STRUGGLE OF WORKING CLASS

STRUGGLE OF WORKING CLASS

1. Revolutionary Strategy
• Councils
• Worker Organizations
• Worker Control on Production
2. Attitude in the first four congresses of the 3rd International
3. Working with Bourgeoisie Political Parties
4. Transition Demands
5. Role of Revolutionary Party
6. Duties in the Period In Front of Us

1. Revolutionary Strategy
TEKEL resistance became one that did show the dimensions of economic crisis. In a period in which the workers' resistance such as Marmaray, Kent Is, Taris, Cimen Tekstil, with the TEKEL resistance, it is time to re-evaluate the Left's own revolutionary strategy. That is the point if theories of the political parties, which claim themselves as the leaders of the working class, are useful or not under the hard circumstances. If a theory is not working under the crisis conditions, there is a mistake with that theory. The line that separates the Marxist theories from the others is absolute: Marxist theories are functional in crisis and increasing working class movement periods.
Most of political movements in Turkey practiced to pass silently the period of TEKEL resistance. Active Political movements, on the other hand, placed with the concrete solidarity in the tent city built by TEKEL workers. This Second kind of political movements could success to break workers’ prejudices against the Left. As a concrete result: carrying consciousness to the working class, which is a Leninist principle, was transformed into carrying consciousness by the working class to political organizations. That is a measure, which shows that Political organizations are not ready for such a struggle. One of the aims of this essay is, in the light of experiences of TEKEL resistance, to examine theories and practices of revolutionary part and of other Leftist movements.
Concretely speaking, TEKEL resistance proves that carrying consciousness to working class by political organizations, which is a Leninist principle, in fact, transforms into carrying consciousness to political organizations by working class. This shows that existing political organizations are not ready to such struggle. It became obvious as a result of this basic state that there was no Leninist political party. There is a correlation between spontaneous actions of working class and revolutionary party. But in TEKEL resistance, this became a one-sided situation because where there was a working class, there was not a revolutionary worker party.
But the point worthy to talk about is that what kind of the path is the way going to revolution.
It is necessary to revise the ideas about this question. Movements arguing that the revolution in Turkey will be realized other forces rather than the working class are passive and this passivity is appropriate to the nature of things. There is a trend to remove working class from being the only class that can overcome capitalism and to reduce the working class’ importance with the other classes.
In fact, all petit bourgeoisie movements have a common point: reducing importance of proletariat and Keeping proletariat equivalent with other classes. Anarchist movements aim to create an abstract human profile and revolutionary processes unless having social changes. Movements that support urban guerilla think it is possible to realize the revolution by vanguards with a “steal discipline” and without understanding the concrete situation of working class. Worker support to this fight is important. While Che and Fidel were fighting in Cuba, workers were rebelling and they could realize the revolution. On the other hand, Che lost his life because Communist Party in Bolivia did not support him. So, these two struggles were comprehended two different fights from two different worlds. In practice, working class is reduced to supporting group of vanguards. Nobody even thinks about mobilization of workers without petite bourgeoisie political parties that has a “steal will”. It is even not argued that self-organized worker organizations. They believe in steal will of vanguards and they do not believe in workers can form their own strike committees.
Maoist Communist Party (MCP=MKP), which supports rural guerillas, reveals these ideas: ‘We will improve theoretical and practical, general and concrete struggle in every shields of public war’ (MKP, Resolution no. 101). Working class struggle is one of shields… From now on, proletariat is not the class that will realize the revolution, but it is distorted representation of reality to prove formulas, which are hidden behind the schematic forms. Whenever it even says that working class must learn, in fact, MCP cannot go beyond abstract slogans. Those slogans raised MCP:
‘Unite under the proletariat leadership in public power!’
‘Long live legal and democratic struggle of TEKEL workers for gaining Their rights!’
‘Long live workers and working classes’ unity-solidarity and struggle!’
‘We will win, People will win, people’s struggle will win!’
Actually these abstract slogans are nothing than an attitude that does not have any preparation and looks proletarian struggle from far away.
There is a concrete result which sources from vanguards using themselves in place of working class, and tradition of working with guerilla groups. Those guerilla groups’ point of view affects many Leftist people, too. From now on, struggles are divided into two as struggle of proletariat and struggle of non-proletariat. Groups, which want to realize the revolution rather than to look for the ways making working class as the determinant of the revolution, see the working classes that act for ‘economic demands’ and thus think that political struggle is out of the proletariat. A lack about executing two struggles together. Political struggle is given to the party and economic demands is brought to working class. There are two separate worlds for petit bourgeoisie organizations that do not accept political struggle from inside of the working class. There is an interesting example for this situation. An intellectual, Temel Demirer, comments and declares that: ‘From now on, there are people at the Center of Ankara, who support others on the highs of Dersim.’ Two separate worlds will unite and there is nothing to do for this unification. People in Dersim will certainly take workers’ support. This quotation explains distortion, at all. Broken struggle lines are being established, rather than being unified all struggles under the ropt of class struggle.

