Introduction by the EKS

Introduction by the EKS

The positions of the EKS are basic points of adherence. They were written very quickly with a view of moving from being a group who came together to make, and distribute, leaflets for specific demonstrations to moving towards being a political group, and as such they are open to change in the future. They take a stand on what we see as the four basic positions that revolutionaries hold today:

1) The rejection of parliamentarianism, and social democracy.

2) The rejection of Trade Unionism.

3) The rejection of all forms of nationalism, and the defence of internationalism.

4) Communist struggle, and the nature of communism.

They do not define us as either a ‘Marxist’, or an ‘anarchist’ group. While most of our members consider themselves to be communists, we do not discount common work in the same political organisation as anarchists who adhere to the basic working class positions. We feel that in the present situation in Turkey, where virtually nobody holds revolutionary positions, it would be a huge mistake to exclude people, who basically hold the same positions as us today, on the basis of historical arguments about things that happened in the earlier part of the last century. That does not mean, however, that these are issues that we do not discuss, and that we are not trying to develop greater clarity on them.

Basic Principles of the Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol

1) The rejection of parliamentarianism, and social democracy.

The idea that the existing order can be changed through parliamentary or democratic means is the main obstacle that the workers’ movement is confronted with at every step. While this illusion is consciously created by the dominant class, it is also defended and proposed as a solution by the leftist groups, who are unable to grasp the class nature of parliament, which is based on the idea that the working class have a stake in the nation, but in reality, it is no more than a circus that tries to impose the idea that a class based movement is both meaningless, and useless, in order to mobilize the proletariat behind the interests of the bourgeoisie. Social democracy also doesn’t refrain from taking part in that circus itself. Social democracy, which defends the ideology of democratic rights and liberties, and the change of the existing equilibrium in favour of the working class by means of reforms, which are no longer possible under capitalism, is because of its position a tool to create a middle point between the dominant class, and the working class, which defends the interests of the bourgeoisie. While social democracy does not constitute an obstacle to the dominant class, it is anti-working class, and takes a counter revolutionary position in times that proletarian movements arise, and constitutes a collaborative ideology of the class enemy on behalf of the bourgeoisie.

2) The rejection of trade unionism

Just like parliament, unions also organise the workers as a part of capital. Moreover because of their position in the heart of the working class, they constitute the first obstacle to the proletariat’s struggle. When the working class seems to be passive, and its struggle in the face of capital is not clear, radicalised or generalised, the unions organise the working class as variable capital, and as wage slaves, as well as generalise the illusion that there are both honourable and just ways to live in this way. Not only are the unions incapable of undertaking revolutionary action but also they are incapable of defending worker’s basic living conditions in the here and now. This is the main reason that the unions use bourgeois, pacifist, chauvinist, and statist tactics. When the working class movement radicalises, and develops, the unions put democratic, and revolutionary slogans forward, and in this way try to manipulate the movement, as if the interests of the working class is not emancipation from wage labour itself, but in continuing it in different forms. The methods of base unionism and self-management are used in different places and situations, resulting in no more than the workers’ own voluntary acceptance of the domination of capital. In reality the only thing that the unions do is to divide workers into different sectional groups, and pull their class interests as a whole behind social democratic slogans.

3) The rejection of all forms of nationalism, and the defence of internationalism

Nationalism is a basic slogan used by the bourgeoisie to organise the working class in capitalist interests. The claim that, independent from their class position, every member of a nation is on the same boat, only serves to destroy the revolutionary potential of the working class by joining two antagonistic classes on an ideological level. Starting form this premise, it comes to say that every person has to work for ‘his or her’ own nation, own capitalist class, and the struggle for their own class interests would result in the sinking of the boat. Unlike the whole left’s claims in the case of both Turkish and Kurdish nationalisms, they have no different characteristics.

The basic reality denied by people who talk about national liberation struggles against imperialism is that the characteristic of the struggle of the working class for liberation is above nations. The liberation of the working class can only be achieved by raising the flag of class struggle against every kind of national liberation struggle, demagogy, and imperialist war. Today people who talk about a ‘national front’ against imperialists, and national independence, are in a race with liberals, whom they think that they oppose, to deny class contradictions. Kurdish nationalism, the so-called opponent of Turkish nationalism, which it also feeds upon, realises the complete separation of the working class by performing the same role as Turkish nationalism for the workers in its own region.

