Principled Attitude in Trade Union Struggle
Part I
The question of how to approach the trade union struggle has always given rise to important debates, depending on different political conceptions. This question has lost none of its importance today. Especially in view of the conditions of decline of the labour movement, it is clear that the class today needs views and analyses that will boost a militant struggle in the trade union field, as in any other field. In this respect we are certainly not at the beginning of the road. The revolutionary Marxist tradition makes it possible to be equipped with the right views and tactics on the approach to the trade union struggle, as on many other issues. The lessons of the experience of the struggle of the world working class, accumulated over many years, illuminate the path of those committed to the struggle for the emancipation of the working class. However, the period of ideological, organisational and political decline has led to a very serious loss in the level of militancy of the workers’ movement. Many important aspects of the revolutionary tradition that must be preserved today have been forgotten or blurred. This situation is also very much felt in the trade union struggle. In order to strengthen the labour movement in all areas, a correct understanding of struggle and style of work must take root in the class. Let us leave aside the petty-bourgeois narrow-mindedness that denies the importance of revolutionary theory. But this does not end the problems. Even if the importance of revolutionary theory is admitted, not a few people make the mistake of treating theoretical truths, which extend from the past to the present, as ready-made recipes. Undoubtedly, the magic that transforms theory into real power is the rise of organised struggle. The accumulation of cadres required by the proletarian struggle develops accordingly. Young cadres can properly grasp and internalise the truths of the revolutionary tradition within the class on the basis of organised struggle. Due to serious deficiencies in this regard, the legacy of the revolutionary tradition cannot be satisfactorily claimed with regard to the trade union struggle of the working class. The main elements of this tradition are the foundations laid by the founders of Marxism, the experiences and elaborations of the leaders of the October Revolution on this subject, and the important resolutions adopted at the Comintern congresses of the Lenin period. Although these have been preserved on paper or repeated on the level of words until today, unfortunately we cannot say that their content has been deeply understood and acted upon. However, as mentioned above, this situation is not incomprehensible. What will save the building blocks of the revolutionary tradition from being reduced to the level of dead formulas and transform them into living and effective tactics is the organised and collective effort to be made on the basis of a correct understanding of struggle and working style. In order that the sweat to be shed for this cause does not go to waste, we must take care to strengthen the body against the diseases that characterise periods of decline and not pay attention to unhealthy political approaches that swing to different extremes. In connection with the problems of the trade union struggle of the working class, there are often false and unhealthy political approaches. At one extreme, there are those who do not attach the necessary importance to the trade union struggle, citing the terrible situation in which the trade unions find themselves. At the other extreme we see those who exaggerate the importance of the trade union struggle and hang on the tail of the existing trade union movement. To this picture we can add the wide range of centrist views that oscillate unstably between the two extremes. This shows how deep the confusion is, even on an issue like the approach to the trade union struggle. These realities that we are confronted with require loyalty to revolutionary principles in the approach to the trade union struggle.
The distinction between economic and political struggle
As necessary as it is to distinguish between the economic and political struggles of the working class, it would be an equally great mistake to ignore the historical and dialectical relationship between the two. The aim of the revolutionary political movement is the seizure of power by the working class and the end of the class-exploitative social order. But for this to happen, the working class must have reached a certain stage of development, both objectively and subjectively. In no period of history and in no country did the political movement and organisation of the working class suddenly appear. The revolutionary political awakening within the working class has generally risen on the favourable ground created by an awakening linked to the economic struggles of the workers and a preliminary organisation which is the expression of this awakening. On the other hand, the struggle for economic rights has itself generated a political struggle. For example, the struggle for the reduction of working hours in every workplace is part of the economic struggle. But these struggles did not stop there and took on the dimension of a political movement in which, let’s say, the workers forced the governments to pass laws to reduce working hours throughout the country. This point is emphasised in an important letter by Marx. “And in this way, out of the separate economic movements of the workers, there grows up everywhere a political movement, that is to say, a movement of the class, with the object of achieving its interests in a general form, in a form possessing a general social force of compulsion. Although these movements presuppose a certain degree of previous organisation, they are themselves equally a means of developing this organisation.” (Marx to F. Bolte, 23 November 1871) When the history of capitalism is examined, it will be seen that the struggle of the workers did not remain at the level of economic struggles against the bosses, but gradually rose to the level of a general class movement. What is meant by this is undoubtedly the historical roots of the development of the class movement. Because the revolutionary transformation and revolutionary politics in the labour movement have never been and cannot be limited to the sphere of economic struggle. In the historical progress of the labour movement, political struggle has gained priority, but this development has not eliminated the need for trade union struggle. The tendency to underestimate the trade union movement of the working class gave rise to important debates as early as the First International. In the criticisms levelled by the General Council of the International against sections which took the wrong attitude, it was emphasised that the trade unions were the cradle of the workers' movement. In addition to helping the existing unions, it is underlined that it is a task to give them a correct direction and to internationalise them. Marxism has from the beginning attached importance to the trade union organisations of the working class, but has approached this issue mainly from the point of view of the task of raising them to the level of combative organisations. In the resolution of the congress of the First International in 1866, it was stated that the trade unions should not limit their attention to the daily struggle against capital, should not remain aloof from the general political and social movement of the working class, should not be content with pursuing narrow aims, but should work for the liberation of millions of oppressed workers. The Marxist approach has been the only one to establish the dialectical relationship between the economic struggle of the class and its political struggle in a healthy manner. One of the historical documents embodying this approach is the resolution adopted at the London Conference of the First International in 1871. In the text of the resolution entitled The Political Action of the Working Class, written by Marx and Engels, it is stated that in the case of the militant struggle of the working class, its economic movement and political activity will form an inseparable whole. In the interests of the working class, communists must not only lead the trade union struggle and pull it forward, but also, by skilfully combining economic and political demands, lead the class movement in a revolutionary direction. These different aspects of the struggle in various fields, i.e. economic, political, ideological, have an internal harmony and unity in terms of their class character. For this reason, it is inevitable that left-wing politics influenced by bourgeois ideology will display class collaborationist and conciliatory approaches in the context of trade union struggle. Likewise, on such an important issue as the relationship between trade unions and politics, the ideas disseminated from university pulpits or the studies published by academics generally reflect the bourgeois point of view. However, when the problem is approached from the point of view of revolutionising the workers' movement, it will be seen that what should be understood from the union-politics relationship is the dialectical link between the economic struggle of the working class and its revolutionary political struggle. The place where this is concretised is the field of relations between the trade unions and the revolutionary party of the class.Party and trade union
