What was the situation for the subjects that produce this kind of discourse, policy and tactics? What are you saying to the masses stepping back to defensive line, living in fear of life safety?

2016 has become such a year that the parties and organizations having the understanding of struggling only by legal, peaceful means substantially left out of politics. And instead of vanguarding the masses, proposing tactics leading them; they entered a path that streaks the worries and fears of masses, that spreads fear, anxiety, pessimism and hopelessness, that does not create a transforming, thriving situation. One part of this eventually reached to an exit seeking alliance with CHP (Republican People’s Party). They have broken off from the politic centers of unified fronts, unified fronts like HDP - HDK (People’s Democratic Party-People’s Democratic Congress) which carries the combatant mass dynamics and moves forward with them, even though it cannot deservedly deliver its pioneer responsibilities and duties; yet still puts itself forth as a contentious dynamic despite everything. Breaking off from these fronts pushed them to the outside of struggle a bit. And still, in this period, it is unclear that they will change their position.

Today, we have to tell to the masses the necessity of being on the streets to defend and gain freedom, justice, and equality of people no matter what it costs, we have to push masses to put their problems, demands in the street peacefully or mass violently, from the smallest to the bigger, legal or illegal styles by taking every protection measures. Unified democratic front is the most appropriate tool for this. Workers and oppressed of Turkey and Kurdistan can go out to streets around the unified front. What is important here is the unified front’s administration’s being determined, trusting masses, understanding that there is no way going forward by staying in defense with no cost. It is important that they should build their discourse, policies, tactics on this basis. When you do not resist enough, do not pay prices against Hitler, we already know what happens. Or when you choose the line of not paying any costs against Erdoğan after July 20th, when you choose not acting determinedly against politic islamist fascist dictatorship, staying in the defense; you may find yourself in a point where you must pay even higher prices, take even bigger dangers into account. One hundred, two hundreds, one thousand, ten thousands, one hundred thousands, millions of people, no matter what the size is, masses going out to streets around specific issues has to be organized .

How do you describe the place of workers in your ranks? Does your existence in the laborer neighborhoods create enough channels to meet with the class? Likewise, how would you evaluate your foreseeing and practice in terms of your political works in worker unions and workplaces?

Our core belief that the working class is the vanguard of the revolution and the basic foundation of actualizing socialism, has always been alive throughout our party's history. However we have drawn a strict line against degrading the working class struggle into unionist struggle, we see it as an economist understanding. We have been saying that the working class can hold its own emancipation as long as it is based on the class consciousness. This is the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism and of actualized revolutions which was confirmed by the life itself. In order to keep our bounds with the working class strongly -including the weaker periods of the party as well- we have kept our existence based on carrying out our political works and improving our organizational structure within the major industrial cities. In these cities, where the industrial proletariat is located, we can mention our progress in different forms and levels in different periods. We have been following the perspective of gaining working class from their living areas, factories and unions. By leading them towards embracing and actually defending the struggle of those from other classes and strata who carry the demand for freedom, such as women, Kurdish people, Alevites, etc., we have been giving effort to bring working class a consciousness of a political subject as being the vanguard of the revolution. Because this is the only way for the working class to become a vanguard within the struggle of gaining political freedom, that is the essence of our revolution. Our works within the factories have been differentiated in terms of their effectiveness in different periods. We have periods in which we've been quite widespread and successful, as well as the ones that we were weakened and decreased. Likewise, we can say the same thing for our works in worker unions. We have presented an uneven effectiveness in different years, moments and periods. In living areas, on the other hand, we have been in a much more continuous relation with workers. During all the periods in which we were inadequate and unsuccessful in this regard, we have led ourselves to revolutionary criticism, and sought ways to change the situation.

What about the criticisms that say your works among the working class are weak?

Today the factory-centered struggles are weak. This is a process that was driven by the reflection of series of developments linked with the imperialist globalization to the worker unions, as well as by the transformation of chronic mass unemployment into a form of terror that widely restricts the factory-based struggles. We can easily see that the unions' organization level within the working class is extremely weak and they are unable to mobilize the working masses out in the streets. This fact is quite understandable. The perspective for the working class to maintain the struggle only in factories, as if it is not able to carry out any other actual struggle, is totally false. The working class have well played an active role in the June uprising. Again, during the 6-8 October serhıldan (wide protests in Turkey and North Kurdistan during the Kobanê war), the workers having the revolutionary and progressive conscious have also taken a part. This is the reality of this period. Criticisms about our works among the working class would be only a driving force for us as long as they are based on the desire to bring class-consciousness to the larger masses of workers and to lead them to a struggle on a larger scale. But instead of that, if we speak about those accusing us of being disengaged from the working class just by looking down on our work's weakness or lack of a political clout, of course we do not take them seriously especially while our party's ideology, theoretical perspectives and extend of political struggle are that much clear on this issue.