4) Communist struggle, and the nature of communism

Communism is not a beautiful utopia that someday can be reached, nor a theory that’s necessity is scientifically proven, but it is the struggle of workers for their own interests as a movement. In that sense, communism has no relation to the leftist’s definition of it. It is rather born out of the workers’ struggle for their daily interests, and an expression of their need for emancipation from wage labour, capital, and the state. Due to that, it is denial of all the separations between intellectuals and workers, absolute goals, and daily interests, ‘trade union’ consciousness and ‘socialist consciousness’, and aims and means. Whenever workers start to struggle for their own interests autonomously from the unions and self-proclaimed workers’ parties, then communism flowers inside the struggle. In the same way the communist organisation is formed organically inside this struggle, and is born from the international union of the most radical, and determined minorities’ interventions in the class struggle, which express the antagonism between workers and capital.

Hy,

Nice to have some informations about your organisation. I try to answer you in english so that more comrades can take a part in the discussion, even my english is not very good.

I find this part really interresing :

Quote :

While most of our members consider themselves to be communists, we do not discount common work in the same political organisation as anarchists who adhere to the basic working class positions. We feel that in the present situation in Turkey, where virtually nobody holds revolutionary positions, it would be a huge mistake to exclude people, who basically hold the same positions as us today, on the basis of historical arguments about things that happened in the earlier part of the last century.

And i think this could be a good way to built a revolutionnary worker organisation, not just in Turkey. I mean the more important is not to know how you call yourself, but what is your practise in the class struggle, how you see this world and how you want to change it.

But, of course, as union activist, i'm not agree with the part about trade-unionism. I will not yet open a discussion about unionism, what i will find more interresting is to know what is the activity of your comrades in their workplace. For instance, if tomorow i have to work in Turkey, what can prupose me your organisation to organise the workers in my workplace ? I'm totally agree when you write :

Quote :

In the same way the communist organisation is formed organically inside this struggle

So, this means, i think, that for you revolutionnary communists have to be in the daily struggles of the working class, no ? If during a strike or an other big struggle we can organize a strike comitte, what you think we have to do in the other times, when the workers are quiet, to fght for our rights or a better live ?

I'm agree with your position about nationalism, i never been in Turkey and i don't know really the situation. Maybe you can answer me : is kurdish nationalism really strong in the kurdish working class ? An other question about Kurdistan : do you have kurdish comrades ? How is the situation in Kurdistan for internationalist communists ?

I read also that women oppression is really strong in Turkey (forced mariage, "honour" killings...) even the turkish women had some democratic basic rights befor the french women for instance. Does your organisation take part in the women fight in Turkey ?

Last question : you know maybe there is a lot of discussions inside the european union ruling class about the entrance or not of Turkey in this union. The feeling i have (maybe i'm wrong) is that a big part of the turkish workers hope that being in the European Union will make their live better (of course, it's illusions). In France, a lot of politicians make propaganda against the entrance of Turkey in the European Union, playing with racist, chauvinist and nationalist feelings. My position is to say : "of course the European Union will not make the live of turkish workers better, of course the European Union is a capitalist union, just a free market for the bosses, but i see no problems if Turkey become member of this union, but we will have to fight together, "european" and turkish workers, against the bourgeoisie". What you think about it ? What is your position about this question ?

Pascal, thanks for your reply.

Quote :

I try to answer you in english so that more comrades can take a part in the discussion, even my english is not very good.

Well, it is much better than my French! I wish I could speak French as good as you speak English

Quote :

But, of course, as union activist, i'm not agree with the part about trade-unionism. I will not yet open a discussion about unionism, what i will find more interresting is to know what is the activity of your comrades in their workplace. For instance, if tomorow i have to work in Turkey, what can prupose me your organisation to organise the workers in my workplace ? I'm totally agree when you write :

Quote :

In the same way the communist organisation is formed organically inside this struggle

So, this means, i think, that for you revolutionnary communists have to be in the daily struggles of the working class, no ? If during a strike or an other big struggle we can organize a strike comitte, what you think we have to do in the other times, when the workers are quiet, to fght for our rights or a better live ?

