We document this declaration of the Central Committee of the TKP/ML:

OUR PARTY’S ULTIMATE ACTION AND EVALUATION TOWARDS RIGHT LIQUIDATIONIST GROUP WHO LEFT OUR PARTY

To inform the public and to underline our orientation by making “a final statement” in reference to the emerging developments in our party and the dissidence have shown itself as a need. Because, we consider it significant from the point of canalising our party to the class struggle duties in addition to the complete information for dissidence. We are going to evaluate the entire process by identifying its milestones and its main lines, which are reflected in public opinion and not. We are going to express our perspective for: what do the emerging developments mean and what do they tell to the party public opinion. Because where we stand now is a clear decomposition situation which its all fronts and lines are drawn, its organizational structure is settled and its political ideology is unveiled. In this scene, we are here to declare that how we define this leaving group in the context of political ideology, how we will relate with them and what will be our approach to them.

The Problems in our Party; the Current Factionalism; Fighting with this; Initiatives and its Consequences

Our Party spent long time to organize a quite important congress/conference. At the same time this process, also, has reflected as a line struggle. However, the hidden and the open struggle in the leadership results from previous situations. Our party got to the last phase of the congress/conference process and the constituents from which it will form its new political, -ideological-organizational orientation. However, this was sabotaged in 2015 by an opposition act.

This was an opportunity to clarify Party’s orientation and conduce to a new period however the fact that it didn’t take place was bad news for our Party. Even though the Party had been sabotaged by an operation, legally there was not a political vacuum to tidy up the process. These insecurities and ignored problems which were taking place in the Party occurred in the leading body.

While the first milestone was the sabotage of the Party, the second was the problems which broke out in the leading body. This attitude which has been taking place in leading body for three semesters didn’t embrace the problems of the Party and led to “conspiracy, coup, doubt and factionalism” towards the rest of the members of the leading body in June 2015. This attempt took place in correspondence with some Party members. The two letters that were sent addressing CC members had two different contents: the first one was underlining the importance of solving the problems despite of different ideas whereas the second one was about how to take control over the Party, how to organize the coup resulting from the claim of the presence of spies which is yet to be proven. The arrival of this letter to the other central committee members in accordance with its natural course, triggered the crisis in the Party. The central committee members and its reserve members convened in June in order to discuss how to organize this period. (The CC member who insisted the most for the meeting to take place is insincere from a revolutionary aspect because this member shows this meeting as a reason for dissidence.) In this meeting it was decided to discuss the topic with the rest of the Party members regarding the coup attempt demanding self-criticism from the concerned CC member. In this way, the pro-coup mindset and its conspiracy were brought into discussion to the Party members.

At the same time in the Party, the discussion about “working/operation style” and “the method of leading the process” started as a result of detention of the process. However, this discussion deviated from the reality of its being a common problem of the collective leadership and Party cadre and it tried to be considered in a way that the responsibility will attribute to some CC members. Also, this was converted into an explicit “attitude” towards the elected members of CC as “weak in willpower”. On the other hand, “party members”, who run the discussion, didn’t recognize the willpower of CC members under the cover of “not being able to gather”. At the same time, a reserve member who was assigned by the Central Committee asserted that he was assigned as a CC member. The fact that there was neither martyrization nor arrest during his reserve membership would mean that there is no vacant position. Although he was told so, he insisted on his attitude and this became another problem linked to the crises in the Party.

At this stage, the current situation is like that: one of CC member withdrew and moved away from the struggle. Another one perpetrated a crime by attempting “conspiracy and coup” and also, he added new ones by writing letters to the fields of activity. This scene created a problem in gathering in the central committee de facto but not legally. On the other hand, the problem of a CC reserve member, who acts with the authority of CC without being a CC member, appeared. Because of this gathering situation, some party members derecognised CC members, who tried to extricate the party, on account of the fact that CC members had no “willpower”. All these scenes caused a gap between taking up the challenge and irregularity, central incoordination and dissolution of the Party. Also, some of the people who derecognised the leadership were in CC reserve membership position. They declared by their actions that they could not work together with CC members whom they “don’t like” and “criticised” and announced that they didn’t derecognise CC.

The debate within the party reached serious stages in a few months. This serious discussion occurred in written form. The party clearly faced the crisis of managing the process and being left without the leading body. In this scene, the necessity of reshaping the Party willpower healthfully came out. General tendency of the party was clearing up all discussions and bringing up the subject to all Party. These discussions, completely and fully, are opened in accordance with the requirements of the bylaws of the Party and the purpose of establishing a leading body which will manage the period wholesomely. We’d like to point out that “the suggestions” which had been discussed within the process and had been imposed by threatening us and blackmailing us, became reality and thus the same part tried to drop it by telling “What was done was a mistake; The leading body had no power to do these without willpower”. Party CC members made these discussions, which had become compulsory to explain, public via Party’s media organ called Communist. While this publication had been preparing, some part of the opposition made threats as: in a condition of these not being announced to the party hierarchically, they would do it by themselves and they would get all the writings and documents out to all other parties. The most fundamental reason that we call this segment Trotskyist opposition is this attitude throughout the process. This attitude continued to happen in each phase of this process. Which we can describe it as: They opposed to achievements which were done that they wanted in the first place when they were done by people who they don’t like. In this respect, they were in a unique effort for maintaining the opposition of Trotsky.

