Partizan: We’ll Unite the Masses with the Red Squares
We hereby share an unofficial translation of a statement published by Partizan on occasion of the 1st of May.
1st of May has been considered a “day celebrated in a surreptitious manner” rather than a “day of struggle and solidarity of the working class.” for a long time. In particular, by the approaches of the yellow unions that serve the interests of the ruling classes and support the policies of the government to gain its approval recognition, 1st of May is being rendered as “not possible to celebrate.” Today, the broad working masses are far from seeing 1st of May as their own day. On the contrary, in the eyes of these broad segments, 1st of May has become a day that serves to legitimize unions that are used as tools. This image has been further strengthened by the “allowed celebrations.” The revolutionary-democratic movement, which reacts to this situation and acts with the responsibility of destroying this image, is attempting to render 1st of May “without needing permission” by embracing the spirit of struggle and solidarity and is attempting to make what seems to be impossible to go beyond the attempts of suppressing this day.
Today, the working class’s day of struggle and solidarity is being drowned in the equation of “permission” and “non-permission” along with attacks against the historical gains of the class. We can say that workers should not fall into this trap, recognizing that the absurdity of “permission” is a clear mean of oppression. We assert that the will of the rulers or any kind of will that serves the rulers should be rejected, we should understand the 1st of May as a day of struggle and solidarity. There isn’thing more indisputable and natural than the workers themselves deciding where and how a day belonging to the working class will be celebrated. Making this a subject of discussion can have no other meaning than oppressing workers. The reason for this oppression is to prevent the unity, integrity, and ability of workers to act as a class. Any understanding that does not show the will to stand against this can’t be from the working class and can’t serve the working class.
The discussions and attitudes in the equation of “allowed and not allowed” that we mentioned serve to hinder struggle and solidarity. The attacks carried out by the ruling classes trying to disintegrate the class, should be faced by the workers with a spirit of struggle and solidarity. Today, the broad masses of workers are not even aware that they are elements of a class entity. The fact that strike calls passed over to silence and that local resistances that emerge from time to time do not receive significant support, indicates the success of the yellow unions. Of course, this result wasn’t achieved solely through the efforts of the yellow unions. Reformist and establishment parties also contributed to this result by advancing on a line that obscured the struggle and solidarity of the working masses.
Taksim Sounds as Saraçhane Last Year
The “1st of May area debate” from last year continues. The debate on “being in Taksim” and “winning Taksim” that started with the presence of a large crowd heading towards Taksim has once again acquired a content that reveals the true identity of various movements. As always, today, the “spirit of revolutionary unity” needs to be proven.
Today, we should start the discussion about the problem of determining the revolutionary will, that is embodied or can be embodied by the masses. We stick to our view that an action that isn’t carried out in favor of the masses, or that the masses can’t carry out, is deficient in its revolutionary spirit. We insistently advocate that activities should be undertaken, that are in favor of the masses, include the masses, and educate them. Undoubtedly, although very rarely strong “vanguard strikes” may be necessary, that will directly touch the consciousness of completely immobilized masses. However, in conditions where the masses are active, our perspective should be to determine what to do together with the masses. We tried to underline this approach last year. We should continue to do so. The masses are active to a considerable extent. The latest events in Saraçhane have shown that the movement in the masses includes revolutionary demands. The reaction to the establishment was significant, and the consciousness that one can’t walk with those who bow to the power of the government was high. However, the masses were only on a process to determine and walk their own independent path. Those who think Saraçhane isn’t enough to see these characteristics in the masses, can consider the decision of the university students to boycott and react subsequently to the “dismissal of teachers”, as incorrect. The CHP has highlighted the same truth by attempting to turn this significant reaction into a tool for its own purposes, using simple consumer boycotts and small-scale rallies, all in favor of preserving the State. Not seeing this truth, which almost everyone hasn’t noticed, can only be denial. The fact that a revolutionary and democratic movement overlooks and neglects all these facts brings about a serious discussion about its nature.
Today, the discussions about the location in Istanbul continue. There have always been those who say that thisn’t a relevant issue, that what really matters is to celebrate this great day of struggle for the working class, and there are still those who think like this today. The perspective that “1st of May Square is Taksim Square,” which is labeled as “square fetishism,” actually seeks to reclaim what belongs to the working class—what has been conquered. It belongs to the working class because, since 1977, the color of this square has been workers’ red. All the values that will be remembered worldwide on 1st of May have come together in these reds squares. The ban on Taksim Square, as much as the ban on 1st of May, is a ban imposed against this high consciousness. We neither accepted with the 1st of May ban nor will we do so with the ban on Taksim Square. It should first be accepted that there is no difference between these two. Additionally, there has been a tendency for Taksim that has continued this year since the last. This is a mass tendency. Can avoiding a goal that has resonated in the masses, mean anything other than making concessions to the state despite the people’s will? It won’t be possible to move forward without presenting and discussing this general situation.
