DHKP/C - Turkey: The History of our Party II

[english at ozgurlluk.xs4all.nl]

THE RENEGADES OF DEVRIMCI YOL AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR MOVEMENT

Through the efforts of some elements, former sympathisers of the
THKP-C in prison, the KSD was founded, the Kurtulus Sosyalist Dergisi,
the Socialist Liberation Magazine), initially criticising the THKP-C.
Later they defended their theory of social-imperialism and they
increasingly denounced their own past, engaging themselves more and
more in Aydinlik. Later the groups of Acil and the MLSPB crystallised
from its left deviations. Furthermore a group emerged around the
Devrimci Genclik (Revolutionary Youth) paper, with its roots in Ankara
and with a leadership of former THKP-C responsibles. 

They stood up against the deviations from the left and the right and
they propagated the view to establish once more the ideological unity
of those who had participated in the unified struggle of the THKP-C in
the past. With this view, they did not stay indifferent - like the
other left and right groups - towards the problems of the youth and
other segments of the population. This view, that ideological unity
will be reached in time, and the idea of founding the THKP-C again was
attractive to us, the new generation. It was our greatest wish to
organise life, to discuss it in the context of the notion of
organisation and organised struggle, to convince each other, to
establish a just analysis of our past and present. That's why
relations were established with sincere feelings and it was tried to
bridge the distance, aiming at unification. 

Another position, the signs of a rather right-wing view, could be seen
in the first editions of the paper Dev-Genc already. Although we
criticised all this already during that time, we were unable to
achieve a positive result . 

On the contrary, approaches marked by prejudices and keeping a
distance were common. They persisted in not taking organised steps in
practice and they tried to force a spontaneous right-wing line upon
us. We weren't even a group, the lowest level of organising. And their
efforts for the so much spoken about ideological unity were almost
null and void. Despite all our pressure and our attempts to give form
to the militant struggle, and although our earlier attempts to
establish a militant practice positively influenced the masses, the
leadership of this group reacted in a negative way. They constantly
tried to force us into a spontaneous and right-wing line in different
ways. Furthermore, they had no clear view in their own ranks how, for
example, the process of becoming a party should look like, how
problems should be tackled in theory and practice, etcetera...

Day by day, the development became more obvious, the attacks kept
increasing.

Having to confront this development in an organised way, to stand up
against the attacks, growing up step by step in the organised
struggle, we became aware of this in a painful way. But the Ankara
group did not show any haste. They were so indifferent towards the
number of young people who had put all their hopes in them, a number
which must not be underestimated, that they addressed their own
personal problems, competing for legitimacy when they were released
from prison, in stead of addressing the problems of the struggle. 

It seemed we were together with the Ankara DG-group, but essentially
the differences in the practice of both groups, Istanbul and Ankara,
and the different views how to solve occurring problems, continued.
And the Ankara group did not make an effort to create an ideological
unity, to end the differences between both groups. Their only goal was
to take the line of legality, forcing this line upon us. 

Finally, in 1977, they came with a draft for a program, albeit after
some pressure, which should form the basis for ideological unity. In
this draft, again the different views emerged about many items such as
the evaluation of the THKP-C, the reorganisation in those days, the
PASS, organisation etc. It was said that this was just a draft, that a
lot had to be discussed and that points which were objected would be
corrected,  they claimed to essentially agree with us about the
problems. 

We were happy that finally, be it late, ideological unity had been
achieved. 

A periodical press organ was to be published and it was decided that
the program was to be explained to the readers, clarifying the
progress of ideological unity. It was agreed that the organisation was
transferred to a central level and that the struggle was to be
intensified. 

>From the day we started our relations with the DG-group, they tried to
force their will upon us, they looked down at us, they did not take
the young generation seriously, they were bureaucratic, legalistic and
they showed a spontaneous right-wing line in almost all their views.
Despite all this we thought that ideological unity was going to be a
longer process and we decided to continue the struggle, without
loosing our common sense and ripeness. 

But our common sense, our desire for the THKP-C unity and our
willingness to sacrifice only met deaf ears. The oligarchy had killed
their revolutionary dynamics. Revolutionary principles and values were
lost, revolutionary politics were replaced by bourgeois ones. They had
become ageing bureaucrats who desired order. Everything and everyone
was just a means to achieve this goal. 