The distinction between the economic and political dimensions of the class struggle must also find its corresponding reflection in the organisational sphere. Workers need a revolutionary party to lead the political struggle as much as they need trade union organisations. The confusion of these two different levels of organisational needs will lead to harmful consequences. If a trade union, even the most revolutionary one, is given the mission of political leadership or if a revolutionary political organisation acts like a trade union, it will cause a tremendous distortion of consciousness among the workers and the struggle will lose a lot of strength. It is essential that the political organisation, the revolutionary party, which has the quality of leadership in the proletarian struggle, should be organised taking into account the difference in the level of consciousness and militancy among the workers. Because the party can be a means to an end only if it rises on the vanguard elements of the class armed with advanced and revolutionary consciousness. Only such a party can properly lead the struggle of the workers in various fields and advance the working class to power. The idea that a working class party can include the entire mass of workers is essentially wrong, no matter out of what intentions it is asserted. The experience of the revolutionary struggle of the working class points to the need to make a clear distinction between the concepts of party and class. The proletariat can fulfil its historical task only if it has a party which is organised independently of other classes and which unites not all the workers but those elements of them who are equipped with revolutionary theory and consciousness of revolutionary action. It is only in this way that it is possible to draw the broad mass of the class into an effective struggle against the capitalist order. As emphasised in the decisions of the Second Congress of the Comintern, the working class cannot achieve its revolution without having its own independent political party. We may touch upon an important point here. The communist conception of struggle and organisation is not a fantasy to which intellectuals or some ambitious people with a lust for power want to subject the workers. Scientific communism is a world view, a conception of action and organisation that has been filtered through the historical efforts of workers and labourers who revolt against the conditions of exploitation and oppression. As stated in the Communist Manifesto, in which the aims and principles of communists are proclaimed to the workers of the world, communists do not and cannot have any interests independent of the interests of the working class. The party that will lead the historical struggle for a classless and exploitation-free world means raising the potential for revolutionary action and struggle of the workers themselves to the level of organised power. Such a party is essentially the party of the workers, the organisation of workers armed with a solid political consciousness rooted in revolutionary theory. The revolutionary party is not an entity outside the class. It is a part of the class. But it is not just any part, it is the revolutionary part that is really capable of leading the struggle. A mass party of the working class which gathers within itself left political tendencies of different content cannot fulfil the need for a revolutionary party for the liberation of the working class from capitalism. Such umbrella parties are far from being qualified to lead the struggle. They are in the nature of a mass or front organisation which includes workers in its ranks. However, without a revolutionary leadership that does not indulge in bourgeois ideology and does not fall for the political games of the bourgeoisie, it is not possible to wage a successful mass struggle of workers and labourers. In conclusion, the working class needs both mass organisations of various kinds and a revolutionary class party with the quality and capacity to lead and lead the struggle in every field.Trade unions are still necessary
Trade unions, as the organisation of the economic struggle of the working class, can carry out this struggle effectively to the extent that they embrace the mass of the working class. For this reason, trade union organisations must include workers of various political views and tendencies, without making any distinction between workers in terms of race, nationality, gender, language, religion, occupation, level of qualification, etc. Trade unions are useful tools not only for the conduct of the daily economic and democratic struggle, but also for the expansion of the mass base of the revolutionary struggle. But it must be noted that trade unions cannot be the only means of establishing relations with the masses. In addition to the trade unions, various associations and grassroots organisations are needed to develop the organisation of the masses of workers and labourers. Let us briefly recall the past. At the time of their inception, trade unions were born out of the actual struggle of workers in workplaces and factories. These workers' organisations were created out of nothing in countries at the forefront in terms of capitalist development and class struggle, and in time they became generalised and widespread. In the times of transition from workers’ solidarity funds to trade unions, there were trade union leaderships that were not yet institutionalised and bureaucratised in the negative sense, but were sustained by workers' dues collected by hand, one by one. The trade unionists of such periods did not resemble the modern bourgeoisified trade union bureaucrats. Later, as the trade unions became the usual institutions of ordinary bourgeois regimes, a serious gap began to develop between the trade union leadership and the rank and file. The humble, amateurish trade unionists of the past, who were mostly workers and close to the rank and file, and who did not regard trade unionism as a profession, were replaced by professional trade unionists who were far from these characteristics. Having become competent in preventing and appeasing the workers’ struggle in the interests of the bourgeoisie, this type of administrators began to mingle with the bourgeoisie and to play the role of agents of the bourgeoisie in the workers’ movement. The age of imperialist decay has brought with it the integration of many trade union leaders into the order. This reality has become even more striking today. The well-heeled bureaucracy that has settled at the top of the trade unions is becoming thoroughly corrupt in parallel with the corruption in every field. Under the control of such bureaucrats, the trade unions are becoming thoroughly integrated into the bourgeois order and cease to be combative workers’ organisations. Although such developments point to extremely serious dangers, it would be harmful to conceive of them as absolute and unchangeable generalisations. Lenin and Trotsky also referred to the problems threatening the trade union movement in the period of imperialism, but they did not approve of the attitude of turning one's back on the trade unions. For example, Lenin pointed out that some reactionary aspects of the trade unions had emerged over time. However, he also underlined the point that should never be ignored. As he pointed out, the development of the proletariat has not been and cannot be achieved anywhere without the mutual action between the trade unions and the revolutionary party of the working class. Let us recall that the negative developments in the structure and militancy of the trade unions are not unique to recent times. It is known that in the past there were significant ups and downs in the trade union movement depending on the course of the class struggle in various capitalist countries. As a reflection of this situation, while it was possible to come across militant trade unions during periods of revolutionary upsurge, it was frequently observed that during periods of defeat the unions retreated to a more backward line. The famous Chartist labour movement, which developed in England in the 19th century, later fizzled out and in time many of its leaders degenerated and integrated into the bourgeois order. American-style trade unionism also presents a striking example of the fact that the danger of the trade union movement's integration into the establishment is not a new phenomenon. Daniel de Leone, one of the revolutionary leaders of the American socialist movement before the first imperialist war, highlighted the sell-out leadership of the “American Federation of Labour” and the decay in the trade union movement. He was the first to describe the trade union bureaucracy as “the labour lieutenants of the capitalist class”. And already at the end of the 19th century Leone stated that the trade union bureaucracy should be considered not as the right wing of the labour movement, but as the left wing of the bourgeoisie. But even in the age of imperialism, in periods of revolutionary upsurge, there have been and will be positive advances in the trade union struggle. Therefore, we cannot say that the pessimism of those who completely forget this aspect of the matter has any scientific basis. We must also emphasise that those who cannot endure the negative conditions of the periods of decline also despair in a petty-bourgeois way about the future. It cannot be a Marxist attitude to completely despair of the trade unions and the trade union struggle of the working class. In fact, such wrong attitudes mean passive submission to the existing backwardness.Can trade unions be independent?