Finally, in November, the 72^nd issue of Communist has been published. The discussions focused on some particular points where the minority CC members were leading the discussion. The first one is to make leadership functional again and the second one is to strengthen the Party and to enhance this strength through these discussions within the Party. At the same time these turned into discussions of solving the problems with the Party by not giving rise to discuss the leadership. The CC member, who didn’t give his resignation but broke away from the struggle, and another CC member who committed, were requested to terminate their subscription from the Party and PCC membership by submitting evidences. In this case, a suggestion for the problem of Central Committee’s willpower –which was de facto and just about to come up juristically as a result of these investigations, was brought forward by including the party to the issue. Selected CC members brought forward a proposal by defining the existed truth without using the CC power for assigning and replacing members. It was determined that in case of some of the current reserve members not being in accord with CC members and not showing willpower to work together then the problem of being able to guide the process for Party leadership would go on. Accordingly, it was expressed to the Party that the willpower problem would be solved by assigning some reserve members to Central Committee and by using this method, conditions of establishing the Party leadership would be provided de facto and juristically. He demanded his proposal to be approved by the Party, by including all Party into this. We would also like to point out that these reserve members were the ones who weren’t elected in 8th Conference. They were the members who were assigned by the power of PCC which was given to them by the Conference. This means that the power of decision was given to PCC in Conference to assign reserve members in case they lack original members.

This discussion had started since November. Our Party could clarify the consequences of this discussion in September 2016. Till that time, the gap in the leadership brought responsibility for each CC members to maintain their duties which were determined by Conference willpower and Party manifesto and to form field committee in accordance with the hierarchy. However, after telling the discussions to all Party and after having general ideas, unpleased people and dissidents who gathered in different motives and approaches, started to transform the power of dissidence into factionalism. In this context, throughout the period anarchism dominated the party. While this unity was organising their cooperation secretly, they continued their attitude by ignoring CC members’ leading based upon the discussion of the weakness of will.

They weren’t done with this for sure. These issues were opened to Party militia to whom they trusted by being undisciplined. In this regard, party alignments started to have full knowledge of these issues beginning from 2016. Especially, this abroad-centred faction was caught on the very act with the distributed documents in the faction meeting in May. The documents which must be read by Party members came out in the hand of our party supporters as a leaflet. Furthermore, these are the documents which weren’t delivered to Party. Some Party members and even CC members were able to see those documents in the leaflets. After this stage in-party discussions spread to all grassroots under faction mechanism. They organized activities and open meetings with followers and sympathizers by ignoring leading ship. May 2016 is a big turn for the factionist activities.

Although Party leadership and the group which was tied to party discipline continued to consider their attitude which didn’t match up with party mentality and discipline as two-line struggle. Even though factionalists were establishing their own discipline, organizational structure and twin controlling, we insisted and intended on solving the in-party issues and the leading-will problem. However, the answers of one-sided imparted knowledge were presented to party alignments by legal signatures in accordance with party hierarchy and discipline. It was proceeded without disrupting the unity of Party and the process despite the factionist activity.

In October 2016, the issue on leading ship which was presented to Party willpower arrived at a solution. But before that some developments came into question. One of the CC members who was the subject of an investigation submitted his party resignation in September 2016. He declared his resignation by giving this statement: “Any PCC member who was chosen and was accepted as leader in the 8th Conference has no right and authority to rule the Party from July-August 2016”. Besides that, by telling the below sentences in written letters to some fields, they aimed to slide the Party into chaos: “From July-August 2016 any committee and …… PCC member has no authority to rule the Party. Particularly …… PCC member, anyone has right to be in the rule. If “….” visit you and lay down the law/patronise you, disregard him/ignore him. Neither he nor ……. have any right in the leading ship. We demand you to behave according to this knowledge.” (The inappropriate adjectives used for insulting were removed by us) However, the people with this understanding who thought that all started with them and ended with them forgot the party bylaw. They ignored on-going discussions- which were going on democratically. But the provision of our Party bylaw states clearly that with the resignation CC member doesn’t lose the function. The relevant article in the bylaw is as below: “If Central Committee cannot overcome the willpower attenuation in despite of attendance all reserve members one by one, it may include one third of the original members’ number to its structure from subordinate organs. After that, in case the problem of willpower reoccurs, it is consulted to Party willpower for solution method. In such a resignation case, it is clear that “willpower” will not be lost and the solution is clear. However, in spite of the bylaw and process, this separation in the Party was based on this resignation. Also, in the assessment, which was titled as Common Statement Towards Faction Discussions and which was signed by the Middle East Region Committee, dated on 10^th February of 2017; TMLGB (Marxist-Leninist Youth Union of Turkey –Türkiye Marksist Leninist Gençlik Birli?i in Turkish, abbreviated as TMLGB); Women Committee; International Bureau, Temporary Abroad Committee and …. Committee, it is stated that “Starting from September 2016, due to the resignation and in accordance with the relevant article of our bylaw, Central Committee lost its willpower and anybody has the authority to sign and act on behalf of Central Committee. Because of that from this date on, the statements made and decisions taken with the name of CC are not valid.” The attitude itself is against to the Party and is an “anarcho- liberal” battle against provisions of Party bylaw and its approaches not to let the Party without a leading-ship. Just because we do not accept this approach and we stick to our Party’s bylaw, our Party is being accused, being convicted to be the reason of this separation! Even this factionist group is accusing us of leaving the Party simply because we are being loyal to the Party bylaw.