A movement that can be called reformist constituted a center in TEKEL resistance. This center was formed by organizations and political parties such as TKP (Turkey’s Communist Party), ODP (Freedom and Solidarity Party), EMEP (Labor Party) and Halkevleri (People’s Houses). They were established on de facto denial of workers’ own organizations. They did not attempt to constitute worker control and worker councils. They tried to get support by addressing ‘back conscious’ of people.

Secretary General of TKP, Erkan Baş, describes TEKEL workers as real defender of the country. In fact, he considers salvation of TEKEL workers the same with loving the country. Supplying an utopist capitalist Turkey to workers as an aim constitutes program of TKP. National consciousness is made the main part of revolutionary conscious of workers. TKP consciously reduces the struggle down to anti-AKP (Justice and Development Party-governing party of Turkey) rather than an anti-capitalist attitude. It is the AKP Government as target, not Turkish capitalists. On the other hand, TKP refrains from organizing workers. Rather than forming common resistance committees, TKP misleads its root. It is argued inside party that if other organizations’ is suitable with TKP’s political workings. In Short, TKP puts its own benefits in front of benefits of working classes.

Generally, those parties met on a line, which did not contain socialism, and they even did not mention necessary steps to form a worker government that was the cornerstone of a socialist regime. While their social demands did not go beyond capitalism, socialism became a dream of far future. However, the problem is to call slogans that bring us socialist revolution in today’s struggle. Reformist movements mentioned above is incomplete at this point and this is not a surprise. Parties that replace themselves with the workers’ government (TKP and EMEP), or ODP and Halkevleri that do not take proletarian dictatorship even into their utopist agenda do not fulfill all the requirements of class struggle.

People, who stayed at Kadıköy on 2009/1st May and argued supposedly the unity of working class, in fact, could succeed to stay away from the practical duties of this unity in TEKEL struggle. In case of TEKEL resistance, lack of experience and rigging, which was necessary to mobilize working class, appeared. People, who turned their back to KESK, DISK and other Leftist groups that wanted to make Taksim as a celebration square, and who legitimized to organize a meeting in Kadıkoy, did not step towards uniting two struggles and did try to realize the unity of working class under one of the most retrogressive attitude of syndical bureaucracy. The problem here is to transform demands about Taksim into general demands of workers. Those groups, which avoid uniting dynamics of demands about Taksim, continue this wrong attitude when it comes to TEKEL struggle. Proletariat has different strata; each has different level in the struggle. To include them in general struggle is a revolutionary duty. Most of the fights become unsuccessful because of breaking among struggles. To unite these different strata of working class, it is necessary to organize all workers around the demands of struggling workers. That is to say, the problem is to not transform TEKEL workers’ demands into strata of non-strugglers; attitude about Kadıkoy has been lived. People, who thought that they provided unity of working class by excluding others executing to celebrate 1st May at Taksim Square, did the same against TEKEL workers. The reason why whose organizations were quiet was that their attitude towards the workers in general.