There have been many discussions and different ideas on the need for the unions to be independent. In order to make a sound judgement on this issue, first of all it is necessary to define what is understood by independence. If the issue under discussion is the independence of trade unions from political parties and other workers’ organisations in terms of administrative functioning, there is no point in debating this issue further. Because, as democratic mass organisations organised around specific objectives, trade unions should undoubtedly have their own independent internal functioning, electoral and control mechanisms reflecting their members' right to speak and decide, and autonomous administrative rules shaped on this basis. For any political party to violate the democratic rights of the members of a trade union, to take over the management of a trade union through methods such as threats, bribery, fraud or electoral tricks, or to impose its own political tendency on the rank and file, are unjust interventions in the internal functioning of the trade union. But the debate on whether trade unions can be politically independent is of a completely different nature. It would be absurd to imagine that trade unions, which are heavily influenced by various political parties and tendencies, can be politically neutral or impartial. No democratic mass organisation is in fact a structure detached from politics, independent of politics. If the essence of the problem is carefully considered, the simple truth can be easily grasped. Unions that are not influenced by revolutionary politics inevitably fall under the hegemony of right and left bourgeois or petty-bourgeois politics. Since this is a rule of capitalist life, the real problem is which politics this or that trade union comes under the influence of. And the aspect to be analysed is whether this situation is compatible with the interests of the working class. We know that workers who have not appreciated the necessity of revolutionary politics sometimes feel uncomfortable when left organisations establish relations with them during periods of strikes and other workers’ actions. It is common for backward workers to judge the verbal and written propaganda of revolutionary circles as “they are dividing us”. By doing so, these workers actually surrender the field to the trade union bureaucrats and bourgeois parties because of their lack of consciousness. It is obvious how essential it is to maintain a correct working approach that will eliminate such misconceptions. In order to change the wrong attitudes of the workers and to break down their prejudices, it is necessary to approach them with patience, to find and use the appropriate language and tools. Politics is the art of finding and applying appropriate tactics. Even if you put a publication with the most accurate content in the hands of those who are not yet ready, your attempt may backfire. For those who are lagging behind, change is a question of time and of the rise of the mass movement. However, just as it is necessary not to engage in wrong and impatient behaviour, it is equally necessary not to make a compromise for backwardness and not to adapt to the thinking and behaviour of backward workers. It is a fact that in societies where the consciousness of enjoying and exercising democratic rights has developed, the propaganda of the political views of revolutionary circles and their attempts to organise in line with these views are accepted as a natural right by a much larger number of workers. It is obvious how different and backward the situation in Turkey is in these respects. It is of great importance to defend the independence of the trade unions from the bourgeoisie and collaborationist politics. But to demand the complete and unconditional independence of the unions from political organisations is completely wrong. The approaches of some supporters of “independence”, to the extent that they are hostile to the political influence of revolutionary organisations, are extremely wrong and harmful to the struggle. To demand that the unions remain neutral to revolutionary class politics cannot be a demand that will benefit the workers. For such demands ultimately favour the bourgeoisie and the trade union bureaucracy. The bureaucrats always try to get rid of the control and intervention of the revolutionary vanguard of the class. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, resorts to every means to keep the unions away from revolutionary politics and to confine the workers within the framework of a narrow trade union struggle. An example of the wrong attitude towards the independence of the unions can be seen in the anarcho-syndicalist approach. Anarcho-syndicalists interpret the intervention of a revolutionary leadership in trade union problems and gaining positions within the unions as a violation of the right of the unions to independence and oppose it. Such attitudes, whatever their intentions, do the working class no good. However, it should not be forgotten that on the other side of the coin there is another flawed approach which is widespread in Turkey. The opportunistic, shopkeeper approach of petty-bourgeois left circles towards the trade unions and their coercive behaviour, which disregards the administrative independence of the unions, must be opposed. The latter play into the hands of the former and undermine the work of true communists who are trying to adopt a correct attitude in the trade union field. While it is a reality that bourgeois political parties influence the trade unions, keep them under control and cripple them with their own political views completely contrary to the interests of the working class, to demand that the trade unions be kept away from revolutionary political ideas and work would not be a defence of the independence of the trade unions, but class collaborationism at its very best. Revolutionary Marxists always try to militantise the trade union struggle and this has nothing to do with unjustly meddling in the internal workings of the unions. Political guidance and political imposition are completely different attitudes. Supporting the trade union struggle in a revolutionary way does not stop the independent development of the unions, on the contrary, it develops it. But on the other hand, the interests of the revolutionary organisation and the interests of the trade union organisation are not identical and care must be taken to act in line with this reality. Attitudes and behaviours that will harm the massiveness of the trade union struggle must be absolutely avoided. Those who oppose the revolutionary organisations to put forward their views and proposals on various problems of the working class, including the trade union field, do a great disservice to the workers’ struggle. The workers who are forced into this situation show their lack of consciousness and the “intellectuals” show their hidden or open hostility towards revolutionary thought and activity. In addition, there is a statist tradition in Turkey that is hostile to the freedom of political organisation in general. And the state trade unionism in particular is deeply rooted. Therefore, the problems we have mentioned are multiplied in this country. Therefore, there should not be the slightest concession to the views that try to undermine those who are doing correct and revolutionary work in the trade unions by hiding behind the defence of the “independence of the trade unions” and to the people and circles that defend such views. The revolutionaries who adopt the most honest and consistent attitude in defending the interests of the working class as a whole will not give up their revolutionary rights and duties because they are accused of “interfering in the internal affairs of the unions”. For example, when important strikes take place, the leadership of the masses in struggle cannot be left to the union bureaucrats just because the union statutes require it. In such cases, communists seek to educate and persuade the workers and seek the election of strike and action committees from among the militant workers.Principles must be upheld
The principled approach we have emphasised contains the rules of our revolutionary tradition that must be upheld today. However, the damage caused by the period of decline in the labour movement worldwide is great. In order to erase the traces of this destruction and to achieve a new leap forward in the labour movement, the forgotten fundamental issues must be revived and put back on the agenda. In this context, we must emphasise again and again that the revolutionary leadership of the working class is obliged to lead the mass organisations and the struggle of the workers in all areas of the class struggle. Therefore, as Lenin repeatedly pointed out, communists cannot remain aloof, alienated and hostile to the trade union struggle of the working class. Another principle we must emphasise is that communists will not divide the trade unions. Communists patiently seek to win workers to their political views. Because they are committed to a long-term struggle, they oppose to undesirable divisions in mass organisations through hasty and sectarian attitudes. It is the most natural right of left political groups to try to find supporters for their views, programmes and lines of action within the various democratic mass organisations, including the trade unions. As an extension of this situation, an ideological and political struggle between different political views will also take place on all these fronts. But the trade unions are not directly political organisations, they are mass organisations of the class. Therefore, it would never be a desirable result for each political