When the draft of the program was published as "Devrimci Yol Program",
we saw that not a single point we objected to had been corrected. A
large majority of the masses, influenced and led by us, and our
sympathisers were furious. The Ankara group showed the THKP-C,
ideological unity and the plans for the future in a right-wing light.
Their theoretical views were in accordance with their right-wing
practice. 

At this point we had to either go through the process of unification,
have the points we disagreed upon corrected without giving in, or we
had to leave the publications and the approaches as they were, making
an end to the process of ideological unity. 

Without clarifying the points we agreed or disagreed upon, without
showing that two different systems were defended, that there were two
different views about the strategic problems of vital importance, a
break would have been a cheap solution which would have a negative
influence on the unity of the party. We could not choose this road. 

Despite the games of bourgeois diplomacy and the deviousness, we had
to increase our efforts - even though it would be difficult and
painful - and we had to be prepared for treason. We had seen in what
way the old guard had taken the path of treason. But we were without
prejudice. We asked the authors why the points we disagreed on and
which should have been corrected had not been changed in the definite
print. The answer was a curious one, even childish, it had been a
printing error, all of the points were going to be discussed and
corrected in future editions of the magazine. Another seemingly
responsible person said he didn't know why it was written in such a
way because he shared our views. Bourgeois diplomacy was grinning at
us in these answers. But despite all this, we had to wait till the
points of the program were published and there was no other way to
push on the discussion.


Although the ideological unity in the program went a step forward, the
Devrimci Yol magazine did not fulfil the task of finalising this
ideological unity. Although some time had past, the pages were filled
with everyday problems and they tried to keep us at bay. When we
protested, they said "Just wait a little bit longer". Devrimci Yol was
looking for a beneficial moment to force their personal ideological
views upon us. Because of this attitude, nothing was done to implement
the decision to take steps for the centralisation of the joint
organisation to achieved the expansion of the struggle. The question
"why" was not answered. In stead, they began to place their own people
as Devrimci Yol cadres, to establish personal contacts and they
propagated their personal right-wing line to put people against us in
case of a split. The purpose of their planning became obvious. The
problems which "should be published" were not published as a result of
a bourgeois diplomacy. To publish the problems before establishing
their own party-political organisation could have meant their end.
Until then the slogan was "We are defending the THKP-C" and this was
the only way for them to gather the THKP-C potential. Or that's how it
looked like anyway. Despite all their attempts of party politics, all
their apparent games with us - which we saw clearly and which we were
aware of, we held back and insisted in bringing to the open the
different views. The reactions of our sympathisers became stronger,
the situation could not go on like this and it demanded our
intervention. 

While the attacks by the civic and official fascists increased day by
day, the road could already been seen which would lead from the state
of emergency of the oligarchy to a new military junta. The attacks
became larger and heavier. But Devrimci Yol was not an organisation
which could stand the enemy attacks, it did not even know what to do
against these attacks and it did not posses any perspective of what
tactics had to be used in the struggle. And they stubbornly evaded the
confrontation of how to wage the struggle, how to render the terror of
the state and the fascists ineffective, how to render the tactics of
the enemy to frighten and pacify the masses by means of provocative
acts ineffective. Without doubt, we wanted to fulfil our task towards
the revolution and the people with the perspective and the
responsibility of the THKP-C. We wanted to do so with all our strength
and we did not want to go into the struggle unprepared. But this was
not the same as the work of an organisation which had already taken
the necessary steps on a central level and which knew what had to be
done. 

MayDay 1977 constitutes a clear example of the development of the
revolutionary movement in Turkey and the acts of the oligarchy against
this revolutionary movement. Using the same example, one can see the
neglect, the ignorance about the enemy and the distorted simple
mindedness and attitude of a left which was used by the oligarchy.
During this phase, the opportunist and revisionist left had split up
into pro-Soviet, pro-China and pro-Albania lines. The enemy had become
a twin brother and they accused each other of being a "Maoist Grey
Wolf" and a "social-fascist". The revisionist were repeating every
word by the CPSU (the Communist Party of the Soviet Union), and those
who were on the side of Albania and China acted like novices of the
ALP (Albanian Labour Party) and the CPC (Communist Party of China).
The ideological struggle between the socialist countries and their
attitudes in practice were caricaturised and reflected upon our
country during the initial phase of the struggle. This has led to the
bloodshed of revolutionaries and a redirection of the goal of the
struggle. Week before MayDay, the oligarchy spread its propaganda of
"blood will flow" and "there will be confrontations among the left"
and they cleared the road for their planned confrontation and
massacre. In this, they used the behaviour of a left which
demonstrated it was  prepared to fight and confront one another, if
need be to shed blood. 