The Party reached a decision in the resulted investigation and in the discussion of power-will in October. The Party took back the authority of these CC members who were under investigation. In the willpower discussion, %50 supported the proposal of the rest of the members in the 8^th Central Committee; %38 proposed all members’ attendance; %12 upheld establishing a new leading-ship. In this scene Party leading-ship finalised it by enrolling some PCC reserve members as PCC members. However, any sections who follow factionists declared that they didn’t recognize this result. In spite of all convincing efforts and meetings, they defended that there is not a CC anymore and Party should organize itself as regional ruling period. In spite of majority of the Party, this “regional period” understanding was imposed to the Party. Additionally, in case this was not accepted, they stated that they will run this regional period with the ones who agreed with them.

Despite all, they were invited to discuss these and to find new solutions to unite them in the context of: a separation in this way will have a negative and destructive effect in public opinion and won’t create a healthy discussion platform; a separation in this way does not match with Party’s two-line struggle; this will result in excessive fascism attacks and all these above will demoralize people. Within this scope on the 20^th November, party members who have different perspectives met in order to find new solutions to the problems. There was a common solution and this was formed as a written protocol. According to it, will-power of the Party was discussed in C-73 issue. The willpower which was formed and resulted by %50 votes in favour didn’t give possibility of de facto to our action and will-power unity with the objection of the other %50. However, the solution was embodied with an offer which is: in order to overcome the crisis and enter into the K process, they give their consent to assign PCC reserve member. This proposal was delivered to the supporters. The factionist- troublemaker PCC reserve member refused the solution proposal which was accordant with the bylaw. On the other hand, PCC stated that if the protocol built the unity, they would accept this offer. After this rejection, all discussions went back to the beginning and “the condition of entering the regional period because of not having a CC” became the main topic again. That means solutionlessness was imposed on the Party in the phase of the solution. This attitude which stipulates contravening the bylaw and Party understanding was not accepted. It was stated that “by not taking his responsibility on duty, the Party wasn’t in the position of having any other alternative; the problem was solved with other reserve members’ positive attitudes on duty and this was indicated clearly.” However, all these warnings, based on bylaw were denied by factionists and the party members who signed the protocol on the 20th November. The climax was when the party members who didn’t stand behind their signature. These members who -in the meaning of organizational power- are the main and the central part of the factionism didn’t use this power and potential to provide Party’s unity. They surrendered to their stakeholders with whom they share a common fate, to their petit bourgeois arrogances, to their lumpen approaches.

The factionists who constituted their own organization and who established their own hierarchy by ignoring the other Party powers reconstituted GYDK (Temporary Abroad Committee) in spite of YDK (Abroad Committee) which have been active for 1,5 years. Then it declared itself disgracefully in December. We called it disgracefully because instead of declaring itself, it preferred to make a statement with GYDK signature by using the 19^th December, Maraş and Roboski massacres. Using this signature and declaring to the public means that: there are two committees in TKP/ML and they declare that they separated de facto. Again, despite to all these declarations, a new meeting was demanded on the 17^th December to build the unity and it occurred. In this meeting we came to a mutual agreement: 1) We support the 20^th November proposal. 2) Persuasion process of the comrade …… (the PCC reserve member to whom the proposal was made) will go on. In the case that comrade wouldn’t accept the proposal, the approach of uniting GYDK will be preserved because the problem of action and will-power unity will go on. The activities will perform in the charge of …… However, when the person who signed this agreement delivered it to his stakeholders, they again denied this agreement with the known motives.

In the result of each meeting in about two months, each common solution failed because of uncompromising attitude. Our Party under these circumstances would either bow to the corruption or behave like a Bolshevik Party by sharing these with the public. Our Party preferred to wait until the end of January with the possibility of preventing the declaration of the separation. However, at the end of January 2017 the factionist understanding was proclaimed. On the 11^th February the lumpen- intellectual factionists chose to reverse the truth once more in their statements which was signed by 6 committee: “Contrary to the ones who wrote this statement and grew up in our Party, we won’t continue to discuss it more because the efforts of uniting the Party does not come to a conclusion.” This is a sign of a sneaky attitude which is sick from lumpenism; is sworn for manipulation and in an attempt to seem cute to the public. After our declaration to public, they managed to show themselves as unionist and us as separatist by ignoring all internal Party discussion.

Our Party, once again, demanded a meeting for the sake of providing the unity despite of all the problems, all humiliating manipulations, all lies and cheats. In PCC’s meeting with Dersim Party Committee, they decided to give another chance to meet for Party unity. It was denied by the factionists and their reaction was: “Do a self-criticism and return the sections and then we will meet you.” They didn’t even bother to meet. The people who made propaganda as they wanted to unite and try to protect the unity showed their attitude in this protection. So, our last move which aimed to unite the Party again and which carries the responsibility of revolution was rejected in the phase of an attempt by the factionists.

