that new imperialist countries will emerge. That, we have a strong evidence of it in front of us such as China. But it definitely stands against eversion of this reality and the limitless and irresponsible expansion of it.

Several movements and organizations line up new imperialist countries in which Turkey too (as well as China, Russia, Brazil, India, Argentine, Mexico, Indonesia, Republic of South Africa, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Greece, Egypt, Iran etc.) is included. They do not confine themselves only to this but they debate theses in regards to the birth of several new imperialist countries. The criteria that is presented which is almost only one in number is that the monopolies they claim to exist in countries that they call new imperialist “have bought international monopolies with amounts that account to at least one billion USD.” It is clear to understand how and why the definition of imperialism is important when we look at these approaches. Obviously it will be possible to come up with a lot of more new imperialist countries if the content of definition of imperialism is degraded to merely a purchase from a foreign country.

The reason behind this deviation is the ideological fraction in regards to that a revolution cannot take place in one country and/or if it takes place that it cannot survive which is one of the poisonous ideas that is spread by new revisionism, namely the ones that are afraid of the “sharp teeth” of imperialism which is a “paper tiger”. It must be noted that one foot of this deviation lies in the form of defending regional revolutions. Moreover, it is clear that this sort of determination will give birth to an extensive change in the revolution strategies that are to put in front of countries.

Globalization and Harmony of Imperialist Monopolies Based on Non-Competitive Cooperation

6 – One of the first things that comes to mind when globalization is spoken of is that the complete division of the world by imperialist forces. This too, is being thrown in front of us as if it is something “new”. Instead of writing in detail in this matter, it is adequate to bring the matter to an end by a quotation from Lenin. “For the first time the world is completely divided up, so that in the future only redivision is possible, i.e., territories can only pass from one “owner” to another, instead of passing as ownerless territory to an owner.” That is to say that the sharing of the world among imperialists (international monopolies-imperialist monopolies) which some people call globalization today is a process that had been completed around a hundred years ago from this day. This does not mean that there will no more be new divisions. As a matter of fact Lenin underlines this in his same work with this sentence: “But the division of the world between two powerful trusts does not preclude redivision if the relation of forces changes as a result of uneven development, war, bankruptcy, etc.”

Free competition is a characteristic of capitalism, namely in the age of monopolies it is meaningless and groundless to expect a competition in the nature that it had under savage capitalism. Lenin says, “To acquire full monopoly, all competition must be eliminated, and not only on the home market (of the given state), but also on foreign markets, in the whole world.”

The reason why the ones who cry out that competition is abolished in the age of monopolies and this situation has created a globalization around the world basing themselves on this sentence do that in order to make both themselves and the masses believe that there no longer exists the possibility for imperialist wars to break out and that the international capital is now in harmony. In fact Lenin, in his answer to the ones who defend ultra-imperialism, namely the ones who believe in peaceful transition says, “Certainly, monopoly under capitalism can never completely, and for a very long period of time, eliminate competition in the world market (and this, by the by, is one of the reasons why the theory of ultra-imperialism is so absurd).” Lenin talks of how German and British-American trust companies who compete with one another in sea transportation business agree among each other to Rieser as such: “This agreement was concluded for twenty years, with the prudent provision for its annulment in the event of war.” Because Lenin has quite skillfully analyzed that the agreements that are made among globalization and international monopolies are not able to abolish the extreme and uncontrolled production that is in the nature of capitalism and that this is not going to prevent new wars and new divisions.

Our Party, underscoring that the world faces division, not globalization objected to the use of the word “globalization” to replace the words capitalism-imperialism and has embraces its class attitude against the sugarcoated theses of “ultra-imperialism” in full consciousness of the difference in between temporary cooperation in between international monopolies and the situation that the contradictions in between them have completely ceased to exist.

Imperialist Hegemony and the Role that Imperialism Plays in Semi-colonial, Semi-feudal Countries

7- Imperialist monopolies attempt to create a strong hegemony in the countries they enter. In order to accomplish this just as they do in their own countries, in semi-colonies too they disburse bribes to the administrators at every level of the states and to the high-ranking officers of militaries. They even establish new front companies just to disburse bribes. If they do not yield the results they wish to have they organize coups. The coups that have taken place in 1960s, 1970s and 1980s all around the world are good examples of this. In this sense, “Capitalism in general, imperialism in particular, transforms democracy into an illusion”, “…at every stage it creates reaction and increasing national oppression…” “Both in foreign and home policy imperialism strives towards violations of democracy, towards reaction”.

Imperialism develops especially the transportation network and communication means on the lands of countries it enters in order to exploit them easier. “The export of capital influences and greatly accelerates the development of capitalism in those countries to which it is exported. While, therefore, the export of capital may tend to a certain extent to arrest development in the capital-exporting countries, it can only do so by expanding and deepening the further development of capitalism throughout the world.” But at the same time in order to rule the country it entered it establishes alliances with the most reactionary classes. This constitutes a serious obstacle for the development of internal dynamics of these countries in their natural course and head towards capitalism. Indebting countries approve loan applications that are to meet their own needs in contrast with the needs of those countries. “Finance capital has created the epoch of monopolies, and monopolies introduce everywhere monopolist principles: the utilisation of “connections” for profitable transactions takes the place of competition on the open market. The most usual thing is to stipulate that part of the loan granted shall be spent on purchases in the creditor country, particularly on orders for war materials, or for ships, etc.” This creates a sort of vicious cycle by obstructing the natural course of development itself in countries that have been made dependent. Especially in semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries, capitalism cannot become the dominant economic system in one way or another.

International Production, Formation of “Working Class of the World” Based on This and the Watering Down of the Term Worker

8- The distinctive property that distinguishes imperialism from capitalism is the export of capital. Lenin says, “Typical of the old capitalism (…) was the export of goods. Typical of the latest stage of capitalism, when monopolies rule, is the export of capital.” It is not possible to speak of a new development, capital accumulation process and a change that will make away with these fundamental criteria today. Yes, international production is at higher levels in comparison with the past. For instance, several parts of an automobile are produced in various different countries and sometimes are assembled in a country that does not even produce one part of it. However, if we discuss the matter on this plane we would miss out on the distinctive property of imperialism, which is the quality of export of capital. Its essential characteristic is not that it makes investments in different countries. It is being in the character of “skinning the same cow twice” through the loans that it gives out through banks. Thus it makes it possible to create, “…the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather, of a stratum of rentiers, i.e., people who live by “clipping coupons”, who take no part in any enterprise whatever, whose profession is idleness.”

Within this sense, whether the production has remained in the locality or it has become international essentially plays a collateral role in terms of the character of imperialism. The biggest problem caused by the “globalization” of production, on contrary to the popular belief, is the weakening of the hands of the working class against its class enemy, capitalism. The spread of production to various countries, different factories in different countries producing the same part has made the matter much more complicated for the workers who take their strength from stopping the production. Because, the rulers are able to break a strike in a country by increasing the production in another or by moving a factory to another country. This situation causes the emergence of a working class that is thoroughly alienated to the product of its own labor.

International unities that are established or tried to be established through various trade unions due to the law of uneven development will never be able to develop at the same speed and direction, thus they will never be at the same redness. Moreover, even the communist parties which are a much more higher level of organization has not been at the same level of development at the same time and to expect this, to put it mildly, is naivety. In terms of a production of a product “world working class” can roughly be spoken of however exaggerating this and thinking of organizing it under one trade union or under a unity of trade unions, hoping a red unity of these is betrayal both to the working class and to revolution. Of course, no one can deny and will deny the importance of the international support that workers and laborers of other countries will provide during times of revolutions. But international support and the periodical coordination and cooperation of workers in various countries are very separate things. The ones who claims that the world working class should unite under one organization or the ones who keep it to themselves in this matter, the ones who include all wage-workers to the working class share fundamental properties; they define imperialism with various adjectives without calling it ultra but defining it at that level or they shyly defend world revolution or regional revolution. This means the blossoming of all sorts of Kautskyist and Trotskyist ideas, their rise, and rendering of revolution impossible.

1. The National Question and the Question of Nations

1 – National question is an important category is historical and social development. The theoretical approach in regards to this issue in multinational countries where a national question exists is directly related to the future of revolution in that country. We can say that the science of MLM has a rich reservoir in regards to this issue, that due to the historical significance, class and social content of the issue that it is handled through care and intensification that should be given credit to, in the context of class struggle.

In our country too, the national question constitutes an important aspect of the class struggle. The strongest comprehension in respect to the importance of this matter and in this sense the first strong theoretical, political and ideological move has been made by leader comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya. He has made the first, personal and most extensive examination in the process of examining the social problems in the country in the national question and specifically in the context of the Kurdish question. As in a series of matter, in this matter too, he has realized a complete rupture from the other Marxist-patented revisionist, opportunist and reformist currents and has become the representative of the flag of scientific attitude. In this context, he has established the programmatic opinions of our party on the basis of MLM. The main theses of the founder leader of our Party in regards to the national question have gone through the tests within the social practices and their science and correctness have been proven.

However it will be beneficial to touch upon some discussions and take positions through reconsideration of new situations, new developments that have happened in the national movement and in the national question within the historical period of around 47 years, especially in these times where some theoretical theses that the leader comrade has created and their bases of are being attempted to be degenerated through some particular discussions.

The Essence of the National Question and the Matter of Classes that the National Oppression Targets in Essence

2- Leader comrade while putting forward the essence and the quality of the national question examined comrades Stalin and Lenin and reached a conclusion through his examination of the form that national question takes in the age of competitive capitalism and in the age of imperialism, and of the concrete historical, social, economic and political developments of the country and the shape that the national question has taken. This scientific attitude provided a ground for the leader comrade to correctly and properly comprehend the question.

However the most important of the theoretical issues in regards to the question is the matter of essence and quality of the national question. Comrade Kaypakkaya defined the essence of the national question on the basis of the semi-feudal, semi-colonial quality of the economic structure of the country. This approach is the correct method. Within this context he laid down the national question as having the “the old type of national question” which reached our time without being resolved and preserving itself. Namely, he emphasized that it carried the properties of the age of competitive capitalism, not of the age of imperialism. In this sense he conceptualized the essence of the question as it was put forward in the “Marxism and the National Question” brochure of comrade Stalin, namely as the struggle between “the bourgeoisies of the oppressing nation and the bourgeoisies of the oppressed nation”. Summarily, he defended that the national question was a question of “market” in essence and the struggles shape around bourgeoisies trying to seize dominance over these markets. Comrade Kaypakkaya’s determinations on the national question are fitted in regards to defining a reality. Namely, the determination that the question carried characteristics and properties that belong to the previous age is correct.

Although determining this reality does not create clarity over the situation that it is in the new age, its evolution and the critical issues in regards to how it relates itself with the properties of the new age. If we speak of new objective conditions, and the age of imperialism that gives its all character to all processes, that doesn’t leave anything untouched and unaffected, it is a scientific phenomenon that a problem that comes from the past will not be independent from this. It is not the case that a leader such as Kaypakkaya who penetrates questions very thoroughly not to leave a blank on this matter. And all the developments and the processes point towards proving the approach that Kaypakkaya put forward in regards to the essence of the national question. However the ideological-political reflections that feed themselves from the essence of the question and surface in this way which are due to imperialism should be seen as undeniable problems. Within this sense the national question in the age of imperialism has ceased being an internal problem and has become an external problem (due to imperialism).

This essence of the national question that belongs to the age of competitive capitalism has not essentially changed in the age of imperialism and proletarian revolutions. In the “Age of Imperialism and Proletarian Revolutions”, it is known that the struggle of colonial, vassal and dependent nations are no longer in the bourgeois democratic quality under the leadership of bourgeoisie and have lost the ability to establish independent, nation-states. The dimension that the economic exploitation of imperialism reached has become the basis for a characteristic that markets will be fortified as elements of this chain and that it will not provide for opportunities for independences besides this. Two paths have remained for the oppressed nations. Either to march on the path of socialist revolution or to remain as states that are dependent to imperialism.

Due to new economic relations and political power that the imperialist bourgeoisie has created it is not possible for national bourgeoisies (despite all their desires and wishes) to constitute a position to lead the struggle for market and the fight for it in this reality. When the network of financial exploitation and the level of production power are taken into consideration, the situation does not allow for the existence of an independent nation-state that is going to fall outside of this. National bourgeoisie, due to its class character and class interests gains a new political quality in the face of this new emerging situation. Even the existence of the oppressing nation alone has now become an element of imperialism, free from being unique. When the general economic situation is taken into consideration in the conditions of imperialism, the market problem, namely the national question is no longer an internal problem but has evolved into a problem that is related with imperialism. The national question transform into a question that the proletariat can resolve and has to resolve due to the qualitative transformation in conditions while being a “bourgeois problem” that the bourgeoisie is not able to resolve. This situation does not change the fact that the essence of the question is a “market question” and that there is competition in between the bourgeoisie of the oppressing nation with the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation. This situation does not abolish the continuation of the question with its historical properties on this axis and does not obscure the fact that the resolution of the question cannot be brought by the bourgeoisie that has run out of all its gunpowder.

At the same time, the national question transferred from the old age carries the effect of feudalism on it. The existence of feudalism in these countries should be accepted as an important factor in the continuation of the national question and national question not being able to resolve. It can be said that the national question has been tied with the thickest of chains by imperialism and feudalism and has become permanent. The existence of feudalism and especially its political activity is a determinant factor in the existence of a large mass of oppressed impoverished peasants. The impoverished peasants of the oppressed nation cannot avoid being an important part of the national struggle. The impoverished peasants play the most important role in the strengthening, radicalization, continuity of this struggle and it remaining alive. They feel hatred not only against the national oppression but at the same time and becoming crystallized time to time, against the class oppression at an incredible level. This national and class oppression that the peasants are subjected to pushes them into a role that shapes the struggle rather than being a mere filler. This dependence of peasants on their national identity at the same times prepares a ground for an orientation against imperialism. This is one of the material bases of the alliance that imperialism establishes in countries that have not yet resolved feudalism with the reactionary feudal forces in order to realize its own economic relations.

Within this context in “the Age of Imperialism and Proletarian Revolutions”, the market question that is the essence of national question does not lose its ground but finds its reflection in the form of political program, struggle and resistance against the assaults of imperialism towards the national identity that finds its reflection in “political enslavement and cultural depersonalization” of imperialism, thus national struggles find momentum and thus they find their realizations in the peasant masses.

Under these circumstances the determination of leader comrade is a situation that keeps its topicality and reality, “…that have been passed down to our era from the previous period, are not widespread and do not characterise our age, but still have to be addressed by Marxist-Leninists.”

3- The determination on the essence of the national question at the same times brings up the discussion on which class and sections of the oppressed nation the oppression of the oppressed nation essentially directed at. Together with the fact that the national question is the struggle for “market” of bourgeoisies and the struggle for establishing domination, and the acceptance of the fact that it is oppression towards all class and sections of the oppressed nation, it is necessary to determine that the essential oppression is directed towards the bourgeoisies of the oppressed nation. Leader comrade has laid out his approach with these words: “Moreover, the real target of national oppression is the bourgeoisie of the oppressed, dependent and subject nation, for the capitalists and landlords want to own the wealth and markets of the country without rivals. (…). The bourgeoisie and landlords belonging to the oppressed nation are a significant obstacle to these ambitions, for they wish to possess their own market, control it as they wish and exploit its material wealth and the labour of the people.” This is coherent with the question of what is the essential aspect of this struggle. Moreover, we should express that it points out a reality. A determination on the essentials and the essence of the question at the same time reveals what is the target, the purpose and who actually is under oppression. The fact that the question becomes an external problem in the age of imperialism and proletarian revolutions causes new political aspects that politically, socially and culturally surfaces in the national question. Especially the policies of imperialism of enslavement, depersonalization and de-identification have an aspect that is towards the oppressed classes of the nation and that targets the shackling of them. This situation, together with not changing the essence of the struggle of the oppressed nation, mixes in new dimensions to it; makes the political tendencies of the oppressed peasants to become influential and strong in the movement, and connection of its democratic aspect to be strongly tied with opposition to imperialism. In the age of imperialism every movement that has democratic content also has the anti-imperialist quality or to put it differently it is not possible for any movement that does not have the character of anti-imperialism to have a self-appointed democratic quality.

We can determine that the national oppression is directed at all the classes of the oppressed nation including the national bourgeois. The essence of the national oppression on the other hand is towards the oppressed national bourgeoisie. The character of national question and national struggles realized with the orientation and target of establishing dominance over its market and to establish political dominance over that market. For today, this essence of this problem has not undergone any changes.

National questions have been shaped as a duty loaded on the leadership of the proletariat in connection with the Proletarian Revolutions and Democratic People’s Revolutions in our age. It must be noted that national bourgeoisie lacks the ability and the quality to perform this duty. This reality loads the duties of resolving the national question and to handle this question with its new properties on the shoulders of the proletarian vanguards.

The fact that the national question shapes as a part of the dependency, semi-colonization, political, social and cultural de-identification, depersonalization and enslavement policies of imperialist finance capital, the deep and rooted enmity of imperialists towards oppressed nations, the uneven and inconsistent anti-imperialism that sticks to the dough of the national bourgeoisies of oppressed nations do not obscure the essence of the struggle for the market of the national bourgeoisies of oppressed nations. However national struggle in this era takes the form of struggle for the domination of the national market.

Especially the period after 1990s and the loss of prestige of “socialism” and revolutions witnessed national question becoming the ground of inter-imperialist struggle and competition, and at the same time struggles for market dominance of national bourgeois’. The struggles that took place in the Balkans are typical examples of this. Again, similar situations can be observed in the Middle East. The market struggle of imperialist forces and the loss of prestige of revolution created a strong ground for the market-oriented tussles of national struggle.

The Issue of “the Contradiction between the Oppressing Nation and the Oppressed Nation” Taking Part among Principal Contradictions

 4- Comrade Ibrahim tackles the national question and the question of nations as a strategic issue of revolution. We can say this very easily. Because the Kurdish national question is the first issue that he tackled and examined under a communist perspective. This approach presents legitimacy to our determination that he attached strategic importance in revolution to this issue, although, the leader comrade has not formulized this issue within “the principal contradictions” of our social revolution. In consideration with the importance he attributes to this issue his approach can be considered as a contradiction. However, this essentially appears as a consequence of the philosophical approach in the handling of principal contradictions and as a form of consistency in comrade Kaypakkaya.

Lenin determines that, “the existence of the national question is a great obstacle in front of the social development as a whole.” And again Marx states that, “a people that oppresses another cannot be free.” National question should be comprehended as a great obstacle that stands in the way of social development and social revolution. The existence of national oppression does not only constitute a problem for the oppressed nation. It is at the same time constitutes the shackles that are put on the feet of the people of the oppressing nation. Either the approach of Marx and Engels in regards to the Irish question, or either the attitude put forward by comrades Lenin and Stalin in respect to national question proves this. One of the conditions for the social of the oppressing nation and the most important one is connected to the issue of liberation of the oppressed nation. This situation is an essential ring that has to be comprehended in respect to the fact that it points out to the importance that has to be attributed to the national question in social struggle.

Comrade Lenin determines the vital point of this question as the gaining of the right to self-determination by the oppressed nation. Principally he views bringing the people of the oppressing nation to defend the rights of the oppressed nation as the destruction of an important obstacle in front of the social revolution. This should be accepted as a principal that has no exceptions for the social revolution.

However the point that the quality of revolution and the national contradiction becomes unique should not be overlooked in a semi-colonial, semi-feudal country. In such countries the quality of the revolution will take the form of Democratic People’s Revolution. The social basis where the oppressing nation and the oppressed nation are in and the characteristic of the revolution share the same property. The semi-feudal relations and semi-colonial economic structure includes the oppression, exploitation and administration that the Turkish, Kurdish nations and the people from various nations are subjected to within the same political borders of sovereignty. This situation encompasses the contradiction of a common social revolution despite the multi-national structure. Principal contradictions such as feudal remnants, imperialist domination, labor-capital contradiction etc. are contradictions that mark the process.Again the oppressing nation too, has a national question due to imperialism. And again, the national struggle of the oppressed nation has become a part of the Proletarian Revolutions and Democratic People’s Revolutions. For a matter of fact, liberation as a whole is on the shoulders of the proletarian leadership. This means that the struggle of the oppressed nation at the same time includes the social liberation of the people. The opportunity for this common revolution to take place is the recognition of the oppressing nation people of the right for free separation of the oppressed nation. This essential ring is the requirement for the development of Democratic People’s Revolution and its realization.

Specifically, our Party does not view the situation of the Kurdistan of Turkey as a colony. It defines it as vassal, dependent nation. This fits the MLM theory. We know that comrade Lenin connects the difference in between dependency and colony to the economic development of the oppressed nation. He speaks of lack of accumulation of capital of the bourgeois’ and landlords of colonial countries that are at a negligible level. In fact, he states that the bourgeois’ and landlords of vassal, dependent nations have a certain amount of capital accumulation and maintain development in their own economic relation to a certain extent. On this basis he makes the differentiation of colonial and dependent nations. Within the view of the concrete situation we can say that Kurdistan of Turkey is a dependent nation. This relation brings us to the relation that the revolution of all country will rise on the reality of socio-economic structure lays on this basis. However, this is not to shut eyes to the reality of oppressed dependent nation, this does not make this question being a contradiction that affects the revolution within the purpose of New Democratic Revolution of together or separate revolution.

The contradiction between “the oppressing nation and the oppressed nation”, even though it is an important question of the revolutionary situation, is not among the principal contradictions of our revolution. Our Party found the philosophy that comrade Kaypakkaya followed while determining the principal contradictions fitted and correct. Any one of the principal contradictions must have the properties to become “the principal contradiction” that determines, directs and commands other contradictions at any stage of the revolutionary process. Our Party preserves the approach of determining principal contradictions with this method. The contradiction between the oppressing nation and the oppressed nation does not have the class or the social character to become to “principal contradiction” at any stage of the revolutionary process. That is why, even though it is the most dynamic, political and social contradiction of the revolutionary process, this contradictions is not defined among the principal contradictions.

The Right to Self-Determination

5- The concept of “right to self-determination” has sometimes caused certain misunderstandings even within the Marxists circles. Again, imperialists by filling the content of the concept on their own emptied the essence of it. Right to self-determination has been laid by comrade Lenin as gaining of the right of the oppressed dependent nation to freely separate and establish its own state. For communists this is crystal clear.

On the other hands imperialists do not consider right to self-determination as the right to establish a state and this in most cases takes the form of trampling down of this right. It forms it as the realization of the forms federation, autonomy etc. under a sovereign state. Without the right to freely separate, namely the right to self-determination being taken under security, guarantee and to a clear status through an agreement it prefers to condemn the oppressed nation to the new forms of dominance of the sovereign nation. And it presents is as the right to self-determination.

In fact the right to self-determination is oppressed nation gaining the right to establish its own state. Once this right is gained, whether the nation would separate and establish a state, or a federation, autonomy etc. would be established, the issue of right to self-determination becomes the agenda. The free coexistence of this nation with the other or the realization of a separate state is only possible with this condition.

At this point even the significant Bolshevik leaders have experienced confusion from time to time. Some comprehended the right to self-determination as preferring the federation-autonomy etc. rights, not as the right to separate and establish a state. This also has to do with the use of the concept. The rather important difference between “self-determination” and the “right to self-determination” is sometimes gone unnoticed. In this sense communists unconditionally support the right to self-determination, namely the right to freely establish a state. However they determine its attitude and position paying attention to the class interests of proletariat once a situation for self-determination of a nation emerges. Either they support the form of use of it, or either they refute it through critical approach. This completely depends on the historical conditions and the situation at the time.

The Issue of Oppressed Nations

6- Comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya states that the essence of the national question in Turkey is the Kurdish question, but not only that and that various minority nations too, are indeed a part of this question. This approach is a thesis that is applicable, correct and a thesis we advocate

The properties of Armenian and Greek nations to keep the properties of remaining as nations on these lands have been taken away during the 1^st World War through genocides and population exchanges. Today they are decreased in numbers and maintain their existences as minority nations that have lost their properties of being nations. Again, Assyrian, Chaldean and Pontiac communities whose numbers were reduced through massacres and slaughters on their own lands are in the category of minority nations. Besides these, there are Muslim nations that have settled on these lands as an outcome of a series of wars, massacres and policies of forced migration in the last 150 years. The major ones are Circassian, Bosnians and Albanian nations. Even though these nations have kept their cultures and languages to some extents, essentially they have been subjected to assimilation to the Turkish nation through a process of voluntary integration. Moreover ancient nations of some particular regions of these lands, the Laz, Georgian and Arab nations maintain their existence deprived of their right to their culture and under subjugation to policies of assimilation.

The Muslim nations of these minority nations have undergone a process of integration that is voluntary and obligatory to the sovereign nation. Here, it should be noted that the Turkification process has been effective. These nations are deprived of education in their own languages. Through integration to the culture of the sovereign nation they have managed to keep their cultures to some extent. Ultimately they have been subjected to grievances through fascist implementations and the approach of the Turkish dominant classes and take have been taken away their identities or their identities have been transformed. In this respect, they have remained outside of the radar of enmity of the Turkish dominant classes. They have been made parts in the Turkish nationalization. There is a partial revival and sensitivity towards the languages and cultures of the nations in the new generations. At this point their demands and claims on their rights are rightful and legit. The attitude that the communists should embrace should be to embrace, encourage and if possible make it a subject of struggle.

Other minority and non-Muslim nations on the other hand fall within the status of “enemies” for the Turkish dominant classes. The historical and current aspects of enmity towards these nations are still vivid. The Republic of Turkey has collected its foundational philosophy, its ideology and bases from the essence of the Committee of Union and Progress. It has built itself upon its legacy. As well as taking over all its criminal activities, it had continued them in the given circumstances. Within this context the phenomenon that establishes fascist characteristic that is based on Turkish racism and chauvinism of the Republic of Turkey is the enmity towards Armenian, Greek, Assyrian and other non-Muslim nations. This basis was initiated with the Armenian Genocide during the commotion of the 1^st World Word and continued with the Pontiac-Greek Genocide, population exchanges and massacres towards Assyrians. Through scraping of these nations from their motherlands, attempts for Turkification and Islamization of these lands have been made.

After the foundation of the Turkish Republic this enmity continued in particular periods through destruction and annihilation. In 1940s, the handover of capital has been realized through “the Wealth Tax” and the last crumbs have been taken away and the situation gained a tyrannical character. Similarly on 6^th and 7^th of September, 1955 the Greek minority and its property holdings have been made targets and through lynching and sacking it has been turned into a massacre that would encompass other minority nations. And lastly in February, 2007 an Armenian democrat and intellectual Hrant Drink has been killed as a target of the genocidal and enemy policies. Thus another ring was added to the Armenian Genocide.

An update has been made to the chauvinistic and fascist system through the making of these minorities as the main enemy of the society by the dominant classes. Being put under the definition of continuous and permanent enemies the Armenian, Greek and Assyrians have been subjected to a constant policy of oppression and suppression. However, more important aspect is the shackles that have been on the feet of the oppressing nation people in this context by the reactionary Turkish chauvinism and racism. This perception of enmity is a serious obstacle in front of the progress, and gaining democratic and revolutionary quality of the people of the oppressing nation. Not only standing against the historical injustice that took place but also making the continuation of that injustice currently being subjected to the sections that have remained low in numbers to be made a subject of struggle is one of the most important social issues.