tendency to create divisions and establish its own trade union. Because such a situation would lead to the disintegration of the united mass struggle of the working class against capital and thus to failure. On the other hand, we can never rule out that in some cases a split involving the masses organised under the unions may become necessary. The creation of new unions and confederations can be a justified and useful historical step when the struggle within the existing ones is no longer possible and is the result of an organised struggle rising from the grassroots, rallying the workers on a more advanced line. It is obvious that the trade unions are generally capable of covering only a certain part of the working class. However, the trade unions should be raised to the level of militant organisations of the whole working class. In line with this aim, it is essential to lead an active struggle to make the trade union members more militant and to ensure that the non-unionised and unemployed workers become unionised. In addition, special efforts must be made to attract women, young people and migrant workers to the trade unions. In all of this work, it is important to resist the tendency to overestimate the role of the unions and to replace them with revolutionary organisations. It must be remembered that the trade unions cannot be an end in themselves, but only one of the means of mass class struggle. One of the main tasks is to free the unions from the selfish attitude of aristocratic workers who defend only their own professional interests and material privileges, and from the control of union bureaucrats who cling to their seats. Unions must belong to the members who make them exist; these mass organisations of the working class cannot be the fiefdoms of a handful of bureaucrats. In order to turn trade unions into organisations of struggle owned by their members and respected by all labouring classes of society, it is of great importance to work hard for trade union democracy. Provided that the will of the rank and file is reflected, those with different political views cannot be denied the right to become members of trade unions and to be elected to executive bodies. Trade unions cannot be allowed to impose a policy of repression and isolation on their members because of their political views. Trade union representatives and leaders at all levels must be elected by the rank and file, and workers must have the right to inspect and recall those they elect. To prevent union leaders from becoming bureaucrats and alienated from the workers from whom they emerge, their salaries should not exceed the average wage of skilled workers. Trade union funds are generated by members’ dues and these funds must be fully allocated to the trade union struggle. It is imperative to expel bureaucrats from the unions who utilise these funds with the mindset of a cunning capitalist or who see them as a means of personal gain. The unions should not conduct discussions on general issues and collective bargaining negotiations in secret from the rank and file; the rank and file must be informed. Struggle must be waged to ensure that upper bodies of trade unions are accountable to their members and abide by the principle of openness towards their members. When we speak of trade union work, communists understand by this essentially militant grassroots work. Opportunistic attitudes which, under the pretext of trade union work, covet only the top posts, are seat-hungry, and make a virtue out of descending on the top management of the trade unions in violation of the right of the rank and file to speak and decide, cannot be tolerated. Leading the workers in a revolutionary way cannot be realised with self-serving claims. Vanguardism or leadership can be won by those who are deemed worthy of it by the workers, as a result of determined, solid, energetic and self-sacrificing work carried out within the working class. In order to move in this direction, one must take part in all class struggles and trade union movements and lead the struggles for concrete demands such as working hours, wages and working conditions. It is important to put forward clear and understandable actual demands that the workers will embrace. But it is equally important in what manner these demands are raised and with what kind of struggle they will be realised. To instil in the consciousness of the workers that nothing permanent can be won without struggle constitutes one of the basic conditions for liberation from the wage slavery order. It is clear that capital is carrying out its attack on the political, social and economic rights of workers on a global scale and that this global attack can only be countered by the global resistance of the working class. Communists therefore strive to develop a sense of solidarity among all workers and try to awaken in workers an international class consciousness. For this purpose, it is of great benefit to establish workers' educational, cultural and solidarity associations of various levels and types. At this point, however, let us underline an important point. Such associations are not alternatives to trade unions, but instruments to raise the level of consciousness, struggle and organisation of the workers and therefore to make the trade union struggle more qualified. The Marxist position requires a highly principled and attentive behaviour in all these matters and to make efforts to ensure trade union unity on combative grounds.Rank-and-file struggle against bureaucracy
In an article on trade unions, Trotsky points out that in capitalist states the most monstrous forms of bureaucratism are to be found in the trade unions. He says that capitalism in Europe, and especially in Britain, owes its survival to a large extent to the trade union bureaucracy. The trade union bureaucracy is the backbone of British imperialism. The British example of holding the labour movement back from the struggle through the trade union bureaucracy has become generalised over time and this bureaucracy has become the scourge of the working class in all capitalist countries. In cases where the rising actions of the workers do not fit within the bourgeois legal framework but gain legitimacy in the eyes of the masses, the trade-union bureaucracy everywhere comes to the rescue of the bourgeoisie. While revolutionary workers try to lead the masses forward, the trade-union bureaucracy forces them to obey unconditionally the laws laid down by the bosses. A bureaucrat regards his position and office as a resource that will provide him with a privileged life for life, and this rule also applies to the trade union bureaucrat. For the trade union bureaucrat, the position to which he is elected is not a field of service to the workers, but a position that offers the possibility of a life integrated into the bourgeois order. It is almost inevitable that trade union leaders, who are elected by the votes of the workers but enjoy great privileges and are not controlled by the workers, become bureaucrats. And such people become open to all kinds of class betrayals in order to secure their position. The role of the trade union bureaucracy in the decline of the trade union struggle and the betrayal of the bureaucrats can never be underestimated. However, in order to wage a successful struggle against this bureaucracy, certain points must be correctly understood. The left tendencies, which completely reject the trade unions and do not give the necessary importance to the trade union struggle, also do not approach the phenomenon of the trade union bureaucracy correctly. In fact, the struggle against the trade union bureaucracy requires careful consideration of the content of this concept. If we approach the problem from a sociological point of view, we see that there are differences between trade union leaders at different levels, similar to the class distinction between lower, middle and upper civil servants. A successful struggle against the trade union bureaucracy cannot be waged without distinguishing between workplace representatives and local branch leaders, who are close to the rank and file, and the top bureaucrats, who are politically integrated into the bourgeois order. There are conditions for militantising workplace representatives and local branch leaders who want to fight for the interests of the working class and who deserve the support of the rank and file, and it is necessary to do so. But it is a completely wrong tendency to dress the top bureaucracy of the unions, which is integrated with the bourgeoisie, in “red shirts” in the name of allegedly pushing them to the left. When we look at the functioning of the trade unions, we see that in reality the upper leadership pulls the strings. The union top bureaucracy is generally composed of professional elements who are completely detached from the class, bourgeoisised and addicted to the material and moral benefits of the privileges of position and office. The elected leaders at the level of the branches, on the other hand, are “civil servants” on a lesser level, and it would not be correct to say that all of them are leaders who are detached from the workers. Most of them fulfil their duties as amateur officials and lead their lives continuing to work in the workplaces and factories where they were elected as delegates. But we can never deny that the decline in the class movement and the general degeneration of the trade unions have affected not only the top bureaucracy but also the lower level union leaders. In fact, this kind of influence is gripping the class as a whole, and nevertheless, as the workers become more conscious, the number of those willing to take up the struggle will increase. The correct evaluation of such questions is important for those who do revolutionary work within the class to make progress in the struggle against the trade union bureaucracy. It is also an extremely important point that the revolutionary line in the struggle against the trade union bureaucracy is completely different from the compromising attitude of the reformists in the trade union field. As in every field, reformism carries out its work in the field of trade union struggle with methods and tactics based on cooperation with the bourgeoisie. For this reason, the reformist left circles approach the trade unions not from the point of view of achieving goals that will make the working class more combative, but with the concern of strengthening their own positions. The reformist and opportunist elements have the desire to reach the top leadership of the unions through unprincipled electoral alliances that are not based on solid positions won among the workers at the grassroots. There is nothing acceptable about such an attitude. So-called positions not won through struggle cannot eliminate the scourge of the trade union bureaucracy, but can only add new left-wing elements to it. Of course, it must never be forgotten that such situations have a completely confusing and demoralising effect on the workers.September 2006
