TDKP History - Formation of party

The formation of the Party and its struggle

The October Conference and the formation of the TDKP-IO sparked enthusiasm and closer links within the ranks of our organisation, and the work within the working masses gained a new proletarian wave. This was because our Conference not only determined the development path of our party's theoretical, political and organisational foundation, but also put forward a practical orientation and an organisational plan. This planning was based on the criticism of discussions in the work and orientation, and on a new deployment of forces based on the work within the working class. It was also a planning that clarified the particularities of the style of work and its direction of development. This also put an end to some wavering in the positioning of the forces and played an encouraging role towards developing more energetic and effective work.

On the other hand, the Conference changed the meaning of the "unity of proletarian revolutionaries" policy, and declared that from then on this unity would be realised by joining the TDKP-IO. The Conference's definition of unity as "the unity of proletarian revolutionaries", now became unity with the international communist movement, unity in the Marxist-Leninist programme and politics, and unity in the ranks of the TDKP-IO. This led to the consolidation of awareness of responsibility within the ranks of our party, and meant that our organisations became more confident, more assertive, more mature and more responsible in their actions. In addition, our organisation was now an element and part of the international communist movement. It also represented solidarity between fraternal proletarians and discovered the possibility of benefiting at first hand from international experiences.

The October Conference marked a real turning point and improvement for our organisation, as well as determining our party line. Since 1975, our party had considered Mao Tsedung as a "classic Marxist" -in fact, Mao had been seen as a great Marxist since 1960s. Although "Mao Tsedung Thought" had never been accepted, the idea that Mao was a "classic Marxist", despite the discussions on it, remained unchanged, after the rejection of "Three Worlds" theory. Having considered the debates on this theme and the warnings of the international movement, the Provisional CC submitted its thoughts to the October Conference that "Mao Tsedung was not a classic Marxist". The Conference gave the task to the PCC to elaborate this opinion further and present it to the organisation. Thus, despite containing weaknesses caused by the mistakes and restrictions of that time, the post-Conference period had been one when our theoretical accumulation and political and organisational line began to get rid of the influence of Mao Tsedung and improved its Marxist-Leninist basis.

The 15th issue of Yoldas published a self-criticism of our organisation on Mao Tsedung. And the Party Flag (Parti Bayragi) criticised "Mao Tsedung Thought" in all fundamental matters mainly with regard to the understanding of revolution and the form of struggle. It fought to expose and eliminate its influence on our line. Furthermore, an extensive educational work was carried out to cover all these areas. As mentioned before, it was clear that this would not be enough on the road towards the foundation of the party; the work among the workers, the problems of organising the youth, and the question of style of work were also to be reconsidered.

Our organisation criticised the signs of right-wing influences and the unstructured work and organisations, which were tendencies springing from the period of rightward wavering. These criticisms helped the development of organisational consciousness in our circles, although in daily struggle and on the question of organisation they also led to the underestimation and even increase of the sectarian mistakes which were rooted in the past. (This sectarianism manifested itself in the analyses concerning the main party organisations, trade unions and mass organisations, and in the formalities and narrow-mindedness of youth organisations, as well as in the question of style of work and alliances, etc. which were criticised later in the 1990 General Conference). The struggle against signs of right-wing tendencies improved our work and organisation - because our organisation was well organised and the mass movement entered a new phase of mobilisation. However, the above-mentioned mistakes and shortcomings also had a slowing-down effect. 

Finally, leaving aside its weaknesses and shortcomings, the programme and constitution of our party had nevertheless emerged. Moreover, our organisations were now more developed and expanded, and their links with the workers and factories, although not satisfactory, were now more soundly based and advanced. In the previous two years, our organisation had expanded its relations with the workers and labourers all over the country, and our youth organisation had become one of the two biggest youth organisations in Turkey. In the post-Conference period, the path to the party of the working class was illuminated further, and the aim became clearer and nearer.

Our organisation came to this point not only in terms of the formation of a theoretical, political and organisational line, but also having overcome innumerable difficulties with regard to taking part at a more advanced level in daily struggle, organising the workers and labourers in this struggle, encouraging the most advanced ones to come to the leadership having adopted our line, and with regard to organisational problems.

The young generation today should understand the conditions in which our organisation had to function. These included: harsh illegal conditions; the police/fascist terror and its prevention of our organisation from concentrating on its work within the masses; innumerable arrests and persecutions that harmed our forces; and the murder of more than 200 militants within a short period of the organisation's establishment... This understanding is necessary not only in terms of fidelity to the previous generation, but also and more importantly because of the fact that the revolutionary character of the party was shaped by its historical experiences and the particularities of the struggle.