Right here and now it is important to consider why our Party tolerated these lumpen- intellectuals and autonomous and anarchist approaches in the organisational context. There is a perception as how factionists wanted to unify the Party whereas they made us seem as if we are in favour of separation. This perception was related not only to factionist’s hypocrisy and lies but also to the fact that Party was being patient and not behaving impetuously about expressing itself. Because the path of being a Party and revolution is a toilsome and long way. Each step has to be taken with patience and caution. Hurriedness of petit bourgeois, plans to create a legitimacy field by leaning back on someone -even cyclically-, victimization will cause to grow and deepen the problem, also to spread insecurity to all sides. Our Party tolerated all of these because the matter was party understanding, the comprehension of two-line struggle and the responsibility of revolution. Each of these are the basis of our ideology, reasons for our being. In spite of all defamatory campaigns, gossips, casting doubts on the Party and its cadre, the Party and its leadership are calm and has the responsibility of maintaining the unity of the Party. The toleration of the Party results from this consciousness. Facing with party problems in a correct platform will extend the possibilities of making a true move. Our Party searched all possibilities to face with the factionists in a common ideological-political-organizational platform. Our Party considers the comprehension of two-line struggle and its own understanding as the guarantee of party unity. In this context these kinds of periods will be litmus paper in the attitude of two-line struggle. Our Party is loyal to the approach of “Party is not a union of factionists.” However, in the solutions of these kinds of contradictions, our Party prefers to focus on liquidationism in factionalists’ party understanding, its line and its organisation understanding instead of organizational liquidation. Also, it maintains this by trying to include it into two-line struggle. Our Party’s tolerant approach, its attempts to provide the unity and its concerns about meeting in a common platform mustn’t be perceived as its weakness and lack of self-confidence. Our Party is one of the candidate party to reach revolution as a leading staff for proletariat and labourer people from different nationalities. These efforts in order to solve problems in our sides should be perceived as a sensitivity to protect the values and the old and faithful followers who have made great efforts in years for the Party. Our Party sees the party idea in this way which sees the difficulty of conducting a struggle, which comprehends the faction as its own product, which believes to solve problems where it occurs. Because of all these, we handled the subject as a struggle of providing the unity with the dialectic-materialist understanding.

However, it is understood that there is an understanding which goes along with the Party in the same path as a burden. We are face to face with a petit bourgeois understanding which shows itself bigger than it is by spreading lies and after that believes its own illusion and also which sees our Party’s concerns about maintaining the unity as a weakness. Beyond these, we are facing with an understanding which is spoilt and unserious about Party problems, which is anti-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist in two-line struggle, which is self-centred and liberal and which prefers to have petit bourgeois’ autonomous understanding to the discipline of Bolshevik Party. All these approaches, by becoming their character in the period of discussions, produced themselves again and again and became systematic. The lumpen structure in the efforts of being intellectual of petit bourgeois, found its space in the factionists’ approaches to the problems as a class character.

Their political and ideological forming and their world opinion led them and formed them in the struggle with the problems and also in the organizational struggle. The most important problem of factionism in politics is eclecticism. Actually, the ability of considering the problems holistically and tackling the issue integrally became indistinct. Also, its political line was afflicted with this eclecticism. Especially, while handling the problems of the Party and its leadership, this disease took over the control. Dominant perception is to think about the problems in certain periods or to arrogate it to certain organs. While defending this eclectic party line in its politic, it drifted away from the party line and was present in this political attitude. The factionalism is a coalition where people who own different political programmes, who think and live differently from each other. It has an eclectic programme which has a necessity to find a common point with an open temporary agreement. It has neither patience in party line nor courage in its own line. It creates the freedom and democracy of speech which everyone defends. This eclecticism is objective and its existence lean on sustaining it. An opposite attitude forces it to face the reality which will ruin it and take it apart. In this context, its party understanding and its struggle programme can seem as eclectic and sectional. The base of being an organization and acting as an organization do not exist. While the Temporary Abroad Committee (GYDK) was declaring itself as Abroad Committee (YDK) – they removed “temporary” because they established the Organizational Committee (ÖK)-, at the same date the people in Dersim who stood with the factionists gave a statement as declaring themselves as Temporary Dersim Party Committee. Their presence was based on the reality of being far away from the dynamics of field action; from the seriousness of the comprehension of Party Committee and Guerrilla Unit. This situation is neither a simple organizational problem nor miscommunication matter. It is the matter of acting without thinking. A devoid of common party understanding, approach and operation; unseriousness and regionalism always come our way in each phase.

Also, in this eclecticism there are problems such as defending the separation of ideology and politics; discussing “strategic” tendency with “tactic” theory under the cover of finding a way to make it happen; defending the new one without analysing different ideas despite of comprehending the flow; embracing the experiences top down which violates the struggle idea.

The main and major problem of the factionist understanding which was derived from the Party is seeing that the Party’s political baseline doesn’t match with its class interests and world perspective. It is in tendency to get rid of its burden which will prevent of bringing itself into being and its bounds. These all characteristics was in its background.

It had grown inside our Party as a defective unit in accordance with the today’s zeitgeist. They are the footprints of the people who say “We need to say something different now”. That is why their strongest criticism to the Party is dogmatism. This is because their assessments of socio-economic structure of countries, their method of classifying social classes, their relations with mass organization, their alliance policy and strategical orientation of the revolution are afflicted with the idea of “saying something different”. From this point of view the most important and serious problem in political cleavages with the factionists is about the separation in the matter of leadership. The factionist understanding doesn’t consider it harmful to comprehend the Party as a simple medium of class struggle and to position it in this manner.

The discussions regarding the opinion of the Party on its programmes, the current situation of the press of the Party, the discussions between the mass organizations and the Party, analysis of the government and the political argumentations of their attitude based on the “Constitutional” referendum and especially the HBDH (Peoples’ United Revolutionary Movement) case within the Party are the reasons for which we are demanding a changeover.