Principled Attitude in Trade Union Struggle /2
Left sectarianism
Although it appears to be inspired by revolutionary Marxism, petty-bourgeois revolutionism, which cannot fully absorb it, causes various left deviations as it manages to creep in the labour movement. Such tendencies have been expressed in various political forms in the past and continue to do so today. However, the common element in almost all of them is the sharp revolutionism that dominates at the level of words, in other words, revolutionary verbiage. We can give a simple example to illustrate this. Let's say that downplaying the struggle for the actual demands of the workers and talking only about the ultimate revolutionary goals may give the person who does this a sharper revolutionary appearance on the level of words. But in reality this attitude does not necessarily mean being more militant. On the contrary, such attitudes often serve as a cover for pacifism. We have witnessed variations of the left sectarian attitudes in the context of problems concerning the field of trade union struggle. A typical example is the approach that limits the horizon of the trade union struggle to the bankrupt state of the trade unions in Turkey and does not make any effort to change this state of affairs. Never in any period of history has such an approach led to the success of the workers' struggle. On the contrary, they deepen the already existing regression and petty-bourgeois pessimism. Sectarians always try to justify themselves with various excuses. Let us illustrate this again with an example. It is absolutely true that the political struggle of the class is of primary importance and that revolutionism cannot be limited to the economic struggle. But it is completely wrong to go so far as to underestimate the militant struggle that must be waged in the trade union arena. But deriving a falsehood from a truth is perhaps one of the most striking tricks of the petty-bourgeois left. In fact, the Bolshevik way of working, which is one of the indispensable components of our revolutionary tradition, points to problems that the left sectarians cannot grasp. The most important reason why the Bolsheviks were able to win the leadership within the working class was that they embraced all the painful problems of the working masses, no matter how big or small. There is also the other aspect of the matter that can never be ignored, which is the need to grasp revolutionary political tasks without distortion. It must be clear to everyone that the revolutionary party cannot be built by doing trade union work among the workers. Without trying to create an organisation of vanguard revolutionaries on the basis of cadres equipped with Marxist theory and steeled by the experience of action, there is no point in talking about party-building activity. These are very important problems. And such problems cannot be solved just by discussing and talking, but by trying to do the right thing. A style of activity which, in the name of working within the working class, immerses itself mainly in the trade union struggle means underestimating the basic political task which we have tried to summarise here. Just as it is essential to continue the struggle against left sectarian attitudes, it is equally imperative not to tolerate the tendency towards syndicalism that belittles the basic political tasks. It is very helpful to think carefully about some issues that are sometimes not fully understood in order not to be led astray. For example, participation in trade union activity among workers under the discipline and control of a revolutionary organisation that conduct work in the Bolshevik style has nothing to do with the deviation of trade unionism. If this point is not well understood, it becomes inevitable for those who criticise left sectarianism to go adrift to left sectarianism themselves. Sometimes workers who begin to undergo a revolutionary transformation isolate themselves from other workers in their workplaces and stay away from trade union struggle with the rationale of giving weight to political work. However, political work is not an abstract thing disconnected from the struggle at various levels among the workers. It is a sheer blunder to interpret becoming politically competent as isolating oneself from other workers and being content with the pleasure of obtaining personal information. Those who fall into this situation turn into sectarian elements, useless in the struggle to organise the factories and workplaces they work. For a worker who took part in a revolutionary organisation and whose process of getting armed with revolutionary theory has begun, it would be an intolerable mistake to turn away from fellow workers because she/ he finds them backwards. One of the key aspects of revolutionary activity in the Bolshevik style is that those who march on the fore have the determination and ability to lead, in all spheres, those who as yet stand behind. The most important task of the revolutionaries is to always be in close contact with the workers and to form organised worker circles around themselves at various levels. We know that the worker masses learn not from books but from their own experiences. But revolutionary cadres do not grow in flower pots. But revolutionary cadres do not grow in flower pots. They are trained in a struggle of a revolutionary nature, and they harden and mature in the action. An organisation of revolutionaries, confident in its rightness and strength in defending the class interests of the workers, is obliged to prove these qualities in actual work among workers. Unlike petty-bourgeois revolutionaries and intellectuals, the workers weigh and evaluate individuals or organised circles not by the sharpness of their revolutionary words but by their attitude and actions in actual life. For this reason, it is crucial to be very careful to ensure the workers correctly understand the agitation, propaganda and behavioural style of cadres. In their early stages of the revolutionary struggle or among the young elements, the number of those falling into left sectarian positions is by no means small. Lenin focused on such “infantile disorders” and criticised revolutionaries with these disorders. An example of this is the call of the German lefts for the withdrawal from the trade unions because of the situation the bureaucracy and labour aristocracy put unions in. While the trade unions stand on one side with their mass of workers, refusing to work in these unions for the reason that they are reactionary ultimately means escaping from waging struggle under challenging conditions. One of the basic rules of Bolshevik-style struggle is to know to conduct work wherever the masses are. Giving up the struggle inside the existing mass trade unions and dreaming of establishing pure but small new workers’ communities would amount to leaving the rank and file of the trade unions under the influence of the bureaucrats and the bourgeoisie. Finally, let us touch upon another critical point. The factor that determines the forms of organisation the mass of workers need is, in essence, the level the class struggle has reached. In revolutionary situations, different kinds of worker organisations arise, such as factory committees and worker councils, and the presence of trade unions does not eliminate this need. But it should also be known that direct calls for such organisations in ordinary periods would not be timely, cannot serve the desired result and would remain baseless. Unquestionably, these issues must be addressed and included in educational propaganda to expand the horizon and develop the revolutionary consciousness of the workers. But when it comes to determining concrete tactics, the distinction between the different levels we are trying to address cannot be overlooked. Calls for action in inappropriate times and contexts do more harm than good, unnecessarily cause demoralization due to failure, and trivialise and water down revolutionary goals.Worship of the spontaneity