We think that the role of a proletarian political organization during class struggle is to defend the proletarian positions. Whenever there is a class struggle going on, a class action going on - we do all we can to be there. We are opposed to trade unions but of course we support every class struggle, and attend every workers demonstration even if it is a syndicalist demonstration. In workers demonstrations we try to come up with the most possible practical ways of struggle that will help solving workers problems. Unions always sell out, sooner or later and every worker involved in struggles are opposed to the union leadership even if they still support the concept. When there is a strike, we would defend mass assemblies open to all workers. In the mass assemblies we would defend strike comitte and eventually workers councils... Class struggle is not created by an organization. When there is no class struggle going on, we keep working on ways to raise class consciousness. We are a fairly new and a fairly small group, we are planning to start publishing a magazine and organizing public meetings, perhaps.

As for activities of our comrades, I believe one of our comrades and his friends from the workplace made a strike in the workplace. Another comrade who works as a teacher for the state (teachers who work in public schools are considered public servants and are unable to strike here-it is illegal) made "mass sick-days". We are a small organization and our internention to struggles are very limited.

Quote :

I'm agree with your position about nationalism, i never been in Turkey and i don't know really the situation. Maybe you can answer me : is kurdish nationalism really strong in the kurdish working class ?

Kurdish nationalism is ideologically very strong. It is of course an anti-working class reaction, but you can see where the reaction is coming from. The Turkish state is ruthless, it has always been that way. Kurdish working class is sucked up into nationalism and war, unfortunately.

Quote :

An other question about Kurdistan : do you have kurdish comrades ? How is the situation in Kurdistan for internationalist communists ?

We do have Kurdish comrades. In fact I am, myself a Kurd despite the fact that I live in Ankara and some people from my family, their friends who live in western Turkey and even some of my friends also do in fact have symphaties for kurdish nationalism. Yet my ties with kurdistan area are weak, we don't have any members there and I don't think I've ever heard of internationalist communists in that specific area. I think however another comrade had deeper ties with that area through family members.

Quote :

I read also that women oppression is really strong in Turkey (forced mariage, "honour" killings...) even the turkish women had some democratic basic rights befor the french women for instance. Does your organisation take part in the women fight in Turkey ?

Well, we are a pretty small group right now. There is not much we can do about things like forced mariage and "honour" killings as they are mostly in-family events, caused by feudal ideas and mostly based in rural areas and quite frankly I can't remember any organized reaction against such events. Turkey is indeed a very sexist country, altough most people here wouldn't accept it, and this sexism is even in the laws (that doesn't really mean a whole lot).

Quote :

Last question : you know maybe there is a lot of discussions inside the european union ruling class about the entrance or not of Turkey in this union. The feeling i have (maybe i'm wrong) is that a big part of the turkish workers hope that being in the European Union will make their live better (of course, it's illusions). In France, a lot of politicians make propaganda against the entrance of Turkey in the European Union, playing with racist, chauvinist and nationalist feelings. My position is to say : "of course the European Union will not make the live of turkish workers better, of course the European Union is a capitalist union, just a free market for the bosses, but i see no problems if Turkey become member of this union, but we will have to fight together, "european" and turkish workers, against the bourgeoisie". What you think about it ? What is your position about this question ?

Well we don't have an official position on the EU or anything, but we talked about it once. Yes, most of turkish workers hope that being in the European Union will make their live better and of course, it's illusions. The government here is used the EU, saying that they will get Turkey in the EU, to get support. Some people in the opposition are using a disgustingly nationalist, racist and chauvinist rhetoric while opposing it. My take is pretty similar to yours. Eurpean Union is a capitalist union, Turkey is a capitalist state; Turkey entering EU won't make life of turkish workers better. I don't mind it, turkish and "european" workers would fight together against the bourgeoisie; workers have no country and they never had it.

This is actually a big deal for the leftists* though, perhaps we can write something about this. Yeah this is not a bad idea actually, I might propose it in our next meeting.

*The leftists in Turkey is divided into Turkey are divided into Turkish nationalists and Kurdish nationalists. Turkish nationalist left opposes the EU, Kurdish nationalist left wants it.