Evaluating the 1st of May discussions, we have to remember the previous 1st of May practices and discussions. Today’s discussions are a continuation of last year’s. After determining a meeting place that would more clearly face Taksim instead of Saraçhane, we thought that we should insist on this. This insistence was both an attitude against the efforts of those who distanced themselves from the revolutionary movement and, more importantly, the independent movement of the working class to take control of 1st of May. It also aimed to eliminate the ambiguity created by the discussion about the location. Ultimately, our aim of acting in accordance with the just and correct Taksim demand of the advanced masses would also be realized in this way. The same result occurred in a different manner. When the decision to gather in Beşiktaş became impossible despite the comprehensive measures taken, the common attitude of the revolutionary movement was also significantly in vain. In accordance with the understanding, carrying 1st of May to the masses with a revolutionary orientation, we decided on Saraçhane as the last option. This decision, taken on the last day, was relatively correct; but it was definitely the right decision for that day. In fact, Saraçhane was transformed into an area where the Taksim will was most concretely and powerfully displayed. Our contribution to this is limited. The true driving force is the demand of the advanced masses. Anyone who doubts that this demand persists today is ignoring the voices of the people. We and the advanced segments of the masses must find a way to meet in Saraçhane and turn towards Taksim, showing the power created by shouting out together the Taksim demand. If turning towards Taksim could be emphasized as a determining element last year, we say that this is also possible today. Because there hasn’t been much fundamental change since last year. On the contrary, Taksim Square, as a prohibited area, is being claimed by a stronger will today and is coming to the agenda as an indisputable target. This is a strong initiative.
Today, we argue that 1st of May celebrations should be approached with a focus on mass initiative and strength of the masses. It is possible to head towards Taksim with the advanced masses. For this, we need to turn our faces towards Taksim from the very beginning. Respecting this, Kadıköy, which has recently been brought to the agenda in a “strong” manner, is a complete attack on this necessity. This attitude, which also includes the hope of obtaining permission from the State for Kadıköy, has hit the Taksim initiative heavily. Last year, this blow was attempted to be struck with Saraçhane. Although the location of Saraçhane allowed to some extent, that it becomes the voice of Taksim. This is the voice of the broad masses that can’t longer tolerate all this oppression and cruelty. This voice didn’t come only from Partizan, nor was it the voice of marginal groups disconnected from the masses, as some people claimed. Subsequently, a large segment of society pointed to Taksim in recent actions. There is a clear reason for this: Taksim isn’t private property, nor is it a square that the State can open and close to people as it wishes; it belongs to the people; it is the people’s square. Neither the laws, nor history, nor the masses can justify the ban in question. The State is violating the laws by closing it. Everyone who seeks rights and who can’t tolarate the obstacles to their freedom any longer, points to this simple truth. If we can determine that the young segment known as “Generation Z,” which is often defined as apolitical, indifferent, and lazy, is actually very strong and persistent in its search for rights. We can see that the same segment can and is taking actions for Taksim. Today, we assert that we must insist on turning our faces to Taksim based on this fact. This isn’t just the insistence that “Taksim is Red, It Will Stay Red”; it is a valid and defendable view because it aligns with the orientation of the advanced segments of the masses. We must state once again that we have to “win the mass initiative” in order to win Taksim. It is clear that we’ll continue on this path unless we combine the redness of the square with the mass initiative. We were on this path last year in Saraçhane, and before that in Maltepe. This is the path we’ll insist on following, standing by the advanced segments of the masses.