Within this context, our Party recognizes the genocide that took place against the Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians as a historical case and it condemns it. It views the issue of bringing these genocides to a historical account as one of the main knots in the struggle against the racist, chauvinistic reactionism of the Turkish dominant classes. It embraces the attitude to wage a tireless struggle against the currently continuing aspect of this enmity. It views persistent and determined telling of this unjustness and the historical confrontation among the people of the oppressing nation as a duty. Within this context it defines the question as a part of the national question in its current form and its historical aspects.

The Assessment of the Kurdish National Movement

7- The attitude of our Party in regards to the Kurdish National Movement and the relations and orientation towards it in the last period is essentially correct. While assessing the Kurdish National Movement, consideration of the reality of the multi-layered structure that its ideological, theoretical formations, its goals, its demands, its political ends and the level that it has reached is a necessity.

From various angles it has a unique quality that exceeds the character of “a national movement” together with a deep structure. The “nationalistic” character of the movement is not superficial, simple and easily understood as it used to be. It should be accepted that we speak of a movement that can present and that presents material opportunities, produces various ideas in regards to the women movement, to the gender question, front activities etc. even though the national question remains at the center the movement develops a “unifying” tendency rather than building a barrier in between nations. Within this context its paradigm carries not only national liberation but targets and properties that defend “social liberation” in a regional scale. This situation undoubtedly appears in front of us as properties that we have not seen quite commonly in national movements up until this day.

It is very important for us to express our general attitude over the approach of the national movement towards the national question and its political quality, its social liberationist theory and its front policy.

Its Handling of the National Question: For a long time the Kurdish National Movement predicates itself on reconciliation and peace policies in resolving the national question. It has fitted its entire struggle onto the axis of the realization of this process. This process also allowed opportunities for the gaining of the Kurdish national rights and other gains that caused compromises by the sovereign nation. Gains have been obtained on the de facto and reformist bases in various issues such as language, culture and political practices etc. however these gain that were obtained in “the Solution Process” are under a siege and an assault due to the Republic of Turkey changing tracks and heading towards a line of aggression in order to organize a new process and closing the channels that are based on negotiations. In this sense the obtained freedom of partial political practices are now largely restricted, the gains over the national identity has been filed, and all the remaining is being tried to be utilized by the fascist dictatorship in a form that it will include the submission of the national identity.

The Kurdish National movement theorized its general orientation and the strategy under the name of “Democratic Autonomy” and shaped it towards coexistence with the sovereign nation. In the issue of the resolution of the national question, it has established a theoretical line of defense and has made a choice opposite to the “right to self-determination”. It condemns this right in a theoretically mistaken way as the “inevitability of establishing a state”. An oppressed nation being deprived of the “right to self-determination” means that it does not completely rid of the conditions of dependency. Within the context of the national question this right is the only revolutionary solution that is to sustain full equality of nations, and the abolishment of all private privileges of the sovereign nation. The comprehension of the Kurdish National Movement of this right being separation followed by an establishment of a state is a theoretical mistake. This right should be comprehended as an acceptance, an agreement in which full equality is realized. The oppressed nation after guaranteeing this right, namely when it takes its destiny under its sovereignty, embracing the choice of separate or together living with its freewill, this right will self-realize itself. However, the will for coexistence without making the sovereign nation accept this right does not include the resolution of this issue on the revolutionary basis or the complete national freedom of the oppressed nation.

Exactly because the Kurdish National movement has gone out of this route, has retracted to gain this right has evolved into a reformist quality. Kurdish National Movement having peace and dialogues with the state does not make it reformist. How it fills the content of these means of struggle determines its political and ideological quality. Also, waging an armed struggle on the axis of this line too does not attribute it a revolutionary quality. However, this situation as it functions as a barricade against its backwards aspects; it also causes the strengthening of its revolutionary dynamics. Only the general political line, programmatic opinions and the attitude towards the question which is the subject of the struggle determines the political quality of a movement.

Under these circumstances let us express that we consider the Kurdish National Movement as a progressive but reformist movement in consideration with its general approach and line towards the national question. At this juncture there happens to be no changes in our previous assessment.

General Paradigm of the Kurdish National Movement, Its Social Liberationist Theses and our Approach:

As it is known, the Kurdish National Movement defends a social, political, economic system that it conceptualizes as “Democratic Confederalism”. The reflection of this general system to its units is “democratic autonomy”. The system in which “democratically autonomous” structures co-exist in coordination is called “democratic confederalism”. This is a system where all nations, sects, belief systems, class strata, genders freely realize their identities and values of judgments, that is based on gender egalitarianism and ecological struggle, that rejects “capitalist modernity” and that does not include the state organization that is formed against it. Summarily, the system is in an approach that puts the essential rings of the social struggle, democracy in which differences can coexist, gender freedom and ecology to its center. On the other hand it puts the main ring of the social revolution onto the axis of these questions. The class issue in this paradigm is only a detail within the issues of democracy where the coexistence of differences will be actualized.

This theory of the Kurdish National Movement is prioritized as an applicable field due to the social, economic and political conditions of especially the Middle East. The theory is presented as the opposite of the idea of the European Union. Namely, its form is similar, its essence is different. The difference of its essence is due to it being “anti-capitalist”. It has the claim to be a social liberation paradigm due to the environment of poverty, impoverishment, oppression, backwardness, slaughters and wars on the bases of sects and nations among especially the peoples of the Middle East. The Kurdish question stands at a juncture that is going to be included within, that is going to sustain its liberation and that is going to contribute to the liberation of other nations and peoples. The claim of the paradigm is beyond the objective of national struggle and national freedom.

Theory, as well as putting some particular scientific physics theories (the chaos gap theory of quantum) as evidence, should be accepted as a synthesis of all the experiences that were brought about by the social struggles. We should note that this paradigm came to existence by taking progressive currents that the age of capitalism brought about as references. It is a theory that is shaped by making use of scientific socialism and its experiences, of utopian socialism, of anarchism and of bourgeois democracy. But it is neither of them. It is a theory that is expressed with its own concepts making use of them. Within this scope, it has an aspect that is eclectic and that makes the antagonistic come to terms. If we are to express it more clearly, it is a “class compromising” theory.

The understanding of the theory is idealistic and voluntaristic. Instead of viewing the laws of historical development as processes that occurred on the axis of people’s productive activities and their requirements, it views it with the decisiveness of subjective situations. This situation causes it to be stuck in the bourgeois idealist world view in designating the development of societies, their evolution and the processes they passed through and ultimately the direction that they will head towards. The created paradigm rejects the phenomenon of “state” and it views the state as the head of all evil. Within this context naturally it considers societies which emerged in particular period of history such as natural society, communal society as ideal and societies that should be taken as references also today. And it views the enemy of these societies as state formation. It defends an historical understanding that requires a natural social struggle against the state formation. The fact that historical progress is not voluntaristic, that it is a product of the necessities and production processes of masses, namely that it is the process of gaining consciousness and an outcome of the struggle of the masses, is rejected. Rejecting the bourgeois state (and of course all sorts of state), negating it is something different and accepting that this is an inevitable outcome of the social progress and its product, that it provided for the social progress and production for a particular period is another. The Kurdish National Movement cannot comprehend that this progress is subject to the laws of social progress, that it is a product of masses themselves due to the necessities and the development of the production processes within the previous process. This is where the idealistic understanding of history is stuck.

Similarly in issues such as nation, nationalization and its course of progress idealistic approaches are dominant. Against the “savage nationalization”, the understanding of “democratic nationalization” is defended. It is defended that “capitalist modernity” destroys the structure of the natural society and it subjects it to savage formations through the hand of the state and thus delivers a blow against the social progress. It is expressed that democratic nationalization is to be realized in unison and compromise with natural society. But in fact, we know that the nationalization process is created neither with clan ties nor with their derivations and their continuities. The development of the production of commodities, the increase in the exchange in between regions and its expansion were sustained with the centralization of regional markets to a single common one. As comrade Lenin says, since the masters of this process are merchant-capitalists, creation of national relations does not mean anything besides creation of bourgeois relations. Within this context the theory of combining of nationalization process with its opposite, with natural society means a creation of setting redundant barriers to the course of history and undoubtedly it is a typical extension, derivation of the idealistic historical understanding. These processes have taken the form of domination together with the class struggles that are dynamics of all social progress. However the nationalization process is a product of a process that is prior to sovereignty. Sovereignty is an outcome of these production relations that dominate the society.

The cause for the national question is put forward in the form of a statist mentality in a particular undemocratic society to impose the language, culture, the dominant belief system of its own ethnic group to others through force, in a savage way. This process is conceptualized as “savage nationalization”. We had stated that the nationalization process is a process of social relations that is realized in the period of competitive capitalism spontaneously and through voluntary merging. To which age does the “savage nationalization” of the statist mentality belong to and what lies underneath it. This exactly is the point where the Kurdish National Movement has a difficulty answering and cannot hit the nail on the head. The form of this issue in the age of imperialism where states that have completed their democratic nationalization processes and settled on new capitalizing processes are in the process of taking societies under exploitation, dependency and dominance is open to discussion. The reasons behind today’s national question lie in this dominance. States that have not completed their process of becoming capitalist in order to sustain an internal unity in the political geography that they establish dominance with the dependency relations that they establish with imperialism have entered this orientation named “savage nationalization”. Summarily, forces that have passed through democratic nationalization processes are the encouragers of today’s “savage nationalization” process and constitute the basis for economic, social and political relations that create this ground. They are at an approach that views the “democratic nationalization” as an enemy towards their relations of interest and to the dominance of their markets. Within this context, theorizing to realize “democratic nationalization” process in this age which actually took place in the age of competitive capitalism and hoping to realize it on a common ground with the masters of “savage nationalization” is breaking away from the reality of our age. It is to break away from the real reasons of national question. This rupture and current theory is certainly the basis for the democratic nationalization approach within compromise and peace. This is one of the fundamental axes of the reformist line.

These wrong approaches create the ground for the thesis that the system of “democratic autonomy of the Kurdish National movement can coexist in peace, next to one another with other systems. The answers are not given to the questions that how refusing “the capitalist modernity” and proposing a system that is on the opposite basis is to realize and how the peaceful path solidified. It is uncertain how coexistence and mutual respect is possible in the face of imperialist appetite for market, the efforts of the sovereign nation states to defend and expand its political-economic interests. It is necessary to be explained how the natural society structure and its production styles will compete with the advanced and mass scale production style of imperialism. When we take a look at imperialism and the class quality of its servant states and their political realities it will not be wrong to assume that these ideas turn into a utopia. It is obvious and clear that these relations will not be actualized on the axis of compromise. To claim that this is possible, to defend it on the philosophical basis and to turn this into an ideological attitude is clearly either accepting the conditions to conform to the current dominance or either to believe that the rulers will come to terms with your path. Naively put, we can say that the latter “is not quite possible”. At this juncture it is possible to state that the utopianism of the theory drifts apart from the dynamics of the material process and realizability. This exact moving away from reality has brought the Kurdish National movement to be imprisoned in the existing. This theoretical approach of the Kurdish National Movement has tightly tied it to reformism.

The Alliances, Front Policy of the National Movement and Our Approach: The social liberationist paradigm and the democratic quality of the Kurdish National Movement have strengthened its common ground with the progressive, democratic and revolutionary forces as a whole. The approaches of “Turkeyfication” which are unique to our country and “creating a democratic society” have provided a ground for the maturation of new conditions and opportunities that draw it inside the revolution of Turkey. Even though its theoretical approaches are broken and utopian, the reflections of this situation take place in a different manner in the political-practical field. Especially the national rights are put in place de facto, being realized and being imposed upon the state. Through the direction of the de facto KCK system in the Kurdistan of Turkey, the society is being drawn into this system and assemblies, defense committees, communes, congresses, associations, art workshops, linguistic-political academies etc. create the conditions for self-realization of national rights. This situation creates opportunities that feed and expands the revolutionary ground. However today, this line is in a serious political crisis. Efforts to realize this orientation that is based on compromise and peaceful politics through armed struggle, “the expectation” politics that were followed during the “solution process” are damaged by the orientation of the rulers which has transformed into furious offensive. This situation of the developments in the Middle East and the situation of imperialist forces allowing or supporting the Republic of Turkey to invade Rojava caused a serious fraction in the Kurdish people in respect to the line of the movement. The strong belief that the system will change through the parliament, elections, discussions and dialogues; fascist dictatorship showing its known face and the weak position in confronting this all-out attack are the indications of insecurities towards the line and the plunge of the line. In this picture, some certain gains have been lost, and a thorough process of reconsideration and questioning began in the Kurdish people.

The “Turkeyfication” approach causes it to be sensitive to social issues besides the national question and feel the pressure of them. Undoubtedly, it is questionable that it seeks for the solution within the system. However the weak position of the revolutionary forces and their inadequacy provides a ground for this search. Parallel to the progress of the revolutionary movement and its strengthening, it should be said that there is potential for this paradigm related approach of the national movement to be bent and the national movement to move away from the state of being imprisoned within the system. The political practical attitudes of the movement, the passionate struggle of its social base towards freedom are evidences that it has a strong revolutionary aspect. It is crucial to develop relations and embrace policies of alliance without missing out this aspect of the Kurdish National Movement. This situation will provide opportunities to form strong unities with the progressive, democratic aspect of its national rights movement and to develop and progress its revolutionary ground. However these relations and alliances should be implemented by clearly portraying the theoretical-ideological difference in between and our political opposition to the resolution of the national question, and at this juncture without ceasing the ideological struggle.

Another issue of the ideological struggle that we cannot, not touch upon is the “social chauvinism” that subtly realizes itself in the progressive, democratic and reformist section. We call it subtle because we speak of organizations and parties that struggle for the actualization of the national right of Kurds in the direction of the line of the Kurdish National Movement. These movements are in a position to defend that the real solution to the Kurdish question today is “democratic autonomy”. They base this attitude to the fact that the “Kurdish nation” defends the right to self-determination in this way. We have touched upon that this approach towards a resolution in the national question does not include a resolution on the basis of right to self-determination. This argument of the movements that view themselves as the representatives of the Turkish people and even the ones who are at the closest position to the national movement today in respect to alliances and define themselves on that ground suffer from a classical example of “social chauvinism”, this fact should not be obscured. Let us not forget that the main duty of the representatives of the people of the oppressing nation is to unconditionally defend “the right to freely separate” and to struggle for this right. These movements so to speak put aside this duty and in negligence with this responsibility have moved to positions that they defend “the democratic autonomy” which is to create the dependency of the oppressed nation in new forms. Some of these movements had a more distant and more critical positions towards the Kurdish National Movement at times when it waged a revolutionary national struggle in the direction of “fully independent Kurdistan”. This reality is the most typical indication that they suffer from social chauvinism. It should be visible that these movement who appear to be the most loyal friends of the Kurdish National Movement today, undoubtedly could prefer to take distance from their current position through continuous change if the Kurdish National movement moves onto the line of separation and self-realization on this path, namely its “positive action” on the national basis. Their current position is the main indication of this. It is significant to wage ideological struggle also against these properties and approaches of these movements.

There are positive aspects of the strength of the Kurdish National movement, its “Turkeyfication” policy, it being drawn into the “revolution of Turkey” in its efforts to intervene in social issues as a whole, the positioning of its oppositional strength at a stronger position, pushing revolutionary movements to a line to establish alliances. However when the wholesome ideological approach is not taken into consideration in a critical manner, it becomes the ground for forgetting essential duties and great confusion in respect to the revolution of Turkey as a result of the weakness of revolutionary groups and their policies of cohesion as it proportionately moves inside the revolution of Turkey. Especially the fact that it is an organized and effective national movement in four-piece Kurdistan, and that this situation turned into dominance in Rojava allows its alliances and forces of alliances to become more courageous in their revisionist theses. The situations such as “the Rojava Democratic Autonomy” to become a reference for revolution and the consequent HBDH alliance that is a result of this ensures the mixture of Trotskyism derived regional, united revolution theses with the organizations that have revolutionary programs, that they build their lines on the reformist basis and moving away from the understanding “to initially achieve revolution in their own country”, and this most importantly makes it difficult for these movements to protect their own revolutionary programs. Instead of determining a common orientation with the Kurdish National Movement and its struggle with their existing revolutionary programs, they seem to compromise from it and follow a policy of unification. It is beyond doubt that the Kurdish National Movement is not responsible for this. However, this is the ground for the emerging deviations in line and liquidationisms. At this stage, this turns into not only to the strengthening of harmful Trotskyist theses and the feeding of reformist tendencies but into a siege where revolutionary programs are targeted. Our Party, within the consideration of this picture, believes in establishing alliances while keeping its own independent ideological-political identity, to move together with it and to expand and consolidate the opportunities that are to feed the revolutionary ground and to wage ideological struggle with the line of the Kurdish National movement. It has always acted with this orientation and it will continue to do so.

1. The Question of Women and Other Oppressed Genders

1- Every sort of oppression and violence that women experience in the economic, cultural, social and political sense due to being women is within the context of sexual exploitation. Women are humiliated, ignored, their bodies and labor are exploited and they are subjected to violence as the second gender in every field of life due to their social gender roles. As “the whole world is seen to be of men”, “her whole world is her house”. However, also within the house she continues to experience all kinds of violence. Her invisible labor in the house is at all kinds of service of men. As Engels says, “women are proletarians and men are bourgeois’ in the house”.

Women are face to face with the assault of harassment and rape at every moment in the house, on the streets and at their workplaces. They are slaughtered under the name of “honor” and “moral laws”. And even they are being married to their rapists at ages that they are children and being subjected to lifelong torture. It doesn’t end with these. They are subjected to sexual abuse at early ages. With the fatalist understanding of “don’t let it get out of this room” the incest abuse that takes place within the house is not even revealed. Women are condemned to live in this darkness that starts at childhood all their lives. Even declaring all these that happen, means taking the risk of heavy prices. They have to take the risks of being excluded through the label of “dirty”, to be accused of “wiggling tail”, to be subjected to threats and violence of “slandering”. That is why acts of sexual violence that surface and is reflected to the statistics until now are only a small part of what is happening. In this sense, the aspect of women’s life, the problems women experience that remain in the dark is bigger. The fundamental basis of the sexual, political, economic and social pressure and exploitation over women are production relations. The state that is the guarantee and the continuator of these production relations is at the same time the most effective continuator of this oppression policy and is the main subject in the reproduction of patriarchy and it being compatible with the given system. The state has taken patriarchy under guarantee through laws. Even though the women struggle and the gains of the process of women obtaining an identity have gained a legal framework this has the quality that maintains the slavery of women under new conditions rather than sustaining women liberation. Due to the class society structure that enslaves women, due its structure that allows all its production relations to be focused on realizing the interest of a handful of rulers and that restrains freedoms and takes enslavement as essential, the policies that enslave women ate meticulously maintained. This is how the women enslavement is maintained, her struggle for freedom is hindered and the structure of the problem that is based on classes is covered with some improvements.

2- The women in their work lives too experience their position of being the oppressed of the oppressed the heaviest. By being seen as cheap labor, they are paid less even though they do the same work as men. The provision of her labor is priced as “contribution to the family economy”. They are forced to work under the heaviest conditions without job security. Jobs such as, bathtub crank workshops, house oriented, part-time, work on calls, house works, housekeeping etc. are the fields where the women are exploited the most. After all this work when women reach their houses their “shifts” continue. Taking care of the children, cleaning the house, preparing the food, doing the dishes etc. all sorts of housework, caretaking of the sick and the elderly are on the shoulders of women.

Women are generally in the background in social and political life. The number of women who come forward with their own identity and practices are quite low. The sexist division of labor exists at such a point that women take part in the social life again in accordance with “the traditional roles”. Jobs such as teachers, nurses, secretaries, assistants, caretakers, fashion-designers, textile etc. solidify these roles of women even more. Again in sciences too this sexist division of labor dominates and men hold determinative offices. Determining, directing, shaping, acquiring social status and effective positioning of women in social life, production life and in political activities are again possible mostly through being shaped by “the male understanding” and to conform to it. This is a reality that reflects to the entire relations within the system and at the same time in positioning that are against the system.

When the ignoring, class and national exploitation is added to the exploitation of women for being women, women have been at the most backward position to start the struggle as the oppressed of the oppressed and great prices have been paid at this expense. In order to understand the freedom struggle of women firstly one should look at the historical process of the oppression of women.

Which One Is Essential, Class Exploitation or Sexual Exploitation?

3- Together with the discovery of iron in the last period of the primitive communal society, production tools were diversified and agricultural production have begun in a larger area. As a result of this, the produce started being produced more than the need and the emerging excess produce gave birth to the property relations. Together with the transition to settled life and with the first social division of labor women has lost their essential roles in the production and were tied down to the life spaces where their children were. Together with this, the external relations such as the production of means of production, their distribution, the produce exchange among clans, their distribution, the administration of forces of defense etc. fell under the control of men. This situation made the men have a voice over the excess production. But for this to happen, the law of motherhood should be disbanded and it should be replaced by the “law of fatherhood” that guarantees the hegemony of men! The reason for that, according to the law of motherhood the excess production is left to the male siblings in the clan which the mother belongs to when the married men dies or divorces. This situation also prepared the ground for the transition from group marriages to monogamy. In order to guarantee the birth of children whose fathers are known the women had been enclosed in the house, and the foundations for the monogamous family which essentially only applies to women were laid. Enclosed to their houses women have been turned into instruments of fulfilling men’s needs and giving birth. Thus the emerging private property accumulated in the hands of men.

The accumulation of means of production and private property in the hands of men put them to the position of both the class and sexual oppressors. That is why Engels had said that “the first class struggle in the history took place between men and women and in the house women were proletarians and men were bourgeois’.” The emergence of private property marked the beginning of the emergence of classes and due to the inadequate population for the production a transition has been made to the system of slavery. And again, “the first enslaved humans” were women.

That is why the class and sexual exploitation for the women have become inseparable from one another and intertwined. Instead of having the discussion of “which one came first?”, “which one is essential and which one will be our starting point?” should be asked. Because women, both in terms of class and sex, together with the emergence of private property have been oppressed and all the developments followed an intertwined course. The developments such as the diversification of means of production, these becoming possessions of men, transition to the settled life, the emergence of excess production, the emergence of first forms of commerce that includes the exchange between clans, the emergence of monogamous family, the law of motherhood being replaced by law of fatherhood due to inheritance, the oppression of clans that possess more labor force and more produce over other clans etc. all follow one another and give birth to each other.

The essential development that is to be considered here is the emergence of private property and its accumulation in the hands of men. According to the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist point of view, with the means of production becoming private property, the one who establishes hegemony in these property relations becomes the one that determines and dominates all the relations. As a result of the first division of labor men has taken the possession of means of production. Namely, men due to the emerging private property are at the position of exploiter in terms of class. At the same time, since they have a voice over the bodies of women, is at the position of oppressor in terms of sex. This is where the enslavement of women roots from. “The core and the first form of property were born in the family where the women were slaves of men. The very primitive and concealed slavery within the family is undoubtedly the first property and this property is the authority to freely take advantage of someone else’s labor power.” While women were at the position of main producers in this historical period, they have been brought to the position of being oppressed of the oppressed. Firstly, women are being exploited both in terms of class and sexually. The emergence of private property is the beginning of the history of class struggles. This is our starting point. This position of women and the path to their emancipation will only be opened through the abolishment of private property and ultimately all the foundations of the question will disappear together with the disappearance of all class based systems. The complete liberation of women will be possible through the disappearance of social structure that is based on classes. Within this context – to formulate this more clearly – in socialism too, which dismisses private production and is the power of the proletariat, the women question will not disappear. The socialist relation of production will carry the characteristic of being a paving the way for women to conduct struggle for complete freedom and for the obstacles for the abolishment of all relations that are based on patriarchy to be lifted. However the question, due to its class based structure will continue. Ultimate freedom and complete liberation will be possible through these class distinctions to disappear and the raising of the flag of communism.

The Freedom Struggle of Women

4- After this discussion firstly we need to clarify which concept is the correct concept in the matter of the “women question”. The “women question” is the most commonly used term. However this definition does not express the question at an adequate level. Moreover, in practice most often it brings very backward approaches in the style of “if women experience the problem, then they are the ones to resolve it.”

While laying out a problem, the problem should be examined together with its historical process. Knowing the reasons behind the problem, its course of development will lead us the way in terms of how to struggle with it. As we have shortly stated above, women question too has not come out of nothing. This is not merely a problem that women have created or women experience. Just like class struggles, this also is a very rooted problem. As we have emphasized before, this is a problem that came to existence together with the emergence of private property and classes and it is a problem that is going to be resolved when they cease to exist. Consequently, this is not a question that is to be loaded to the shoulders of only women. Exactly for this reason, the resolution of this problem is among the duties of the Communist Party.

Patriarchy, patriarchal ideology is the ideology of all class societies. It influences the women, men and LGBTQI+, namely all gender identities and sexual orientations. Patriarchy establishes its existence over the hegemony of men. From family to the state, it glorifies men and reproduces them. In religion, in traditions and customs, everything is ordered in accordance with the need and pleasure of men. Women are oppressed with their bodies and their labor. Even if men are exploited in terms of class, they are dominant in the family, they are masters. Women are liable with service to men. Men initially make their own power live over women or other men who they see as being weak and wants their power to be lived in this manner. Namely, the women are the oppressed and the men are the oppressors. That is why; patriarchy is one of the fundamental foundations of all exploitative systems. It does not only belong to the pre-capitalist societies as some people claim. Together with capitalism it takes a new form and continues its existence with various changes. However the essence, the foundation is the same. We have underscored that the class and sexual exploitation is intertwined, that they feed one another before. That is why the struggle against patriarchy cannot be thought independent from the class struggle. It has to walk together with it.

Besides these, saying that “women and men are affected by the patriarchy at the same level” is projecting un-equals as equals in life, and will in essence deepen the inequality. That is why it is not correct to discuss this issue from the same reference point for women and men. As Lenin says, “(…) there cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be “equality” between the oppressed and the oppressors, between the exploited and the exploiters. There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be real “freedom” as long as there is no freedom for women from the privileges which the law grants to men, as long as there is no freedom for the workers from the yoke of capital, and no freedom for the toiling peasants from the yoke of the capitalists, landlords and merchants.” Shortly put, in all societies that are based on exploitation women have the problem of liberation and men have the problem and the obligation of giving up from privileges due to their positions of being oppressors and dominants. Men too, will be liberated within this struggle. In the struggle against patriarchy the essential subjects are women and LGBTQI+ due to being the oppressed of the oppressed. Because the class exploitation becomes heavier together with the sexual exploitation of women and LGBTQI+.

Under the light of these statements the correct expression while defining the question should be “the freedom struggle of women” or “the liberation question of women”.

5- The freedom struggle of women is a part of the struggle for democracy. That is why it is among the duties of New Democratic Revolution. Due to its historical quality and being a contradiction between the oppressing and the oppressed, it is one of the fundamental questions of our revolution.

The semi-feudal, semi-colonial structure of our country has deepened the gender inequality of women and their oppressed position. Women, who are being subjected to all sorts of violence in terms of sexuality besides the hunger, poverty and unemployment that all the people suffer from, are under the labor exploitation and objectification attack of the most reactionary values of feudalism on one hand and exploitation of capitalism on the other.

Sieged at every aspect of their life spaces women are condemned to live a slave life behind the walls of the house; made believe that what they undergo cannot change, that it is their destiny with religion, traditions and customs and are asked to abide by men. Patriarchy, through media and means of communication have separated them from real life and alienated them to their own selves.

In semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries social oppression and violence are put into practice to include all dimensions of the reactionary feudal remnants. Laboring women are being subjected to heavy labor exploitation in fields, in factories and all other fields of productions and on the other hand perform as family and house workers. Laboring women whose labor is not seen whatsoever are being the victims of forms that appear as betrothed in the cradle, bride exchange, customs, honor murders, hullah marriage, polygamy, virginity etc. of the reactionary feudal despotism. And if the women belong to the oppressed nation, this time the oppression increases together with the assimilation assaults.

The participation of women in the social production in our country is very low. Approximately more than 20 million women, even though they are in a position that allows them to work, become house slaves or free family workers behind the walls of their houses, outside of the registered work force. The women who participate in the work force mostly are seen as cheap labor and work unregistered with no job security under heavy conditions; take part in piece by works, house-oriented works, house cleaning, caretakers etc. or in the agricultural production as the continuity of their work in their houses and as a reflection of the sexist division of labor. This way or that way, their labor is not visible. The form of usurping of their labor, under the mangles of feudal remnants takes place mostly on women in the most intensified manner.

Even the most fundamental rights that have been gained in struggle of long years have remained on paper. The demands, struggle and channelization of equality rights to revolution are on the shoulders of the proletariat.

The struggle for equality and democracy for women is at the same time as a part of the class struggle is a problem of this very day. That is why the organization work of the proletariat should be connected to the problems that women and LGBTQI+ of the same class go through due to their gender identities. Because even if the sexual exploitation changes its form, it will continue even after the democratic revolution. As Lenin emphasizes: “The working woman and peasant woman are oppressed by capital; but in addition to that, even in the most democratic of bourgeois republics, they are, firstly, in an inferior position because the law denies them equality with men, and secondly, and this is most important. They are “in domestic slavery,” they are “domestic slaves,” crushed by the most petty, most menial, most arduous, and most stultifying work of the kitchen, and by isolated domestic, family economy in general.” That is why the ultimate solution of the problem will continue until communism, however New Democratic Revolution will rid of the inequality of rights that puts the women to the position of being the oppressed of the oppressed, guarantee the women rights and women will continue their struggle for freedom until communism having gained a great strength. Even though New Democratic Revolution is a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat it provides a some certain space of freedom to the petty-bourgeois and national bourgeois classes in order to create the conditions that will be the foundations of social progress and the socialist system. This situation appears as a compulsory historical transition period in which the existence of private property is, even though in the secondary level, preserved. The oppressed position of women that is taken over from the previous society will continue its existence inevitable in social life also in this system. However, as New Democratic Revolution directs itself to the relations of private property that make this possible on one hand, on the other targets all the production relations, political obstacles, social relations that stands in front of women liberation and creates the conditions that lead to socialism and there on to communism.

The Leadership of the CP in the Liberation Struggle of Women

6- The oppression of women, as we have quite often underscored is the beginning of the class struggle and will continue as long as the class struggles continue. That is why it is not a struggle that could be separated or parsed out from the class struggle. As women struggle against bourgeoisie together with their male comrades, on the other hands they have to wage a struggle against the patriarchal ideology within both the system and their own class. Women will gain some certain rights with the revolution and will continue waging their struggle stronger with the power they obtain from here until communism. That is why the question of women freedom, is not a question that can be handled within the general and that can be transferred to revolution, it is a struggle that should be developed and raised with unique organizations with unique instruments, a problem of exactly today thus a struggle that should be waged from today. Making women participate in this struggle is first and foremost the duty of the Communist Party, namely our Party. This orientation that was determined especially after the 8^th Congress which has served as a step to demolish the taboos in regards to this issue and to take concrete steps and has created certain experiences and accumulation within the Party.

Since the foundation of our Party a substantial number of our women comrades have taken part in the struggle. However, unfortunately the patriarchy that exists inside us has targeted initially the women. Because social gender roles continued to exist in various forms also within our Party. Women, not in theoretical handling but in practice have been seen as the supporters of this struggle not as parts of it. With the understanding of “behind every successful man there stands a woman”, women could stand not in front of or next to men but behind them. Women who have broken every sort of chains and participated in the struggle, in order to become the owner of this struggle had to go through long years of price paying and had to “prove” themselves for many long years. Because the social gender roles have taught the women not to meddle with the work of men but to support it. The reflection of this situation on the revolutionary organizations conditioned women to stand not in the front but mostly behind. When “the passivity”, “weakness”, “having no initiative”, “dependency” of women have been discussed in activities, the responsibility was put on the women again and the main aspect of the problem, “the oppressing aspect” have not been discussed. Women have been crushed under these definitions for many long years. Again in regards to this issue, the role of the Party and the role of the leadership have been missed. If the women wanted to open up space to themselves within the struggle, they needed to overcome this weakness themselves first. They have been put into the position of being strong, and to obtain the properties of men to become strong in order to progress within the struggle.

We cannot say that, “we are communists; we do not have gender discrimination.” Because the fact that we are communists does not mean that we are exempt from this problem. On the contrary it obliges us to struggle against it more. What Clara Zetkin discusses in the Communist International is our reality today and it is striking since it points to the fact how backward we discuss the question and how we live it: “Even in the ranks of Communist Parties the remnant of a narrow-minded, petty bourgeois, undermining attitude still have a strong influence. Men can develop, organize, rule, fight; they can do everything. But women, in exceptional situations, and only if they are venturous, talented and dominant. If in parties and worker organizations women are mobilized time to time, this happen in a formal and mechanic way and it never takes place thanks to the deep belief to the obligation and the possibility of women’s participation to the struggle against their common class enemies.”

7- The practical step taken after the 8^th Congress and the Party Women Committee that was established in the beginning directed itself towards serious interventions to this very situation, after a while the agenda of this committee being disconnected from the Party came to surface and the presented general perspectives have not been able to create the women policies of our Party. The reasons behind why the work could not advance and develop, that it could not create a party organization essentially should be searched in this disconnectedness from the Party. In order to organize activities in a field creating a committee under the leadership of the Party in that field stand at a determinative point. Concretization of policies in respective fields, carrying out organizational works depends on the capacity of this committee and guiding of the committee by the Party. In our activities towards women, our Party reality at first did not give a ground for a separate committee and that is why it has loaded another duty to the shoulders of the women comrades within our Party, besides the activities of their fields. The weight of the duty, as stated by the 8^th Central Committee of the Party “has not created a weight on women comrades, on the contrary the work unveiled a greater energy.” However, this energy since it was not consumed on the correct ground where it should have been channelized; the discussion of disconnectedness of the activities from the Party has become inevitable. At the very beginning of the activities the responsible committee being from various different fields was an advantage in terms of having a greater sphere of influence but this turned into a disadvantage within the process.

In the beginning our activities that have created a great enthusiasm both in our women mass and in our sympathizers, were drowned in their own internal discussion in time. The constant discussing of the area of responsibility, functioning, initiative etc. of the committee, pushed the committee to discuss the secondary, not the essential; the individuals not the duties. The discussion of any activity in regards to the work towards women, if overlaps with another duty, which one should be the essential one have become the agenda in several meetings. Among all these discussion the fact that “the common language and understanding” that should be established in a committee could not have been done prevented the activities to progress.

In the perspective that it presented in respect to the field the CC of the Party, pointing out that illegal organization will only be weaved in a large mass work has stated that, “the women cadres of our Party who will lead this work and make it advance and blossom, will portray a development that is parallel to the massification, thus comrades who will strengthen the center of initiative will be able to take the stage.” The criteria of success in the mass work conducted in the field is not only the influence created in the legal-democratic field alone, mobilization of masses of women to some extent and the organization of protests and actions; but should be how many organizations and cadres have been created as a result of these. The activities of the Party Women Committee should be assessed from here, and the reasons behind the conclusions we draw should be questioned from this direction.

8- Another aspect is the level of relationship and the established unities of action with other women organizations. Of course, relations with other political entities, making use of their experiences etc. and such practices are not to be rejected. While creating a common ground in unities of actions and democratic demands we should not lose sight of our fundamental points of separation. At a point where we could not have established our own policy, being influenced by these organizations became inevitable. The fundamental question here is the ideological stance of the cadres and the activists who conduct these activities. The Party activities and the illegal activities that are supposed to be essentials in these works have turned into a work that is carried out from one committee meeting to another and in time Party started being taken into consideration from the point of view of the women committee. The concepts such as “women’s look”, “sisterhood”, “woman mentality” etc. has entered our literature to great extents and these concepts replaced the concepts of “Party look”, “comradeship”, “Party mentality”.

Feminism is a bourgeois ideology that we are to struggle against in this field. However in a work that just begins, our essential orientation, essential intensification, our starting point should not be feminism. Initially determining the essential orientation and policies of the work, creating the illegal core of the work, determining its target audience, determining the suitable instruments of organization should be established. Examining the works that have been done in this field, learning from their struggle experiences, participating in the common ground, while doing all these, the distinctions of the proletarian ideology should be set forth. Moreover, Clara Zetkin compares the working and laboring women movement and bourgeois feminist women movement in respect to this subject and has underscored that while putting forward its aims, the demands that have been uttered are among the demands of the proletariat however she stated that these demands are instruments of the path that goes to the essential objective and they are a part of the democracy struggle. What we take as the essential, as the orientation is this.

In the period that we arrived at, the right liquidationist fraction is outside of the Party. But this does not mean that our problems are resolved, and now we have obtained the Party point of view. Our current women activities too, carry these risks. It will be inevitable to live the end of the women activities in the past at the situations that we cannot intervene. In order to emphasize this again; in a work that we carry out with the objective of revolution, be it in any field, the issue of marching together with the Party appears as the greatest key point in front of us. Because any activity in which the Party consciousness weakens, would serve somewhere else than the Party and the freedom struggle of the class.

Who Is Our Target Audience in Our Works towards Women?

9- As in several other question, what we essentially should discuss be the disconnection of our activities from the practice in the women question as we discuss the inadequacies of our Party to produces policies, their application into practice and presenting perspectives. No policy that doesn’t meet the masses, that does not have any return in them, that does not learn from the masses can obtain a result. As long as we cannot meet large masses and we cannot produce policies that are going to mobilize them we cannot be successful in our work towards women.

Even though our essential mass had been determined as working, laboring women in the beginning of our work, after a while the works have not gone beyond young, student and intellectual sections and the works in the neighborhoods of laborers have been abandoned with the excuses of “wasting our energy”, “throwing punches all around” etc. But in fact, the vanguard of the revolution is the working class. And our fields of organization should be first and foremost the life spaces of the working class. The essential mass that we are going to head towards in works in regards to women should be the most oppressed, the most exploited, namely, working and laboring women. Of course, students and the intellectual sections too are among the masses that we are going to reach however what is essential due to their class position is the working and laboring women.

The question of why we have deviated from our essential target audience and why we have taken the work among the student youth and intellectual as essential should be apprehended. Here, the predominant section of the work in the fields being in the legal-democratic field has an effect. Because in the beginning, there had been the need of professional cadres that are to carry out activities in the legal-democratic field and this need had been met through young women, especially students and intellectual women who already conduct activities in a field. For the beginning of the work there seems to be no problem. What is problematic is the direction of the evolution of the works. It is easier to work with again students and young women. The ones who respond the first to the works towards women are the ones who have some certain organizational experiences and it is easier to conduct activities with them. It is very difficult to go the workplaces of working women and to organize them. And the conditions of the women who are house-workers are also rather different. They are less organized. It would be difficult to go to them one by one. And to establish the continuity of this organization would require a longer period and much more labor. All these are the organizational hardships that stand in the way of a newly initiated work. And they have emerged as obstacles for the work among laboring women.

As a conclusion: Even though we have managed to create some accumulation in this field that we are new and inexperienced in, at the present, we do not have a detailed policy besides our “general” understanding. Only through entering the practice and through the correct assessment of the results of the practice we can take more forward steps. In this regard, our own practice will teach us. As we examine, as we discuss we are going to catch a new ring and draw conclusions. This is where the language and teaching of the practice steps in.

Women have more reasons to fight. Women will find themselves within the war and they will be liberated within the war. Change and advance will come through women noticing their own strength and their expression of it. As women analyze all sorts of exploitative systems that imprison them to darkness, they will at the same time analyze themselves. Our Party will lead this process. The only force that is going to bring forward women, the oppressed of the oppressed and make them fight in the frontlines of our revolution is our Party. Women will be liberated under the leadership of our Party. That is why our discussions of the question within the vanguard CP of our revolution must be carried forward and must become more merciless. Because we need to start the confrontation and the reckoning first among ourselves. We need to first comprehend the obligation to organize women within the CP and put it into practice so that we can organize laboring women. Because the one who cannot organize itself, cannot organize the people.

h-) The Youth

The youth as a social stratum has the necessary characteristics to grasp and realize the change and progress in the fastest manner as well as being the most dynamic force of the revolution. So to speak, the youth embodies the characteristics most in tune with the dialectics. Besides this, the youth, with its aspiration for the conquest of the future, has the most unplanned and daring nature. It becomes the first and the quickest to embrace the struggle, the ideology and the politics of the conquest of the future. These characteristics also place the youth in a unique position to grasp and react against the difference between the just and unjust.

Moreover, because of the age category, the components of the youth share a common shape in spirit. This phenomenon has led the revolutionaries and communists to organize the youth in a unique manner. The characteristics stemming from its age category has necessitated to grasp and deal with the politics and mode of organization concerning the youth uniquely. This necessity has created the Komsomol organization model of the communist movement.

Our party manifested a Komsomol organization model during its foundation. Nonetheless, due to a series of problems and inadequacies in the past, for a long time it was not possible to shape this organization model into a solid, living organization. Without a doubt, one of the most important reasons for this was that the party was still very young and its components were of young cadres, thus Komsomol did not become a necessity in the youth activity. With the new events sprung from the youth activities during the mid-1980s, the necessity for a Komsomol organization became apparent.

The works focusing on this issue finally came to a conclusion when the Komsomol became a defined organization that has a precise goal, programmatic organizational insight, mission and responsibility with a solidified character, mass line and military line in the Foundation Congress in 1992.

From this date on, the Komsomol has been a part of the struggle continuously despite all of the problems concerning the revolution and the party. It has also acquired a relatively institutional character in terms of organization, political line and mission with its 27 year old historical experience and by holding 3 congresses. The continuous struggle and the congresses held by the Komsomol also provided the youth organization with knowledge and experience. In this sense, TMLGB (Marxist Leninist Youth Union of Turkey) has achieved the greatest accumulation and clarification in grasping and organizing the Komsomol principles among the youth organizations in our country.

Our Komsomol organization has recently been affected by the general, liquidationist right faction in the country. It has particularly shown its full effect on the Komsomol leadership during the shaping of the liquidationist right clique. The phase of the liquidationist right has led to the unhealthy leadership of the party and the failure of the Komsomol line in realizing the reproduction of the militant and communist line under the current reality.

The effects of the characteristics of the Komsomol, the method of the leadership, the position of the cadres, the right line has all been revealed. A tendency which has been fermented with the legalist understanding, which has been withdrawn from prioritizing the organization, which has decided to nourish the ’’democratic mass organization’’ instead of fighting against the growing right and has replaced the Komsomol in that sense. This very picture of the the Komsomol has determined the position of the Komsomol leadership in the discussions and debates taking place in the party. Eventually the Komsomol leadership as a whole (except the secretary) has acted together with the liquidationist right clique. By clinging to the weakened Komsomol understanding which to a large extent has lost its organizational character and alienated from the party line during the right factionist phase, they have succeeded in splitting from the party. Today, our party has tried to rapidly organize the political work among the youth and started to build the Komsomol with an organizational structure. In this sense, the Komsomol has again reached the path and even the position to function as the school of the Party regarding issues as the Komsomol understanding, Party-Komsomol relationship, previous experiences, mass line, the mass organization-Komsomol relationship, military line, leadership line and style of work. Issues concerning the Komsomol have been discussed and examined within the context of this reality.

Komsomol-Party Relationship

2- The Komsomol is defined as an organizationally autonomous organization which acts in line with the Communist Party’s ideological, political line. Its organizational understanding fits the Bolshevik organizational model. It organizes according to these principles. The Komsomol and the party have bilateral liabilities towards one another. It is stated both in the Party and the Komsomol rules. The party exercises its leadership task through organizations that are directly decided by the CC of the Party. Even though this organization is identified as the the Youth Comission of the Central Committee in the rules,  – due to the party’s organizational strength and the problems faced by the party – this organization does not have a strong experience throughout the history of the party.

This very condition has brought along the development of real and serious problems in leading and guiding the youth and obtaining the maximum potential in the party understanding. In the historical context, CC of the Party has not been able to produce a serious institutionalization and a rich experience in leading the Komsomol. CC of the Party has succeeded in carrying out its method of leadership and relationship with the Komsomol through the people assigned by it or through the organizational connection it has with its cadres, but not through the committee. In this sense, the issue of the leadership of CC of the Party over the Komsomol has not transformed into a healthy ideological-political and organizational leadership except for certain short periods. This phenomenon is related to the CC of the Party reality itself and is not specific to the Komsomol. Critiques and assessments of the Party on the problem of leadership are well-known.

It must be noted that the CC of the Party’s level of leadership does not have an advanced, matured experience and it is not equal to the organizational experience of the Komsomol. Ultimately, the Komsomol activity has acquired a historical character in accordance with the general political line of the party or as a first-hand experience of the party realized in line with the party line of a period. Therefore, throughout the history of the Komsomol, there has never been a case where its actions involved a process external to the Party with the exception of the liquidationist right period. To say that this process was realized under a healthy leadership mechanism of the CC of the Party would be miscalculating the reality.

The greatest impact of the failure of institutionalization of the relationship between the Komsomol and the Party has manifested itself as the organizational problems that have partly occurred in the CC of the Party. In such periods, the problem of leadership concerning the Komsomol has developed a chronic character. Though the relationship with the Komsomol at the organizational connection and leadership level is not problematic, there have been extensive issues regarding ideological and political guidance. This very situation is associated with the mode of leadership of the party and the CC of the Party and also a lack of a system linking the Komsomol to the Party.

The Party has to improve its level of leadership regarding the Komsomol. This is the Party’s responsibility to the future of the revolution. The path and method for this responsibility is not solely about the Party’s mechanisms established for the leadership. It is about the ideological and political level of its leadership, which should be at its most advanced level possible. Particularly in this context, as the failure of institutionalization stems from organizational insufficiencies and problems, this very organizational insufficiency and the insufficiencies of the revolutionary process is not a complex issue for our Party and thus this ‘’simplicity’’ as it is provides the conditions for the leadership to be collectively strengthened.

Henceforth the Party’s interest towards the Komsomol is important. But CC of the Party’s special and increased attention to the Komsomol activity will result in the realization of Komsomol’s progression and mission. This will also provide an ideological and political contribution in grasping the flow of life and in adapting and overtaking the new. The Komsomol has an important aspect in this sense. On top of this, the Komsomol, with its experience, organizational accumulation and an organizational structure it has attempted to execute and has succeeded in its consistency, provides the potential to promote this relationship.

When the ideological, political relationship between the CC of the Party and the Komsomol weakens, Komsomol becomes unfit to solve its own issues. It realizes the Party’s current line or its weaknesses at a comical level and produces new problems which are not solvable by its measures. Thus serious ideological stains from the organizational structure are formed in the long run. Furthermore, when the problems are not solved, huge numbers of members abandon the organization up to the point that the organizational activity is affected from it. In this case, Komsomol’s young, inexperienced and unstable mood leads to a stability problem. The determination and tenacity can quickly develop in the struggle, yet if it is not directed correctly, disbelief can appear at the same rate.

Addressing the Komsomol’s identity as a part of the Party is not enough on its own. The Party’s organization inside the Komsomol will allow the Komsomol to become an organic part of the Party. In other words, the prominent cadres in the Komsomol have to be a part of the Party rapidly. This is essential for the party to lead the Komsomol. This is proven by historical experience. It is one of the most important pillars for Komsomol’s political line and ideological dough to produce the Party line. In this context, organizing activities that would transform the Komsomol cadres into Party members and creating the right and efficient tools is necessary.

Komsomol’s autonomy has to be meticulously preserved. Its organizational mechanisms, decision making method, style of policy making should not be hampered. The fundamental task of the Party is to lead the Komsomol ideologically and politically. The leadership has to be established with the aid of the comrades in the Komsomol who are Party members without hindering its organizational autonomy.

It must not be forgotten that even under the most difficult conditions, the Komsomol has been successful to maintain its organizational functioning and mechanism functional. In this context, preservation of this nature, though not being a principle, has to be shown the similar seriousness. The task of the Party must be reestablishing the organizational mechanisms of the Komsomol when they are hampered. This must be the understanding when approaching this problem.

Mass Line

3- Komsomol’s mass line is in line with the country’s revolution theoretically. The classes which have the force of alliance of the New Democratic Revolution and the modes of interacting with those classes are defined correctly. The target groups are determined on this basis. Determination of the enemies and the friends of the revolution and the further analysis of the mass as the advanced, intermediate and backwards masses in the context of the friends of the revolution will ensure the clarification of the primary and the secondary characteristics in the context of organizational activities. In this sense, all of the youth in the classes that would support the revolution (the working class, poor and middle peasantry, petite bourgeoisie and the left wing of the national bourgeoisie) can and must be won for the revolution. Thus the organizational purposes must focus on the youth in those classes.

In addition to this, the Komsomol’s mass line has to follow a dynamic course based not only on class based standards but also conditions caused by the social and political affairs stemming from the variation and complexity of the social issues. In view of the Maoist mass line, communists have the understanding of heading towards and as a principally taking part within the most dynamic, combatant, political parts of the oppressed social sections. This is the political law of the line of existing in every corner of resistance and struggle. The mass line cannot be restricted to the productive classes. This is against the spirit of the class struggle. In this context, the conditions created by the social and political contradictions of the masses can change the reality of the advanced or backwards masses.

In this context, it is essential and highly important to shape the organizational activity and the target mass by paying attention to the dynamic and combatant parts of the various social sections without abandoning the class based line and politically determining the distinction of the primary-secondary characteristics in this standards. This presents the basis for not only the shaping of the movement of the most dynamic, but also for the accelerated maturation of the communist line by the most dynamic section on a political practical basis. Likewise, a dynamic section presents a huge potential for action and organization and it has the power to shape the public opinion through its effective struggle.

In this sense, Komsomol’s target mass is the advanced mass of the popular classes. The advanced mass is the most responsive section to the social and political issues and has the strongest tendency for action. These sections also have the tendency to organize in various forms. They have potential of mobilizing in a variety of ways to face economic, social and political issues. Because of this phenomenon, the Komsomol has the responsibility of giving a political depth and character to this tendency. The real issue is not to be alienated from the lives, current conditions and demands of these sections. Komsomol’s alienation from their tendencies and reality would cancel out the possibility of giving a political depth and character to this tendency. The difference between these sections and the organized revolutionaries regarding political character, understanding of the struggle and level of mobilization and action is not that far away and there is no distinct difference in quality. Drawing such a line between the revolutionaries and these sections would not be realistic. This approach inevitably leads to a situation where the organized revolutionaries are isolated, politically weakened and their political level is diminished.

Under certain circumstances, the line separating the advanced sections and the sections that carry out revolutionary action become invisible through the movement and the tendency of these sections. The recent Gezi Uprising made this clear. In fact, this section which is backwards in grasping the political question, the moment and in activity can move one step ahead of the organized revolutionaries. It is possible through the means of organization it creates and its efforts to be effective. The Gezi Uprising in this sense is informative for us to observe the features of these sections. The aforementioned advanced sections grasped the situation faster than the revolutionaries, mobilized and played an important role in the uprising. Nevertheless it has to be confirmed that this is not a permanent situation. This temporary condition does not have any importance in identifying the reality and forming the necessary consciousness. The thing we must understand is that most of the time the organized revolutionaries and the advanced masses that are not organized at the same level have and will have the same tasks, responsibilities and understandings. This is particularly true for the youth. The Komsomol has to shape its mass line and deepen its political tendency and understanding according to this reality. This understanding provides the possibility for deepening and solidification of the political and organizational levels of the advanced masses.

The stance towards the social struggles is the other thing that has to be grasped well. The social struggles are not voluntary or conscious but a consequence of the social contradictions. They, beyond a doubt, take place in every aspect of life under various forms, levels and contents. And most of these struggles take place outside of the influence and activity of the revolutionaries and communists. The young communists have to lead and direct such struggles, which are taking place in a variety and rich circumstances, into a common channel. But this is only possible through establishing an understanding and a political stance. Without displaying and maintaining a certain level of attention and urgency towards movements and organizations that are exclusive to one’s self, it is impossible to determine the tendency of the movement or to interfere with it in time effectively. Missing the accumulated rage of the oppressed masses and its direction will not only put the revolutionary and communist movement in a desperate, paralyzed situation, but it also indicates that the movement has lost its claim on the basis of the organization, guiding of the masses and its involvement in the masses. This without a doubt will result in a total ideological decay and corruption. The impairment of understanding the social struggle is a critical factor for the emergence of such outcome. Understanding the social struggle is directly related to understanding the mass line.

Komsomol has the responsibility to define and characterize political leadership of its leadership within the youth in this context. Political leadership is forming the correct mass line as well as establishing the correct policy. It has to establish its policy and direction by not only investigating social issues but also investigating every phenomenon of the social struggles. Being indifferent, distant to and alienated from the social struggles will make it difficult to understand the weaknesses, strengths and the common tendencies of the masses. It will also lead to difficulties and challenges such as failure of channeling the organized action into the mass work in a correct and objective basis

The Style of Organization and Work

4- Organization has to follow ‘’a developmental path top to bottom, from inside towards outside, near to distant’’ (from the 7th Party Congress decisions). This is a general understanding and line. The Komsomol also has to prioritize building its own organization. When the Komsomol organization is not developed, the development of other organizations follows a deterministic path. Komsomol’s development helps the development and sustainability of the conscious action towards organizing the popular youth. A well-organized Komsomol enables the construction of broad mass organizations and leading the existing organizations.

Organization is an essential tool for the realization of a goal and implementing policies. Implementing policies in the best possible way depends on constructing strong and institutionalized organizations. If the organizations that will actualize the necessary policies are insufficient, the efficiency of those policies diminishes. The constant progression, strengthening and proliferation of the organizations are essential for the realization of the political goal. If this perspective is not followed and the sustainability of the organization is not maintained, it will not be possible to realize the political goal. The formation and improvement of the means that will realize a policy is as important as specifying and establishing a policy.

The Komsomol has had serious problems of understanding the organization. Up until today, incorrect notions such as the mentality of aggrandizing politics while undervaluing the organization or undervaluing politics while aggrandizing the organization. The destructive effects of the line aggrandizing the organization particularly take an important place in the history of the Komsomol. The Komsomol has fought against this line to an extent. Nevertheless, right now we can also see tendencies undervaluing the organization and hampering Komsomol’s organization in some ways.

The dominance of the legal work style and the expansion of its potential have objectively led to certain problems in Komsomol’s organizational understanding. The impact of organization and activity of ’’the democratic mass organization’’ on the general politics and tendency has tarnished Komsomol’s role and mission or the need stemming from the Komsomol can also become vague because of it. This situation can intensify the spirit of peripheral relations and cripple the understanding of organization in the forward.