The HBDH case which is a huge discussion within the Party is a political-ideological line separation. However, the emergence of the putschist and the factionist attitude throughout the organisation process is very important. It was revealed during the organisation process of HBDH that this factionist attitude has been taking place in a coordinated manner in this formation by ignoring the CC members and some parts of the Party. The factionists who had undermined the hierarchy of the Party since the very beginning by exchanging information between them and the people who gathered around the factionalist understanding used the Party’s signature within the HBDH formation. This situation which is against the way that the Party functions is undeniably clear.

The discussion regarding HBDH programme clarifies the line separation within the Party despite the attempts of concealing. In the following period, it was clear that they didn’t agree on the topics like Party leadership role, on politics of front, on Rojava, on regional and country level revolution and on Kurdish national issue. The suggestions which have been made regarding the changeovers were under the cover of criticism of dogmatism and changing conditions have been an obstacle for our Party. Our party has put an end to the discussions about the reason why our Party left HBDH, the fact that HBDH had aims beyond the unification of actions in other words the discussions which was about HBDH corresponding to a front organization. We are not going to repeat the declaration which we have made before.

However, the essential historical role of the Communist Party is not giving up on the theory which is shaped according to the interests and the ideological positioning of the proletarian class. Any act to overshadow this, would mean that the political party will distant itself from its historical role. This factionist approach tries to simplify the leading role of the Party and to isolate it from its historical role and to prompt people to change with the mood of the political failure of the proletarian. This approach was dominant in the HBDH discussions. They had an attitude of restraining such an important topic to an organisational field but it was them who blamed us for their organisational crimes which were committed while joining into HBDH. However, by doing so and they tried to cover up once more the line separation that is going on.

This is because the front issue is directly related to the political leadership problem. It is one of the medium of establishing the communist party leadership. In this discussion we were dealing with the party’s leadership role and its mission whereas they opportunistically tried to cut its connection with reality by saying that “this is not front”. Straightforwardly they did the math of hiding the political-ideological problems and clearing of the Party from its leadership role.

The source of their deviation in the political line of right liquidationism is their approach which denies the role of Party leadership. The distrust to communism and to the organisation which would make communism stable lies at the root of the problem. Their criticism of “powerless power fantasies” regarding the class struggle in our first declaration on faction fits in this context. It took its strength from an ideological stance which became distrustful to power struggle instead of discussing the Party leadership in a correct line, building it and strengthening it or getting to the crux of the problems which derived from universal and authentic conditions. Our Party doesn’t defend itself as it is in a good point in power struggle and leading. Our Party accepts that we have problems; we couldn’t handle these problems; we are in ideological-political recession and we couldn’t manage to convince the masses by foreseeing the flow of the political process. However, these don’t mean that the problem should be searched in its communist characteristics and qualifications or in its model which aims to take over the power. This does not lead us to the conclusion of postponing the party’s argument nor giving up. If this happens then the Party is no longer a communist Party. It can even be said that the main source of our problem is being not able to clear up the growing distance between claiming the power and the leadership within the Party. In that aspect, one of the most important features which a Communist party should preserve is its mission and its historical role. If this feature is lost then it results in bigger line separation within the Party. At the end of the day the political line is essential and determinant in struggle. If there is an understanding which loses its line and acts like a chameleon or stands with great powers, these show that it is weak in historical dialectic understanding of M-L-M; in defending the proletariat struggle in hard conditions and in uniting the other friends and allied parties in communist party line. These are the signs of right liquidationism which tries to save the day.

This right wing liquidationist factionalism attacks to the Party’s communist essence under the cover of dogmatism. These attacks are nothing new. This right wing liquidationism is just a spoiled, ignorant and a bad copy of the ideological attacks which have been made to Ibrahim Kaypakkaya and to Maoism.  The relation between the original liquidationist attacks and the factionist attitude is in its natural flow.  They are in solidarity with each other and forming an ally against the Party.

This approach and attitude pose a serious danger by presenting it as partisanship for party. It is destitute of declaring an honest and a clear political line. What is the thing they attack as dogmatism while telling the change constantly? The only point that they refer on this topic is the approach on Kurdish national issue. The factionists have used Rojava issue as an elevator for their sake while positioning themselves in “United Kurdistan” implicitly. They have shyly expressed their tendency to the theory of regional revolution and have told that opposite approaches would have difficulty to understand the new aspects of regional contradictions and Kurdish national issue. In this regard the factionists have been targeting the Party line with a baseless “social chauvinism” criticism. It must be known that our Party, while leaving the HBDH, didn’t and cannot evaluate the political leading of PKK as a problem. It took it in principal base and evaluated its own attitude at the core of its programmatic views. Again, our not being in Rojava has been used as our insensitivity in the struggle of the Kurdish national issue by the factionalists. Whereas our Party sees and defends being in Rojava as an international solidarity. Our Party forces in Rojava took sides with the factionists in the discussion within the Party; this is the situation. It is still our duty to be with our comrades and allied revolutionary forces who are in abroad and Rojava and to position behind the front. This has nothing to do with HBDH. From past to today, our Party has a common struggle perspective, strong relations and alliances with Kurdish national struggle by expressing our ideas explicitly and by keeping our line and by criticising. We fought together in the same guerrilla units and lost our comrades in this fight, so it will be. However, this doesn’t mean that we won’t criticise the line of Kurdish national move and their tendency. The relation of friendship is as a common struggle against the enemy, and as a political-ideological struggle with each other. This line which has been followed by our Party since the beginning faced with the liquidationism as a result of the faction.