We are a party which has raised devoted revolutionaries carrying the sacrifice spirit from the working class ranks, together with preparing them to take on various types of commanding responsibilities at our party; starting from Erdal Balcı, through Ali Haydar Göçer, to Süleyman Yeter, Özkan Tekin, Hüseyin Kayacı, from Yılmaz Selçuk, to Serkan Tosun, Oğuz Saruhan, Şirin Öter and Veli Görgün... Within the forces marching in our cortèges, workers hold a significant part, also the worker and unemployed youth holds an important part within the frame of our main body at the laborer neighborhoods. But we have to admit that for certain political struggles, leadership is a matter of practice, not a theoretical-ideological one. In a particular moment, working class cannot lead but instead students or women or an oppressed nation or a sect might do. That is to say, various social forces might pave the way for a political rising. This is a fact as much as the working class' historical and political role is a fact. Our party will continue its efforts for the working class to play its role and to fulfill its political responsibilities, will keep toiling to seek particular ways and means to organize working class' struggle under existing conditions.

How do you evaluate the situation of the laboring left movement? How much have these structures, which emerged and shaped in the 1960-1990 period of freedom and socialism struggle, understood the new era and responded the expectations of revolutionary leadership? Are those who claim to lead the revolution able to transform themselves towards meeting the needs and expectations of the revolutionary progress?

This question can allow us to enlighten only one side of this issue in general. Because this parenthesis of 1960-90 means a lot for the international communist movement. Because it was a period which conditioned many divisions, together with introverted approaches and mentalities deepening on these divided grounds such as the modern revisionism's coming to power, LPA-CKP blocking or the Cuban Communist Party's, in particular Che Guevara line's being a separate political focus. You need to consider '74-90 period for the laboring left movement of Turkey and Kurdistan -excluding PKK - in terms of understanding the new situation and restructuring itself. In the particular to Turkey and North Kurdistan of 1990's, a period has emerged in which the revolutionary spontaneity has reached its end and the revolutionary will has gained a new meaning in every respect; and it is understood that this wouldn't happen spontaneously within the development of mass movement, on the contrary it is understood that it can only happen with the will, effort, action, sacrifice and braveness of the vanguard simultaneously developing the mass movement. In other words, after the period of a revolutionary spontaneity started in '74, the necessity to overcome its organizational forms and its whole mentality was arisen. So we have to consider this issue also from this aspect.

If we think of both two aspects, we can see tendencies which try to understand the new conditions of the world, as well as the ones that are indifferent to them in the name of consistency. To be more concrete, first of all, apart from the Cuban government's self-protection struggle, there was no longer any socialist power left or any power claiming of socialism.

Secondly, the conditions of realignment around some particular parties and countries had disappeared. This situation, had created new outcomes in different corners of the world. We saw those who had been dragged into liquidation among the revolutionary parties of yesterday or those who were trying to find a new way within yesterday's modern revisionist fractions. We saw both those who have theoretically renovated themselves while trying to explain the formation-development-collapse process of socialism and also those who totally exhausted their hopes and became an add-on to the bourgeoisie. We have seen these examples also in Turkey and Northern Kurdistan. From this angle, unfortunately the laboring left remained limited in terms of their attempts to explain the new situation, new conditions of the world from a theoretical point of view, as well as to improve their politics, organization and ideological views by taking the reality of imperialist globalization into account.

Perhaps the conditions of September 12 defeat (the military coup happened in 1980), which broke the revolutionary will and restricted many powerful revolutionary structures from the past into legal and peaceful organization and struggle forms, have a share on this issue. Especially under those conditions, while feeling the pressure of getting distant from the idea of the revolution and its core thought that the revolution will be actualized by force, hanging on to old views without any question was considered as a criterion to be revolutionary by the parties and organizations, which were willing to demonstrate a revolutionary determination and to follow a revolutionary line. So we can say this also had a restraining effect. And there is no doubt the historical meanings has a share in this like; rather than giving a theoretical explanation together with ideological, organizational and political answers to existing problems; choosing to stay in certain patterns, despite tens of years passed over, describing themselves only with the '71's vanguard organizations such as THKP-C or TKP-ML or THKO * and still trying to find a way within such descriptions have its shares.