Anyway, I hope I answered all your questions

Thank for your answer.

Quote :

Class struggle is not created by an organization. When there is no class struggle going on, we keep working on ways to raise class consciousness.

I'm totally agree with you that class struggle was never created by an organisation, class struggle is created by the class society it-self. Where i'm not agree, is when you say "when there is no class struggle going on", because i think even if there are no social fights, there is always a class struggle, for instance the everyday resistance or little fights that can be in a factory to work less or not too fast. I don't know about turkish legislation, but in France, this everyday class struggle can sometimes be a fight about the law, when the boss don't respect the work legislation. For instance, a worker is illegally sacked by his boss, it's not possible to organize a strike against it, but it's possible to win in a trial against the boss, so that the boss has to pay money to the worker. Of course, this is not a revolutionnary fight to change the society, but this is the kind of daily class struggle where i think the revolutionnary activists have to be if they can. And this can, sometimes, help to raise class consciousness, to show it's possible to fight against the boss and to win. Of course, I prefer strikes or mass protests, but i think we have to see in every situation what we can do with all the ways necessary. And for this kind of fights, being organised in an union can be helpfull i think.

Quote :

Kurdish nationalism is ideologically very strong. It is of course an anti-working class reaction, but you can see where the reaction is coming from. The Turkish state is ruthless, it has always been that way. Kurdish working class is sucked up into nationalism and war, unfortunately.

About kurdish nationalism, i would like to ask you an other question : in your opinion is it a national oppression against the Kurds in Turkey today ? I mean, some years ago, i heard for instance that speaking kurdish was forbitten in Turkey, that it was very hard just singing in kurdish... What is the situation today ?

Other question : in a situation where the kurdish working class is suckep up into nationalism and war, what would you think about a turkish organisation who would say : "we have no hope in kurdish national liberation, we know that a kurdish state will be a rotten bourgeois state against the working class -you can see it in Iraq where the kurdish nationalist partys are shouting against workers protest for instance -, but we think better independance of Kurdistan than this bloody war" ? I hope you understand what i mean, not to support kurdish nationalism, but to something like the words of Liebknecht during the first imperialist war, "the main ennemy is in our own country".

Last question about this case : i read about demonstrations in Turkey against the wars in Iraq, Lebanon or Palestine, but are there also protest against turkish militarism and the war in Kurdistan ? I don't mean protests organised by kurdish nationalists, but by turkish organisations with shoutings like "we don't want our children to die in Kurdistan" ?

About the turkish left, you wrote :

Quote :

The leftists in Turkey is divided into Turkey are divided into Turkish nationalists and Kurdish nationalists.

Is really the most of the turkish left nationalist ? Can you try to tell us little more about the left in your country ? What i read is that the most of the left in Turkey are stalinists or maoists groups : is it true ? Are you seing this groups as nationalists or is it also some kemalists in the left ? And what is the influence of this groups in the working class ?
About the stalinist groups (i mean groups like TKP-ML for instance) have they an influence in the working class ? How you see their base : crazy stalinists or workers who are member of this organisation because they want to fight the bosses and who can quickly change for a real communist alternative ?
I ask you this question because 10 years ago, i meet some turkish workers (working in France), they were really stalinists, but more because their organisation told them Stalin is good, that because they supported stalinism. For instance, one of them told : "Lenin good, Trotsky good, Stalin good, after revisionism..." So i think maybe this kind of guys could become real communists (this means anti-stalinists of course !!) if there is a communist organisation who can give them an alternative.
What you think about it ?

- I hope my english is clear enought -

Quote :

I'm totally agree with you that class struggle was never created by an organisation, class struggle is created by the class society it-self. Where i'm not agree, is when you say "when there is no class struggle going on"

My apologies for that statement, I was thinking of saying "when the amount of class struggle is low" when I wrote "when there is no class struggle going on".
Anyway;

Quote :

for instance the everyday resistance or little fights that can be in a factory to work less or not too fast. I don't know about turkish legislation, but in France, this everyday class struggle can sometimes be a fight about the law, when the boss don't respect the work legislation. For instance, a worker is illegally sacked by his boss, it's not possible to organize a strike against it, but it's possible to win in a trial against the boss, so that the boss has to pay money to the worker. Of course, this is not a revolutionnary fight to change the society, but this is the kind of daily class struggle where i think the revolutionnary activists have to be if they can. And this can, sometimes, help to raise class consciousness, to show it's possible to fight against the boss and to win. Of course, I prefer strikes or mass protests, but i think we have to see in every situation what we can do with all the ways necessary. And for this kind of fights, being organised in an union can be helpfull i think.