But that was not the only thing that they are trying to liquidate regarding the Kurdish issue. At the same time, the leadership role of the party in solving the national problem of Turkey Kurdistan was facing liquidationism. In that aspect, a separation like “Democratic Autonomy in Kurdistan, Democratic Popular Revolution in Turkey” is supported by this factionist approach. This is nothing other than giving up one’s own identity, one’s revolutionary programme and one’s claims. Moreover, it means an acceptance of the ideological-political core of Democratic Autonomy, which is rejected by our party. The claim to take the leadership role in the Kurdish National Issue is a programmatic position of our party. Which part of Kurdistan that concerns is obvious and indisputable. Our Party defends the right of nations to self-determination as a revolutionary solution in national issue; accepts the democratic popular revolution as its party programme and is responsible to set out its principles and policy to accomplish this goal. An idea which denies all these by embracing and defending the programme of “national liberation” corresponds to a principal deviation. Being allied with this movement or having a common struggle with it was not the matter. This was about adopting a way of struggle which the Party does not support by giving up on its own programme. The right-wing liquidationist faction was representing this specific attitude within the Party. In that aspect, it also highlighted one more time the liquidationism towards the Party’s political separation line which corresponded to social chauvinism in political line and had been refined ideologically on the basis of the rejection of the right of self-determination.

The right-liquidation factional mentality also suffers from a reformist attitude and perspective. The factionist approach especially towards the Party’s political separation line makes the tendency to this political feature inevitable and because it can be seen that reformism is spreading on an international scale. The effects and reflections of this strong ideological wave unfolded by imperialism after the fall of the Russian Social Imperialism in the 90s continue today in various new forms. The movements which were first affected in this period were the revisionist movements that considered Russian social-imperialism as “socialist.” However, this period was not limited with only these people. There were many more aspects to this such as the fact that the working class and the oppressed were affected very deeply just like their struggle. The revolutionary and the communist movements were not in a strong position in terms of the ideological-political and organisational effectiveness and they drew a line of defence that was limited to be insisting on revolutionary and communist positions. Certainly, this attitude and positioning were very important, considering the characteristics of that time. However, this counter-revolutionary wave was not enough to satisfy the needs of the class struggle at an organisational, ideological and political level. As a result, this situation which appeared as a liquidation in the class struggle, affected naturally revolutionists as well as the communists. At an international scale, the political streams like reformism and consociationalism had distanced themselves from ideas like dictatorship of proletariat, political power and armed revolution and developed itself by fighting against them at the ideological level. This ideological break weakened the belief in socialism and in the revolution and had resulted in a stream where individualism was considered as a solution. Any difficulty in organizing broad masses for the cause of communism and socialism, any theoretical and ideological problem in encountering these difficulties, increased the influence of the break and the liquidation. These processes clarify the new one as well as making the innovative attempts which aim to solve the problems inevitable. Certainly, such times require an openness that understands the qualities and character of the process, without abandoning the fundamental principles. Without performing this task, it is impossible to raise the awareness of the working class and oppressed workers and to prepare them for the revolutionary struggle. During these processes revisionism, reformism and any kind of anti-MLM movements are effective and have a determinant effect on the masses. Every argument in favour of Marxism and any statement which claims that the class struggle is necessary have even a greater impact and power on the revolutionists. However, in case of not subjected to a well-founded MLM criticism, they form the breeding ground for all the toxic and harmful ideas of the time.

The political failure on an international scale resulted in the questioning of a stronger political line. During these periods, the opinions which were successful in the struggle of freedom and rights tend to become in the centre of the attention. Their ideological, philosophical and intellectual influence becomes more effective. In our country, above all, the PKK’s resilience in the national liberation struggle against all attacks and extermination operations and their development, despite the defeat phase, increased the influence of their paradigm which developed in accordance with the spirit of the times. The Kurdish National Movement has formed a paradigm not only relating to the Kurdish nation’s freedom but also relating to a universal social liberation. This movement has influenced the communist and the revolutionary movement as much as the intellectuals and highbrow people by their analyses of the problems of socialism and by the conclusions that it draws from these problems. This paradigm determined a fundamental line that disregarded power, rejected the dictatorship of the proletariat, focused on a compromise policy, defined peace as a goal to be achieved, defended common life awareness of the classes in their democratic coexistence. Even though it formulates this through the legitimacy of self-defence form, its real orientation is based on the coexistence of hostile classes based on peace and compromises. It admits the existence of both the compromises and the conflicts however it argues that the essential dynamic is the conciliation and not getting into conflicts. In other words, it systematizes a philosophy which considers the conciliation as the main way and the conflicts as a secondary road in the relationship between things. This approach is in line with the international trend, which is based on a compromise between classes.

All these factors raised the rates of profit and intensified exploitation through infinite and limitless freedom of movement of capital and goods for imperialist global monopolies. Also, the reduction of bureaucracy in the superstructure institutions of all states and the strengthening of “civil society” increased the legitimacy of “bourgeois systems” in the eyes of the masses. This situation was manipulated by claiming that it increases the “participation” and “control” role of the masses through a civil society attitude to the social issue. As a result, there was also a situation as state approval of “freedom” as long as it remained within the system, not based on violence and not interested in power. Above all, a policy concept spread to wage class struggle without seeking the seizure of power, to stay away from power even by legal and parliamentary means, and to achieve goals by mass organizations; and a political climate emerged that is dominated, determined and shaped by this concept. This situation created an idea and a political formation that considers the leadership and avant-garde unnecessary and assumes the possibility of a struggle without a power perspective. This differs greatly from the classical “reformism” and “economism” and corresponds to the concept of “civil society”, which represents an ideological attack, which limits the masses to control and limited social-economic-political-democratic demands and perspective of taking the power.