Attitudes towards TEKEL resistance take this question into the agenda again and again: what is the route of revolution in Turkey?

Revolution means changing owners of political power. Socialist revolution is a step towards socialist society. On the other hand, socialist revolution has its own features. Socialists do not support coup d’états because they do not aim at giving the power to a party, a central committee or, more mistakenly, a leader. The determining character in struggle for power is the active status of working class. Bolsheviks had the majority of population in Soviets when they were struggling for power. In Russia, workers could gain the power with the support of peasants and later then, they both could resist against the White Army attacks in collaboration with imperialists.

If active participation of working class determines the way to socialist political power, how can this active participation be provided? Working class-political power relationship will not be as a result of a bureaucratic order comes from somewhere else. Increasing in working class’ political power is, at the same time, to transfer the decision mechanism to workers’ own organizations. In this process, the aim is both to provide experience to the workers and to make working class closer to consciousness of the party.

Duty of Bolshevik party in this process is to spread the revolutionary program in working class and to organize workers around this program. But the program does not always affect the working class at the same degree because workers have different levels of conscious in different processes. While it was too difficult to pull a small group among TEKEL workers into a revolutionary program couple of years ago, it is obvious that Left groups can develop much better relations with workers now.

One of the particular points here is that a party, which has a revolutionary program and practice, caught the opportunity to organize among workers. In terms of consciousness, various parts of working class are following a wide road. For instance, terms of “motherland” and “nation” can be dominant in TKP. In this way, ideas that are prevalent among workers can be absorbed in a shorter time. But as the struggle becomes widespread, TKP and its nationalist program appears reactionary. This kind of political parties, which represents economic development, does not even think about self organizations of workers controlling means of production. General consciousness level of workers in progression of and at the end of the struggle, in fact, determines workers’ political representators, too.

One of the duties of revolutionary party at this point is to explain its own program in accordance with the struggle conditions by using agitation and propaganda even in a period that its power is very limited. And especially those realities cause to carry revolutionary party to front. This is ‘to transform the idea that surrounds the mass into a concrete power’ (Karl Marx). Slogans and demands, which are taken into consideration by a very limited number of workers, can become a shocking strength against the political power as a result of progressing struggle. Thus, Marxists do not hide their own aims even in periods in which the struggle is not strong. Main strength of a revolutionary Organization is the correctness and clarity of their political line. Reformist, centralist, guerilla organizations can be stronger than revolutionary worker party because of consciousness of working class. Duty of revolutionary party is to explain Marxist demands and analyses to workers when it is a core structure. Even if there is not a balance between revolutionary party and reformists, this may change in periods of sharpening of struggle.

Even revolutionaries are the weakest, their propaganda and agitation helps workers to see the difference between revolutionary party and others. Comprehension, which decomposes demand of socialism and daily demands, cannot undertake this duty.

Social democrats and reformists just talk about daily demands without talking about socialist society. Working class that believes social problems will be overcome by reforms supports such political parties. On the other hand, anarchist and left-declination groups, which see any daily demand to fail into reformism swamp, talk about the final target, abstractly. They believe that the more talking about it the more being revolutionary. They regard with distain and do not like workers, who do not mention communism. Separate from those groups, there are other groups, which say that they form a revolutionary program by uniting both minimum and maximum demands together. In this way, daily demands and demands of socialist society have only a relationship in terms of staying together in a text. Way that goes to socialism passes from both demands of current struggle and demands, which pave the path for socialist government.