Well, in such small struggles, limited to a work place it is possible to strike (in Turkey), work less or slow and win to help workers who were illegally sacked, or paid bad salaries etc. Most of the time, big union leadership would not be interested in such small struggles, and it would be up to the workers in the factory who belong to the union. This is why I would disagree with the idea that a union is required for the workers to be united, especially in a work place.

Quote :

About kurdish nationalism, i would like to ask you an other question : in your opinion is it a national oppression against the Kurds in Turkey today ? I mean, some years ago, i heard for instance that speaking kurdish was forbitten in Turkey, that it was very hard just singing in kurdish... What is the situation today ?

I think all forms of oppression are class-based, instead of being nationality based. Even the assimilation politics of the Turkish state, which were quite brutal, were a form of class based oppression. Turkey has quite interesting nationality laws, saying that everyone who says s/he is a Turk is a Turk. This means that everyone who can behave like a Turk.

Here's what this means in practice: several weeks ago in a city with a reputation as very reactionary, locals tried to beat Kurdish workers there to death. No matter what happened, no one would actually try to beat a single Kurdish capitalist to death. When they say everyone who can behave like a Turk is a Turk, it is actually only the rich and educated who can behave closely to the ideal Turkish person (which is deeply connected to the dark and depressing cult of personality around Ataturk). The poor, who don't talk in the (so-called) ultra-civilized Istanbul Turkish perfectly are always looked down upon. For the working class, the nationality of our bosses are not important at all.

Quote :

Other question : in a situation where the kurdish working class is suckep up into nationalism and war, what would you think about a turkish organisation who would say : "we have no hope in kurdish national liberation, we know that a kurdish state will be a rotten bourgeois state against the working class -you can see it in Iraq where the kurdish nationalist partys are shouting against workers protest for instance -, but we think better independance of Kurdistan than this bloody war" ?

I would say that they have potential, and they are worth talking to very much, but they are wrong in what they are saying and they are a little confused about this issue as the (so-called) independence of Kurdistan can only happen as a result of the continuation of this bloody war for dozens of years.

Quote :

I hope you understand what i mean, not to support kurdish nationalism, but to something like the words of Liebknecht during the first imperialist war, "the main ennemy is in our own country".

Yes, I do understand what you say. However the thing is; "the main enemy is in our country" and it is far more scared by seeing Kurdish and Turkish workers struggling together than the formation of an independent Kurdish nation-state.

Quote :

Last question about this case : i read about demonstrations in Turkey against the wars in Iraq, Lebanon or Palestine, but are there also protest against turkish militarism and the war in Kurdistan ? I don't mean protests organised by kurdish nationalists, but by turkish organisations with shoutings like "we don't want our children to die in Kurdistan" ?

There hasn't been an organized protest about it, however recently several workers who lost their children in Kurdistan area started asking why their children are are dying and children of the rich aren't and stating that they can't won't say "it's good that he died for his country" (something people like them are almost supposed to say). Despite the faint nationalism involved in those statements, it is clear that those are at least class reactions to the war in Kurdistan area. Indeed, those are the first actual class reactions against the war. We will see what happens in the future...

Quote :

Is really the most of the turkish left nationalist ? Can you try to tell us little more about the left in your country ? What i read is that the most of the left in Turkey are stalinists or maoists groups : is it true ?