We are still faced with similar difficulties and are fighting against them. In those years, among the habits developed were: energetic work, stability, comradely solidarity, discipline in work, and acting responsibly. The main problem with regard to organisation and work stemmed from narrowness, from clinging to a formal and bureaucratic tradition, and from accepting a sectarian position within the masses in the name of "revolutionarism". The main shortcomings affecting the organisational work within the masses and preventing it from taking a more advanced form were wrong understandings stemming from our class roots and our background/history. Instances of this included imposing views and formulae on working people instead of understanding their feelings and encouraging their development, and putting the organisation first instead of helping the masses themselves to get organised. There was also a clinging on to old habits and methods of struggle and organisation inherited from the bureaucratic revisionist tradition.

Despite these difficulties manifesting the weaknesses in our work, what consolidated the development of our organisation was the rise of the workers' and youth movement in 1979 which had been suffering from retreat since the beginning of 1977. During the last quarter of 1979 the organisation launched its preparatory work for a Congress. Local and regional Conferences were held, discussing the programme, constitution and the Provisional CC report. Our organisations elected for the first time the delegates for the leading organs and for the general Council. After these conferences the Foundation Congress of the Revolutionary Communist Party of the working class of Turkey was held on 2 February 1980. The working class of Turkey now had a new revolutionary party, which it had lacked since the unfinished attempts of Mustafa Suphi of the Communist Party of Turkey (CPT) in 1920. They now had the opportunity of waging struggle having a party. Given this, our party's tasks and responsibilities were multiplied a thousand times, and it was this which would make our organisation mature. 

Now there was developed a programme and constitution discussed within the organisation and adopted by the international movement; a style of work and knowledge of organisation which was shaped by the experiences of a five-year struggle. Despite the mistakes which were criticised and corrected later, the steps taken in these fields, and the achievements made were of great significance, and they marked a new beginning in our country. Nevertheless, these were not the aim itself: the ultimate aim was the emancipation of the working class, and the foundation of a revolutionary communist party, which is the fundamental instrument of this emancipation, and which aims to establish unbreakable ties with the whole of the advanced workers. Theoretical, political and organisational gains would become functional and meaningful only if they were tied to the emancipation of the working class and to its struggle for power. Our organisation made self-criticism of its work among the workers, and highlighted the weakness in its "combination of proletarian class" and its aim of winning over the advanced section of the class to the party.

Our Congress once again put emphasis on the thesis that "the revolutionary party of the proletariat is the combination of the working class movement and socialism". It stressed the necessity of the party equiping itself with Marxist-Leninist theory, and being part of the working class in terms of the class combination of its cadres and its links with the masses. Having drawn attention to the weaknesses in the relations between the workers and in the class combination of our organisation, it explained what is meant by basing oneself on the activities among the working class. The report presented to the Congress by the Provisional CC read: "Because of the features of modern industrial workers we must give particular importance to the work among them, without forgetting our emphasis on the work among the working class in general... The obstacles posed by fascist, reformist and revisionist parties and trade union bosses should not stop our work among the modern industrial workers, and should not lead us to concentrate more on the workers in small workplaces to whom they attach less importance". This was both a special emphasis on our party's characteristic of "vanguard worker", and an announcement that it would not allow any ups and downs in its work among the workers. This determination to embrace the advanced sections of the working class- industrial workers- led to our organisations basing themselves more on workers, and has been one of the main dynamics enabling the party to organise those awakening sections within it

Our Founding Congress also led to the creation of a new organ, Devrimin Sesi -DS-(Voice of Revolution) which would play an important role in the work and future of our party. It came to being as a result of the proposal of the Provisional CC to the Congress. Our organisation was an illegal one, and an illegal publication was needed to say the legally unsayable, to call upon the masses in the name of the party, and to build the backbone of an illegal organisation. On the other hand, martial law was spreading in the country and the possibilities of a legal publication were coming to an end. Voice of Revolution began to come out in such a period when our legal \softpage publications were banned. With this publication our organisation has acquired a significant strength for struggle. Although its function (and periodicity) has changed in the last few years DS has played a significant and historical role in the foundation and re-building of our organisation and its future work.

During that five-year period of self-criticism and foundation from 1975 to February 1980, our organisation was always at the centre of mass struggle. In the post-Congress period its participation in this struggle took a more advanced form, and our organisations became more and more preoccupied with the daily practical problems of the workers' movement and of our work. This was in a way a sign of maturation in our organisation. The party perceived those sectarian aspects of our political and organisational tactics which failed to understand the masses, and the non -class aspects in the positioning of our organisations. Our analyses of and tactics on the trade union movement were put on the agenda as a result of this development, and significant steps were taken in correcting the approach to this field. These mistakes and sectarianism stemmed from the reasons mentioned above, and they were to be overcome through experience and in struggle.