It was impossible for our party to completely escape the influence of this extensive ideological-political climate. It should be stressed at this point that the most affected party members by this attack in our Party was the people who were the right-liquidation faction. The inadequacy of organizing the revolution and mobilizing the masses in the long history of the Party not only created distrust of our line, but also created a form which is anarchistic and autonomous in their organizational understanding; is liberal and reformist in political formation under the influence of the above-mentioned political climate. This is a political formation representing the petty bourgeoisie, which let alone grasping the role of the masses; rejects a policy appropriate to its will and its demand for power and sanctifies a fragmental and spiritual combat perspective. So, this is the breeding ground of right-wing liquidation and one of the ideological-political formations and perspectives that grip the party and its line as an obstacle and a burden on their shoulders and insist on going their own way. The right-wing liquidation can and, more importantly, does not want to be free from its influence.

These ideological, political, and organizational causes and purposes ushered in a process that prevented a healthy course of the two-line struggle within our party and made the split tendency a concrete and fundamental one. Certainly, our Party and party leadership could not handle this process in a healthy way. Great difficulties arose in assessing party reality and the dimensions of ideological-political diseases within the Party and their reflection in organizational units. The influence of these tendencies has been trivialized. And they did not manage to deal with them during the process. After all, the factional mentality is a product of the party. According to the reality of party’s being a course for the class struggle, not being prepared the whole party for the worsening class struggle and not doing the requirements for this, problems accumulated and the domination problem deepened. Despite all its shortcomings and mistakes, and although some of the liquidators’ weaknesses also exist in the party, our party has fought a battle to defend its communist line. It insisted on continuing this struggle both in terms of its party and organizational understanding as well as its general political line and ideological attitude. The party view, the two-line struggle within the party, and the general political line are issues of strategic relevance to communists. The party has shown an attitude to preserve this to the extent that its strategic relevance has been grasped. However, during this process it also became apparent that the party and its leadership had inadequacies in understanding and resolving these issues. Our party is claimant, decisive and insistent to use that fact as a lever for its further development.

At this stage, our Party thinks that the factionists made their own way irreversibly with their own discipline, their own rules, their mentality and the “organizational structures” they have created. In this regard, the factionist attitude has left our Party and now is an external fact. The demand of this factionist attitude for “unity” was a kind of “petty bullying” from the beginning which was just an attempt to trick the public opinion and was trying to take advantage of the reaction of the mass and the party grassroots. This is contradictory to their political position and it is definitely not honest. All the attempts aiming to hold the Party together was made by our party and its leadership. The factionist attitude didn’t not play a single role in holding the party together. While the Party and its leadership was trying to hold the party together, this factionist attitude was dealing with conspiracies, coup, and creating doubts within the Party. At the same time, they were creating their own organisation within the Party. This is crystal clear and has been clearly demonstrated at every stage of the process and proved with documents.

At this point we have to respond to the allegation that the party allegedly used violence. That’s not true. Our party has not determined a violent policy in this separation. It did not publicize the tension inherent in the nature of this process with a miserable and cheap policy. But the faction which is deprived of revolutionary culture prompted our Party to be isolated and be exposed by the aspersion of using revolutionary violence. The matter of taking the office was a right that our party was entitled to. It was a task change and we acted accordingly. Apart from the fact that no force was used, no resistance came from the other side, which could have led to violence. The party leadership is the right holder and the authorized unit to initiate such a task change. In addition, in that time the separation was not clearly decided and the struggle against the faction still was on going. Moreover, a series of tension arose during the process. Also, there were actions against us which ranged to violence. However, our party history clearly shows that such friction and tension can occur at such times. We did not think that was a problem, did not think that the other side had a violent policy, and did not make it public, because if we had acted that way, we would not have told the truth. Nevertheless, we would like to emphasize once again that in these frictions also came violence against our comrades. There was one event that could be called violence, and it was the result of a spontaneous tension. That does not refute our general policy. On the contrary, this event, which is an exception, confirms the general line, considering the friction that occurred during the process.

The factionists’ efforts to persuade other revolutionary and progressive parties and movements by claiming that we were violent, were to some extent fruitful. At this point, our party could not explain itself sufficiently, because couldn’t set up the necessary networking. We admit our deficiency. However, by just listening to the matter unilaterally and by ignoring the tension which may be expected in such processes and by adding fuel the flames, the parties and the organizations which act and struggle with revolutionary goals maintained their attitudes which is “political opportunism” and an idealism that revealed itself in the form of its treatment of contradictions. We evaluate these attitudes as neither constructive nor reparative, but as destructive and diffuser of revolutionary distrust. Our party faced much greater and more direct violence during the 1994 separation. However, at that time neither did the two sides gossip about it nor did they condescend to a policy of exposure and isolation which would embarrass our Party. Once again, a greater sense of revolutionary responsibility was evident in revolutionary movements. The seriousness and responsibility of the revolutionaries should entail that one obtains complete knowledge of the matter by listening to both sides, and then, if a position should be taken based on that very knowledge. While some of our revolutionary friends tackled this matter with seriousness and positioned themselves accordingly, others with the least attitudes and behaviour and pragmatism preferred to increase our problems. But it is true that these attitudes planted the seeds of mistrust between movements and parties that today cultivate solidarity with one another. Because of the fact that the revolutionary process is not a process just happen today. It has never seen in the history that a relationship based on temporary interests and calculations could survive. That will continue to be the case.