The economic struggle and the political struggle of the working class have different contents, but ultimately they are not completely disconnected from each other. It is already known that politics in the last analysis means concentrated economy. On the basis of the economic struggle, workers not only confront individual bosses, but their actions for more comprehensive economic demands bring them into confrontation with the class of bosses and its state. Therefore, the trade union struggle of the class inevitably extends into the political sphere. A correct understanding of the relationship between the economic and political spheres of the workers' struggle is also important for the elucidation of many important questions deriving from this relationship. In this context, we can take the phenomenon of spontaneity, which is frequently mentioned in the Marxist literature. It is natural for a spontaneous anger and reaction to arise among the workers against the capitalist order, even in the absence of a deliberate political intervention from outside the class. In fact, this ‘spontaneous element’ is in essence a consciousness in seed form; in fact, it is the first form of consciousness. The primitive uprisings that break out from the bosom of the class reveal that the workers have begun to feel the importance of struggling together against the order. In fact, these preliminary fermentations are of paramount importance. Because without a certain level of spontaneous class feeling, it is impossible for revolutionary consciousness and organisation to take root among the workers. For this reason, Lenin pointed out that even a spontaneously erupted economic strike has political significance because it would be an important development for the workers previously floundering in stagnancy to take the first steps in organising and struggling. The communists have never been and can never be indifferent to such steps of the workers. Marx, too, noted that when the scattered workers, competing with one another, begin to close their ranks and come out jointly, this is a step forward; for this reason, the unions can function as a school of solidarity for workers. In reality, there cannot be an act or action which is fully spontaneous and unaffected by politics and political circles. For this reason, it would be convenient to conceive spontaneity in its broader political sense. If approached this way, spontaneity refers to the type of action that a revolutionary political organisation is not leading or a level of struggle that can erupt from inside the class at any time, even if there is no such leadership. Let us give an example from Turkey. The 15-16 June 1970 Resistance is a spontaneous workers’ resistance in the final analysis. But the aspect of the issue we want to focus on here is the spontaneous nature of the economic struggle compared to the revolutionary political action of the working class. With the issue of spontaneity, it is not the spontaneous reactions and actions against capitalist order that revolutionary Marxism sees as problematic. The problem begins where one sees these spontaneous actions as sufficient. Because the spontaneous workers’ movement ultimately cannot go beyond trade unionism or becomes a servant of bourgeois left politics. Those who slavishly submit to spontaneity despise the need for revolutionary politics, revolutionary organisation and the task of conveying revolutionary consciousness to the working class. Such approaches have also given rise to certain political currents over time. One of these is anarcho-syndicalism, which reflects the influence of anarchist thought in the workers’ movement. Another is trade unionism, namely economism, as the more prevalent term in Turkey, which raises the economic struggle itself to the level of politics. In terms of its historical roots, anarcho-syndicalism is a left tendency shaped by the ideas of politicians such as Proudhon and Bakunin, who opposed Marxist thought. As has been repeatedly exemplified in France, in cases this political tendency spreads among intellectual circles, it takes on a character detached from the militant class struggle. Nevertheless, as the period of the Spanish Civil War shows, it is also the case that it exhibits revolutionary proletarian characteristics when defended by militant workers. It should be noted right away that instances like Spain are, in fact, exceptions created by combative workers who have been influenced by the revolutionary class struggle, i.e., communism. But in general, anarcho-syndicalism contradicts the revolutionary struggle of the working class and contains the features of anarchism, most. Anarchism is a political current that rejects the seizure of political power by workers and the establishment of a workers’ state and, therefore, denies the necessity of a comprehensive political struggle. Anarcho-syndicalism leads the workers to indifference towards political action and revolutionary politics and, in reality, has many similarities with its sibling, economism, although they look like the opposite extreme. Both political tendencies are contrary to the Marxist understanding. They ultimately bring the trade union struggle harmfully to the fore, albeit with different contents and methods. While anarcho-syndicalism deserts from the task of building the revolutionary political leadership required for the struggle for the emancipation of the working class, it exaggerates the importance of trade unions. In the name of defending the independence of the trade unions, it opposes the need for guidance of revolutionary political leadership. In fact, anarcho-syndicalists do pursue politics in practice in line with their own political views. And by doing that, they plunge workers into the quagmire of condemning revolutionary politics and seeing the economic struggle as sufficient on the grounds that the fight for power will corrupt people. The advocates of this current developed the view that the trade unions and spontaneous struggle would almost be sufficient to overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish a classless-stateless society. These circles despise the task of the working class seizing political power by revolutionary force and exalt the importance of the general strike weapon in overthrowing the bourgeois order. These circles despise the task of the working class seizing political power by revolutionary force and exalt the importance of the general strike weapon in overthrowing the bourgeois order. To sum up, worship of spontaneity, hidden behind sharp revolutionary tirades, when needed, is typical of anarcho-syndicalists. The history of the workers’ movement is full of countless examples proving that petty-bourgeois revolutionary radicalism, detached from the effort to revolutionise the working class, eventually drifted to the other extreme, reformism. As a matter of fact, the majority of anarcho-syndicalists, who had a sharp radical discourse before the first imperialist war in European countries and did not find Marxism revolutionary enough, followed the Socialist International, the organisation of class collaborators, when the imperialist war broke out, and got bogged down in the swamp of compromise.The politics limited to economic struggle
Again, trade unionism is the tendency that submits to spontaneity, exaggerates the importance of the economic struggle and shapes this struggle in a reformist political mould. Originally born in England, the trade unionism movement took its name from the word trade union. However, it is usually translated into Turkish as economism and settled in that way. In contrast to the petty-bourgeois left sects that remained detached from the mass struggle of the working class, trade unionism extended to the workers in the trade union struggle, created a political line confined to economic struggle and to demands for reform, and on this basis, became a mass force. The most striking example of this is the British Labour Party, which has risen based on trade unions. This example reveals that establishing ties between the workers’ political and trade union organisations and achieving a mass growth on this basis is not sufficient alone; and that the content (reformist or revolutionary?) determines if the outcome will be positive or negative. Unification in the British example did not turn the Labour Party into a leader for the benefit of the revolutionary struggle but got the trade unions and unionised workers to form a bourgeois workers’ party, in essence. Clearly, the gathering of the workers in a workers’ party, which is, in reality, a representative of bourgeois reformist politics, means nothing more than to put the working class en masse on the tail of bourgeois reformism. The British Labour Party, or its equivalents in European countries (parties bearing the name of Social-Democratic or Socialist), reflect a situation in which the trade union bureaucracy and party bureaucracy have intertwined. Because of these characteristics, in trade union branches which became at the same time the mass organisations of the party, both the pressure of the bureaucracy over the workers increases, and the bourgeois reformist illusions among the workers grow exponentially. The experience in Tsarist Russia of the past is another example. At that time, the trade union movements and political movements that emerged in the advanced capitalist countries of Europe influenced not only continental Europe but also expanded their spheres of influence over time. Thus, a policy that exaggerated the role of the trade union struggle, that is, trade unionism, in essence, emerged also in Tsarist Russia, a country with no democratic rights. The impact of the strike wave that aroused the workers in Russia in the 1890s spread the disease of economism, which was the subject of Lenin’s criticisms. Trade unionism in Russia did not just remain an erroneous approach but became one of the main political currents that stood against the revolutionary movement based on Marxist foundations. At a time when the masses of workers began to awaken and the development of class consciousness became extremely