The left played along with the provocations of the oligarchy. While
the reformists claimed they would "not allow the Maoist Grey Wolves to
the MayDay square", the leftist opportunist block spew its threats
like "Whatever the cost, we will reach the rallying square". The
warnings of our movement for provocations were ignored, they continued
their statements, clearing the way for the provocations by the
oligarchy. 

Using the demagogy that the opportunist wanted to fight their way to
the MayDay meeting, the contra-guerrilla was able to realise its
planned massacre by opening fire upon the hundreds of thousands of
people who gathered at the MayDay square, killing 36 revolutionaries
and patriots. When the opportunists and revisionists were spewing
their threats, they felt strong but when the massacre was carried out
they could not even protect their own masses. In great panic, they
tried to save their own lives, including the "Ankara group". Only
DEV-GENC, which remained on the square, showed an organised conduct
and they waged an armed resistance against the contra-guerrilla. They
showed their courage by marching against the tanks in one block, by
preventing an even bigger massacre by shooting back, reducing the
panic. DEV-GENC prevented that people trampled each other. DEV-GENC
did not lower its banners and flags. At the point when they believed
they could do no more, they retreated in an organised and disciplined
manner. Far remote from revolutionary responsibility and
consciousness, many opportunists and revisionists added another guilt
to the ones they already had - the massacring of the people. While the
oligarchy published their headlines like "Did we not tell you so?",
for days the opportunists and the revisionists, in their shock and
their fear for the people's reaction, did not dare to visit the
democratic organisations, they did not dare to move among the masses.
But this was just a temporary phase. These organisations, not having
the notion to carry out the revolution in our country, not trusting
their own strength, working like sections of other organisations, can
not change in a short time. After days, when the public learnt that
the contra-guerrilla had been responsible for the massacre, they
entered the political arena again and they continued their mutual
brawls. 

MayDay 1977 and the massacre which occurred clearly showed that the
opportunists and the revisionist left offer a tool to the provocations
of the contra-guerrilla because of their conduct. Another important
lesson is that they posses a sharp tongue and a mastery in instigating
a fight, but that they do not trust themselves when faced by enemy
attacks, neither do they believe in the people. 

A revolutionary organisation, a revolutionary movement, an independent
identity can only be formed after analysing the revolution in the
country, considering its characteristics and the universal and local
differences. Organisations which stubbornly look at examples of
organising  in other countries will act in this country like a flag,
changing with the winds. That's why they will not find the right line.
And that's why they can not avoid to be used by others. When we said
so then, nobody took us seriously and everybody acted like he pleased.
Because we did not follow the Soviet, the Chinese or the Albanian
communist party, because we criticised their mistakes and deviations,
they ironically called us "the defenders of the middle road". Surely,
there is no middle road in Marxism-Leninism. We firmly stand on the
foundation of Marxism-Leninism, the other are based on opportunism and
revisionism, that's the main difference. This main difference is so
striking that it almost always shows and people are led into
catastrophe, shocked when they realise that the parties they have
followed are denouncing them. For the same reason, these movements 
will easily deviate to the right in difficult times, and in time they
will come to an agreement with the government. In those days, these
truths made no sense for these groups. But the revolutionaries,
fighting since 1974, have recognised these truths. 

Even if the opportunists and revisionists gain a certain strength by
strictly copying and following their favourite line, they can loose
this strength as easily because it has not been gained in struggle.
There is no real strength behind them, when they are confronted with a
severe blow, they turn to the system or they get marginalised. Their
notion neither incorporates creativity, nor originality. Copying,
remaining outside of the process, opposing the increased struggle by
the revolutionaries means, objectively seen, taking the same stand as
the forces of the system. This opposition against all struggles which
are not waged by themselves, especially against the armed struggle
against the system, is inconceivable. They do as they please, for
unimaginable reasons they oppose all activities of an organisation
which wages the armed struggle and they try to weaken it, even
destroying it. All which seems incomprehensible in their conduct
should essentially be interpreted as a defence of the system. There is
no Chinese Wall between their statutes and those of the system itself.