The periodical tendency and organizational impotence of the Komsomol activity creates the objective basis of this problem. Nonetheless this can only be solved by Komsomol’s actualization of the principles of communist leadership based on a clear, top to bottom intervention and style of work. Within this context it is especially obligatory to organize various Komsomol organizations and committees from forward relations and to make them functional. Organizing Komsomol committees at every situation where it is possible and where there are opportunities mobilize them with the mission of leadership and consciousness of political power will prevent Komsomol to erode with the understanding of peripheral organization. However, it is critically important to notice and comprehend this threat. The approach that brought the Komsomol to liquidation is solidified, supported and ideologically fed from here. This situation cause the democratic mass organization to position with the mission of the Komsomol instead of the Komsomol with a rightist understanding and the spirit of peripheral organization besieged Komsomol and ate it from inside out.

It is important to realize especially illegality in the style of work in a strict and disciplined manner on this axis. Functioning and persistent illegal rendezvous’, periodical and functioning committee meetings and periodically reporting activities on this axis are aspects that must be persistently emphasized. The communist organization that is to mobilize the popular youth to revolution under the conditions of our country, to lead them not to operate on this axis in its style of work will bring it to a point where it will be degenerated by the fascist system and it will be subjected to harsh assaults. This situation should be persistently put in the practice even under the conditions that the entire organization conducts open activities. We can even say that the entire organization being in open activities can also be an advantage in the effective organization of these conditions.

The issue of becoming leadership in the Komsomol organization is possible through with the understanding of constant forward organization and constantly increasing the ideological and political level. Another important particularity that should not be forgotten here is the reality that it is a Party organization. Within this context, works and policies that are to carry the organization to the level of Party in the level of organization should also be produced by the Komsomol. This applies to both the organizational level and the ideological-political level. Another aspect of the issues is to learn the theoretical and political approaches of the Party and to develop a policy of training on this axis. Another aspect is to relate with the problems of the Party at a level that is as advanced as possible. The Komsomol should be in a special orientation to care about the organization understanding of the Party, to its mass line, to its general orientation and to the problems that it experiences, not solely care about to the problems of its field and its organization. As it is in the definition of the duty of the Komsomol, it also means that it the opportunity for it to develop on a multi-directional level and mature in the issue of becoming the leadership.

It should be comprehended that the issue of the Komsomol organization is at the same time a policy. On this axis the method of examination is an essential issue. The Komsomol committees must examine their fields of work with their class situation, social contradictions, cultural and social structures, primary problems and its target audience closely. Besides this, they must catch the tendency for organization and the main ring of this tendency. On this axis, the organizations that the masses create and intensify in should be determined as the work and organization fields of the Komsomol without taking their levels and qualities into consideration and without condemning them into already-existing molds. At points where these are weak, creations of organization should be realized through the examination of demands and desires of masses.

Especially in the question of mass organization the Komsomol must be clear. The mass organizations the masses establish around various problems should not be condemned to an approach of not caring about them and perceiving them as mere extensions of our own works. On the contrary, a serious amount of care should be given to these organizations and they should be taken into consideration with the approach that we become a subject in its self-realizations of its aims as a part of it. The issues of what says on the signs of these organizations and the narrow field that they operate are not determinative. Especially in the last periods we see that the young masses have the tendency to organize themselves in the forms of clubs, associations, platforms, assemblies etc. and that they try to realize themselves in different social and cultural organizations besides these. The Komsomol should operate without being condemned to already assigned organization molds and to the mass organization that it establishes its own leadership.

As the Komsomol carries out its organization work on the axis of current political developments in field/party activities in the mass organization that is established its leadership, it should focus its concrete mass activities on mass organizations that operate on the academic, democratic, economic, cultural and social axes. Being active in mass organizations, being there where the masses are besides creating multi-directional dominance over contradictions will also inevitable reflect the spirit of the masses in the formation of policies. The Komsomol needs be fed from the masses. This will enrich the understanding of organization and enlarge the perspective. And at the same time, this will present unique experiences to the Party in the comprehension of the fundamental necessities of organization.

Military Line of Komsomol

5- The Komsomol is a “militarized political organization”. It has defined its identity in unison with the handling of armed struggle of our Party. On the other hand, the historical process of the Komsomol has brought its organizational structure and quality to a fully defined understanding. The Komsomol does not have the understanding of establishing separate and exclusive organization. Its military line and instruments shapes in accordance with its organizational strength, the political climate of the country and its general orientation, and it should shape in this way. As well as organization professional military units, the Komsomol has the understanding and historical knowledge that mobilizes and organizes its whole organizational structure on this axis. It is correct for the Komsomol that fits on the foundation of political organization to spread the military activity to the entire body of the organization. This situation has also brought about the militarization of it.

Besides using bombs, weapons etc. instruments, the Komsomol has a military activity line that makes essential and effective use of molotovs. As well as being efficient for military activities due to being a mass weapon, the ease of preparation and widespread use of molotov, it also is rather functional in terms of being shaped in accordance with the armed struggle.

It is beneficial to touch upon to some aspects of the Komsomol being a militarized political organization. Its organization being focused in the cities causes some certain faulty comprehension in identification of militarization and armed struggle and within this context causes wrong and wearing discussion under some certain conditions.

Armed struggle is essential in our country. The revolution will be organized in armed forms from the beginning to the end. This situation applies to the rural areas as well as cities. However the fundamental ring of the armed struggle is rural areas. And in cities, a formation in accordance with the essentials of the armed struggle is essential. However in cities, an armed struggle and organization in the form as we understand of the rural areas is not the matter. The cities have the duties where armed actions are effectively used but the essentials are consolidation of power, seeking opportunities and keeping the masses ready for war with a militant line of struggle. Namely, organization in accordance with the essentials of the armed struggle, working and handling of the struggle in cities do not mean an organizational arrangement and position that the form of arm struggle requires. There is a thin line in between these two. Grounding on armed struggle means to establish, organize and mobilize the organization that is required by it. It is required to act in accordance with the structures, properties and conditions of the cities of our country.

Within this context it is wrong to say that armed struggle is the essential among other form of struggle in the cities. Saying this requires establishing armed organizations where masses are mobilized and organized. It means centralizing an action that fits this axis. Undoubtedly this means incomprehension of the necessity of rural areas to be essential in our revolution strategy of our country and that rural areas should be the fundamental ring of armed struggle.

The cities of our country – as a requirement of the People’s War Strategy – imposes not to organize masses in armed organizations but in their production fields, in their life spaces in unarmed organizations, to consolidate strength and to mobilize them at appropriate times and to be ready for war in a militant formation.

However in countries such as ours, the relationship of city organization with weapons is than of the capitalist countries. Armed forms and the axis of resistance that is based on it are more common, more intense and more functional. This situation requires weapons to be more effective in mass works, and enabling of these instruments in the resistance of masses more strongly. This is the situation where the obligation of the strongest and the most effective need of the instrument of force in the resolution of contradictions are felt. The organization is shaped in accordance with the character of the country’s revolution on the essentials of armed struggle and on an axis based on a line of resistance.

The definition that the Komsomol is a militarized political organization stems from here. Its activities in the cities are shaped in connection with its laws. It has a line of militarization that is shaped in accordance with the essentials of the armed struggle. It is not shaped in accordance with the military requirements. Its essential duty is political leadership. Military activities function in accordance with the level of the revolutionary situation in organization works, organizational reality and political orientation that is enabled effectively and in a widespread manner or time to time fades into background. Military activities are implemented in various doses and at various levels in connection with completely to what extent it serves the organization. However it is not the essence of the activities but is a very strong complementary of it and it is an instrument of formation in accordance with the general orientation.

It grounds on a formation that enables armed forms in the organization struggle in accordance with the necessities and obligations of the revolution of the country. In certain period this is realized in the form of intense sabotage and actions of destruction against the enemy and in the form of military-militant line of action that large masses are included. In some other periods it becomes military-militant actions in which only large masses take part. In some other periods it becomes a military style that assumes actions of sabotage, ambush and destruction in only half-professional, professional style. In some other periods, works and actions in which relatively peaceful forms are dominant where these two are not implemented might dominate this. Ultimately, all of these are determined in accordance with the conditions of the state of the enemy, our state, the state of the masses and the political climate of the country. Objective conditions, the political structure of the Komsomol and its handling determines this. The ring that the Komsomol should reach is to develop an organization and a line of struggle that fits the essentials of the armed struggle.

The Cadre Policy

6- The Komsomol must establish a practical and a political line that is going to produce fast and solid cadres. It has to be fact because “the youth” is a period of time that is short and significant. It has to be solid because it is the first years of the formation process of revolutionism and it is the one that determines the future. It has to establish an approach that is going to provide the separation between a member and a cadre. This is going to provide a ground for the party to be fed more healthily and allow for party to hold special work among the Komsomol. The leadership of the Komsomol should accelerate the progress of prominent members through the application of a special training program. It should concretize this approach with a concrete work program and traditionalize this practical attitude and make it continuous. Through instruments such as special camps, cadre meetings, central conferences on a particular agenda that is determined by the leadership, this policy can be deepened. This will both allow leadership to be fed by the party and make the organized activities more qualitative.

The Komsomol must have determined ideological, political criteria in the making of cadres. Criteria such as a certain level in ideological, political, practical and military issues, maturation through passage from certain tests in this sense and acquisition of experience should be considered. Especially it should not be forgotten that good cadres will grow among the mass work. The best school for the cadres is the masses. Whether that person is effortful or not in creatively implementing a communist life, politics and ideology in the mass work should be seen as a reference. A cadre is the one that organizes and that is organized. The cadre that can manage to organize himself/herself, his/her responsibilities and the masses on the axis of MLM principles and the orientation of the party and the Komsomol, that commands it means he/she is gaining the property of organizing the revolution, strengthening in the face of revolutionary responsibilities and increasing knowledge in the face of complicated contradictions.

The cadres of the Komsomol should comprehend the ideological political line of our Party correctly and should be in intense efforts for the Komsomol to be shaped in this direction. The cadres must tirelessly struggle against all sorts of bourgeois-feudal and petty-bourgeois ideology that tries to influence and influences the youth through making Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology a center of attention among the popular youth. Every attack towards Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and our Party must be met with an answer from the youth front without any hesitation. This situation at the same time requires a good level of theoretical knowledge. This is possibly through a systemized policy. Our Party has published programs in this matter. The Komsomol should apply this theoretical education system in a ordered and persistent manner, a strict control mechanism should be put in practice from up to down, down to up.

The cadres of the Komsomol should increase their competence with military practices as much as the opportunities and conditions allow. Military practices are at the same time a strong education opportunity. The Komsomol can take small but important steps with his/her own means and small actions. He or she must be without hesitation in entering this kind of practices at higher levels when the conditions allow. Besides these, some trainings and practices can take place with the orientation and resources provided by the Party. As well as filling an important gap, short term training in guerilla as much as conditions allow, it will also contribute a strong dynamism to the youth activities.

Raising new cadres and making the existing cadres ideologically-politically more competent is essentially the duty of the leadership of the Komsomol. The leadership includes two fundamental responsibilities; developing ideas and making good use of cadres. Leadership can mobilize and administrate the organization when it can mobilize and administrate the cadres. Primarily the leadership should know the cadres well, should assess them correctly and should assign them in a way that will reveal their abilities. Without making close contact, without assigning them with duties and controlling it cadres cannot be gotten to known, their abilities cannot be revealed. Leadership knowing the cadres and their abilities well, their ideological-political levels well is the precondition of correctly positioning them. Leadership should know how to care about cadres. This takes place by guiding them in their works, in other words with special guiding. Leadership should ground on the dialectics of initiative and flexibility in its relations with the cadres. “This means allowing them a free hand in their work so that they have the courage to assume responsibility and, at the same time, giving them timely instructions so that, guided by the Party’s political line, they are able to make full use of their initiative. (Mao Zedong)

Leadership should help the cadres for them to increase their theoretical-political levels. In order to do so, initially it has to be in special effort to make the cadres comprehend the politics that it produces, it should encourage them to produce ideas, it should always be in exchange of lessons and experiences with the cadres; and secondly it should help the cadres to create the conditions to carry out theoretical work, it should guide them in the direction of concrete duties in their theoretical work. It is compulsory for leadership to determine special policies in raising cadres. The leadership of the Komsomol should approach this question with this responsibility.

Policy on Publications

7- Publications are important instruments to transfer the determined policies and political orientation to large masses, make them comprehend them, mobilize them and create public opinion. Publications are the voice of the Komsomol. The Komsomol has a knowledge and experience of both legal publications and publication activities that are internal to the organization. Historical experiences have created a comprehension in the Komsomol when it comes to the significance of publications. Together with this there is an understanding that is correct and fitted in terms of publication activities.

However, organizational inadequacies have hindered an institutionalization in publication activities. This is an important shortcoming. When it comes to the quality of the publications, it follows an up and down trail depending on the state of the organization, political quality etc. The issue of quality of publication will continuously be an agenda and it is an issue that will be discussed within the axis of exceeding itself. Today the case is that in the youth publications there is a quality and effective organization of publication and their actualizations. As the organizational state and the quality of the leadership improve this problem will be overcome and the important instrument of the organization, the publication activities will fall in place.

The publication activities must focus on the effective use of new opportunities that should be taken into consideration by the youth. The increase in use of internet, wide-spread use of social media has created a reality in which a large section of the youth is informed through these channels. This reality also means a fast, effective and wide-spread opportunity for communication with large sections of the youth. The most creative and effective use of this opportunity should be an important responsibility for the youth. Besides making use of internet journalism, through the use of these virtual opportunities towards developments, the understanding of both institutional and organized individual inclusion to intervene in process should be adopted. Online broadcasting is especially important when it comes to the youth. Within this context, this should be handled together with the most effective use of this opportunity proportionately with the organization power within the understanding that this is a special work thus this should be intensified on. Today, the use of this field has fallen into place. The use of this place is positive. However, this use must be transformed into a more active and wide-spread use. This should be supported and must be expanded through a more active manner.

The perspective of reaching to wider masses through internet should create the current understanding of publications. In the midterm the publication activities over this opportunity must be taken as essential and this should be moved towards an organization. This would be more economic and at the same time would provide access to larger masses.

At this juncture, in general terms our Party has a problem. The youth is more active in catching the new and the current. From this perspective they are more inclined to use these instruments. They need to be in an understanding and orientation that is to serve this objective ground into the use of organized activities in the most creative way. As the one that is responsible for this the youth must undertake this duty.

• The Issue of Oppressed Beliefs

 1- In the historical period, Islam as the dominant religion and the Hanafi-Sunni sect as the dominant sect have been embraced and other religions (Christianity, Judaism) and beliefs (Alevism, Nusayrism and Caferism) had been tried to be annihilated through oppression and massacres. The dominant classes, as in every social contradiction, also in the issue of oppressed beliefs followed the path of dividing the people among themselves and provoking one against another in order to conceal the class contradictions.

2- Among the oppressed sects and beliefs Alevism today is the most massive and common belief. The people who belong to the Alevi belief have been excluded, oppressed and massacred on the lands that they have been living for hundreds of years. The history of ignoring, oppression and massacre policies against Alevis who have a population of around 20 million today root back the Seljuk, Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. Alevism that existed even before the Turks accepted Islam as their religion had been as a “deviant religion” and had been subjected to massacres. The dominant classes of the Republic of Turkey too continued the tradition by taking over the legacy of massacres from the Ottoman Empire and directed themselves to deny and annihilate everything except what is the sovereign, what they called “one language, one religion, one motherland” in our country which is multi-national and has various different belief systems.

Oppressed beliefs have been excluded from several fields of life and their rights and freedoms have been restricted through all sorts of discrimination. Laboring people who have been subjected to oppression and violence due to their beliefs found themselves in a situation where they had to perform their prayers with illegal methods. Not only their right to believe and right to organize has been taken away from their hands through the prohibition of their beliefs but also through oppression and violence, through compulsory religious classes submission into the sovereign has been imposed on them. All other beliefs but the dominant Sunni belief has been targeted with religious fatwas and the people, under the name of “Alevi-Sunni conflict” has been massacred by the hands of the state in Maras, in Corum, in Sivas, in Gazi and in Umraniye.

Especially together with the migration that happened from rural areas to the cities due to economic reasons in the early 1960s, Alevis who up until that point were isolated in the villages started showing their existence also in the cities. Alevis who mostly gathered in shantytowns due to poverty and the oppression they underwent, started experiencing different forms of exploitation here and the social struggle and the class authorities that develop within started taking the place of the religious authorities of the Alevi “grandfathers” who have been strong until then.

After the silence that took place with the massacring of Mustafa Suphi and his comrades on the lands of our country, ‘60s are the years that the revolutionary movement of Turkey started re-developing itself. In this, the revolutionary struggle that developed in the world, the Resistance War of Vietnam and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution that took place in China has important influences. At that period, due to their tendency towards the culture of uprising and organization the laboring people that belong to the Alevi belief together with the accumulated oppression of hundreds of years, especially created the base of the revolutionary movement largely and this situation brought the fact that revolutionary movements intensified in these areas. Alevis whose rights and freedoms had been taken away started expressing themselves with class demands in the struggle for freedom more and more.

Dominant classes that has seen this threat, has sought ways to keep the developing opposition within a system that is called secularism in a hypocritical way as always, and through the Alevi “grandfathers” tried to influence the people by opening Haci Bektas Veli Dergahi and through encouraging political parties such as Unity Party of Turkey (TBP) established by Alevi intellectuals to keep the rage of Alevis towards the system within the system. However, the tendency of the youth towards revolutionary, communist movements and their sympathies prevented the success of the policies and especially in the ‘70s, they started expressing themselves in revolutionary organizations. As the youth promoted Pir Sultan Abdal as the symbol of solidarity, equality, struggle against injustice and the symbol of insurrectionist legacy of Alevism, the older generations mostly under the influence of Kemalism kept the religious aspect of Alevism alive and maintained the base of Kemalist-fascist parties who defined themselves as social-democrat parties.

The state that has failed to incorporate the laboring people that belong to oppressed beliefs mostly living in poor neighborhoods once again revealed its massacrist face and turned Alevis as a target especially for civilian fascist organization as a “threat that has to be restrained”. In Maras in the last years of ‘70s and in Corum in 1980, Alevis have been subjected to various tortures and were brutally massacred. A reality that came to surface in these regions was that the tolls of the massacres were quite high in places where organizations of Alevis were few in numbers and dispersed. This reality has also created the need for Alevis to live together and to strengthen their organization more.

In a process where the social opposition came to itself and started developing once again in ‘90s, this time the address of the massacre was the Pir Sultan Abdal Festivities in Sivas; here 33 intellectuals were burnt alive in the Madimak Hotel. Following the Sivas massacre Alevis increased their own organizations against the system more. Especially and initially they established the Pir Sultan Abdal Culture and Solidarity Associations which turned into an important force in the social struggle. Following to this massacre the state organized another massacre once again in a neighborhood in Istanbul which was predominantly populated by Alevis, in the Gazi neighborhood; it all started with opening fire on a coffeehouse and a pastry shop which ended up with the fatal shooting of an Alevi “grandfather” and together with the resistance that also spread to other neighborhoods, 22 people have been massacred and 155 people have been wounded.

3- If there is tyranny somewhere, there also is resistance. The fascist Republic of Turkey through the massacres and oppressions that were subjected towards the laboring people that it wanted to push into submission has created a force that organized against it, and especially provided the Alevi mass to organize more as a force against the system. All these massacres have made the Alevi mass whose freedoms were taken away, who were oppressed, who were subjected to oppressions and massacres an important force within the class struggle. This situation brought together the policy of “create your own Alevi” for the fascist state to hold the Alevis within the boundaries of the system. In order to weaken the democratic organizations of Alevis, especially organizations such as the Cem Associations were promoted, cemhouses were built with state funds, Alevi “grandfathers” who were selected together with the state through this association intervened in organizations and the policies of Alevi workshops etc. has essentially aimed to assimilate Alevis and keep them within the boundaries of the state.

4- Whatever the belief or the worldview is, in the struggle against the sovereign what is determinative is the positioning against it. That is why, what we are to take as essential is not the religious aspect of Alevism but the class quality of these uprisings. Alevis who constitute 20 million in the population of the country live mostly in villages where the state authority is relatively weak and in shantytowns of cities. In this sense Alevism and the Alevi uprisings are in essence a peasant movement and the uprisings of an oppressed people. What Engels had said about the peasant movement in Germany can be said for the Alevi uprisings in Anatolia. Engels points out to the fact that these starving peasant masses expressed themselves through “contradictory” religious currents for a better and more egalitarian world dream and under the conditions that modern socialism had not emerged and could not have emerged these beliefs were adopted as the unique and only ideology of uprising. Alevis too, against the oppression and tyranny that they have experienced for hundreds of years, struggled for equality and freedom through the spirit of uprising of Pir Sultan Abdal against tyranny.

5- Masters have never directly targeted religion in the struggle for revolution and communism and instead they have chosen to defend Marxism strictly and make special emphases on aspects of it that contradicts with religion. According to Engels the essential goal here is to prevent the widening of the front that is to be created in the war against reactionary ideas that have a more rooted historical past. Engels pointed out to the fact that abolishment of the belief in religions and god will not be possible with top to down methods and that this is only possible through application of science to life. Lenin too, state for the war in relation to religion as such: “By introducing acrimony into the struggle we may antagonize the masses; this kind of struggle contributes to the division of the masses; according to religion, but our strength is in unity. The deepest source of religious prejudice is poverty and ignorance; it is with these evils that we must contend.”, underscoring that the struggle against religion cannot be limited to abstract ideological discourse. However he said that the social roots of religions will be abolished through class struggle and that the deepest roots of religion lie in the most intense exploitation of capitalism and the social oppression of laboring masses. Because fear and despair creates religion and keeps it alive. The more exploitation, poverty, hunger, impoverishment is, the more the influence of religion. That is why the rulers utilize religions and religious institutions this strongly. Because religion, throughout history, has been the instrument for masses to express their class interests and hopes. The fatwas and preaches etc. given in mosques is all towards making masses be grateful for what they have, and to accept the life that is imposed to them as “destiny”. Without the conditions that cause the religion to maintain its existence are abolished, the religion too will not be abolished. Together with the abolishment of exploitation and tyranny the necessity for religion too will decrease and will be abolished fading away through revolutions. The struggle against these conditions is at the same time struggle towards the fading away of religion.

6- The oppressed beliefs question in our country is at the same time a question of peasantry.  In our revolution that is based on the alliance of workers and peasants, in which the proletariat is the vanguard force and the peasantry is the essential power rights and freedoms demands of oppressed beliefs are among the issues of struggle in our New Democratic Revolution. All the democratic rights that are restricted and limited are issues of the class struggle. The struggle against the division of the society into beliefs, oppressed becoming enemies to one another is one of the duties of the class struggle. The interests of the oppressed are common. Our revolution will take place with people from various nations, various beliefs coming together and the freedom problem of the laboring people of oppressed beliefs is a part of our democratic revolution struggle as a democratic right and a problem that will be solved by it.

j- Environment

Struggle against the Destruction of the Environment and Nature

Human beings who initially used the nature to maintain their lives together with the emergence of private property started establishing dominance over the nature and together with the emergence of capitalism this dominance has become more systematic. The capitalist imperialist system with its extreme ambition for profit has usurped and commoditized the air, the lands, the waters and the forests which are the most fundamental sources of life irreversibly. Our life spaces that are destroyed through hydroelectric power plants, thermal power plants, nuclear plants with “high-tension” lines, commercialization of above-ground and underground resources, cyanide gold extraction, urban and rural transformation projects, hazardous wastes sites, the GMO seeds and products etc. has been taken away from the hands of the people and were put to the service of imperialist companies. As a result of all these, climate changes have taken place and the number of “natural disasters” has increased. The researches that have been made show that colonial, semi colonial and semi-feudal countries have been harmed by the “natural disasters” more in comparison with imperialist countries. This, of course, is not a coincidence. The essential responsibilities of the experienced disasters belong to the capitalist imperialist system. As the policies that are imposed by this system cause destructions in semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries on the other hand the system has increased the level of dependency of these countries. That is why several activities that are prohibited in imperialist countries due to the harms they cause to human health and nature are being carried out in semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries.

Marx says that, “Capitalism will cut down the tree if it cannot sell its shadow”, while describing the ambition of capitalism to dominate everything. For capitalism the nature, life spaces have no importance, there is nothing that capitalism will not do in order to have and rule over everything. It does not abstain from destroying the nature and its balance for its own ambition for profit. Because what interests capitalism is not the outcomes of its action and the profit that it will acquire from it. It seizes natural wealth, burns forests and destroys the life spaces of the people. And as doing so, it directs the reaction of the people to secondary issues rather than the capitalist imperialist system itself. It makes people care about the consequences of the destruction not the causes of it. It meets some certain reformist demands in order for the developing reactions against the destruction of life spaces to remain within the system. Itself establishes nature and environment themed NGOs. However, as the magnitude of the destruction increased, the reactions too started pushing limits.

Hydroelectric plants that are the most common project in selling the water which is the most fundamental resource for our lives to the imperialists, have destroyed the life in places they were built and have upset the balance. Since they have less cost, they are being preferred by imperialist companies more. But in fact, the destruction that takes places is greater in size in comparison with the income that will be acquired through hydroelectric plants. The hydroelectric plants built on water resources and rivers, both harm the clean water resources and arable lands, and the balance of the climate and the environment. Scientists point out to the fact that, in places especially with high populations where water resources are scarce due to the climate change and consumption of available water, that water wars will erupt in the future.

Another activity that destroys life is nuclear plants. The most striking incident that projects that nuclear plants harm the weather, waters, lands and plants and destroy human and natural life is the 2011 explosion of the Fukushima Nuclear Plant in Japan which subsequently resulted in the loss of 27 thousand lives. Following to this disaster several capitalist imperialist countries deided to shut down their nuclear plants however Tayyip Erdogan right after the disaster paid a visit to Russia, signed new deals and gave the “good news” of a coming nuclear plant in Akkuyu. Because imperialists carry the nuclear plants that are hazardous for them to semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries such as ours. The most recent example of this is our country where three different nuclear plant deals have been signed right after the disaster. Following to Akkuyu, in 2013 deals have been made for a nuclear plant project to be built in Sinop with a company for a joint Japanese and French adventure and again in 2015 deals have been made with Chinese and American companies for the third nuclear plant. Thermal power plants as well spread poison just like nuclear plants. Conducted researches show that every year 50 tons of mercury is released to the air from thermal power plants and 40 tons of solid waste that contains mercury is produced. And it is predicted for 40 million people to lose their lives due to various types of cancer caused by radiation within the next 20 to 30 years.

Forests that cover one fourth of the world’s surface play an important role in the human life. For instance, a medium size tree provide for the daily oxygen needs of 160 people. Forestlands cover 26 percent of the lands of our geography. Fruitful and quality forest size rapidly decreases due to state burning forests in order to depopulate areas where the guerilla activities are existent, with excuses of building residential areas, touristic facilities, autobahns, dams, mines etc. and in order to create extra income. According to studies due to deforestation of 38 percent of the tropic forests that house wild life, several sensitive species will go extinct.

Destruction of life spaces is not limited to hydroelectric, nuclear and thermal plants. As mining companies poison our lands with cyanide, GMOs gradually make our lives harder, decrease our life quality and make our lives unbearable.