(*Translator's note: THKP-C: People's Liberation Party-Front of Turkey, TKP-ML: Communist Party of Turkey-Marxist Leninist, THKO: People's Liberation Army of Turkey)

When you look at the laboring left in terms of moving forward, their understanding of political struggle, their relationship with women liberation struggle, the Kurdish national liberation struggle, their association with issues such as the regional and world revolution, their confrontation policies or putting it more genuinely, their approaches to organization and struggle styles; we can say that an evolutionary progress is dominant, in which the changes occur so slowly and only through when the reality presents itself so clearly, thus the developing determination and practice with surges are limited and weak. Our party was founded on the basis of the critics to all of these and since it is an outcome of a mentality revolution, it implemented apparent changes in all these matters, developed perspectives and built practices. But what is happening in Turkey and Northern Kurdistan, as well as in the region and in the world, is clearly reflecting the fact that the parties and organizations, which can not give theoretical explanations to the arisen problems, which cannot improve their ideological views and political lines, are losing their existential rights more and more every day and these facts of today are pushing them into crisis.

Right here, could you explain your party's position and role within the laboring left more detailedly?

We have called the formation of our party as the Unity Revolution, the renaissance of the revolutionary movement, because it was able to respond to the realities of '90's and their needs by internalizing the past acquisitions and achievements of the revolutionary movement. The 22 years since then has proved that this definition was not wrong or unaccountable nor arbitrary. First and foremost, we have a distinguishable side within the revolutionary movement as a party that manages itself and constructs its future through congresses and conferences. And this is the same for our independent youth organization, which, despite all its limitations, has become almost a single example of it. Nevertheless, these do not make sense by their own. The ground on which they make sense is our party's political struggle understanding and style. Using all means and forms of struggle without depreciating any of them, mobilizing whatever struggle and organization styles are required by the political conditions and needs alongside with the vision and practice to be equipped with those, constitute one of the positive revolutionary pressures of our party upon the revolutionary movement. There is an effect created by our party's views on legal and unarmed actions, peaceful and mass-violent actions, armed actions, its views on electoral struggles; and perceiving all these as the channels for organizing the revolution; and its acting with the awareness that it can derive a great revolutionary development by combining all of them. This influence can be seen within the revolutionary movement. Likewise, in terms of seeking the unique ways of confrontation in accordance with the needs of time which was taken into our agenda right after our party's foundation, starting from the front type of the revolutionary party and organizations which we had put forward in 1996 to the forms of today, up to our concept of united revolutionary leadership, the effects of our tendency to go beyond the mentality of '74-90 period can be seen within the revolutionary movement. Plus, we can say that we have created a revolutionary pressure on the left in the issues such as the association with Kurdish national liberation struggle and with its vanguard, as well as the relationship with the woman liberation struggle.

You have mentioned about confrontation. What is the framework of your critical analysis on confrontation matter about the laboring left movement's situation from past to present? What are your predictions about the future of the tendency and effort for confrontation, what can you say about it?

In terms of growing the mentality of confrontation, the seeds were laid into the ground with the '71's rupture by showing the most progressive examples of revolutionary comradeship. THKP-C leaders and THKO's leading cadres escaped from prison together: THKP-C leader's put his life forward without hesitation in order to stop the execution of THKO leaders, THKP-C and THKO leaders' bloods melded with each other in Kızıldere, and then Kaypakkaya's punished the murderers of Sinan Cemgil* by seeing it as a natural task of revolutionary comradeship; all these examples had shined out in that limited time period. Organizations which emerged after '74 did not have a contextual relationship with these. On the contrary, they grew and developed in a spontaneous mass movement, and in order to expand their mass, they followed a terrible way of a fractionist competition. Within this atmosphere, neither any steps for creating a confront against fascism, imperialism, or bourgeoisie had taken, nor there had been created a culture of revolutionary comradeship, spirit and consciousness. In a sense, each group was the only Bolshevik group of Turkey and Kurdistan and did not even consider to have any kind of alliances with other groups, which they saw as petty bourgeois revolutionaries, they would take the power on their own by surpassing others until the revolution. Due to this fractionist culture and ideological shaping of the '74-80 period, it was failed to follow a confrontational line against the fascist junta of September 12, or taken any successful steps. Without directing a clear criticism to the revolutionary movement, our revolutionary past, without comprehending the essence of the issue in this regard, a revolutionary rupture cannot be created.

(*Translator's note: Sinan Cemgil is one of the leaders of THKO.)