MayDay 1977 has shown which policy the oligarchy will apply in the
future against the revolutionaries and the people. The situation of
the left, seen form the necessity of the class war, has learnt us a
valuable lesson. These necessities have to be met unconditionally.
This role should have been taken by the remaining unity and the first
issue of the Devrimci Yol magazine. Although a year went by, one could
not detect a real effort, neither to organise the movement, nor to
establish a ideological unity. 

We decided to take a last step to solve this stuck situation in which
no statement showed any effect and in which we could not see a
perspective anymore. We decided to start a discussion with all the
honoured cadres who lead the masses and who had carried the burden of
leadership since 73-74. These cadres laid down their tasks for a
undetermined period in order to exercise pressure, and they stated:
"All these problems must be discussed immediately, either these
discussions will lead to a result, or our activities under the name of
Devrimci Yol will cease because of these unclearities and this
consciousness". 

The editors of Devrimci Yol were very pleased because of our decision.
They began to replace our comrades with their own people from Ankara,
they started to bring everything under their control, applying their
right-wing views. These people were alien to the reality of our
struggle and our militant line. With their bureaucratic minds, they
discussed every theme, whether they knew anything about it or not.
They gave orders, they despised people and they received the
appropriate reactions. Our cadres, trained with the perspectives of
the THKP-C, could essentially see no difference in this situation
between the KSD and the other opportunist views. Their practice,
denouncing the line of the THKP-C, prevented  a further masking of
their real views. The editors of Devrimci Yol tried to use the fact
that we had laid down our tasks to hasten the liquidation. Our last
attempt of an approachment did not bring a positive result, but the
demolishing of the facade of the liquidation attempts by Devrimci Yol
was hastened. As long as they had to reckon with our criticism of the
right-wing line of Devrimci Yol, they did not have the courage to
openly show their views, inspired by civic society, and their notions,
taken from the civic society magazine "Birikim" (Experience). It was
necessary to discuss the problems, remaining in the group, in a
framework which established ideological unity, to achieve the THKP-C
unity and the centralise the potential, even though the Devrimci Yol
movement was no organised structure. And it was such a platform,
Devrimci Yol was afraid of, which they fled for. It was not their
problem to defend the views of the THKP-C and to organise unity. The
chief-editor only worried to build up a closed movement, step by step,
which would in time open up. A legalistic, bureaucratic right-wing
movement of renegades, based on the views of the civic society. A
structure of cadres, an according organisation and tactics of refusal
had to be developed in this direction. That's why important questions
were not discussed, no answers were given and the movement was brought
in a state in which it could not be prevented to drift in whatever
directions, based on a spontanist line. The only obstacle for the
chief-editor was constituted by the opposing Marxist-Leninist cadres
who carried the inheritance of the THKP-C. Without removing these
cadres, they could impossibly go ahead with their ideology, their
organisation and practice. That's why all their efforts were
concentrated on removing this obstacle ideologically and physically. 

Evaluating the new developments, a last meeting took place with the
editors of Devrimci Yol. A solution for the situation was to be looked
for. But they insisted, thinking that the obstacle had been removed,
that we had to accept their views. The split, or rather the
liquidation of Devrimci Yol, had become inevitable. The editors of
Devrimci Yol decided to use MayDay 1978 as a demonstration of strength
to show  the left public opinion and the people that apparently were
no conflicts within Devrimci Yol and that they held power in all
regions and areas. All efforts to achieve unity had failed and at that
time a split had become the only solution. Our cadres all over the
country decided to cross this liquidation game of Devrimci Yol, we
decided to show our strength and we would not allow them to lie to the
people and the revolutionary public. 

All the renegades of Devrimci Yol were busy with the preparation for
MayDay 1978. But all of the people in Turkey and the left were to see
clearly that Istanbul and many cities of Anatolia did not share the
views of Devrimci Yol. Tens of thousands of workers, youngsters, civil
servants and people from several segments of the population rejected
the slogans and banners of Devrimci Yol and with great discipline they
gathered behind a huge red and yellow banner with the text "Our road
is the road of Cayan". The Devrimci Yol renegades had come from Ankara
with tens of thousands of people and now they were left with a group
of 40-50 people. The leading renegades became furious and they started
their provocations because the result of their year long bourgeois
policy, the result of their swindle was not as they had wished. Their
provocative attitude went as far as looking for a fight, and they even
drew their weapons. Only because of our common sense, our ripeness,
our consciousness and our conduct, appropriate to the historical
phase, prevented that their provocations achieved the result they
desired. 