In Tariş struggle, demand to open financial books to workers points out the path going to socialism. This demand is not one, which can only realize in a socialist society. To realize this demand, neither political power nor economic infrastructure has to be changed. In fact, it is an answer to one of the workers’ daily problems; that is to say, it is a just demand to see who is/are responsible of closing factory. This also means a new stage about who has the control over the management of factory. To start controlling financial books means to have a word about the expenditures of factory. To exhibit bosses, who escape from workers and do not take any responsibility, leads the transferring management to workers and transforming the movement into a promoter for such initiatives. While choosing slogans suitable to the concrete conditions of struggle, those slogans also have to include instruments of socialist government. For a long time the Left has not used any other one rather than the slogan ‘General strike, general resistance’. In fact, this has been an empty one of a just slogan. It was just, because it was an important step towards escaping from passivism and breaking the influence of syndical bureaucracy. It was emptied because it did not talk about any concrete step towards preparing the working class to this aim. There was not any step to realize preparation for general strike among workers. There was not any preparation such as arranging common meetings and forming resistance committees. Strike committees were not even in agenda: This proved how a rightful demand could be emptied.

Interventions to objective conditions draw society near socialism. It is indispensible to evaluate existing problems of capitalism from a socialist point of view in order to transfer political power to working class. Capitalism could overcome many deep and effective crises. It succeeded this sometimes by World wars, sometimes by colonial wars, sometimes by enforcing working class to live under worse conditions or sometimes by fascism. That is to say, if it was brought own dynamics of capitalism to be able to overcome crises, it could handle crises in some way. But giving birth to a socialist political power perspective is only possible with an intervention by a revolutionary party. In Turkey, many political organizations use violence to create a crisis and for artificial breaking of balance. To not be able to deepen existing crises in society, in fact, undervalues social objective conditions and appears as a political line, on which the party can move without the working class and it sees working class as a passive class. Or by not telling that there is no struggle for socialism, it puts bourgeoisie Politics arguments. Perhaps struggle for socialism becomes visible as a result of existence of revolutionary situation. Besides, separations such as ‘struggle for socialism’ and ‘not struggle for socialism’ are artificial ones.

To review Lenin's ideas will help to understand Leninism:

So that’s the point! To the Narodovoltsi, the term political struggle is synonymous with the term political conspiracy ! It must be confessed that in these words P. L. Lavrov has managed to bring out in bold relief the fundamental difference between the tactics in the political struggle adopted by the Narodovoltsi and by the Social-Democrats. Blanquist,[10] conspiratorial traditions are fearfully strong among the former, so much so that they cannot conceive of political struggle except in the form of political conspiracy. he Social-Democrats, however, are not guilty of such a narrow outlook; they do not believe in conspiracies; they think that the period of conspiracies has long passed away, that to reduce political struggle to conspiracy means, on the one hand, immensely restricting its scope, and, on the other hand, choosing the most unsuitable methods of struggle.

They think that the fight against the autocracy must consist not in organising conspiracies, but in educating, disciplining and organising the proletariat, in political agitation among the workers which denounces every manifestation of absolutism, which pillories all the knights of the police government and compels this government to make concessions.” (Lenin; RUSYA SOSYAL-DEMOKRATLARININ GÖREVLERİ http://www.scribd.com/doc/9583164/Vladimir-lyic-Lenin-Orgutlenme-Uzerine)

Class struggle in Turkey is defensive struggle at the moment. Several operations are held to defend working rights in work places. Political understanding, which separates processes from each other, cannot be successful in determining tactics and strategy of revolution. TEKEL resistance is a defense struggle to prevent right to work. Which will come after the First 4/C attack? Will workers stay at defense or will they go beyond the existing demands? This is only possible by a Bolshevik party, which does not separate several struggles from each other; perceives any small resistance as a part of the big picture, that is to say, class struggle; puts forth tactics and demands for consideration while defending present rights.

To provide continuousness of demands and struggle inside of each one is the duty of a revolutionary party. Struggles of TEKEL, Tariş, Çimen, Marmaray, shipyard, mining workers will either be run not in relation or be shared. As a result of global crisis of capitalism, countries that have problematic economies like Turkey are strained to accept the most basic demands of working class. ‘Commonalization’ should be made with suggesting general demands of workers as well as organizing in associated councils and committees. Those general demands may be ones such as prohibiting to expel workers and to open companies, which expel workers, to workers’ inspection.