The most important thing to note about the left in Turkey is how they are completely disconnected from the working class. For example (and this is a real example), there are two, three leftist groups at actual workers demonstrations, where when there is a bike ride against American nukes they'll all be there (!). Most were much more openly and violently Stalinist or Maoist in the past. Now as Stalinism lost its influence in the world most of those old groups are gone. As for the remaining ones; some of those groups went social-democrat and started pushing for more "democracy", some of them embraced Kemalism and Turkish nationalism completely, some of them embraced Kurdish nationalism completely. None of those were hard things to do as they already had their theoretical backgrounds making it possible to embrace pretty much everything. There are few groups that still go around waving big pictures of Stalin, but their politics are not different from the rest, as you can easily imagine. Other than the stalinists, we have Trotskyists who give their full support to Kurdish nationalism, Anarchists who gave their critical and insignificant support to Kurdish nationalism (but they are actually moving away from their old analysis because of their dialogue with us) and that's about it.

Quote :

Are you seing this groups as nationalists or is it also some kemalists in the left ?

Most of turkish nationalist leftists actually embraced Kemalism. Again, most of them had never been far away to begin with. I am not talking about the kemalists in the left (RPP - Republican People's Party) because they don't even claim to be in the left anymore.

Quote :

And what is the influence of this groups in the working class ?
About the stalinist groups have they an influence in the working class ?

They've got no influence at all in the working class.

Quote :

(i mean groups like TKP-ML for instance) How you see their base : crazy stalinists or workers who are member of this organisation because they want to fight the bosses and who can quickly change for a real communist alternative ?

TKP-ML actually has its base in kurdish nationalism. Legal political parties such as "Turkish Communist Party" and "Workers Party" have their base in turkish nationalism and so forth. Initially, I would say that all those groups had their base of followers in students.

Quote :

I ask you this question because 10 years ago, i meet some turkish workers (working in France), they were really stalinists, but more because their organisation told them Stalin is good, that because they supported stalinism. For instance, one of them told : "Lenin good, Trotsky good, Stalin good, after revisionism..." Very Happy So i think maybe this kind of guys could become real communists (this means anti-stalinists of course !!) if there is a communist organisation who can give them an alternative.
What you think about it ?

Some workers might have been organized in organizations, but I would actually go for the syndicalized workers when we are talking about the potential of becoming actual communists. They are very interested here actually. When we go out to their demonstrations to give out leaflets, everyone always rises their hands to read it and we rarely see any in the floor after the demonstration. I don't know much about how it is in other countries, but according to a foreign comrade who is in our organization, workers in demonstrations in the places he has been are not interested at all about the leaflets because so many people are giving them out. Of course we give our leaflets to members of leftist organizations as well, but that's not easy because their 'leaders' really don't want them to read what we say so they tend to get violent.

Your English is quite good by the way!

Quote :

Other question : in a situation where the kurdish working class is suckep up into nationalism and war, what would you think about a turkish organisation who would say : "we have no hope in kurdish national liberation, we know that a kurdish state will be a rotten bourgeois state against the working class -you can see it in Iraq where the kurdish nationalist partys are shouting against workers protest for instance -, but we think better independance of Kurdistan than this bloody war" ? I hope you understand what i mean, not to support kurdish nationalism, but to something like the words of Liebknecht during the first imperialist war, "the main ennemy is in our own country".

Hi Pascal,
I think that one of the problems with this position is that it doesn't reflect a real independent choice. This is not the period of the first World War. When Liebknecht said that ' the main enemy is in our own country', he was operating in a situation where nobody in Germany was calling for people to support Russia. I think that the formulation was mistaken, but in the situation it didn't matter so much.
Today the situation in the Middle East is very different. The whole region is being dragged deeper, and deeper into national, ethnic, and sectarian war. 20% of the population of this country is Kurdish. The fault line runs right through the country. It is not a question of concentrating propaganda towards ‘our side’. Both sides are influentially in this country, and neither is the side of the working class. It is very important for communists to be clear on both the causes of this move towards war, and the answer to it.
The only thing that can break the cycle is workers' struggle. In opposing the cries of the Turkish nationalists, and suggesting that it might be better if 'we let them have their own state', you automatically take a side saying that an independent Kurdistan is part of the solution to the question.
Personally I imagine that any independent Kurdistan would be wracked by as much ethic, and religious strife as Turkey is. That is not the point though. The role of the communists today is with the working class in its struggles, not in supporting the plans of one or other bourgeois faction.

In solidarity,
Devrim