important, trade unionists tried to break the influence of political circles striving to bring revolutionary consciousness to the class. While Lenin tried to prove that they underestimated the consciousness factor, trade unionists put against it the “importance of the spontaneity factor of development”. We can summarise the principal claim of the political current called economism as “giving a political character to the economic struggle itself”. But to avoid falling into error at this point, let us draw attention to an important issue. Marxists can sometimes intentionally emphasise “politicising the economic struggle” not for the purpose of defending trade unionism but, on the contrary, to point out some obligatory tasks. An emphasis on “politicisation” that aim to prevent workers from being content with the trade union struggle is not wrong. Whereas, to become stiff-necked with the concern of not falling into economism, to interpret the trade union struggle as if completely disconnected from the political struggle, and to hold back from the propaganda for politicisation in the trade-union field are utterly harmful tendencies. On the other hand, the approach of the economism tendency, “giving the economic struggle itself a political character”, has an entirely different content. Economists reduce the struggle of the working class to a politics limited to raising wages and improving working conditions. But such a policy is just the work trade unions have already been doing. Putting forward such views in the name of political struggle actually means nothing more than confining the working class to the level of trade union politics. Lenin says that the slogan of the economists quite strikingly expresses bowing to spontaneity in the sphere of political action. Because without the intervention of the revolutionary elements, the trade union struggle spontaneously assumes a political character under the influence of the dominant ideas of the ruling class. And obviously, this policy will be of a bourgeois party of one kind or another. As known, the proletarian revolutionary struggle does not exclude the struggle for reforms and daily demands. Therefore, what distinguishes communists from reformists is not only the ultimate goals propagandised but also the way they make efforts to gain reforms or even a seemingly modest daily demand: Communists strive for gains in a way that will open workers’ eyes and inspire them to struggle. On the other hand, the tendency of economism has created a reformist policy that aims not to overthrow the capitalist order in a revolutionary way but to make it bearable through economic improvements. While the advocates of economism brought this bourgeois policy to workers, they accused Marxists of not caring about the masses, as they were striving to convey revolutionary consciousness to vanguard workers. It is known that the advocates of economism, the deserters of revolution, try to justify themselves on the grounds such as “we must focus on the working masses”. It is possible to come across similar approaches today, as in every period in the past. However, keeping pace with the workers with a backward level of consciousness while working in the labour movement for the sake of becoming massive is not a merit, but ouvrierism, i.e., worker-tailism. Conducting revolutionary work requires pulling forward those who stand behind; and it has nothing to do with this revolutionary style to talk and act according to the wishes of those backward layers. Such attitudes may seem to succeed to a certain degree by gathering certain workers around. However, from the point of view of revolutionary politics, these are bogus successes on slippery grounds. Whereas from the point of view of the advocates of economism, it is the preferred politics itself. The economic struggle is important, for sure. But it must never be forgotten that it has a limited effect. This is why Marx points out in his work Wages, Price and Profit that workers should not exaggerate the gains from this everyday struggle. In this level of struggle, workers fight against specific consequences of the capitalist order. But they have not yet been able to deal blows that will put an end to the cause of these consequences, i.e. to the capitalist order. In other words, they only use painkillers but cannot cure the disease. Workers must wage a constant struggle against the usurpation of their rights by capital and the falling wages, but they must not be absorbed and get lost in this daily struggle; they must not be content with it. Besides all the miseries it imposes upon them, the capitalist system also engenders the material conditions necessary for emancipation from it. Therefore, the illusions created by trade unionism and bourgeois liberalism among workers that demands such as a “fair wage” can be realised under capitalism should strictly be opposed. It should not be forgotten that the source of the evil lies not in the level of wages but in the capitalist wage system itself. A propaganda that does not expose this truth conceals exploitation. For this reason, instead of the conservative motto: “A fair wage”, workers must inscribe on their banner the revolutionary motto: “Abolition of the wage slavery system”. The question of what kind of propaganda and agitation is crucial in advancing the workers’ struggle in a revolutionary direction. Lenin drew attention to the rule that communists should follow in their propaganda and agitation in the working class. What is to aim is that the workers not only react to the oppression and injustices against themselves but also oppose the multifaceted attacks of the capitalist order that concern various segments of society. A genuine revolutionary political consciousness within the working class can only develop through efforts in this direction. However, we cannot ignore, at this point, that the obstacles can only be overcome with patient effort. As everyone who carries out work within the class has witnessed, the workers who are confined to the trade union struggle have more sympathy for the agitation and propaganda activity that revolves around demands for wages, working hours and social rights. On the other hand, when the propaganda directs towards opposing the oppression of a nation or oppressed sex, for example, the same workers find it too radical or too “political”. But it cannot be justified to surrender to the actual level of consciousness by making this situation an excuse; because the level of the class struggle can advance by breaking these barriers which the bourgeois order has created in the workers’ minds and by not limiting political agitation to the problems of the field of trade union struggle. On the contrary, the tendency of economism claims that a work of raising consciousness which revolves around trade union problems is the most effective and beneficial tool in the education of the working class. Let us give another example of erroneous tendencies. Attempting to awaken workers only based on agitation of the problems occurring within the factory, too, is a form of trade unionism. Based on the events in Russia, Lenin pointed out that a passion for “exposure of the facts” by writing and distributing “factory leaflets” may become widespread during the periods of the awakening of the working class. Factory leaflets were basically exposing the factory system and arousing enthusiasm for action in this direction among the workers. In this respect, they also had an important function in the general awakening periods. However, being content with this or being stuck at this point will never develop revolutionary political consciousness and organisation in the workers. Therefore, it is an entirely wrong political approach. In Turkey, as in the past, we still witness these errors Lenin once pointed out. Although a mode of agitation confined to economic demands or problems within the factory may allow small circles to establish various connections within the class, this mode of work is trade unionism. Those who take such a path are, at best, trying to engage in revolutionary trade unionism, nothing more. As the experience has shown, amateurism eventually leads to economism. It is utter amateurism for narrow circles who want to work within the working class to exaggerate a simple-level agitation that revolves around some workplace problems in a few small workplaces. To present this kind of amateurish “factory work” as Bolshevik-style work without having the necessary preliminary preparation, knowledge and experience for building a revolutionary organisation is sheer economism, aside from its ridiculousness. At this point, it is impossible to forget the words of Marx at a meeting (the meeting of the Brussels Communist Communications Committee): “To appeal to the workers without a scientifically accurate idea and a sound theory is to play a propaganda game. It is a deceitful empty game to assume as if a prophet got revelations on one side and some donkeys who listen to him with their mouths open on the other side. Ignorance has never been the balm for anyone’s wounds!” Young cadres, who still need to gain experience, can sometimes inadvertently drift to economism because of their amateurish efforts among the workers. Let us explain this a little bit. It is known that the main task of a group trying to organise in a Bolshevik style is to carry out revolutionary enlightenment and revolutionary organisation activities among the workers and to win these workers into the political organisation. The way to achieve this is to patiently draw the workers to the issues of revolutionary struggle based on building mutual trust. However, some inexperienced organisers may instead confine themselves to the trade union