The meeting and the demonstration of MayDay 1978 had been a result in
which we, not acting as Devrimci Sol yet, clearly demonstrated to our
people that we had got rid of the renegades, that it was us who
defended the inheritance of the THKP-C, and that we no longer belonged
to Devrimci Yol. In this way, the attempts by Devrimci Yol to mask and
distort the events, according to the motto "there are no problems
within the movement, a small group which broke away is responsible",
were exposed as lies and forgeries. 

The split between the people and the left had become concrete. Now we
were faced with the task to explain the reason for this split to the
people, we had to offer them our perspectives and our notions. We had
to complete them with the help of an appropriate training and we had
to clean the organisation, the ideology and the policy from the
Devrimci Yol influences by taking it in our own hands. 

Oppression and terror kept increasing and the more or less "civil
state of emergency" developed more and more into an official state of
emergency. It was obvious that this development was leading towards a
military junta. We had to overcome our internal lack of organisation,
develop a new perspective according to the armed struggle, leave the
spontanist legalist line of Devrimci Yol and get rid of its remains.
The legalist attitude, developed under conditions of less oppression
and terror, was more and more left behind. The liquidation attempts
and the bourgeois policy of Devrimci Yol had cost us years. Now, under
conditions of oppression and still influenced by parts of the ideology
of the Devrimci Yol renegades, however still fighting together with
them, organising and waging war, we had to take another step to look
at all questions of the revolution and to build an organisation which
would not deviate, neither to the right, nor to the left, whatever the
circumstances. 

We could only realise a new organisation and a new consciousness
successfully by increasing our own training and working at our
consciousness on the basis of an internal democracy. In our movement,
we had to look carefully at the internal democracy and a largest
possible participation, especially in the phase of becoming a party.
Participation, ideological unity, the spirit of a new growth and the
stabilisation of our new steps would go hand in hand. 

There was no chance for the development of a movement which does not
trust its own cadres and which does not look for solutions together.
To develop a future and to convince different segments of the
population in different phases, we had to pursue a policy which was
based on the growth of the cadres and the improvement of the ties with
the people's masses.

>From this perspective, the movement initiated a discussion about our
split with Devrimci Yol, our criticism, the attitude of refusal by the
renegades and about what had to be done. For this, a meeting of all
cadres in Turkey - around 50 - was organised. As a result of this
meeting, it was decided unanimously that a liquidation would not be
allowed, the heritage of the THKP-C would be defended, and we would
re-organise as soon as possible on all levels from this perspective as
a autonomous and independent organisation. We would enter the
political arena and prepare a draft brochure about these views and
spread it among the cadres. 

Very soon, the brochure "The renegades in Devrimci Yol and the
revolutionary line" was prepared, discussed, voted on and published. 

During this time we re-organised in the regions and a central organ of
the youth was established under the name DEV-GENC. Other task were
taken on quickly as well. 

The circles of Devrimci Yol decided in a great panic to attack our
cadres and sympathisers. They tried to hinder our development and stop
the discussion by means of beatings, wounding people, traps, the
banning of discussions, campaigns of lies, smears and all other
conceivable methods. However, Devrimci Yol could not prevent the
discussions and stop its own "loss of blood". To hold on to what was
left in their hands, they hurriedly started to come into the open with
their right-wing views, based on the "civic society: Now there was
nobody left in Devrimci Yol anymore who really opposed these
right-wing views. Own cadres were developed and ideological key-points
were determined, based on the views, published in the main writings of
Devrimci Yol. With violence, they tried to suffocate discussions in
the earliest stages. Despite all the attacks and the smear campaigns,
the views and the practice of DEVRIMCI SOL spread like a wave across
the country. Devrimci Sol, now present in the political arena, had
promised to defend the heritage of the THKP-C and it would keep up the
flag of the struggle. 

Now there is a revolutionary left on the soil of Turkey and Kurdistan.

The enemy and opportunism aimed all their arrows at our movement. We
worked at showing almost everywhere that we are an organisation that
would render the fascist terror ineffective by increasing the struggle
against the official and the civic-fascist terror.

-- 
Devrimci Halk Kurtulus Cephesi (Revolutionary Peoples Liberation Front)
DHKC Informationbureau Amsterdam
http://www.ozgurluk.org/dhkc                          
List info: english-request at ozgurluk.xs4all.nl