The environmental consciousness has increased both in our country and all over the world together with the dynamics of the urban society. The destruction and recklessness towards environment that the capitalist imperialist system creates result in the drying of life sources and desertification. This situation started emerging as an issue that conscious and intellectual circles, and scientists draw attention to and dwell upon. This is how the first reactions were developed. However, in time the destruction of social means of production, together with the assault of turning life spaces and production means of especially peasantry has taken the villagers as the target. Today in our country and in the world the main dynamic of the environmental movement are villagers. Whatever their political attitude, worldviews, cultural and national structures are, the assault of dominant classes towards the production and life spaces of villagers at the same time develops an environmental consciousness and is concretized on this basis. In this sense the environmental problems create a serious dynamic in the social strata they affect and bring large masses together.

In the recent years, especially in the Blacksea region and in Dersim, in several parts of Turkey an environmental struggle has been developing. Because the assaults against life spaces directly affect every section of the society and destroy means of production. This struggle of the masses to protect their life spaces is a part of the class struggle. The environmental struggle which develops as a peasant movement in essence should be taken into consideration as an instrument to organize them, create awareness among them, to reach masses by the class-conscious proletariat.

The environmental struggle started being heard in our country most visibly with the struggle of the villagers of Bergama who waged a struggle against the cyanide gold search on their lands. The struggle of the villagers to claim their life spaces and means of production especially has become more widespread and visible after 2000s. Against the commercialization of water which is the main life source of the people especially in the Blacksea region and in Dersim the protests of the villagers spread to various parts of the country. The people who defend their life spaces through legal struggle on one hand and active resistance on the other have managed to stop hydroelectric plant constructions and the works of mining companies. On one hand these struggles mobilized especially the peasant masses on the other they also mobilized the youth and women who are the most dynamic part of the society both in the rural and urban areas.

The Gezi Uprising stemmed from such a movement and the resistance that started against cutting down of trees in the Gezi Park in order to build a mall managed to mobilized several sections of the society against usurping of the right after a while and has become one of the largest mass movements in the country. The sensitivities and struggle against the environmental massacres of masses after the Gezi Uprising rapidly increased. Due to the economic policies that are put in place by the imperialist companies and their servants in our country, struggles of the working class and laborers, the youth, the women whose life spaces have been restricted and peasantry which is the essential force in our revolution has become more widespread after the Gezi Uprising. The masses have learned that they would win only through struggle.

The struggle of the people to claim their life spaces is a part of our struggle for revolution. We cannot leave this struggle to the hands of the reformist, revisionist understanding that are distant to direct themselves to the root of the problem, that degrade the struggle to gain some certain right over the consequences of the destruction and that essentially provides for the continuity of the system.

Even if they are spontaneous, the actions and forms of struggle which develop on the basis of the defense of life spaces and means of production of the working class and the peasantry created their natural leaders within the process. Participating and directing these actions that are a part of the class struggle should be seen as an indispensable part of our revolutionary-democratic struggle. In our struggle for New Democratic Revolution whose essence is the land question, besides the land question, demands in regards to the destruction of the environment and environmental problems are among the demands of our revolution.

k- On Culture and Arts

When comrade Mao says, “In order to be able to change a system, it is firstly necessary to establish intellectual dominance in the public opinion and this principle applies to both revolutions and counter-revolutions”, emphasized how good of a weapon culture and arts are in the class struggle to defeat the enemy both for the proletariat and for the bourgeoisie if correctly used. Because every class creates their own culture and arts in their processes of historical and social progress.

The rulers, throughout history, established their power not only through oppression and tyranny but at the same time by creating a cultural formation that would provide for constant submission for themselves in an intellectual level. That is why they have used every sort of instrument such as addictions, fatalism, submission etc. that enslave, degenerate and alienate the people to their own culture and have organized everything that is about human, nature and life in ways that would serve them.

In our country which has a socio-economic structure that is semi-feudal, semi-colonial the dominant culture is the reactionary culture of both imperialism that enslaves and degenerates the people and of feudalism which blesses “fatalism” and “grace”. The feudal culture especially forms its culture through religion, cults and religious groups and shapes the people in accordance with social rules that fall under tradition and customs. And the imperialist culture guarantees its hegemony by keeping the reactionary culture of feudalism alive and transfers its culture that is shaped in the axis of enmity towards the working class, laborer, oppressed nations, women and LGBTQI+ to every section of the society through education, press, publications, law and means of communication. Also the racist, chauvinistic cultural structure in the form of “one state, one nation, one motherland” that is imposed over the denial of the multi-national and multi-religious structure of our country by again the fascist Kemalist dictatorship is nourished from this imperialist culture that does not belong to the people and that marginalize and individualize them. Rulers who administer the social processes over this cultural texture have again reproduced the dependency of the working class and all the oppressed to the system.

The imperialist culture that directs the people to constant consumption for its extreme ambition for profit has been transferred to the most remote corners of the country through the developing technology and means of communication. From TV series to movies, from reality shows to morning shows, from satellites to internet networks the people have been turned into individuals who dream of wealth in an unreal life, they have been alienated to their own cultures and are being tried to be put down into sleep through a culture that does not belong to them. The policies of the period have been extensively imposed on them through these means and with the lies that socialism is dead and the class struggle is now impossible submission and surrender against the strength of the imperialist system have been imposed.

Against this reactionary, degenerating and alienating culture, there stands the uprising, insurrecting, resisting progressive culture of the oppressed and exploited masses that revolt against enslavement in all historical periods. Even though the bourgeois culture implemented all sorts of policies of oppression and suppression in order to degenerate and destroy this progressive culture of the people throughout history, every social progress has taken place within this struggle. And the struggle of the oppressed has created a cultural formation that fits its own reality. As Mao says, “As long as this reactionary culture is not destroyed a new culture cannot be constructed. Without destruction there can be no construction; without blockage there can be no flow; without stoppage there can be no movement; the struggle in between is a struggle of life and death.”

The class struggles are filled with experiences of this. In our country the working class has a rich struggle experience and despite the semi-feudal structure, a strong class consciousness. Workers and villagers who claim their right against all sorts of exploitation and oppression, women, the oppressed of the oppressed who resist against being ignored, LGBTQI+, the youth who resist to take their future back, the struggle of the Kurdish nation who is tried to be de-identified, annihilated and denied, the Peasant Guerilla War that is waged to realized the Democratic People’s Revolution have at the same time created the struggle and resistance culture of the people. This struggle is an experience of the Democratic People’s Revolution. The people stand against the bourgeois-feudal reactionary culture with the culture of New Democracy that rejects all sorts of dependency and enslavement, that inoculates the self-strength not destiny, and is a liberating and society changing powerful weapon. The rupture from the dominant ideology is only possible through the realization of the New Democracy culture. Only this weapon will show the path for the destruction of the old and the construction of the new. That is why the struggle against imperialism, feudalism, fascism and all sorts of reaction cannot be considered independent from the struggle given in the cultural field.

As comrade Mao says, revolutionary culture and arts, in a sense, is the ideological preparation of the proletariat before the revolution. Due to the quality of our revolution being New Democratic Revolution, its culture too will be democratic in essence. Another duty of the Democratic People’s Revolution as it wages the struggle of destroying the bourgeois-feudal reactionary culture, is to establish the policies to adopt and develop the progressive culture of the people and to turn it into an ideological force. The process of taking the progressive aspects of the society that we live in and unifying them with New Democracy culture to struggle against the reactionary aspects, will be this construction process itself.

Our Party has a struggle experience of 47 years and a cultural accumulation that is created by it. However, together with a correct determination on the struggle and the war strategy, our Party has not completely fulfilled the requirements of them and caused the democratic, socialist, communist culture which the construction of it is our duty, to remain incomplete and inadequate in the large scale. The fundamental source that our Party will be fed from is the scientific struggle, production of the masses and experience of the class struggle. Again, the petty-bourgeois intellectuals and artists who have interests in the revolution will have intellectual and practical contributions in the creation of a strong revolutionary culture. The gaining of this potential into the revolution depends on the policies that we will develop in the field of culture and arts and their implementations. Only through this, the ground for the creation of the spirit of internationalism will be constructed through unification with the revolutionary culture of the people.

The New Democratic Culture should also be reflected to arts. As the form of expression of all contradictions, emotions and thinking styles and life styles in the social life arts too, just like culture, are one of the most important instruments of the class struggle. The struggle experiences that root from the lives and culture of the people are transferred back to the people with artistic productions.

Every class has utilized arts for its own interests. Because arts are one of the most effective instruments of making the people comprehend a policy. The history of class struggles is filled with numerous examples of this. A special care has been given to the artistic production in the experiences of world revolutions, artistic productions such as theatre, music, paintings etc. all have been utilized to organized the revolution in the service of the proletariat. The ideological transformation after the revolution has been turned into reality through cultural struggle. When comrade Mao says, “…we also need an army of culture, indispensable for uniting our ranks and defeating the enemy”, he especially points out the important of this. Artistic productions have been one of the most important instruments of the revolution process in the Chinese Revolution and the subsequent Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Any critical approach or an adopted opinion has been transferred to the people through artistic productions such as theatre, poetry and literature.

Rulers on the other hand use arts in their own service disconnected from the people. Several productions of arts and literature, such as TV series, movies and theatre plays etc. are in essence towards the imposition of the enslaving, degenerating, individualist culture of imperialism to the people. For instance, the increase in war TV series in the recent periods, the fact that the oppositional media cannot find a life space, that the media broadcasts uniformly only with the contents the state wants are a part of the policies towards preventing the people to see the reality. The bourgeois-feudal system that commoditizes arts and shapes them in accordance with its political orientations, has taken its own “artists” as far as possible from the people and alienated them to the people, and the arts have been turned into daily fun and spending time. Under the name of “popular culture, popular arts” an understanding of a superficial entertainment that is disconnected with the contradictions of the society and that targets to keep the people away from their problems is being presented.

The working class and the oppressed on the other hand presented arts to the service of the people as a part of the social struggle. Because arts gets revolutionary as it is fed from the struggles of the people. However, also in the artistic front which is another arena of the class struggle, artists that side with the people, the artists of the people continue their productions under pressure and these productions are prevented to reach the people. We can speak of a significant resistance and struggle of revolutionary, democrat and progressive artists against all these oppressions and prohibitions. This struggle is progressive, democratic. Our Party embraces this resistance and this struggle. The demands of democracy and freedom against these oppressions are among the demands of our revolution.

k- Rear Front

 The issue of the rear front is rather an important issue in the People’s War struggle. Throughout its history in our Party the organization of the rear front has always been an agenda, sometimes serious steps have been taken towards this direction, organizations have been established and some other times the rear front policies was flattened due to approaches that trailed away from the purpose. However, as well as an orderly rear front policy has not ultimately been created, steps that have been taken with the attitude “let’s do it” due to sometimes as an imposition caused by the assaults of the enemy and sometimes spontaneously steps that have been taken have not been in continuity at this juncture.

Initially we need to clarify what we understand from rear front. In the most general and simple way, rear front is the zones that the enemy cannot establish dominance and lacks political-ideological-military-cultural- economic power. As it is known, People’s War is a war strategy that includes seizing the power piece by piece and to establish the dominance of the popular forces under the leadership of the Communist Party through the establishment of red political power zones. In this sense the rear front policy comes to live within this orientation and reality and self-realizes itself. The strongest of the Liberated Red Political Power zones that are cleansed from the enemy and have been secure are the zones that have to be chosen by determining the most difficult zones for the enemy, in terms of political-geography, to establish a front. In a large country such as China, and at a time where the class struggle was advanced there have always been zones to implement the rear front policy of People’s War. In this sense, in the size, level and the current stage of the war that we wage, our condition to organize a rear front such as in China and Vietnam is not a matter of question. The possibilities and opportunities of this will undoubtedly emerge and mature in parallel with the development of the struggle and the war, conditions that will play the rear front role and that are safe and cleansed from the enemy will be created.

Our Party has initiated the People’s War and is in a position to continue its will to maintain it, both yesterday and today. On this axis, we have guerilla forces and though at a small scale an already raveling reality of war. This situation brings the organization of rear front as a responsibility and a duty in front of our Party in accordance with this reality. Rear front as a whole must be oriented towards the needs of the forces of struggle and especially the need of our guerilla warfare. A rear front policy which is not shaped according to the needs of our guerilla war will never be able to play its role of being shaped in accordance with the war. A rear front policy that is not shaped in accordance with the military-political-ideological training requirements, obligation to rest and prepare forces in consideration with the period, recruitment of military and other logistic requirements and the requirement to deploy forces to the secure zones in accordance with the needs in this sense, will become a rear front that is shaped in accordance with the strategy of “mass insurrection” not the rear front policy of People’s War. This type of a rear front policy for a party that wages People’s War will bring about alienation to its own strategy, line of war in a degenerative and light-minded manner under the scope of the most optimistic approach.

Within this context we have the obligation to rest against the experiences, draw lessons and give form and essence through adaptation into our reality, especially the experiences of the guerilla warfare that the PKK wages on the basis of national liberation struggle. The rear front policy that started and utilized functionally with the use of Beqaa Valley, and became systemized with the uses of Kurdistan of Iraq, Kurdistan of Iran and Kurdistan of Syria stands as a serious experience in front of us. Our Party has the approach, concern and will to make use of these experiences, view them as models and to adapt them into the People’s War struggle.

On this basis our Party first and foremost is in the obligation to establish its rear front policy within the zone of power and dominance of the enemy. This situations means to take a position in a zone that is outside of the political dominance of the Turkish dominant classes. There is the obligation to choose zones outside the sphere of dominance of the Republic of Turkey but in somewhere that easily provides access to its zones of dominance and where the borderline can effectively be used under the conditions of the nonexistence of zones of Red Political Power. Within this context having an approach and an attitude that incorporates the potentiality to reach zones that especially hot war continues in the fastest and easiest way possible is vital.

The organization of the rear front is not an issue that can be planned with eagerness without thinking ahead, establishing the foundation, providing for the functional role of it. Organizing it through careful and serious handling and establishing its foundation, its cadres and its militant structure is as important as its place within the People’s War Strategy. The experiences in the history of our Party point towards to serious problem in the comprehension of both. Our Party has taken the organization of the rear front to its agenda as an important issue. Within this context it employs the approach to handle and develop the issue from small to the big, from applicable to the more advance in consideration with the lack of cadres, narrowness and inadequacy of the opportunities of organization and the current inadequacies of the class struggle. The most important is that there is a unity of understanding and attitude in respect to the significance of such an organization for the war and the struggle.

I – Approach towards Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Proletarian Internationalism

Our Party once again declares its commitment to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that is the science of history and society, that determines all the contradictions, essentials and solutions of the social structure that is separated in classes with full loyalty. It accepts MLM as the science of history and society. It is necessary to know, understand and adopt that history, society, internal dynamics and laws of the class contradictions, the developmental dynamics of humanity cannot be comprehended without MLM. Marxism emerged as a science, as just like any other science it has continuously progressed in accordance with the negation-affirmation-negation dialectics and in parallel with the progress of nature, society, class struggle and life.

Marxism has the quality of being a teaching that is based on the bases of philosophy, scientific socialism and political-economy. Every progress in scientific struggle, production struggle and class struggle at the same time requires the emergence of new contradictions, changes and new processes. The progress dynamic of Marxism provides for the comprehension, revealing, being explained through scientific conceptualization of these changes, developments and processes. As any other science, Marxism develops through negation. On this axis, Lenin carried the science to the stage of Marxism-Leninism with his contributions to Marxism in philosophy, scientific socialism and political economy. As proletariat moved towards a class for itself from a class in itself with Marxism, with Leninism it reached the equipment that comprehends the new stage of progress of the science of history and society with its general lines and main orientations.

Within the same century the science of history and society reached the third qualitative stage with the contributions of comrade Mao Zedong. With his contributions in philosophy, especially in socialism experiences in regards to scientific socialism and political-economy, in the law of contradiction and the war teaching of proletariat created opportunities to comprehend the new aspects and the fundamental structure of internal relations of contradictions of socialized production with history, contradictions between production relations and productive forces, individuality of property. Our Party thinks that without accepting this new stage of the science, without its comprehension, the effects of class struggle, production and scientific struggle to social progress to the dynamics, orientation and tendencies of social progress, dominance cannot be established. In this sense our Party believes that without defending Maoism, Marxism-Leninism cannot be comprehended. Within this context in the case that it is not accepted at the administrative and directive level in the social liberal struggle of proletariat and in the lack of this comprehension and adoption, our Party is in the opinion that one will be open to all influences of bourgeois idealism, its worldview, its approach towards history and society. It undoubtedly believes that Maoism will too split into two and after a stage it will be negated and progress will take towards to the new stage of science. The aspect that is secondary but undoubtedly exists as inadequacy will be discovered through class struggle and scientific progress and progress will be made in the science of history and society. It is in the opinion that this dynamic for progress will be discovered through the line struggle among the forces of international proletariat and the direction will be taken. However our Party thinks that without defending Maoism social revolutions cannot evolve into full liberation, to socialism and then on to communism.

Our Party defines the proletarian internationalist forces as forces that in the same line and direction, same scientific line and approach. No force, party or a movement that does not defend Marxism-Leninism-Maoism does not at the most fundamental level possess the situation to become the representative of proletariat. No international organization without defending this progress in the science of history and society without adopting it as a guide in the struggle of proletariat can reach communist properties, cannot be communist. Undoubtedly our Party does not consider every movement hat defends MLM as a part of the international proletariat. It is in respect to the class struggle where the comprehension and the handling of Maoism is a testing ground, and it is connection with the correct analysis and the handling of the historical conditions and the society. At this juncture, it separates the movements that deviate from fundamental principles, separate proletariat from the absolute and relative comprehension of reality and historical tendency, proceeds towards left and right deviations through the defense of Maoism, loses the perspective for communist society within the bourgeois idealistic world view on the class collaborationist ground through ideological struggle and reveals their class character through the determination of their proximity of proletariat. In this sense there are a series of movement that define themselves as Maoist both at an international level and in our country. Our Party considers and evaluates these movement based on their approach to the historical and societal reality, their handling of the MLM philosophy and method, their comprehension of the internal relations of the societal structure, their political-practical positioning against the contradiction between productive forces and production relations, their approach towards the scientific socialism and its problems, their analyses of their countries, their definition of the properties of the age. Without this, it is not possible to separate and classify the reformist, opportunist and liquidatinist currents within MLM. This classification and separation is a compulsory historical responsibility and at the same time is vital for the defense and progress of the science of history and society. Deviations and the dominance of bourgeois understanding within MLM are in accordance with the laws of class struggle and the law of the instrument. Including the class struggle within our Party, our Party considers the movements of the international proletariat and movement that have separated from it on this axis. In this sense, our Party determines its understanding of internationalism, its solidarity and its struggle together with this separation and classification. On this basis, it establishes the closest and strongest relations with the movement that share the same line with our Party, it adopts them to the interests of international proletariat, to its calculations and its great cause and to the fight of the proletariat of Turkey of Kurdish, Turkish and other various nations.

The internationalism policy of our Party rises from the essentials as they are determined, implemented and formulized by comrades Lenin, Stalin and Mao. This approach of comrade Lenin is the approach that our Party adopts and considers its continuation as essential: “There is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is—working whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one’s own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without exception.” This approach is our most fundamental principle. Our Party determines the greatest and the most competent international duty as “raising the revolutionary struggle in its own country.” This is the primary international duty. It is in the opinion that without the realization of this duty, the oppression, exploitation, massacre, poverty and impoverishment in the imperialist capitalist system in the world scale and in all of its chains cannot be got rid of. It initially positions itself in accordance with this duty and efforts for all international forces to position on this ground. Our Party is in international solidarity with the struggles of all oppressed nations and peoples in the world scale. It is in material and moral solidarity with their pain, the exploitation they undergo, their hardships, the oppression they live through and their ordeals. It considers these forces as extensions and parts of proletarian revolutions and it efforts to unite them under its leadership. This is at the same time one of the international proletarian duties of it.

Our Party is shaped with the knowledge that the struggle of oppressed peoples and nations in the world scale direct affects the revolution of our country, it accelerates it or decelerates it. It cares about and embraces the strongest and solid networks of solidarity of countries which their social or national revolution progresses rapidly. It considers the primary strongest and solid solidarity with these movements as raising the struggle for revolutions in its own country. Secondarily it efforts to provide all sorts of material, fighter and logistics support to them and it efforts to be in solidarity on this axis. It makes the propaganda of the struggle and gains of these movements, to carries it to the agenda of the oppressed in its country and solidifies the spirit of solidarity. But most important of all, it considers the opportunities of progress in its own country through the adoption of the spirit of these struggles. It considers this approach as the primary condition to weaken all reactionary forces and develop forces of struggle.

Our Party established relations with all forces of struggle in world, in the regions and in its close proximity on this axis and it aims to march on the axis of program in the minimum and maximum levels. It defend that a revolutionary struggle that is to develop in our country will be the strongest form of material and moral support to all the peoples and oppressed nations of the world and beyond this, it defends that this is an internationalism that is going to damage all reactionary forces in the ideological-political level.

The understanding of internationalism of our Party and specifically its comprehension of proletarian internationalism is this in summary. Our Party has the claim to be shaped by this understanding and progress with it. It has the claim to strengthen and solidify the spirit of internationalism of proletariat of Turkey of Turkish, Kurdish and various other nations in this manner. Thus it will at the same time have the ground to reproduce and create the international proletarian identity that it represents in this manner. This should be seen as a solid ground, a strong step and a historical responsibility in erasing all borders and national lines.

The Political and Organizational Orientation

• The General Picture in the World and in the Country

The imperialist and capitalist system entered a financial crisis in 2008 that initially started in the invincible, indestructible and unshakable USA, the vanguard of this system and then in a way surrounded the whole system and after it entered a wholesome swirl of economic crisis. We call it a swirl of economic crisis, this crisis created a picture that reflects the parasitic structure and the whole character of the financial oligarchy. The structure of financial capital that makes money out of money that inflates its capital by detaching coupons caused so to speak a layer of foam that was not possible to see the bottom point of. This situation rapidly reflected to the field of production and realized as a great economic crisis in which over accumulation of commodities that is caused by the production anarchy that the imperialist-capitalist system could not escape. As the USA reorganized all its financial instruments in order to compensate this deficit, drowned the whole world with unrequited dollars and tried to produce a cure for the great economic black hole in this desperate manner. However after this economic crisis, the economic system of world never turned to how it was before. The symptoms of this crisis projected themselves in various forms and at different levels and the existing state of crisis followed a more consistent path. The imperialist capitalist system has undergone a process and currently is undergoing a process in which it functioned under steam in a perpetual state of vulnerability.

Before it was too long, this economic crisis started showing its effects in the political scene. All around the world imperialist financial institutions started writing the prescriptions to get out of this crisis or to dress its wounds. And the prescription that came to surface was what is called neoliberalism that is to create stronger conditions for the circulation of imperialist capital in the most unchained, limitless, lawless and reckless way possible. Two solutions have been found against the crisis in imperialist circles: the first was the pruning of social rights of working and laboring classes. This was especially carried out through trade agreements that functions through rules drawn by the monopolies. Again it is in the direction of restriction of the economic rights of the working class and laborers, creation, organization and realization of more suitable conditions for flexible production and cheap labor. Within this context new legal regulations were brought to agenda in issues such as healthcare, education, work conditions, employment security, and work hours in imperialist centers, some of these have been implemented and agendas such as 12 hour work day was opened for discussion. Regulations on wages against the interests of the working class and laborers through increasing the competition among the laborers by expanding the labor market, equipping bosses with rights in regards to dismissals and turning the workers into prisoners through these means continue to happen step by step. The second was increasing the load on the shoulders of semi-colonial capitalist or semi-colonial, semi feudal countries that are dependent on imperialist-capitalist countries and the workers of these countries. Especially in semi-colonial countries that fell into the claws of the 2008 crisis very intensely, under the cloak of the rearrangement of financial markets, EU, IMF and WB patented assaults were implemented in an unmerciful way so to speak with the appetite of a furious vampire. Imperialist financial capital has clung onto the economies of these countries. Through speculations, operations of stock market-interest-foreign exchange rates, with enormous loans that it gives to the states and their interests, with its cheap labor oriented capital investments it has increased its pillage and it has enlarged and deepened the process of desertification in order to make these countries more dependent on imperialist capital. Besides this, it has made moves to bring especially the countries that do not conform to the chains of the imperialist system and experience hardships doing so under various other political-military mangles. While these crises and developments unite under high profit, dominance over markets and brewing the capital which is the common goal of imperialist countries, natural the dosage of competition and tussle among them deepened, spread and controversial zones and orientations has developed more.

The 2008 crisis has made the entire imperfect, faulty, broken and parasitic structure of the capital accumulation process that is called “globalization” which is built under the leadership of the US, visible. This economic crisis that started US-centered especially created conditions for serious fractures on the imperialist bloc that emerged on the axis of the US, the EU and Japan. The already existing state of continuous competition became clearer and more apparent. It is also known that the crisis at the same time is an opportunity in inter-imperialist relations and for big monopolies. It would be beneficial to state that among this “Western Bloc” the European Union under the leadership of Germany has drawn advantage from the crisis the most. Among this great imperialist bloc serious economic, political field of conflict has been born. On one hand enormous trade agreements have been tried to be established under the leadership of the US, between European and Asian countries (Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific), on the other hand struggle and disputes over who come out of it the most profited ceaselessly continued. Especially agreement initiatives and projects between Germany (the EU) and the US in regards to the Trans-Pacific Agreement that is expressed through numbers of tens of trillions of dollars include assaults of imperialist monopolies towards laborers in a lawless and limitless manner. Imperialists that unite on this common ground without hesitation has entered a process of sharp struggle over who will take the essential bite from this enormous cake. Germany’s objections against the determinant position of the US in determining political-military and economic relations, sorting out shares and in distribution of shares are now more apparent. Especially together with the election of Trump as the president, Germany tries to utilize the increase of clique conflict within the US imperialist forces as a lever. Weakening and regressing force, the US is persistent in the natural tendency of solidifying “absolute power” and maintaining previous balances. However it tries to enable the opportunities at hand that are more aggressive and suppression-oriented against developing Germany. In this sense, on one hand the enormous Pacific agreement is tried to be made and on the other Trump makes the trade war against Germany an agenda. It is now seen that the agreement and reconciliation is not as easy as it was in previous processes that it is visible that continuous new lines of tensions emerge and the conflict develops in acceleration. The German imperialism who made better use of the crisis period with its developing economy and accumulated capital that seeks new markets with appetite has taken a political position to become a more effective actor in “the Western Bloc”, to develop a relationship that is based on balance with the US and if possible to engage in a struggle towards seizing the leadership of this bloc in a stronger manner compared with the past. In the Asian front, the threat of China causes a situation where Japan is now more obliged to conform to the US. The US-Japan Bloc has relatively a more compatible and a less problematic partnership.