The Demand for Rights Produces Class-Consciousness and Will for Struggle
Everything shows this: the masses are in search of intense democracy and freedom of expression, and the State, aware of the “deadly” consequences, seeks to suppress this. Undoubtedly, the dominant aspect of this contradiction between the State and the masses is still the State, as it has a highly organized structure. On the other hand the masses are perhaps less organized and directionless than ever before. For this reason, the contradiction we are discussing, although it becomes more intense, is still far from results in favor of the masses. When determining our attitude, we should take into account both the strong revolutionary quest and the very deep problem of disorganization. Acting, without taking in consideration the intense oppression and reckless attacks by the State, means calling the masses to a defenseless adventure, and expecting them to comply, is beyond imagination. The policy we’ll put forward should respond to the masses’ demands and demonstrate that this response is realizable. The goal of being in Taksim on 1st of May and the approach of turning one’s face to Taksim is a decisive attitude. The demand to celebrate 1st of May in Taksim in Istanbul is a clear and unambiguous demand of the advanced masses. Almost no political formation has been able to deny this clear demand so far. There have certainly been those who openly turned their backs on this, but there have also been those who shyly turned away. Nevertheless, these events took place with an emphasis on “necessity.” Why is necessity being mentioned? Is it because permission wasn’t granted or because of the fear of “being terrorized”? Different parties have different answers. The common point of all of them, whether they accept it or not, is the concern about a “1st of May that isn’t under their control.” These political organizations, which are mostly narrow-minded, are ultimately untrustworthy by accepting the protection of the State. It is obvious that there is a thick line between us and them.
It is quite normal for us to be on a different path than all these narrow-minded and State-protected organizations. We do not and won’t need to change this. Our duty now should be to materialize the Taksim goal that has developed and found a response among the advanced masses. Since Taksim is a prohibited area and will be closed to the masses and the public with very strong measures, how will we defend the correctness and continuation of the Taksim demand? This is the fundamental question.
It is clear that this is related to concrete conditions. Participating in areas, organizations, and meetings where the masses are located is decisive here. It is essential that this needs to be discussed with the masses. The primary condition should be to clearly state and discuss Taksim as a common demand. It is already known that such a discussion has taken place to some extent. It is necessary to be present in these discussions and to bear the responsibility of strengthening the tendency of the masses with the determination that “Taksim belongs to the people, it can’t be banned,” and “We want Taksim, and we’ll walk to Taksim.”
We should especially emphasize that the demand for Taksim is strong in the 1st of May activities carried out in the neighborhoods and that it is necessary to make all the ruling powers, especially the government, feel that it is essential to face this demand. The prevailing opinion is that there are no conditions for acting together among the masses. We should recognize that this opinion gained strength with the recent preference for Kadıköy. The condition for breaking this opinion is to explain to them that unity can be achieved by the masses, not by the political organizations that we mentioned before. University youth and even high school youth in recent times have demonstrated how possible it is to act together. This unity is achieved through common demands and a collective reaction to shared problems. Recently, a high school youth movement has developed that acts with the awareness of engaging in politics and seeking their rights, just like university youth. We must defend that this youth segment also has a voice on 1st of May. The responsibility of expressing their demands and presenting the comprehensive ideology and politics of the working class should be perceived as a very valuable, even indispensable, policy today.
The Path Opened by Proletarian Ideology is Inclusive
The history of 1st of May shows that every step toward the liberation of the working class includes the solution of the common problems of all humanity. Women, youth, and oppressed nationalities will gain their freedom on the path to the liberation of the working class. Therefore, “being in the class struggle” is equivalent to being in the struggle for humanity. The common problem of the oppressed is the domination of the rulers who disregard the people. Proletarian ideology defends the inevitability of resorting to force in contradictions between the enemy and the people; however, it asserts that the method of persuasion is valid in contradictions within the people. Contradictions within the people are contradictions that can be resolved with concrete progress. Ultimately, the contradiction between private property and social property will be resolved when social property reaches a sufficient level for all people. Socialism and communism are not “socialization of poverty,” as the enemies of socialism and communism often claim. If we are to make a definition solely from this perspective, socialism or communism serves to meet the needs of all individuals. For this reason, it has been stated that in the introduction to the world of communism, it will be written, “to each according to his needs and from each according to his labor.” While socialism acts with the principle of “to each according to his labor,” it points to the path of progress toward the level to be reached in communism. In short, neither in socialism nor in communism will social property be realized as the socialization of poverty. On the contrary, social property will be a realizable form of ownership because it eliminates the need for individual ownership.
Even when viewed solely from the perspective of the regime of property, it is possible to see the solution to the contradictions within the people. Therefore, we must understand and explain that the concept of social property embodied in the working class will again come from the people, but by encompassing different classes.
Communists target different political movements to the extent that they manipulate the masses and fragment their possible unity and common movement. Today, all political movements or decisions that deny the common and clear Taksim goal are in a position to divide the will of the people in this respect. We are in favor of paving the way for this real and growing will, and we have defined our responsibility from here. We’ll fulfill this responsibility by meeting with the masses and making Taksim the main agenda wherever possible. We believe that we’ll have succeeded to the extent that we can turn our faces to Taksim. We call on all components and advanced segments of the masses to achieve this and to walk on this path.