field so as to establish closer and friendlier relations with the workers. Some also fall into the mistake of considering the experience gained in the trade union struggle as sufficient and ignoring directives and supervision of the revolutionary leadership. These are mistakes that trade union activists often commit, and all these vacillations are called trade unionism. As various historical examples are examined, it will be seen that the adaptation of communists to working entirely and only in the trade union field always leads to opportunist deviations. The drift towards trade unionism also creates a cadre typology that evaluates the mood of the masses and their capacity to struggle more and more like a trade union secretary. For those who slip to this point, it is almost inevitable to perceive the relationship between the revolutionary struggle of the class and its economic struggle upside down. Those who cannot withstand the pressure of the field they work inside eventually begin to twist and bend under that pressure. As a result, there emerge so-called communists nominally but trade union politicians in reality. There are not a few “revolutionaries” who do not prioritise the requirements of the revolutionary organisation and instead are overwhelmed with the union work and carry out all the activities in line with the directives of the union bureaucracy and the statutory rules of the trade union by reasoning that the trade union field has its own law.A tremendous shake-up is necessary
History shows that class struggle has various inevitable ebbs and flows. Indeed, there have been periods of significant decline in the revolutionary movement of the working class, and the adverse effects of such periods cast their reflections in the field of trade union struggle. Undeniably, the period of political decline in the world and Turkey in the last historical period caused grave damage to the trade union movement and the approach to the trade union struggle. Aside from the pervasive attack carried out by the capital front against workers’ acquired rights and struggle, the counter-revolutionary effect of the fascism period of the 12 September 1980 military coup has been enormous in Turkey. The decline in the trade union movement in Turkey clearly demonstrates this situation. Due to the neoliberal attacks worldwide, there has been a significant decline in the proportion of unionised workers in various capitalist countries, too, and, more importantly, in the militancy level of the trade union struggle. However, the decline in Turkey has been much more profound. In addition, it should also not be forgotten that the workers’ movement has recovered to a certain extent in recent years in other capitalist countries. Even more, there have been much more significant rises in some countries. But when we look at Turkey, aside from the problems that the erroneous approaches of the left have accumulated over the years, there is a huge wreck standing, which is essentially the result of the fascism of the 1980 coup. During the years of fascism and reaction, the working class suffered way too much from the blows inflicted on political life, and there was a worrisome decline in the level of revolutionary consciousness and organisation. Although the bourgeois regime underwent a relative normalisation and revolutionary groups made efforts for recovery later on, we cannot yet say that the workers’ movement in Turkey has been able to straighten its back in terms of both political and economic struggle. As is often the case in such situations, there is a considerable regression and distortion in the revolutionary understanding of the relationship between the trade union struggle and the political struggle of the class. The situation of the trade unions, on the other hand, is indeed deplorable. But it is also a fact that the factor that makes the problems chronic originates mainly from the political sphere. Unless the revolutionary political organisation of the working class develops, it will not be possible to move the trade union movement forward to a meaningful level and to make trade unions combative. Do not forget the past. Despite all their shortcomings and mistakes, revolutionary organisations in Turkey exerted significant pressure in the trade union struggle towards militancy before 1980. This factor cannot be ignored in any way. On the other hand, what marks today’s atmosphere are adversities such as the slackening in political life caused by systematic oppression, the alienation of workers from active politics, and the avoidance of even the slightest act of claiming rights with the fear of unemployment threat. Compared to the period before 12 September 1980, this panorama almost appears like a return to the age of darkness. There is a need for a tremendous shake-up in the workers’ movement and radical qualitative transformations in political life to get out of the current period of regression. The bourgeois parties that market themselves as new hope before the working masses against other rotten and bankrupt bourgeois parties may create some kind of politicisation. But this is a distorted and sham politicisation. Therefore, it never eliminates the present adversities. The AKP, the ruling party in Turkey since 2002, proved one thing. In this world where lords, generals and bosses reign, a bourgeois party that exploits the religious beliefs of the masses and advises them to “endure”, “not to revolt”, and “to obey” can do no good for the re-awakening of the working class. So-called new bourgeois parties, new in appearance, cannot resolve the problems of the working masses. The working class needs a revolutionary political organisation for liberation from the swamp of poverty, unemployment, unjust wars and social degeneration created by capitalism. Without a surge of revolutionary politics that activates the working masses and a struggle from the union rank-and-file directed against the trade union bureaucracy, it will not be possible to drain the swamp in the trade union field. This analysis does not deny that the revival of the spontaneous struggle of the working class can also accelerate the revolutionary struggle. There is a living dialectical relationship that acts and re-acts on each other at all levels between the progress that revolutionary efforts create in the workers’ movement and the spontaneous rises. Approaches that ignore this relationship and conceive mobilisation as a unilateral phenomenon serve the scholastic logic. Nevertheless, we must point out the factor that is of primary importance. Without the pressure of the revolutionary organisation, the trade union struggle could have never been and will never be able to avoid being used as a spare tyre for the bourgeoisie. Certain fundamental principles, which broader masses can grasp easier in the periods of the rise of the revolutionary struggle of the working class, often become subject to distortions from multiple aspects or are forgotten during periods of political reaction. An example is the question of revolutionary approach to the trade union struggle. Periods of decline that work against the workers in the class struggle can fling not only workers’ organisations but also revolutionary thoughts and approaches far back from previously won positions. Thus, disorders that supposedly remained in the past can re-infect the body. Marxism has already pointed out that old diseases can recur in any new historical stage. In such periods, it becomes necessary to tirelessly bring to light even the simplest facts, which were assumed to be known to almost everyone in the past. Moreover, the problems to grapple with are not on the surface but in the depths. For example, today in Turkey, we can see among those who claim to be Marxists the traces of two important deviations of different nature, which we can characterise as left sectarianism and trade unionism. Fighting the harmful effects of these recurring diseases is an important and present-day task. In short, the solution to any problem we face in the class struggle lies in the same road. There is no other way out than to devote all the energy and efforts to strengthening the revolutionary organisation and struggle of the workers. Only this way will a militant shake-up in the trade union struggle be possible. For those who conduct revolutionary work in the class without a fondness for position and seats, the benchmark of success in the trade union struggle can be nothing but making the workers more organised and combative. Considering the low ratio of unionised workers in all capitalist countries, it is easy to see how important it is to try to win over the unorganised for a strong trade union struggle in today’s world. In this respect, it is necessary to make efforts to unionise non-union workers and to organise unionised workers in a way they get involved in protecting and controlling their unions in the workplaces and factories. A determined struggle must be waged against the defence of professional interests that will feed the labour aristocracy, against the tendency of trade unionists to discard small workplaces, and against the contempt of unskilled workers. Communists must be the ones to defend in the most determined and principled way the trade union democracy, militant class trade unionism and combative grassroots organisations. In order to ensure the unity of the working class struggle, it must be targeted to organise the collective action of workers against unjust wars, the oppression of capital and the usurpation of social rights. A tremendous shake-up will not come up spontaneously by itself in any field. The new positions will be won with fingernails to the extent the fundamental tasks are fulfilled.September 2006