The internal disruption and conflict within “the Western Bloc” will undoubtedly deepen more when the tendency of the developments is considered. However other imperialist forces that pushes this bloc to unite time to time and transform the elements of the bloc into elements of threat against one another time to time, rapidly grows and makes progresses. Especially China which is a fresh and desirous social-imperialist force constitutes the biggest element of threat for this bloc. The distance that the Chinese social-imperialism gained in the capitalist production process and wide-spread record breaking economic growth and its cheap labor, it is seen that it has acquired a serious accumulation of capital utilizing the advantages of its great market space and advantageous trade relations. The overflowing nature of this structure of capital accumulation causes it to have an imperialist policy that directs it towards exporting capital as a natural process. Chine has not yet showed any clues or an apparent tendency of aggression that it is going to realize its need for markets in order to export capital in a way that “includes the use of force” yet. However the beginning point of imperialist policies is at the same time the ground for military aggression. Even though China has not yet entered a practice or an orientation on this axis, its investment on its defense industry, again its approach to produce its own technology on this field and the capital that it has invested in military expenses with its known size and unknown size is at a great scale. This situation undoubtedly is a policy towards not only defense-targeted preparation but also towards the obligation for safety and inevitability of aggression due to its acquired accumulation of capital and its imperialist character. And the name of it is, without hesitation, has an imperialist character. The Chinese imperialism has developed its struggle create markets for its accumulated capital seriously in the recent years. Under the name of “the Belt and Road Initiative” it has concretized a capital export project and a large-scaled capitalist investment that encompasses sections of Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe. Even though this project has not developed in accordance with the plans, it has been a move that has reached serious levels. This is a development that creates discomfort for the US, the EU and Japan imperialist bloc. This development is an alarm bell for these forces when it comes to showcasing China’s level of capital accumulation. The US, in this sense, creates its recent National Security Strategy based on stopping, regressing and sieging the economic, political and military development of China. It openly declares that China has entered its own market with transfer of technology, export of capital and capital investments with better conditions and develops precautions and measures against this situation.

The Chinese imperialist that develops and spread in the economic level and the Russian imperialism that is especially effective in the military and political field against the US and the EU seek a bloc and their cooperation rapidly develops and deepens to an extent that it gains a bloc tendency. There are large scale energy agreements between Russia and China, construction of energy transfer means, cooperation in “the Belt and Road Initiative”, common path that has been adopted in a series of political developments, concrete steps such as economic, political and military cooperation through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

On the political and military aspect of the imperialist competition, the destructive competition of Russian and US imperialism has become more prominent especially after the second half of 2000s. Especially the social commotion that stretches from the Middle East to North Africa and the political searches that emerges as a result of this led this competition to focus on this region. Besides this, especially after the second half of 2000s, political operations and moves to siege Russian from west, from east and from south and towards its backyard caused Russia to take sharper and stricter steps. At this point Russia that enabled its military power as a mean to disperse this siege has managed to confront to a certain extent political moves that the US and the EU imperialists have put into action. The Russian move that started with the partial invasion of Georgia brought some certain outcome that it wished for and together with the degenerated character of “orange revolutions” has given birth to the ability to create results against it. The same situation resulted in confronting the move that was developed over Ukraine with a similar method. Together with the process in the Donetsk region that resulted in, again a partial invasion of Ukraine and unification of Crimea with Russian, a process of disintegration and dissolution has matured in Ukraine. At this juncture it has been clearly seen that the especially the NATO siege has been seriously damages with these moves and the NATO forces has not been able to respond with a similar military move in the face of these maneuvers. With its political moves that it made in this period Russian has manage to cultivate serious prestige and strength. The internal commotion and chaos especially in Syria becoming the focal point in the construction of the regional policies of imperialist powers and Russia hindering the US achieving the results that it wished has become a “score” on their account as a great story of political success.

Within this context, surrounding and siege of Russia with the Great Middle East Project of “the Western Bloc” under the leadership of the US, efforts to siege China with enormous commercial moves and great military concentration in Asia-Pacific have become the common ground for the Chinese-Russian relations. The Great Middle East Projects has received serious blows in the current situation, however organization-positioning and moves in regards to re-defining the power relations in Asia-Pacific continue. However, the siege plan that is to achieve the weakening and the limiting of becoming competitive great imperialist focuses of both Russia and China are at work.

However Russian and Chinese imperialisms are the ones that develop their existing positions in various regions and countries that stretch out from Eastern Europe to Balkans, from the Middle East to Middle Asia, and to Far East, from Africa to Latin America. The US, the EU and the Japanese imperialists are being more and more limited and under sharper conditions of competition have fallen into the position to defend their markets more strictly. In this sense, especially the objective ground for competition among this bloc strengthens even more. Every single move of Russia and China and their developments, at the same time having commercial relations, will include the deepening of the conflict in terms of market share within “the Western Bloc” and will be in the character to extending these conflicts. Namely, a process of enlarging and deepening of the fractures will develop rather than a tendency to unify and solidify “the Western Bloc”.

In this orientation of EU, together with the equation of England taking distance and keeping England away from this project, subsequent to the commotion that raveled in the Middle East and Africa, there are conflicts that are being revealed in “the Western Bloc” not being able to form a strong unity in designing these regions, in their Eastern Europe policies and in the shaping of Balkans. Commercial disharmony, customs walls that are raised by the US’ economic policies and the consequent contradictions should be added to this list. On the military front, the discomfort in regards to the power balances within the NATO are being uttered both by the US and Germany. Especially the attitude of Germany that focuses on its national security and the security projects of the EU are met with rage and anger towards Germany by the US.

The embittering of the competition and struggle among imperialist has especially gained momentum with the economic crisis. Within this context especially the countries within “the Western Bloc” there is a political crisis at levels that cannot be missed out and there is sharpness in the struggle among dominant cliques. In the US, in Europe and in several countries that are dependent on these countries the serious consequences of this political crisis begin to emerge. Trump who has been elected as president in the US and his some certain orientations are met with serious resistance by the CIA, Pentagon and even within the White House. There is a situation of constant adjustment and corrections in the Senate towards the actions of Trump. Since Trump came to the office, he had the need to makes continuous changes from the most fundamental departments to advisories and he is being pushed through some certain resignations that erupt in these mechanisms. All these developments carry the indications that there is a serious political problem inside the US. A similar situation applies to the EU imperialists, England and countries that are connected-dependent these forces. In countries such as Greece, Spain and Italy political actors who carry new political representations external to the current system have emerged. Especially the dissatisfaction of the developing popular opposition has become the existence ground for these political actors. There also is the development of rightist-fascist parties in other European countries and a political line that moves to right is apparent. However, quite often governmental crises erupt and elections are being re-held. Undoubtedly these are indication of a political problem, a situation that carries indications of a crisis. The political climate that emerges on the progressive or reactionary basis disrupts the balance of the existing dominant regime and creates ground for governmental crises that overflow from the normal situation on this axis. These are signal flares of a problem in regards to ruling. The ground that the contradictions sharpen finds its reflection towards inside the imperialist-capitalist countries.

It is beneficial to state that Russia and China are at a more comfortable situation on this axis, and their problems of political problems and ruling follow a more regressive course. In this period that we are in, it must be emphasized that this situation is important in the stronger and more effective realization of imperialist policies.

• The General Situation in the Middle East and Turkey

The policies of Turkish dominant classes to unify with the imperialist capital and with the process of sustaining its free circulation have been ongoing since 1980s. Especially with the AKP huge steps have been taken on this matter. Not a single sector, field or so to speak a square meter has been untouched by the pillaging and looting of the imperialist capital. Imperialist capital entered the entire economic and social life in an uncontrollable way and it has infiltrated to the very pores of it. The economic and social structure of Turkey has fallen into the claws of imperialist capital during the AKP period and a form of connected-dependent relations have emerged, both in scales that has never been seen before. This situation was actualized under the conditions of every economic and political crisis and every sorts of imperialist capital that has “no religion, no creed” was transferred to the country with great fluidity. The enormous indebtedness, melting of equities and benefits being available was ensured throughout this period.

The level of connectedness and dependency on imperialist capital has brought the obligation for an economic and financial system that functions by its rules at the same time. In order for these interests to be realized the state mechanism has reorganized itself in as strong as possible and all the laws, regulations and codes have been shaped in accordance with it. This at the same time has also created the birth of a situation that determines the political orientation of the state and dominant classes.

The US and the EU imperialists had begun the reshaping of world markets and especially the Middle Eastern market in 1990s when the Russian Social Imperialism has thrown out it mask, in order to remove the obstacles in front of its stuck political structure, social dynamics that produce problems and to acquire a more profitable environment for the capital. Within this context, imperialists had begun working for the most perfect conditions in order to control and transfer energy in the most profitable way and efficiency, transform these regions into fields of high profits through the bloody hands of imperialist capital, to make political regimes conform to the rules of “globalization” and to solidify its strength and existence. They have harbored policies of on one hand by provoking national and historical contradictions and increasing their levels of tension and creating an environment of war which is the fundamental source of nutrition for imperialism and on the other hand by designing the entire market through military-political aggression in order to condemn the oppressed to the conditions of slavery more. This has emerged as the most extensive of the cultural, ideological, political and historical desertification, exsiccating, eviscerating and destruction in order for its capital accumulation process to realize itself with more appetite, with bigger profits and in a multidirectional way. Under the conditions that the entire fundamental properties and the structure of the imperialist system in its first stage of monopolization was disrupted, restricted and where great threats against its existence emerged through a wave of revolutions that erupted with the October Revolution and continued, all the opportunities and possibilities that it had not realized is now in front of it. Yes, there are no obstacles in front of the insatiable ambition for profit, imperialist monopolization and its laws which comrade Lenin reveal with all their economic structures and qualities. “The defeat of socialism” has been declared, “the end of history” has come, and that the capitalist-imperialist system is enduring has been ideologically embraced to the masses. Right under these conditions imperialist capital has reached conditions where it can have a free hand and act in all sorts of ways all around the world without an obstacle whatsoever in an unprecedented way. The orientation that is called “globalization, neo-liberalism” has become the steps and moves of these interests, uncontrollability and limitlessness. Without a reduction in the regional wars, imperialist capital has ensured its security and has implemented its economic policies under conditions that the workers and laborers were ideologically surrendered. There is blood, there are tears, there are high profits and there are conditions in which the capital can safely circulate at levels that it could not even have imagined, and there are the opportunities of a world market that is connected and unified.

Every field that is in contrast, that produces problems, that has the potential for strong social progress is being designed, the laborers are being strangled under other reactionary mangles and are being surrounded through a multidirectional siege in order to be consumed to be absorbed.

Right at this juncture the Turkish dominant classes have positioned themselves to become one of the actors of this orientation that has the biggest appetite. The line of inclusion to the EU in internal politics and to the agenda of the US in external politics in the Middle East has been embraced in the strictest way possible. While the EU policies are over conforming all economic and political relations to the capital flow of “the Western Bloc”, the role of being the regional actor of the establishment of national and social contradictions that inevitably come to surface with new political balances. This has imposed itself as an obligation that requires full and absolute conformation to the economic and political line of imperialist with all its aspects.

In order to conform and be active in the Middle East the Turkish dominant classes have undergone a rather fierce, painful process, conflict and a tension period before comprehending that falling under a compatible organization is a compulsory and inevitable situation and that this was implemented. The seeds of “the democratization moves” have been spread in the prior to AKP due to the EU process’ acceleration in 1999 and Kurdish question reaching a level to influence the entire social and political dynamics. Delivering Abdullah Ocalan with a great international conspiracy to the Republic of Turkey have been the first “gifts” of this new design and regional shaping. The great economic crisis that took place in 2001 has presented the Turkish dominant classes at the same time with the greatest opportunity to prepare for the new process with new rules. Kemal Dervis being appointed to an office in the cabinet by imperialist monopolies and the regulations that passes under the name “15 laws in 15 days”, the formation that included conformity to the period had gained momentum. Kurdish broadcasting on TVs is a product of this period. Turkish dominant classes who were ready to shed their skins had entered an environment of political crisis through some certain resistances portrayed against this situation. It was as if all fascist parties had left the “historical” scene with this political crisis and new fascist cliques that took the patrol over and that were talented in shedding skin bloomed. Thus the first and extensive liquidation and reconstruction of this skin shedding came to be realized. Subsequently, through the Ergenekon and Balyoz trials the initiation of the liquidation of the degenerated, bureaucratized, no longer useful and the display window elements of the state had begun, and the inception of an establishment period for new balances among the power groups within the system to meet the political needs of the period. Fascism has carried out this design in a period of 10 years by keeping the furniture of the house intact and changing their places. The places that the military, fascist parties, bureaucracy, the media, dominant class organizations and the parliament will hold have been determined vaguely and in quarrel.

While making this rearrangement, Turkish dominant classes have shown great efforts to fulfill a role that operates as the State Department of the US in the region. Before the beginning of “the Arab Spring”, it had tried to snoop into all the problematic areas, and established the policy of “zero problems with the neighbors and the world” with the ambition of playing the intermediary role. However, every single attempts and move had taken place as a part of the US regional policies. The biggest game during this “peaceful and diplomatic” attempt process was Syria. With a belief that Syria will be designed in the way that the US wanted but in a more peaceful manner serious political investments have been made on Syria. That that were about to arrive at the point where the borders will be lifted between the Syrian regime was launched on the eve of “the Arab Spring”. The family friendship of Assad with Tayyip Erdogan was released to the public with photos of them taking vacations together. The subject was a Turkish state that wished to become the architect in the siege of Iran and Russia and in the first change and transformation move of the Great Middle East Project. This was going to be Syria. A state policy that especially described the Syrian policy as finding something that had been most 100 years ago in the Middle East, was shaped. Later on, this was transformed into the definition that a political positioning that would be lost in Syria would mean a state of inactiveness in the Middle East for the next one hundred years.

The uprisings and upsurges that started in Tunisia and initially spread to North Africa and then to the entire Middle East, which was called “the Arab Spring” ultimately evolved into a bloody commotion in the Syrian stop and “the Arab Spring” had found itself in front of a war adventure at this juncture. These uprisings and upsurges that resulted in toppling of rotten fascist regimes and rotten symbolic names in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, at the same time created consequences that would lead to the re-establishment and re-definition of all balances in the region. These uprisings have an internal quality where the people took the knives on their throats and attempted to stab the owner of them, and at the same time have undoubtedly progressive aspects. These popular uprisings are an outcome of the desires for democracy against fascist dictatorships that are semi-colonies of imperialism. However the spontaneous structure of these uprisings, and in time efforts of imperialists to put these uprisings onto a direction that fits their policies through liberalizing them in accordance with their own aims and goals, attempts of other cliques of the dominant cliques that direct, shape ad lead these movements should never be forgotten. The approaches that present these movements and the toppling of rotten fascist dictators as “revolution” should be radially rejected. These uprisings that the imperialist loving liberal groups blessed as “new revolution types” and even have written down strategies of great revolutions, had dominantly spontaneous characters, had targeted not the production relations that the dominant classes base themselves on but their rotten representatives and again results in toppling of these representatives due to dominant classes “desperately” supported their removals. Thinking that such spontaneous movements, systems based on imperialism would be taken down with uprisings, without weapons, lacking leadership and organization, propagating this, building strategies of revolution resting against this idea means not making the popular masses face the realities and keeping them equipment-free. The one and only way of taking imperialism based reactionary dominant classes is the protracted struggle of the people that is based on armed struggle, organized under the leadership of revolutionary-communist forces. An expectation for a revolution besides this would undoubtedly mean keeping the people away from the real revolutionary orientation. This will be noted down on the pages of history as an ideological deviation that ignores the power of the enemy, its resources, the state of imperialism and its reality. And indeed, this has been the case.

“The Arabic Spring”, as it did with the “Western” imperialist bloc, caused excitement among the Turkish dominant classes. Especially in countries such as Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, the forces that have been codified as “moderate Islam” that are ideological siblings of the AKP becoming active within the state, has been perceived by the Turkish dominant classes as a golden opportunity and a great ground for the role of regional power that they wished to play in the Middle East. The uprisings that erupted in Syria and against the Baath trying to crush them with iron fist, armed upsurges had been organized rapidly. A series of smaller and bigger armed movement under the name of Free Syrian Army (FSA) and feudal warlords emerged and the country rapidly entered an anaphor of war. Some months after the beginning of the uprisings Turkish dominant classes anchored to the position of the main actor for the Syrian regime to be toppled down through arms, which previously they had made serious economic and political investment to provide for the peaceful transformation of it. Now, they possibility for the regime to be toppled through a shorter and a bloodier path had appeared and Turkey gave its entire energy and made its political and economic investments on this shorter path in its well-known calculations over Syria. Now that the seats had been changed, the enemies that they had try to transform through friendship had become enemies that they try to change through force. Operating in the name of the US and the orientation that focuses on its interests in the Middle East had become the fundamental motivation of the process.

Against the Baath regime, Turkish dominant forces had supported all sorts of jihadist organization in this period in Syria and from train and equip police to logistic and ammunition support, read front support to diplomatic support, all sorts of opportunities had been laid down for them. Despite all the support of the imperialist forces of the US and the EU, and regional forces such as Turkey and the Gulf countries the Assad regime had not been able to be toppled and every single moment that Assad remained in power, the fracture and the dispute among these forces have deepened and grown bigger. As the war that the imperialists also indirectly were included continued in Syria, the process that was called the Arab Spring became reverse, Mursi was taken own from the office of presidency through a military coup in Egypt and was arrested, feudal fragmentation in Libya reached its advanced stages and especially the ISIS (Iraq and Sham Islamic State) had become a serious power, the expected news of “democracy” from Tunisia and Algeria were not received. This situation increased the contradictions that stem from different policies of both the states in the region and imperialist powers that had had consensus over Syria. The fact that the expected results could not have been obtained in Syria somehow, led to a situation where these contradictions had grown even deeper.

Another factor in the Syrian policy had been the Kurdish question. Forces under the leadership of the Kurdish National Movement rapidly took advantage of the vacuum of power and through an organization of the Canton type established their dominance in Rojava. Thus the Kurdish National Movement had become a significant force that determines and directs in the course of the war in the shaping of Syria. For a long time the Kurdish National Movement maintained especially a policy of cleansing reactionary jihadist forces from Rojava together with a policy of de-conflict with forces such as the US and the EU, and Turkey, as well as with the regime. Both the US and dominant classes of Turkey during the course of the period expressed their hostile attitudes against the gains of the Kurdish National Movement in a subtle manner. Especially the US would follow a policy to back the Kurds up in the face of the failure of the armed oppositional forces that were labeled as FSA and reasonable forces. In this sense it has followed a policy of provoking jihadist forces into the cantons of Rojava, especially to Kobane. In the face of this jihadist siege, it has undertaken role of savior and created the ground for longer term political calculations. Imperialist daemons that are called “the coalition forces” acted as observes until the last point in the jihadist siege of Kobane and ultimately through air support “came in help” and revealed their backing Kurds up policy with its entire clarity. While on one hand Turkish dominant classes centralized a policy that was focused on toppling the Baath regime, on the other hand they followed a double political path in the form of limitless provocation of jihadist forces, siege and ideological-political offensive against the gains of Rojava. On one hand through “soft power” they had tried to engage Kurds into their own political calculations, followed a policy of patronage through maintaining its policies of denial towards them and on the other hand provoked military aggression that is to weaken and possible destroy the Kurds through jihadist forces. It is clear that these two police are parts of a whole and that their essence includes the fascist attitude of the Turkish sovereign understanding against the Kurdish national rights. This double politics, especially after Russian imperialism made its military support in Syria in defense of Assad clear and obvious and Assad’s hand had gotten stronger, and the US-EU-Turkey-Gulf axis’ policy to topple Assad exploded just like a hand grenade evolved into a unitary line of aggression and invasion. The Syrian policy of Turkish dominant classes had rapidly transformed into enmity towards Rojava and a matter of perpetuity from determining and directing the fate of entire Syria. Today, the calculations over entire Syria have become secondary and the Rojava policy has become the essential one. Undoubtedly this new situation will continue on as it is until an action that is to shake all developments and balances occur.

At this juncture the especially the Rojava policy of the Turkish dominant classes should be read together with the “pace, reconciliation, solution” policy in the Kurdish question that was implemented for a period. Together with the commotion that erupted in Syria, the search for a “solution” in the Kurdish question that the imperialist wished to be found for the sake of “the regional politics” have gained a new momentum. The solution process had already been initiated in accordance with the regional calculations of the Turkish Republic and the developments in Syria, so to speak, had given blood to this policy. The policies and talks that were called “the solution process” essentially included giving some certain cultural and political rights in exchange of disarmament of the Kurdish movement. The goal was to disarm the Kurdish movement and maintain the policy of denial and assimilation through new conditions and balances by giving crumbs such as expansion of the right for legal politics, come certain rights in the field of language and culture. The Turkish dominant classes know this as well that without an armed struggle the obtained reformist demands would hang on by a thread. Under some certain conditions and situations they could be rapidly usurped and the most vulgar denial and assimilation conditions would atrociously be maintained. This liquidation movement of the Republic of Turkey has been continued with an extensive manipulation with its ideological-political pillars and at the same time with the concept of assaulting the Kurdish movement. Especially with the perception of democratic steps being taken in the Kurdish question the large progressive, revolutionary and democratic sections have been directed into legalism and reformism in an effective way. The Kurdish movement has been the force that had been under the influence of this effect the most. A strong ideological belief in regards to fascism can be destroyed through peaceful, legal and democratic means and parliamentarism was buttered up and enabled. A large section was made believe during the “solution process” that full freedom for the Kurdish nation is possible, something that the Republic of Turkey could never fulfill. However the entire objective and target of the Turkish state had been to implement a policy of deception and diversion in order to liquidate the Kurdish armed forces. It had not backed down from organizing a preparation for a greater war and a greater assault in this period at the juncture that it saw that this was not possible. The policies of Syria and Rojava have been shaped exactly to fit this axis. They have directly related the compromises that are to be gained from Rojava to the fate of the “solution process”. Every sorts of policies and assaults have been put into practice to take Rojava under Turkish dominance and patronage. Within this context the Rojava policy was crystallized as patronage that is based on non-realization of Kurdish rights and freedoms and it had not been able to go beyond from promising the continuity of dependent national conditions under the Turkish umbrella against Assad and jihadists. Ultimately with this policy not finding a reflection in Rojava the “solution process” had been suspended and the superiority that was lost on the ground and on the morale level tried be gained back through the concept of an military attack, an all-out attack. The calamity of the picture is that even though the fascist dictatorship was not connected to the “solution process” with a Catholic marriage, the Kurdish movement had a orientation to perceive the “solution process” as a Catholic marriage.

The winds of the sails of the Turkish dominant classes to become “the second violin” that directs the regional policies, that wished to take the role away from the US and consequently become a regional power together with the developments in Syria, orientations that lost altitude at any given moment, their unsuccessful moves and its unfruitful politics that have not produced neither internal nor regional results were taken. The line that was weaved and organized for about 10 years and the investments that have been done in this period were blown up. The duty that was expected for Syria from the US had never been achieved. Especially after the temporary agreement between Russia and the US in regards to the arrangement of eastern and western parts of Euphrates, the Turkish dominant classes were move to a juncture of anxiety and to some extent aggression. The facts that even for the Raqqa operation the Kurdish National Movement was chosen, that the Republic of Turkey was completely put out of action in the east of Euphrates led the fascist dictatorship to utter the definition of “problem of survival,” “fight against terrorism” and “terrorist organizations” in Syria stronger than ever. Underscoring that they are a NATO force, they have initiated a sharp and tough enmity campaign against Kurds, they have taken Rojava within the survival parenthesis and they have made efforts to establish a negotiation table with the US imperialism on this ground. In this period, at the expense of leveling and destroying the Kurdish gains they have established a table with Russia and tried to maintain the conditions of remaining in the throat of Rojava as a dagger to act as a facilitator factor for the fall of all the regions held by the opposition who were to gotten out of hand. Fascist dictatorship that was left out of the equation in the east of Euphrates together with the subtle support of the US in the west of Euphrates, that was under control of Russia and with the Russia’s policy of sharpening the conflict between the US and Turkey invaded Afrin. This was how the invasion and military assault against Rojava was crystallized. Turkish dominant classes are now at a position of an occupation state in both Syria and Rojava. Undoubtedly there is US support and its long term policies involved in this. However it should be noted that the Turkish dominant classes with this positioning will get themselves into trouble in the future and lay the groundwork to put themselves in large scale contradictions. They are now at the heart of the Syrian conflict. And yes, exactly what they have been uttering, that Syria’s fate is their fate in regards to their policy on Syria, have become a reality and concrete phenomenon and a contradiction to handle. Even in this very picture, Turkish dominant classes still cannot avoid to put distance with the role that the US imperialism assigned them in the region. Convergence to Russia policy of Turkey is an outcome of finding a path within these desperate moves and if not to create a path in this direction. However, saying that Turkish dominant classes are move towards an imperialist bloc to another over the s-400s, Sochi-Astana talk about Syria and some certain tension with the US would be ignoring the historical roots of the relations of dependency with the US, its economic and political dimension, and the size of this relationship from defense to education and culture, in every field. It should not be forgotten that partially the relations that are established with Russia were concluded with the calculation to rip greater roles from the US for the US interests. Especially the invasion and assaults in the western regions of Euphrates are at work for undertaking this role. On the other hand talks such as Sochi and Astana include moves that are not possible to get out of the game rules that the US and Russia had established. However, from the point of view of the US there is an important point which is the fact that the political representative of the Turkish dominant classes, AKP-Tayyip clique have lost their capability to rule in the regional and the internal level and has fallen into a situation where they constantly get older and torn in regards to being a useful instrument.

In this picture fractures and tussles among the Turkish dominant classes have gained new dimensions. Especially the expected “victory in Syria not being realized, the picture in the Kurdish question, controversies in the division of work among the bureaucracy, the struggle to take shares from the shrinking economic pie has led to a serious struggle, tussle and fracture between the AKP and the Fethullah Gulen movement. At a very short notice this fascist bloc found itself at gunpoint. The Gulenist movement with its moves against Erdogan tried to turn him into an empty power and transformed him into a political zombie through the exposure of his heists worth billions of dollars. The pressure created by the Gezi Uprising and social opposition are other factors that deepened this fracture. The tussle in between these forces destroyed all the fiction and calculations of the system in regards to the period. This at the same time constitutes the juncture where the imperialist calculations were also destroyed.

This conflict gained dimensions, developed and a group within the army organized a junta and attempted to carry out a coup with this power. The ultimate peak point of the political crisis that started especially after 2013 and the transformation of the political crisis into a new stage took place right after this attempt. This weak and dispersed coup attempt has undoubtedly taken place under the control of the AKP-Tayyip clique. Already struggling with a political crisis, fascist dictatorship trying to re-establish the influence that it had lost with the all-out attack wave in the Kurdish question allowed this junta attempt to unravel. Previously built new alliances gained physical bodies together with this attempt and the AKP-Tayyip clique found the MHP that has always been “the deep mind” of the state next to them. After 15^th of July, the all-out attack targeting the Kurdish National Movement headed towards a new stage where it encompassed all social sections and realized in the most reckless and relentless way. All sections of the opposition have been taken under siege with a great wave of chauvinism, police and military violence, mangle of bureaucracy and judicial system, AKP-MHP oriented mafia and civil fascism.

When rather deeply rooted political crisis, especially the orientation that was built in the regional level and the new casing that the system put on are taken into consideration “the political zombie” that the Turkish dominant classes and imperialists needed have been created in a full-fledged way. Tayyip Erdogan carries the necessary features to meet the needs of this the fascist dictatorship in this period with the crimes that he has committed in this process, his ability to take large masses under his own influence, his talent in terrorizing and suppressing other sections and his tendency for “one-centered” administration. At times of such multi-layered crisis periods, one-centered and effective model of administration for fascist dictatorships is a golden opportunity. Within this context, the AKP-MHP alliance, transition to the presidency system, administration through decree-laws and application of state of emergency should be considered on this axis and it should be seen that it is a need of the system beyond the ambitions of a greedy dictator. Assigning power onto the actors of this all-out attack that was maintained for about 4 years on their own and being deluded to think that this power was utilized despite the dominant classes, means failing the class when it comes to state and imperialism.