Government in Turkey constantly accuses the Left with dividing the country. AKP government, which provides developing a grudge -among other workers, who earn lesser than TEKEL workers- against TEKEL workers, triggers envy. AKP aims to keep minimum wage at the current level but, on the contrary, it declares workers, who take a little bit as enemies and tries to pull those “high” wages down.

Syndicate is an important economic gain. There is a difference about conscience between member and non-member workers, at the beginning. While one is accepting common struggle even on a reformist basis, the other is abstaining about it. Syndical gains are workers’ gains. Whilst those have to be protected, at the same time, workers have to put their own will and control against syndical bureaucrats. To do so, syndical leaderships must be changed. Secretary General of Türk-İş, Mustafa Kumlu, faced with critics because he could not answer TEKEL workers’ expectation and did behave like a yellow syndicate leader. Actually workers reacted against him, perhaps earlier accepting him as their leader, with their consciousness gained in resistance. Secretary General of Tek-Gıda-İş (Tobacco, Distillery, Food and Co-workers Syndicate of Turkey), Mustafa Türkel, came and went between reaction and putting over shoulders. Türkel, who brought the responsibility to Kumlu by inviting Kumlu to resign, introduced himself as supporter of workers’ rights against Kumlu but it was not questioned that why did not he try to form solidarity in work places, where Tek-Gıda-İş is dominant. In my earlier essays, i stressed both that workers were not mobilized and syndical bureaucracy legalized its passive standing by alleging immobilized workers. Mustafa Türkel stood at classical social democratic line and not at workers’ side openly but opposed yellow syndicates. This opposition was periodical. Bureaucrats, who were together some time ago, perhaps temporarily, had to diverge from each other.

Within the struggle, workers, who attacking forward, enforce their leadership and political parties that support them. In TEKEL resistance, a more positive act from the government may end the resistance but now, expectations are quite high. Attacking forward gives workers to examine political parties to which they trust. AKP was a party that was supported by workers. Many workers were telling this. Because AKP disappointed workers, TEKEL workers became to protest ministers and parliamentarians of AKP. Workers started to protest AKP in several cities of Turkey. Leaping forward also weakens ties between workers and bourgeoisie political parties. Workers’ trust to bourgeoisie political parties, in fact, is a set in front of the struggle. It is workers’ support that strengthens those parties. This support helps capitalist to hold the political power even they are less in number. That is to say, capitalists have helpers. Helpers have other helpers. This sense of trust to bourgeoisie political parties among workers sources from workers’ belief that bourgeoisie political parties can solve problems of working class. This is an abortive trust, in fact. Those political parties will not be able to answer demands of TEKEL workers in further stages of resistance. Revolutionary party that works inside the working class has to evaluate relationship between workers and bourgeoisie political parties. To unite all organizations that support TEKEL workers has this aim. In this way, as a minority, it does not externalize political parties that are trusted by workers. An egocentric approach, which disregards the will of working class; sees itself as the only representator of the class; and shows a sectarian behavior in its works, is an obstacle for common action, which is inevitable.

Leninist behavior against political organizations that talk about practical and theoretical obstacles to not work together is to unite those parties around the struggle of working class. To exclude them from common work just means to strengthen barriers on workers in requesting them. Whilst Lenin foresaw to work with organizations that had different points of views, the Left in Turkey stayed away from each other. Lenin's ideas about common work are below:

“The question may be asked: Why cannot the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies become the embryo of such a centre? Is it because there are not only Social-Democrats in the Soviet? But this is an advantage, not a disadvantage. We have been speaking all the time of the need of a militant alliance of Social-Democrats and revolutionary bourgeois democrats. We have been speaking of it, and the workers have actually done it. It is splendid that they have done it. When I read in Novaya Zhizn a letter from worker comrades who belong to the Socialist-Revolutionary Party,[4] and who protest against the Soviet being included in one of the parties, I could not help thinking that those worker comrades were right in many practical respects. It goes without saying that our views differ from theirs, and that a merger of Social-Democrats and Socialist-Revolutionaries is out of the question, but then there is no suggestion of it. We are deeply convinced that those workers who share Socialist-Revolutionary views and yet are fighting within the ranks of the proletariat are inconsistent, for they retain non-proletarian views while championing a truly proletarian cause. Their inconsistency we must combat, from the ideological point of view, with the greatest determination, but in so doing we must see to it that the revolutionary cause, a vital, burning, living cause that is recognized by all and has brought all honest people together, does not suffer. We still consider the views of the Socialist-Revolutionaries to be revolutionary-democratic and not socialist. But for the sake of our militant aims, we must march together while fully retaining Party independence, and the Soviet i, and must be, a militant organization. To expel devoted and honest revolutionary democrats at a time when we are carrying out a democratic revolution would be absurd, it would be folly. We shall have no difficulty in overcoming their inconsistency, for our views are supported by history itself, are supported at every step by reality. If our pamphlet has not taught them Social-Democracy, our revolution will. To be sure, those workers who remain Christians, who believe in God, and those intellectuals who defend mysticism (fie upon them!), are inconsistent too; but we shall not expel them from the Soviet or even from the Party, for it is our firm conviction that the actual struggle, and work within the ranks, will convince all elements possessing vitality that Marxism is the truth, and will cast aside all those who lack vitality. And we do not for one moment doubt our strength, the overwhelming strength of Marxists, in the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party.”
( Our tasks and the soviets workers’ Deputies
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/nov/04b.htm)


Common action gives chance to both reaching masses and addressing people, who trust bourgeoisie political parties. At this point, the main requirement for revolutionary political party is to not give up its own programmatic corrects. To avoid critics is a mistake. This kind of action is also the process of revealing the difference between revolutionary political party and bourgeoisie parties. ın current situation, most of TEKEL workers neither know nor minds the differences of political parties, which stand on the Left side of political spectrum. Common action means to show masses difference between revolutionary party and bourgeoisie parties. Workers can see clearly that who work seriously for workers’ struggle.

TEKEL and other struggles prove that existing political groups cannot execute the leadership of working class. Problems they cannot overcome by personal acts are reacted along with organized resistances. During the last two weeks, there were examples of such acts: a worker in Hacılar town killed mayor, who was a member of MHP (Nationalist Action Party). A worker, who wanted to commit suicide and went up the roof of a building, passed out as a result of his three day long hunger. Suicide attempts, psychological traumas, lunacy are all results of policies practiced by capitalists on workers. And if they are read correct, in some way, those reflect conditions of working class. Such violence trends among workers may become strong as a result of hopelessness. People, who do not see the proletariat as the only revolutionary class and do put other classes or their own political parties instead of the working class, cannot establish relations with the working class on a revolutionary perspective. Revolutionaries do not refuse any kind of action, they evaluate kinds of action in accordance with the struggle of working class. At this point, style of revolutionary action is related to content of action. Violence is at the second place here. Petit bourgeoisie groups make violence the main criterion or revolutionary politics to cover their reformist programs. However, Marxism neither reject nor bless violence. Reformists declare themselves as non-Left- variance because their actions do not contain violence, and declare petit bourgeoisie revolutionaries as revolutionaries because of violence. This wrong attitude is a result of not evaluating acts of workers in terms of coercive styles of the struggle. Petit bourgeoisie political parties politicize reactions given as a result of unorganized state of workers (murder, suicide, lunacy) and carry the action styles of unorganized state of workers into political arena. Unless transforming into an organized power center within the working class, in order to prove its revolutionary stand point, they put the bravery and decisiveness in their actions at the first place. Whilst TEKEL workers do not commit suicide, unorganized workers tend to do so. Steps, which are chosen by a political party organized within the working class, are the action styles of organized workers.

• Councils

To be continued

Suphi Toprak

March 25