Since this is relevant in this regard, we would like to take this opportunity to address our party’s position on the battlefield/land. The factionists also were organized among our guerrilla forces in Dersim, but could not achieve much success. Finally, there was also “a separation based on fractionism”. How did our party organization and forces behave? This vanishingly small and powerless group was not subjected to any particular isolation, on the contrary they were given weapons and logistics, provisions and all technical mediums and so the separation was peaceful on that stage. In this context, an attitude was observed that corresponded to the general line of our party. And what have the factionists, which has no idea of its own organization, done in this process? They tried to provoke political organizations and our party base by telling them that they were worried about the lives of their friends in the said area, did not receive any news from them, etc. An attitude that their own inability to communicate with their own organizational structures, to blame the Party should serve as a negative example. While they were doing this propaganda, a statement by the “Temporary Party Committee – Dersim” appeared in the media. So, the factionists could experience the line of their own organizational structure. What we know for certain is that political organizations and our base would be provoked with quite a big shout against the party if that statement had not reached the media. While our party was acting responsibly and with revolutionary concerns, the factionists didn’t want to give up its propaganda that stirred mistrust of the party. This is a “political style”, but a rotting and degenerate one.

In the end, the factionists, which we have long described as a right-wing liquidation group, took the form of a separate “organization”. It publishes central statements under the name “Organizing Committee” (ÖK) and seems to have its own hierarchy. The separation was complete and final in all areas. Given this fact, the class character of this faction is THE RIGHT WING OF THE URBAN PETIT BOURGEOISIE. This class character is essentially a consuming one. It has a structure which is isolated from production and the masses, which would like to be intellectual and arrogant, but at the same time which becomes lumpen. Its political line has liquidation-opportunist and reformist tendencies. Its organizational line is autonomous, random and anarcho-liberal. Its liquidation is essentially based on the erosion of the Party’s ideology and political leadership.

For this reason, from now on, our party will no longer call it a FRACTION but a right-liquidatorial petty-bourgeois movement. The fact that our party ceases to define it as a faction is linked to its policy, which determines our view and attitude towards this group. Our party does not want to impose a ban on this group, nor does it consider it a group that could not be cooperated with. Our Part sees it as an element and supporting subject of the class struggle, as one of the forces in the people. Here again we declare that the general political line, orientation and organizational concept of this group has nothing to do with our party TKP/ML. The right thing and the scientific thing would be that this group would rename itself to cause no confusion in public. Certainly, they possess a right to decide for themselves what they represent. But they should do their naming according to the fact that they have left our party.

The relationship between this group and our Party will not be tight due to a series of unsightly, stressful and distrust-based events. But in general, we have no fundamental attitude to rule out cooperation. Judging them as one of the forces of the people does not requires that we treat them as if nothing had happened, or that we sympathize with their destructive attitude towards the party or regard it as any party or organization. However, all of our forces need to realize that we need to say goodbye to an escalation-based policy as soon as possible, remove the issue as quickly as possible from our party’s agenda, and not treat it as an internal issue. Our struggle against this movement will continue on a political-ideological basis, as well as ideologically and practically on every front. Our Party forces should remove this movement as quickly as possible from their agenda and focus on the class struggle to create a line that meets the revolutionary needs of the working class and oppressed sections of the population. Our party should adopt an approach that compensates for the loss of power due to the separation by focusing on organizing in the areas where the party is weakened and re-organizing in the lost areas. The parts of our base that remained on the side of the right-wing liquidators should be persuaded in time by a long-term and proper revolutionary practice and be won back for the ranks of the party. This is a process that includes the ideological-political struggle. Our relations with the parts of our base that are on the side of the said group should intensify and become more convincing.

Now this group has nothing to do with the problems of our party. They should stop their behaviour that spreads distrust in our party and its cadres, and stop spreading defamations and rumours. No matter who spreads rumours and mistrust, our party will not be silent. Any rumour and denunciation that goes beyond the bounds of ideological and political criticism is treated as a counterrevolutionary activity. No matter who it is, whether “connectionless” or “connected”, our party will not stand by silence. Acting with a revolutionary sense of responsibility in this respect, it will be possible to create a foundation that is focused on the duties and requirements of the revolution, that will not mistrust revolution and revolutionaries, and that will not give the enemy an opportunity to provoke. That’s what the revolution and the people need. Suspecting an outside party or organization and its cadres, spreading rumours about them and denouncing their cadres are not parts of revolutionary acts. Our party feels and bears this responsibility from the beginning. We have the right to expect the same sensitivity from everyone.

Even if this separation gives the revolutionary public, our people and the international proletariat a negative image of the loss of power, our party is in possession of the willpower to overcome the destruction that was caused by the group, which is no longer a part of our party structures. Our Party had experienced separations and withdrawals with more serious consequences, that’s why its experience and knowledge are high and also it has the capacity to tackle these issues. Nobody should doubt that.

Our Party, the leading communist staff of the international proletariat in Turkey and Turkey Kurdistan, by dressing its wounds, by overcoming its inadequacies, by gathering its forces and by leaping into the class struggle against the enemy will continue its revolutionary duties and its struggles for the cause of popular democracy, socialism and communism in Turkey. It is able to create this historical necessity.

Long live our party, the TKP/ML and the under its leadership TIKKO and TMLGB!

TKP/ML-MK

(Central Committee of the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist)

October 2017