In this period some sections of the dominant cliques have also been under this intense oppression and pressure. Within this context the struggle among the cliques has become sharper than ever and the discourse of the entire “national interests”, “the survival problem” has not managed to have the ability to unite fascist cliques. The already existing enmity towards Kurds has the quality that will not cause any problems as it has not in the past to create the common ground for these reactionary cliques. However, even this situation had been able to make away with the sharpness of the tussle and struggle of dominant cliques. On the contrary it has deepened it, sharpened it and reinforced the alliance in different casings and shapes. However this situation goes beyond this. Especially within the AKP there is a political climate that allows fractures at serious levels. Continuous and repetitive elections, not being able to meet the expected success despite all the opportunities are outcomes of the weaknesses at the juncture of administration and of the current picture of the AKP. Especially the race that cliques that sided and became a bloc in the 31^st of March local elections maintained, together with fractures within the AKP has gained a new dimension. It is inevitable for this process not to produce a situation of playing the last cards, that cannot be trusted even in the most settled base of a structure that produces such problems. Even though by a neck, ultimately important cities, such as Istanbul and Ankara have been lost by the AKP. This picture means the problem of administration gaining new dimensions for AKP. Within this context, “the political zombie” Tayyip Erdogan lose his ground to meet the necessities of this role and will inevitably be carried to a point after a while where it is going to harm it. At that point it will be inevitable for him to be turned into “a ghost” that is no longer needed and it will be declared that he has passed his sell-by date. Looking from today this tendency has gained strength and the process continues to head towards the same direction on this axis.

• The State and the Movement of the Working Class and Laborers

The fascist dictatorship had managed not to enter into a large scale economic crisis especially after the 2001 crisis, until 2008. The laboring classes were undoubtedly billed the hardest for the 2001 crisis. There have been enormous amount of reductions in wages and purchasing power, savings have been mercilessly usurped by the usurer capital, social right have been restricted, small producers were crawling and fell into the network of bankruptcy and merciless usury, youth flocked onto the labor market and women were being exploited in the worst of conditions as cheap labor. The economic crisis had created a picture were it was felt in the bones of the laborers. Austerity policies that were developed subsequent to the crisis, strict fiscal discipline, restriction on social rights, pension in the graves law, usurping of funds have been the forms of the assault. The relative welfare situation that was experienced in the following years and the economic improvements had been betterment in the nature of showing death and making people consent to malaria. Even this situation means conditions that create a serious level of comfort when it comes to the administration of rulers.

However the situation of “showing death and making people consent to malaria” situation in the economic level allowed for serious opportunities for continuous assaults on most fundamental issues such as organizations, social rights, right to labor. The most common assault that the workers and laborers had received in this period was the ideological, political, legal and psychological attacks towards the right to organize. Especially class collaborationist trade unionism, biased and tamed trade unionism replaced yellow unions. Unionist understanding that fall outside of this had been sieged and have been subjected to all sorts of ideological attacks, disinvestment and operations of regression that weakens the struggling dynamics. Every attempt for the right to organize resulted in either laborers taking part in utility labor market or having this threated directed at them. Regulations that present serious advantages to the bosses have been made in laws. Indemnities and reemployment lawsuits that are perceived as the only legal security take place in periods that a laborer cannot maintain their lives. Bosses who attack to hinder the organization and unity in the emergence stages, thus divide workers and disallowed resistant unions to maintain their resistances. The ideological and political poison spread by the unionist understanding that are on the line of full surrender have found some certain reflections also in resistant unions and prevented them to organize an orientation in order to destroy this reactionary climate and the assault. Progressive unions had now come to the point that operated unions as “law offices” and have fallen to a very backward point of following court cases. Laborers’ fundamental rights such as healthcare and education have now been irreversible made paid. Under the name of reform and improvement in education and healthcare all gained rights have been cut down, conditions for good and quality education and healthcare have been made paid services.

Privatization assaults that have been realized for a period of time were met with the resistance of workers. At this point especially the resistances of hundreds of workers of Seka and Tekel that became the agenda all over the country and that influenced the society has been noted down on the pages of history as one of the most important movements on the front of the laborers. However the resistances that have been portrayed against these assaults and the consequent social sensitivity have not transformed into maintain a continuity in the struggle in the front of workers and laborers and has not been able to turn this into a step.

The point that we arrive at today is intense exploitation, job insecurity, deadly problems in job safety, inadequate wages, reduced social rights and most important and maybe the most vital one of these is the state of disorganization. There is the picture of a worker and a labor that is heavily politicized by the country’s agenda, dispersed and immobile. Especially vast majority of the have been politicized under the influence of chauvinism. However the important thing here is that there is an intense interest towards the curse of the country and developments. Within this context an emphasis should be made on a social reality that focuses on and care about political developments before the economic, social rights and organization problems.

This situation is significant when it comes to organizing and mobilizing the masses. It is both a facilitating effect for the opportunities to organize on the basis of socials right and it is also an advantage that is going to make them strongly unite and connect to the struggle for political power. The level of workers’ and laborers’ interest in the agenda, their contemplation on things cannot be underestimated. In this sense, all this point towards a situation where it is conditioned for vanguards to read, to interpret and to examine the developments more meticulously and thoroughly.

However this picture that we have in this front is a great immobilization, stagnation and inertness. The silence and stagnation that the working class and laborers are in since the Gezi uprising in the face of tons of contradictions and problems cannot be perceived as the success of the fascist dictatorship. The problem should be closely connected to the situation that is created by revolutionary politics that is to create trust in these sections not to be transferred to them in an effective and patient way. Especially the interests of workers and laborers in politics are at the same level under the siege of the reactionary ideology. The weak level of ideological influences and world views that are to give birth to the freedom of workers and laborers such as democratic rights and socialism allow for the reactionary ideological influence to cover a larger space. Within this context, propaganda for revolutionary, democratic revolution and socialism and giving voice to the world view that is going to establish their liberation in the direction of defeats and developments more commonly and strongly towards workers and laborers carries a great significance.

• Kurdish Question and the Kurdish National Struggle

The Kurdish question maintains its position as the most prominent agenda of the country and it will maintain this position in the future. As an important social and political problem the Kurdish question is intertwined and connected with the fundamental contradiction in our country. In this sense it should be seen as one of the contradiction that covers a large space in the revolutionary struggle and in our revolution. Especially the development of the Kurdish national struggle, its feature of being a dynamic struggle against the system, the regional scale of the problem, together with its structure that fall within the zone of interest of imperialism, with its quality to affect the political agenda and the social formation is a strong problem.

The space that the Kurdish question covers is at great important for our social revolution. That is why while handling the question one should establish its specific weight and its relation with the revolution on solid ground and orientations should be directed in accordance and attitudes should be adopted in the same manner. The Kurdish national question is a historical and current issue that has the market problem and the land question in its essence. The solution of the problem is heavily confederated with Democratic People’s Revolution. In this sense as in every colonial and dependent national question, ultimately in this one too the solution is the realization of the right to self-determination. Without the realization of this it is not possible for the Kurdish nation to self-realize itself on the basis on full rights equality, cannot reach its own identity, cannot achieve its national freedom and cannot maintain its social development in a healthy way. Undoubtedly as long as the Kurdish nation cannot gain these rights and as long as it cannot liberate itself from the dependent nation position under the Turkish dominance, it is also not possible for the Turkish people to comprehend the social progress and freedoms and thus to establish a healthy line of struggle. In this sense the Kurdish national question on one hand is the struggle for full right of freedom for Kurds and on the other hand against the chauvinism that the dominant classes create, establishing a struggling position in of the Turkish people in the Kurdish national rights, and purifying them from chauvinism and uniting them on the path of New Democratic Revolution.

Approaches towards the solution of the Kurdish question should be handled and discussed together with the already ongoing dynamics of the Kurdish national struggle. The recipe for solution of the Kurdish National Movement towards the Kurdish question is being shaped as an attitude on the axis of “reconciliation and peace”. Within this context the main reflection of the policy of reconciliation and peace is the denial of right to self-determination, this solution path gaining character on the stratification tendency and is due to a socialist liberationist approach that rejects the existence of state. However the same understanding is at a point where it accepts conditions of co-existence with other sovereign states having gained Kurdish national rights. Undoubtedly this approach is shaped with dilemmas and great confusions in the quality of the sovereign national state and the structure of imperialism. In this sense without the right to self-determination, without the oppressed nation gaining this right it is clear that the oppressing nation will not give up on its national privileges and will every time impose its form of dominance on the political-military-economic and ideological bases. These are realities of life, the fundamental structure of the class struggle. The Kurdish National Movement with the understanding that it developed in regards to the solution of the national question and with its orientation that it flowed in regards to the issues of sovereign nation state and imperialism has its fundamental theories in the “class collaborationist” character. Within this context the solution projects does not give a space of freedom on the basis of full equal right to the Kurdish nation and the solution includes improvement, constitutional regulations of the system without the recognition of right to self-determination and in this sense the reformist solution. Within this context it is inevitable for us to adopt a principal and clear position against the presentation of reformist and improvement based solution of the national question from whoever it might come. We reject the solution that the Kurdish National Movement determined for the freedom of the Kurdish nation and we consider this as national liberationist line’s deviation from revolutionary line.

However this situation should not bring the attitude of not standing next to it, to ignore it even if it fills the dynamics of the national struggle, its mentality-line, its molotovs, its struggling line and its bazookas with reformism. Every democratic right that will be equivalent to within-the system gains, improvement in language and culture, improvements, legal politics in Kurdish national rights should be embraced and fights should be given for them, while waging ideological struggle to its line of reconciliation and peace. This should not change, even with the consideration of the reformist line of the Kurdish National Movement.

However without understanding the fundamental formation of the fascist dictatorship in the Kurdish policy, its policies and its actual objectives, the progress of the struggling dynamics of the Kurdish nation and it adopting a correct form is not possible. On the basis of the foundational philosophy of the fascist dictatorship there is denial of oppressed nations, their assimilation and their engagement to the system throgh Turkification. The moment that this is not realized, oppression, massacres, suppression, dungeons and every sort of instruments of force of the state is enabled. The historical tendency and the attitude of the oppressing nation are generally to protect, solidify and make eternal its dominance “somehow” at the expense of everything. For the fascist state structure this applies even more. Turkish dominant classes as a result of the economic-social structure are weak in essence. This weakness finds its reflection in the form of its administration of social contradictions. Due to this weakness, there is a necessity of the state having the fascist character. Turkish dominant classes and their state have the structure that essentially destroys the democratic ground against every different class, strata, gender and nation, a structure that ignores fundamental rights and would have a ruling problem in the face of their realizations. In this context there is an interest focused on keeping the fascist state existent which is a requirement of being codified to keep oppression and suppression constant. This situation especially applies to the Kurdish question. On this axis, the fascist dictatorship always seeks ways to maintain its policy despite all sorts of jams and hardships, utilizes time and developments for the continuity of this path.

The level of development of the Kurdish question and the Kurdish national struggle, from the point of view of the Turkish dominant classes in the Kurdish question has created a situation that requires disconnecting from the historical formation that is based on the understanding that such a national never existed and could never exist to an extent. The existence of the Kurdish nation especially in four pieces, and that it has gained status in the Iraqi Kurdistan for about 20 years is other factors that corrode the continuity of this policy. Ultimately, at the point that we have arrived, Turkish dominant classes have given up on their traditional theses and attitudes of “denial and that such a nation never existed” in the Kurdish question as a requirement of their regional policies and specifically their policy on Syria. The point that we have arrived is the stage of “There are Kurds but they do not have national rights.” Undoubtedly, the arrival of the fascist dictatorship at this point is an improvement. It is a search for a new form to usurp the Kurdish national rights in the face of the developments and the progress of the process and development of a new policy of denial to administer the contradiction that has reached a level that it is no longer administrable.

Turkish dominant classes, together with the gains of Rojava are in a situation where they feel the “survival problem” stronger. They have taken the Kurdish question out of being an internal problem and more determinately define it as an external problem, a problem that is handled in the regional level. Here, there also is the effect of the movement politically leading the national movement in Kurdistan of Turkey and in Rojava being the same movement. But the actual threat for the Turkish state in the re-shaping of Syria, Kurds making their national rights accepted in the form of federation, autonomy, and province in the future and these being accepted in the international (by the imperialist system) level. This means a irreversible situation in the regional system. Obtaining gains in two parts of for piece Kurdistan would put the administration of the Kurdish question in others to a path that is filled with bumps and hardships, and will narrow down the opportunities for the continuity of assimilation policies. The fascist dictatorship is aware of this situation. However more important than this, the “survival” issue for fascism is the hardship in the continuity of the established states and the current established borders in the Middle East in the form they have now. In this sense, imperialists of the US, the EU, Russia and China agree that the current regional system cannot be maintained as it is. However, what kind of system would replace this one is a question that is essential and unclear as well. It is visible that the existing dominant classes and states need a new make-up in order to maintain both their resistances and their dominance. Imperialism unjamming something or being in the efforts of establishing a more efficient balance is not something that is unknown. Today this constitutes an aspect of the conflict and war in the region. There is an ongoing struggle of having dominance over the market in regards to which imperialist power will appear victorious in especially the separation on the national and belief bases and the establishment of a new balance over forms of dominance that are built on these. Undoubtedly this search for a balance encompasses rooted changes such as re-drawing of the current political borders, emergence of new states, and condemnation of states to new forms of administration. This is not going to happen without war and blood. This situation means at the same time that the contradictions will gain new dimensions and the opportunities of social revolution will expand. Within all these balances, as fascist dictatorship resists against change, and codify every sorts of forms of struggle to delay it, on the other hand it makes calculations of ending up with the least damage and the most profit after the change. That is why it had searched for a “solution” to the Kurdish question for a period of time that is temporary and would create an effect in the region and made calculations of liquidation of the Kurdish National Movement. And now it plans the same effect with protecting what it has and with an ambition of expanding its borders. An emphasis of “National Pact” borders which include some parts of lands of Syria and Iraq is beyond the approach of uttering the words in the “air”. This ambition and desire is a product of a historical appetite. However since this approach too includes the redefining of the border it is not the primary option for the Turkish state. Once the fuse of new states and new borders is lit, it is clear that this is going to be a development that is going to continue with a long and bloody war, that is filled with uncertainties and that is going to touch every state in the region.

Besides this, Turkish dominant classes strictly shut the doors for solutions such as autonomy and federation. There is a consciousness and an attitude that the strongest ground for the separation tendency which is the historical tendency of the national struggle will be provided this way. In this sense they define the national based separation in regards to administration and executive structure as red lines besides the crumbs in respect to linguistic and cultural rights in the Kurdish issue. Transforming its fascist structure to the democratic structure on the basis that is determined by the national movement is for them impossibility in reality. And among all these the strongest option at hand is the strengthening the local administrations. This is an issue that is handled within the framework of the EU acquis. However, also means as an unacceptable crumb in the national question. The capability of this step to disarm the Kurdish National Movement or to slow down the demands for rights in the national question is neither possible in the short term, nor in the long.

There, in front of us, lies a state reality that is stuck in between the new form and maintaining the existing. What makes is dispersed, unclear and as aggressive as it can be on this axis is this objectivity and its subjective state.

The depression and the contradiction that directs it to annihilate the Kurdish national struggle through military operations approximately for the last 4 years stems from here. Usurping and cutting down of the legal opportunities that were obtained in the previous process, abandoning the solution of dialogue that was followed is the expression of their “fears”. And at the same time it is due to the chains tied on it by its political history of its ideological and philosophical structure. However another aspect of these assaults is the fact that the Kurdish National Movement came out as strong as possible from this process. Taking a seat on the table with the bankrupt policies in Syria, the pains of not convincing the imperialists to its own plans and the widespread organization of the Kurdish National Movement undoubtedly means a situation of losing more and at the same time getting jammed for them. The fascist dictatorship undoubtedly protects its ground for dialogue on this issue. However they want their hand as strong as possible and the hand of the Kurdish National Movement as weak as possible and in a state of being stuck in the process at a new table that is to be set up. That is why military operation and force is the cure that was produced against being jammed. This time, their ambition is to progress expanding the opportunities they have in Syria through the means of offensives of invasion. We can speak of a success in this context. However all these successes are temporary, and all have the quality of being moves that will cause them to lose power and weaken on the ground of a new showdown.

It should be clearly determined that exactly at this period the Kurdish National Movement is facing the biggest regression and weakness of its history. Especially due to the ideological-political climate that was created during the solution process, exaggerated self-confidence stemming from the gains of Rojava and causes them to believe to become determinant, the consideration that the US imperialism will corner the Republic of Turkey and push its hand to the table, and undoubtedly forgetting the aggressive, denialist and annihilationist character of the Turkish state, the tactical-political formation and moves in this process are factors that caused it the weaken. The weaknesses that the entire structure becoming legalized during the solution process, both in the democratic field and also the guerilla field and the “Media Defense Zones” have found its reflections. At the juncture that the Turkish state became ready to attach, this rupture in the mentality of the enemy has turned into a bill for the Kurdish National Movement and its armed forces. However more importantly they have neglected the disconformity of an all-out armed uprising move and the contradictions not being at the point of maturation that will allow this kind of a resistance during the urban resistance period. The self-administration, self-resistance war that was realized at the highest level with great sacrifice and heroism was suppressed with the annihilation operation of the fascist dictatorship.

The social and economic structure of our country lay down the correct use of power relations of fascism and forms of struggle as conditions. Without all conditions being suitable, an armed urban uprising that does not focus on hitting the last blow would be inevitably subjected to suppression operation of reactionary forces. Such tactical attempts that are to be carried out under the conditions that are not suitable for a mass armed uprising in the cities, given the maturation of contradictions, undoubtedly would be unsuccessful. The Kurdish National Movement in an attempt on this axis has neglected the power balances and the quality of fascism that is merciless and brutal under every circumstance and in every situation. Finally, a mass uprising at this level decreases the effects of mass actions under this given threshold. If it does not match the suitable threshold in the consciousness of masses, it makes forms of actions below that meaningless. This has an effect in the fact that masses, in the face of all the calls, do not rise for serhildans and do not fill the streets. Another reason is the insecurity towards the compromising and peaceful line of the Kurdish National Movement. Especially in the legal front politics trapped in parliamentarism that creates dilemmas for the mass movement and leaves them alone attract a strong and negative reaction. The point that policies and answers suitable against the attacks of fascism remain weak is the point where the masses feel insecurity. The Kurdish National Movement today stands on this ground of insecurity.

This situation reflect onto the level of struggle, to the movement and to the oppression of the enemy. The enemy quite comfortable can conduct operations of annihilation towards the guerilla and can attempt operations of liquidation in the legal front, and can have invasion campaign in Rojava. This declining level of struggle is a situation that is related to the inadequacy of the mass support. Every regressive step in the support and the movement of masses means an opportunity for an extensive assault for the enemy. And this is what is happening today.

• The State of Revolutionary, Progressive Movements and the Current Ideological-Political Climate

The state of revolutionary movement is more backwards than the state of the movements of workers and laborers. The revolutionary movement has been facing two assaults of liquidation in the last 20 years.

The first one is the physical liquidation movement of the enemy. The enemy had given the strongest message in regards to the size of the liquidation assaults with a large scale move towards the prisons as the 19^th of December. This assault was shaped on one hand as a physical annihilation and on the other as isolating revolutionism and the organized movement. With its external pillar various different ideological instruments had been enabled but the essence of it included the political isolation of revolutionaries from masses, working class and laborers. This assault had been conducted with the consideration that the revolutionary forces had their highest level of organization. Subsequently isolation and liquidation processes had constantly been put into action. Especially the liquidation of organizations, attacks in dungeons and annihilation operations towards the armed struggle had been the essential pillar of this liquidation. Even at times when the revolutionary movement had been defined as the least harmful for the state no breaks had been taken from the extensive assaults of liquidation. Even if it was not perceived as a significant threat the revolutionary movement had been targeted as a subject that is to be exterminated. During this period the enemy, so to speak, locked on towards the unsuccessfulness of the illegal organization and armed struggle. Its primary focal point had been proving the unsuccessfulness of these means. At this point it intensified on illegal structures and targeted armed organizations. It has aimed to hit the last blows to the bleeding and weakening movements in the current situation by putting them into the anaphor of “unsuccessfulness”. This has become focal point of the liquidation. Ripping this ring of the chain has been seen as a facilitating effect in the suppression of large masses of the society and for the entire ideological-political assaults. It is possible to speak of the successes of the police and military in these liquidation assaults. However the most important is the situation that caused the loss of will in the revolutionary movement in the face of these successes. Several movements, organizations and parties that had serious and long historical traditions have melted in this period. There still are organizations that are in efforts to hold on and resist. These revolutionary structures are still under the most vicious attacks of the enemy. Especially the sections that are in connection with illegality and the instrument of force, or possess the possibility to be are in the cross hairs of this liquidation. However this liquidation move is focused on catching in the act. Illegal organization and struggle through armed means in the revolutionary line are being put into the equation of “unsuccessfulness” and being targeted. It is clear that this process will not cease. However it is vitally important not to put up resistance but also make moves and to position through organization that is required by the revolution against this intimidation and liquidation process of the enemy.

The second one is the ideological-political liquidation process. This is a coordinated ideological attack that takes place simultaneously with the attacks of the enemy. Especially the despair and hopelessness that is tried to be created through the liquidation of the fundamental foundations of the revolutionary movement should be laid out. The long historical tradition of the revolutionary movement and together with the properties of the current process the unrealized successes have been a weapon that is turned against the revolutionary movement. Making especially the fall of socialist experiences and the regression of the working class and labor movement the foundation, the argument that the existing revolutionary line cannot produce successes have been turned into a counter-revolutionary weapons and an ideological siege. Intensifying after 1980s, gaining momentum in 1990s and becoming multi-directional in 2000s, this liquidation attack at first focused on the impossibility of illegal style of activities and armed struggle. Movements who had bid farewell to their illegal party organization in 1990s and hastily headed towards reformism based themselves on thousands of different tricks and made-up theories and created a hole in the revolutionary front which was weak at the given time. The fractures in the ideological level were supported with the weakness of the organization strength.

In 2000s the siege and ideological assault towards the existing revolutionary lines followed a unique path in our country. Enemy’s move of sieging and liquidating illegal structures and armed struggle, the EU process, the “democratization” steps in the Kurdish question, the legal opportunities that were opened up with the story of the liquidation of the old traditional military-bureaucratic strata, opportunities for legal politics have caused large scale fractures. As especially the large opportunities at the hands of legal publications, opportunities that were opened up for the democratic mass work, the flexibility of the system when it came to legal protest and marches etc. increased the possibilities in these fields but at the same time facilitated serious problem when it comes to unifying and connecting with these fields.

As a specific situation the influence of the general line of the Kurdish National Movement should be added here. The new path the Kurdish National Movement took in 2000s by condemning its “classical” national liberalist line and adopting social liberationist paradigm has provided a significant morale support to the claims of renewal towards the revolutionary line and created a deep insecurity towards the old lines. Especially the successes that the Kurdish National Movement obtained with wholesome projects and policies such as democratization, democratic-socialism, democratic-autonomy, “Turkeyfication” gave birth to a magical climate. On one hand armed struggle and on the other the effective use of the legal-democratic field and additionally the obtained successes despite “the renewal”. Exactly this picture hastily embraced the approaches that reads the returns from socialism from the point of view of the liberal world view, that are weak, that are under a subtle pressure and in the anaphor of a deep insecurity. Without the “class collaborationist” and “eclectic” structure of the general political line of the Kurdish National Movement, its rejectionist approach towards the theory of MLM being made a matter of ideological struggle, some have gone under its political influence. The struggle that the Kurdish National Movement developed through self-renewal has encouraged the courage of trying “new” things. Especially in revolutionary movements that are ideologically and organizationally weak, this change and political-tactical and even courageous attempts led to the deepening of line related problems and caused these movements to fall under the charming influence of the magical environment. Within this context, attacks against fundamental MLM theories under the name of MLM, the historical denial approach that utters “nothing will the as they used to be, past is past”, caused the organization of masses and the reality of them being the constructive force in history being stood against the obligation of vanguard and the leader force, theorizing of NGO understandings such as flexibility in organization or shyly and quietly to become a line.

The HDP process has made the creation of this picture of liquidationism and reformism much stronger. Especially with the HDP, as the “Turkeyfication” issue created resting against reformism in the resolution of the national question, the parliamentary opportunities that the organization strength does not allow led the way for the emergence of a degenerating and wearing outcome. Parliamentarism with a serious ideological influence wrapped itself around the movements in this period.

The mental non-preparation towards this ideological and political regression period, destruction in the awareness of the enemy, the situation of wrapping one’s self around the legal opportunities with all its force, the encompassing influence of the visible and the popular rapidly lost altitude against the all-out attack of the enemy and created the ground for “retreatist” policies to be implemented in a non-defined and rapid manner instead of the line of resistance and holding on in the armed war. A line that is timid and shy against the attacks of the enemy has evolved into an understanding makes do with resistance in the legal and democratic field. Within this context, it should be stated that a great fracture has taken place in regards to the footholds of the revolutionary line.

One of the greatest problems in this period in revolutionary and progressive movements are the rightist and shallow approaches that undermine “the ideological struggle” but makes do with the tendency of “constant unification”. On this basis, the ideological-political struggle among the movements has long been suspended. A struggle front at the level of lines has been dismissed or has been treated as a “historical artifact” that belongs to the dust pages of history. Besides this, the obligation for the weak forces to be strengthened with unities of action has been handled fundamentally with an incorrect line. This line has been turned into constant unification, and the propaganda of nothing can be done without unification. Especially strong unities have been created with minimum programs and big claims however a process that movements have become shortsighted towards each other’s class qualities and class structures has taken place. As unification was blessed, the ideological struggle that is based on class distinctions has been undermined. Besides this, the issue of leadership and vanguardship has been made insignificant, and has been dragged as a meaningless force along the movement. At this point the ideological fractures have become deepened; the demarcation lines have become non-visible and already based points of unities have constantly been made essential. Not unity in struggle but fusion and adaptation on the line has become the essential style.

There is no movement that does not experience these problems today. In this sense liquidation works in two directions. A rightist wind that feeds and strengthens one another marks the process. There is an extensive process of liquidation in which reforms and revolutions are being confused, the consciousness of the masses are being blurred, reformism is made do as revolutionism, the masses are being tried to be convinced that we are inside an era in which changes within the system are more possible.

• The State of the Party

The general picture of the revolutionary-progressive movement and the country should also be seen as the weaknesses that our Party carries in its chest. Our Party has an experience, accumulation and continuity of 47 years. Our Party should be considered with the things that it accomplished and with the things that it has not accomplished, with the things that it was able to in regards to the strict loyalty to the cause of communism and its realization in our country, with how and in which form it created and re-created its general political line, with its policy on cadres, style of work and its experience that has been intensified with labor for 47 years. Only comprehending today, establishing dominance over today through the examination of its problems will allow us to take past experience and accumulation in a multi-directional, wholesome and strong way into consideration. In this sense the problems, weaknesses that we are experiencing today, our confrontation of struggle, the level of connection of our general line and our organizational body, level of comprehension, shortcomings in our military line and our level of relation with our entire war strategy requires a close-up and multi-directional examination. At the point that we cannot have this intensification and focus, it is not possible to comprehend the spirit of time, the structure of the current period, building and shaping organizations in accordance with the contradiction introduced by this, the problems in our mass line and wholesome structure and problems of People’s War.

Today the greatest problem in our Party is the weakness of the claim of becoming the solution to social contradictions and all of their reflections in our fields of activities. This is directly related to not having claims in the relations with the class struggle and the inadequacy to lead it. While coming into contact with the problems of revolution, problems of the people, problems of the class struggle there is a structure that is shaped as self-sacrificing revolutionaries, a strong expectation that is created on this axis, however a positioning that coming into contact with these problems in a communistic manner being less important. Within this context the question at hand is being a community of good revolutionaries, however positioning as weak against contradictions and as lazy leaders and communists in examining and bringing them to solutions. The limitation of our Party in its claim of leading and being leader being limited to the leadership of the Party is the most fundamental structure of this situation of not having claims. In fact, leadership is the most fundamental element of the communist identity. Of this mission and responsibility is not comprehended, a line, a life style, a line of organization, a method of examination and the required organizational structure is not constructed it means that there is an erosion in the foundations of the communist identity. Establishing and constructing the communist identity is only possible with a change, transformation and orientation that are going to be the answer to these needs. Not having claims make its reflection with various aspects. However there are two structures of the projections of hindering becoming leaders of not having claims in our Party. The first is the attitude that postpones and avoids in the face of problems. A determinism that takes distance to examine the emerging problems and that throws in the towel instead of adopting an approach that focuses on resolving them. This picture is a problem that finds its reflection from the entire leadership to the lowest elements. In this way, the ability to resolve problems does not develop, a concrete focus in the intensification and examination is not obtained and the persistent stance and positioning is eroded. This picture after a while creates a situation where carelessness become systematic and the accumulated problems gain more dimensions. Determinism spreads like a virus to the organizational structure. Within this context, yes, having a claim requires a communist will at one point. The outcome being unsuccessful is outside of our subject. However, trying and trying again, showing that you are a force of resolution is an attitude and a positioning. This positioning that is not portrayed in the face of contradictions causes a reality that hinders developments and brings the ideological problems to the level of having no claim.

The second is expecting. This is a kind of idealism. In the face of responsibilities that are to be undertaken, the attitudes that expect solution with an abstract definition of the Party and the leadership are rather wide-spread. This is a positioning of being an object, instead of being a subject. This kind of expecting means to be subjected to all sorts of surroundings of idealism. This approach lends a hand to the approach that seeks for problems outside. Not becoming the force of resolution of the problems, expecting someone else to do it is throwing the problems outside. This is the situation of not having a claim to be weaved thread by thread. It is an attitude of being a civil servant against the class struggle. Every behavior that forgets to become a subject in the class struggle undoubtedly points towards the problem of having claims and becoming the leadership. This appears as the most important problem in our Party structure today.

Within this context, our Party must be in an orientation that makes the historical responsibility of the Party and the obligation and the necessity of the class struggle to be comprehended towards its cadres, its elements and its organization body. Our Party, as laying its foundations had adopted a very assertive positioning. A communist at the age of 23 appeared in the scene of history, without being condemned to shortcomings and inadequacies, embracing his historical responsibilities of that moment, constructing the most advanced theoretical foundations raised the flag of international proletariat in Turkey. In this sense it is not acceptable for a Party that has such a foundation and its elements to flutter with the situation of not having claims. At this point the historical mission of communists and revolutionary and the inevitability of undertaking it once this responsibility is grasped should be comprehended. Without creating this comprehension, without creating the collective consciousness of taking its practical steps, there will not be opportunities for moves for ideological advances towards forward.         

7- Proletarian Revolutionism and Its Method of Examination

There are two types of revolutionisms. The first is revolutionism with the petty-bourgeois character, and the second is proletarian revolutionism. The petty-bourgeois revolutionism is being limited in the broadest meaning. It as big goals and targets however its place relative to the life is limited. Its desire and eagerness is big, sometimes it is courageous and audacious, and hasty, its foresight towards the future is under the captivity of this hastiness. That is why it cares and adopts the situation and the development of the moment, and its spirit and orientation is shaped in accordance with it. Its motivation is not based on historical legitimacy, but on injustice and unrighteousness of the moment. The most fundamental target of the petty-bourgeois revolutionary is only the enemy in front of them. It calculates its every moment, every step, every practice, every formation and every single handling of contradictions no from the perspective of creating a classless society but from its interest from the political equation of the moment. It neglects the relation in between these two. In that sense it does not care about the relation of property. It is not vigilant against all emerging form of it because first and foremost there is legitimacy in property relations due to its own world view. This type of revolutionism acts on motivation and flattery with its tottering properties. It builds all relations on the equation of value and worthlessness. It does not care about the communist perspective that efforts to erase all values. It organizes life through momentary calculations, momentary contemplations and momentary reactions. This type of revolutionism is widespread on the lands of country. That same prevalence also applies to our Party.

The second is proletarian revolutionism. Proletarian revolutionary is the one who is aware of the fact that “the duty of abolishing classes” is the toughest and the hardest of duties. It is the one who strictly adheres to this. They are the ones who keep their conscious, their horizon and their attitude alive in regards to abolishing classes and they are the ones who have the claim to realize this at any given moment. The initial duty of revolutionism is to demolish the enemy but what is more difficult than this is to abolish classes. This means to be in relation with the class struggle having this perspective and establishing the full relation of this struggle with the historical relation of the individual. Proletarian revolutionaries should never forget the perspective of abolishing classes in the hierarchy in their organizational relations, in their relations with the people, in the equation of the ruler and the ruled, in the inter-class relation and in their relations with life. So, what does this mean? This mean taking shape in accordance with the life, culture and world view of proletariat that is the one and only class that is going to abolish classes in the social structure that is based on classes, and continuous ideological struggle. This point of view means the responsibility to seek for contradiction at any moment and in every situation, the examination of the contradiction, the discovery of the two aspects of the phenomena persistently and determinately, and to find the proletarian aspect, the progressive aspect. Proletarian revolutionism is ruling the reality, establishing dominance over it. It should be interested in not what is seen, but what is rational. It eans having patience in the march towards classless society, it means not to be hasty. It means not to limit the beginning and the end point of history with its own. Proletarian revolutionism means the struggle of taking everything into account in a multi-directional way and the struggle of continuous, tireless learning. Proletarian revolutionism means struggle against bourgeois diseases that keep emerging ceaselessly and to achieve a revolution that does not end. This means being purified from the property relations and their understanding, giving up on loving one’s self and the fight for not turning neither the Party nor the comrades into one’s own property. This exactly is the decaying type of revolutionism which at the same time is visible to have problems in its implementation in our Party.

8- Our Mass Line

The period that we are in is a period in which every layer of bourgeois world view is active. Returns from socialism have ripped the curtain and revealed themselves and consequently the proletarian worldview has entered a depression of insecurity and has become a worldview that is perceived by large masses from distance. In this sense, a period where the level of struggle is rather stagnant has not been overcome both in the international sense and in our country. If the periodical political explosion to wear an ideological dress, they wear the dress of petty-bourgeois ideologies and they are shapes by them.

The mass line that proletarian revolutionary will follow with patience and determination in such periods of stagnation is very important. In such periods all orientations and politics should be towards the forward mass. The possibilities for the weak force to be organized and developed are among this mass. Forward masses are masses to win easily, that are politicized, sensitive and analyzing towards issues and suitable for mobilization. There is a thin line between this mass and the organized section. The organized section and our Party should determine its orientation and politics minding this mass and adopt a line that addresses their spirit and that convinces them to organize.

Today, we can speak of an accumulated and large mass in this nature. This mass is anti-fascist, anti-feudal and anti-imperialist. There is a mas that rapidly is politicized due to the political climate of the country and due to prevalence of means of communication and interaction and makes its politicization felt at every moment of life. Communists cannot fall behind this mass. Falling beyond this mass in the level of analysis of problems, in approach towards issues, in producing tools of solution and in mobilization means the proletarian revolutionary line not to become the leadership. Today, we can speak of an organized structure that is to some extent at the same level and time to time falls behind of the political level of the aforementioned mass in showing interest and taking attitudes towards developments. This applies to the general scene. Our Party should adopt an approach that focuses on the state of this mass. It should examine their tendencies, political levels and their conditions of mobilizations concretely field by field and must bring its organizational structure that is going to be one step ahead of them. This at the same time means the organization of tactical-politics minding and addressing them, and an attitude that is focused on winning and mobilizing them. Under such situations neglecting the behind and the middle mass is inevitable. The neglect in this nature under the conditions that the force, level of organization and the movement falls behind is not a great sin but on the contrary it is obligatory for the dynamics of progress.

We should shape our thought structure, formation and orientation in accordance with this necessity. We should change our point of view in the direction of this necessity and make it applicable. Our politics and attitudes in regards to the forward mass at the same time mean organizing an effective line of struggle against the system rapidly. An issue that is not to be forgotten at this point is not to miss out our historical identity that will provide for the ideological equipment of this mass, taking matters into consideration on the class basis and adopting a formation that suits it the best.

9- The Ideological-Political Struggle

The structure of the process that develops on the basis of rightism is also reflected to the field of ideological-political struggle. The understanding that makes the class distinctions blurred and that established unities without struggle is the dominant line among all progressive, revolutionary, democratic sections, in movement, parties and organizations. Such a formation means covering the existing contradictions, making points of separation insignificant and the making the dynamics that the progress through conflict would create fade.

Our Party does not only have the responsibility to expose the enemy and make masses fight against it, but at the same time it has the responsibility to raise consciousness in the people against the weak, wrong, problematic, opportunistic, reformist and revisionist line of the political representatives of various classes and sections among the people. It is not possible to dominate the reality, enrich the theory, develop the struggle and progress the political level of the people without fulfilling this duty. It also means to ignore the reality of political understandings and differences and that split in classes and seek to have their political representation. This situation also applies to the Party. This is a phenomenon that exists within the class struggle within the Party. The dynamics of progress of the Party too, must be based on the two-line struggle. This is a phenomenon.

Within this context the ideological struggle must be conducted in two different forms and must be conducted based on two different rules. The first is the ideological struggle within the Party and the second is the struggle against external opportunist, reformist and revisionist currents.

It is an obligation for the ideological struggle within the Party to gain a continuous and constant character. This is what is going to keep the Party awake and will lead to the analyses of bourgeois lines and orientations and the self-development of the proletarian line. At this point, Our Party experiences a serious inadequacy. Especially liberal and compromising tendencies are essentials. This can be formulized as “live and make live” understanding. The ground that liberal and compromising tendencies develop in our Party at the same time crates a situation that confidence is damaged, and a situation where dominance is lost on the basis of struggle and open discussion and lines. The situations where there are shortcomings and this is hidden are the grounds where gossip, insusceptibility and hidden factionism bloom. Our Party has experienced such problem in its history several times. The ground that the right-liquidationist factionism bloomed in the recent times is again this compromising and liberal line. Approaches of “live and make live”, “you don’t touch me I will not touch you” and two line struggle not being carried out in a healthy way cause great problems to accumulate and the bourgeois line to hide itself in a sneaky way. Our Party must settle two-line struggle from its level of leadership to its lowest committees as a whole. At every field that there is a party activity the ground for clear, definite and trust-instituting two-line struggle should be established. This is the way for the unity of will and action and the solidification of trust among comrades. This struggle at the same time constitutes the guarantee for the development and the progress of the Party. Our Party faces serious problems in its method of examination, in its theoretical level, in its interest in political developments, and in the enriching of its tactical-political line. Settling the ideological struggle on this axis means the ground for serious developments. This is the guarantee of the party unity.

In ideological-political struggle with external forces, the reflections of the criticisms above in regards to the revolutionary movement also exist in our Party. Even though a more clear and active line of ideological struggle has been adopted for a time, this is still quite inadequate. Because the period that we are in is a period where there are serious deviations, wrong readings of the processes develop, and compromising and class collaborationist line penetrate into the entire revolutionary-progressive sections. Our Party at this point should adopt a more active and effective line of ideological struggle against the external forces. This should be perceived as an activity that should be conducted in our entire party works. This should not be seen solely a duty of some certain cadres. Every deviation that emerges in activities, every problem that occurs in fields of common struggle, every incorrect approach that is reflected to the specific fields should be a matter of interest of every single comrade and at this point we should be clear towards our friends by choosing the path of active ideological struggle. This path will solidify the revolutionary relations and relations of friendship and will lead to its progress.

10 – The Style of Work and Organization

Creating organizations and strengthening already existing organizations is indispensable in instituting the leadership of the Party. Another point that is as important as the determinativeness of politics is the determinativeness of organizations. In order for revolution to be the work of masses, they need to be organized and mobilized. And this is only possible with the creation of an organization that is strict, disciplined, connected and looks towards the same direction.

Our Party organization today is at a very backward level. There is a serious contradiction with our level of organization and the size of our base and the mass that we influence. An important and serious part of the sections that are around us are unorganized. This picture requires us to experiences hardships in enlarging our base, making our existing organizations stronger and more functional. A style of organization and organizational culture that organizes while getting organized, that drags while progressing and that is constantly organized towards the forward step has not yet been created. There is a state of paralysis when it comes to diversifying and enriching our rather stagnant organizations. This situation, instead of the progress of our organizations, creates an organizational formation in the style that is condemned to have one form and an organization in the status quoist style.

Organizing is at the same time a matter of politics. It requires to be shaped in the direction of determined orientations and targets, being formed and positioned in accordance with it, determining and conducting the possibilities that this situation requires. This maturation and progress is the way for progress in organization.

The Party organization is determinant in organizing. It is vital to create a party organization that is focused to lead, produces politics and implements them, moves with common spirit and unity of action, focused on the main orientation and functions on this axis. The most important problem of our Party today is not to be organized in the minimum in this adequacy. At a point where there is no strong party organization, it is not possible to speak of a strong leadership and commanding the class struggle.

Strengthening of our Party organizations, developing ideological, political and organizational leadership skills is one of the most important duties in front of us. This is a compulsory duty of developing the class war and sharpening the struggle.

The shaping of our organizations on the basis of proletarian revolutionism and at the ideological level should be taken into consideration at the principal level. Within this context our existing weaknesses, inadequacies, our level of relation with the class struggle, our consciousness of enemy, our lifestyle, our level of efficiency, our dimension of being connected to the party problems should be entirely reconsidered. The responsibility to rapidly construct a collective style of work, function and mechanism that can confront its inadequacies and show the willpower to overcome them is on our shoulders. We shall begin with examining ourselves at this point, closely examining. We need to quickly dodge the situation of utters the correct and makes “laziness” resting against them. We need our correct line to be matures, equipped, enriched and become a solution force against concrete contradictions in the struggle. It is not possible to develop our Party or to make it a political power against the problems of the class struggle without focusing on these, and taken these into consideration within the war and struggle with a party consciousness.

Our Party organizations, on this axis, must establish fields of examination in order to designate their own state and realities concretely, the realities and necessities of their fields, the state and level of forward masses. This period of examination should at the same time take the form of training. Every examination must be conducted with a serious focus on drawing results in the revolutionary political line. On this basis, it should not be forgotten that the theoretical and political level will develop in the problems of the class struggle. It is not possible for this development to reach the wished level and become multi-directional if concrete examinations are not done.

Our Party organizations must focus on sharpening the struggle at every front internally and externally, they should contemplate about this and organize discussion for its concrete projection. The sharpening of struggle means organizational line, and the leadership ability of our party committees. We are not speaking of a sharpening of war and struggle that is independent from the objective conditions and reality. Sharpening of struggle means the production of policies that are compatible with the objective situation and that are to embrace it. Again, the produced politics should effectively and rapidly be put into practice with instruments that fit the objective situation. This means the testing of our embraced corrects in the practical field. This focus is the law of a correct education and correct progress. The responsibility of examining the emerging and accumulating experiences, them being deployed in the field of war through the most effective summary and turning them into strengths is on the party organizations. Carrying and undertaking this responsibility will be the first and strongest step for the maturation of our organizations.

11- A Fighting Party, Shaping according to War and People’s War

The strategic orientation of our party is the line of Protracted People’s War. Our Party since its declaration of foundation initiated the People’s War and the guerilla warfare that is a requirement of it. In its 47 year long period, the war has followed a course of ups and down and our Party has made efforts to put the party line in practice with great altruism, prices, labor and efforts. However the point that we are at is a point where our line is not creatively put into practice, does not produces successes and it is a point that does not correspond to permanent and productive war strategy. We still are in a reality of existence and progress and at the starting level.

Undoubtedly the reality of the picture of our war today is not independent from the reflection of the accumulated experiences on the cadres, our foresight towards the war and our level of connection with it, our caliber of planning and implementation, the organization of our strategic line in our history and the legacy that is transferred from here. In this sense our depth, our belief and our expectations in regards to our war and our strategy should carry all the traces of the past. Within this context, in consideration with our historical experience, Our Party does not see the situation of our Party not being able to march on our main course and on our strategic line to be discussed through the correctness our faultiness of this strategic line proper. At the most fundamental level our Party must focus how and in what forms it leads this war strategy and the general political line, how it carries it out and how it directs and shapes it. Only as a result of this examination what is correct, what is incorrect, what is a mistake and what is a shortcoming can be determined.

Ultimately the reality of social and economic structure puts us face to face with the reality that shows the important of force in the resolution of every problem and contradiction and it is at work at every situation. This is a situation that can easily be detected through the examination of yesterday and today. Within this context the question of the war that we could not have raised brings us to the shortcomings that are based on subjectivity in the implementation of the war strategy of our Party, not to our war strategy not fitting objectivity.

Our Party has no doubts that the People’s War which is our revolution strategy is commanded correctly under the leadership of the proletariat that it will be victorious. Instead of looking for the problems that we experience and the reasons behind the struggle not being raised on this strategic line, it is important to adopt a formation that deepens on this strategic line that renders the problems of the war and the class struggle around this general political line and enriches and makes it applicable. The history of our Party, as being the history of formation in accordance with the People’s War, is at the same time the history of deviations from the spirit of war. Starting from the leadership level, our entire Party has not been able to create a formation that fits the requirements of the People’s War, and that is focused on leading it, the intensification and deepening in these. A consistent and persistent line to fulfill its requirements has not been maintained in the history of our Party. Persistence and determination in the guerilla struggle, persistence and determination is armed war, has been limited by the persistence and determination in the line of resistance however there has never been a dilemma, a backwardness and hesitation in the comprehension and implementation of the entirety of war.

At periods in which social and political contradictions have intensified and the class struggle has risen the situation of not being able to carry out the formation, positioning, organization and strategic and tactical moves that the People’s War require has been recorded in our history as missed opportunities. Our Party and our armed forces that develop and grow in parallel to the growth of the class struggle has not followed the positioning that is required by the People’s War and to the obligation that all our organizations should be shaped by this. This situation has prevented the class struggle to be sharpened, to be carried to new stages and the war to reach a developed and complicated structure.

The People’s War Strategy that is going to realize New Democratic Revolution is wholesome. The fact that the main center of this war strategy is guerilla struggle does not mean that our war should be limited to here. Formation in accordance with People’s War means to be inside the war at every front of the war in our revolution strategy in which the armed struggle is essential from beginning to the end. Without this formation it is not possible to strengthen our Party which the war destined it to keep standing. And at the same time as long as the Party does not create this formation it does not seem possible for it to reproduce itself on the communist line, preserve its qualities and to command the revolution. In this sense our party activities must be shaped within the war. When we limit the war to only guerilla struggle, when we consider it only with the front, the picture that appears in front of us is a rear-front formation that remains as the logistics and human resource supporter of the war. And this means limiting our revolution strategy to some certain regions and the guerilla front that is limited with some regions, not constructing the strategy for the country’s revolution in its entirety. Comprehending the structure and quality of the guerilla struggle that influence all other forms of struggle and the entirety of war that direct and shapes it and taking political formation in accordance with its requirements incorporates inadequacies in focusing on its requirements. The incomprehension of our wholesome war means incomprehension of the role and function of our guerilla struggle and its relation with other forms of struggles and fields. Today, this stands as our greatest problem.

War is the form that social contradictions are ruled by violence. And it is at the same time the obligation to direct violence to the resolution of these contradictions. People’s War is the organization that causes the confrontation of the people in all fields to be shaped in the resolution of contradictions, in accordance with the rules and requirements of the war against the system completely and their mobilization to the struggle for power. Without he consciousness, struggle and the programmatic stance of direction to violence in the resolution of the contradiction of the masses of people, one cannot go beyond being imprisoned within the boundaries of the system, being mobilized on the axis of narrow economic-social interests of the people.

Formation in accordance with the war, within the existing objective situation, is the struggle of pulling the masses to a militant line of the Party in the resolution and perspective of contradictions. Militancy is at the same time being positioned against the contradiction in accordance with the spirit of war. A consciousness in regards to the enemy phenomenon, comprehension towards how to struggle against it is a stance and a position in the emergence of war as a need. War is the intensified form of politics. Militancy is a positioning that is required to be shaped in accordance with the requirements of political intensification that is codified and organized at a forward level for political power. It means the handling of every work and policy to be done through a point of view that fits this form of intensification, to be examined with an approach that it will direct to this and to be transformed into an orientation through drawing conclusions. Standing at a determined and limited level, remaining there, being imprisoned in fear and anxiety, defining the backward consciousness as the reality and being adapted to it is falling outside of the formation that the war requires.

Within this context in this period in which the revolutionary situation manifests tendencies to rise a fighting party, a line that is focused on the guerilla warfare and intervenes in contradictions with the critical power of the weapons is vitally important. We have a social structure in which everything expects a resolution through force and that this is effective and determinative. War takes place for the revolution, it is necessary for its requirements and it is the one and only way of its realization. This comprehension and approach bring a correct positioning against every contradiction. The conditioned obligation of the Party for revolution and communism will bring it to take the form of the character of being the most effective, most destructive and the most constructive of war. Without the army and the armed forces of the people, it is not possible for people to look at the right direction and to fight with confidence in its contradictions with the enemy. Our consciousness towards the historical role of violence and force is a step to confront the process. However our current responsibility for the organization of violence and force and directing them has the objectivity that will transform into a comprehension at the highest level in this period.

This period should be assessed especially within the regional war, conflict and tension. Up until yesterday, there was a social climate that was liberalized in the sense that the contradictions could not be resolved through “war and weapons”. The armed struggle had been an ideological siege in this way. But today, there is a political climate in regards to the fact that no force that does not have weapons and army is capable of resolving the contradictions and the inevitable significance of weapons, violence and force. Both the historical experiences and the current realities manifest that against the reaction, an organized force that is not organized according to the war, hundreds of thousands that are not armed do not stand a chance for victory. On the other hand the organizational capability and directing and mobilizing power of a force that is organized with weapons stand at the most fundamental position against the enemy that is armed from head to toe.

The fascist dictatorship continuously showcases its strength through methods based on force and violence and wishes to become a power both in the country and in the region. Its all-out attack against the Kurdish nation and large oppressed masses of the people is in essence realized through the instruments of force. At this point it has not yet managed to suppress the Kurdish national and the oppressed. However it is clear that it will continue its attacks and will demonstrate the determination to continue these attacks by intensifying them. Under the conditions where the contradictions are being tried to be suppressed through violence, weapons and batons and these policies are realized with the strictest and the most disciplined manner, it should not go unnoticed that the opportunities and possibilities for raising the revolutionary war gets more and more stronger. The conditions for People’s war which is the path for our revolution are becoming more suitable in comparison with the past and this creates a larger ideological-political ground for the stronger implementation of our war strategy.

The enemy positions itself with an approach and attitude towards the development of the revolutionary situation. The new situation especially the regional developments would trigger, under the conditions where all the building rocks of the political-economic crisis to reach striking levels are laid out, formation and shaping in accordance with the war and for the war is an obligation for a revolutionary movement. The fascist dictatorship is focused to blow this positioning up, to weaken all the political subjects, guerilla forces and underground organizations that try to prepare for this process, to annihilate and paralyze them.

Our Party too is one of the targets of this process of annihilation and destruction. In this sense a war of holding on, a resistance war is being conducted by our armed forces and organizations. In the period that we are in, holding on and getting out of the resistance war, operations of annihilation and the siege is vitally important. Getting out of and pulling through from this attack will not be the policy of “retreat”. Defending such a policy means to be distant to comprehending the properties of the process, the tendency of the contradictions and the requirements towards the needs and organization of the people. That is why our Party holds the opinion that the policy of retreat has a fata ideological-political character. A mobilization and intensification towards holding on and resisting is still determinative. It is obligatory for all Party forces to have a positioning against this war of annihilation and destruction in their fields of activities, to establish the organization of masses that is to turn into every sort of political and practical support including morale support to our guerilla forces, the development of the organization body in the ideological political level, creating awareness in the masses against the war of annihilation and intensification on a resistant line against the despair and hopelessness that the war of annihilation creates.

We should act with the awareness that we are inside the war, and we are at the heart of it. If this is not comprehended, our way of doing politics, our organization in the fields, agitation-propaganda methods, our priorities cannot be comprehended on the correct axis. Our persistence on our general political line is only possible through persistence, determination and patience in the resistance war that we are passing through. This is what we need in order to confront the process.

Our Party will put formation in accordance with the war to essential in all its activities. All works and orientations will be taken into consideration to feed and strengthen the war. Undoubtedly advancing the People’s War means the application of the most creative and richest revolutionary line and politics in every field, organization and mobilization of large masses on this basis. This at the same time is the effective use of instruments of struggle that are based on force and their creative application against the contradictions. This also stands as a compulsory situation that requires the consolidation of our Party organizations. Consolidation will be the systemized product of the manner that will be determined with this perspective. Another thing that we need in this period is thinking, formation and intensification that focus on the ideological-political and organization requirements of our guerilla forces and of war. Against the all-out attack of the enemy and its orientation that is organized and creates an entirety, our Party forces should also be specialized and connected and in an attitude that feeds one another and strengthens the war. The coordination, direction of the war, not leaving the war to the initiatives of the enemy is at the same time possible through the development of the function of being an organization. We should lock as an organization that thinks under one program, that locks onto a target altogether, that focuses and coordinates on the common needs. If this is met, every development and conflict can be transformed into a policy and act that is shaped by the war. The weakening of the technical aspect of the enemy, battering the morale of the enemy, debilitating the instruments of psychological war, defeating the policies and attacks that aim to condemn the people to despair, hopelessness and disorganization will be possible through this approach.

Fighting while getting organized, getting organized while fighting; fighting while organizing, organizing while fighting! As organizing large masses would reproduce the war, the line of war based on the guerilla struggle means at the same time the reproduction of all organizations. This is a reality created by our social structure. As the critical force of weapons under the command and leadership of the Party would shatter the chains tied to the minds of the oppressed masses of people, it will also increase the determination for organization and struggle. Thus, we will have more opportunities to overcome our existing weaknesses, our anxieties and worries and shortcomings and inadequacies in this way.

We are face to face with the duty of transforming our historical responsibility to a political force. An exemplary responsibility, such as weaving the path of our Party to become the leadership in the class struggle piece by piece, weaving it with patience, persistence and loyalty to the line of People’s War stands in front of us. It is our essential duty to create an intensification to pull our current organization to the level of ideological-political leadership to the class struggle starting from this very day. A line that become proletarian revolutionary with a strict loyalty to the cause, that approaches problems with this stance as it resolves the contradictions in its direction to the masses, that is courageous in the ideological-political struggle with this point of view, portrays a militant political line and practical stance against the enemy would lead to the construction of Party organizations, their development and consolidation. Now, back to duty…