The Unified Revolution In The Fight Against Fascism
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

 
Other articles
 



International Bulletin / Issue 206 / January 2020
Discussions about the need for a unified struggle have recently increased within the revolutionary democratic forces, workers' organizations and anti-fascists in Turkey. This is undoubtedly an expression of a search for more qualitative struggles and a declaration of intent to strengthen the fight against the fascist chief regime.
The will and striving for unity are not limited to the revolutionary vanguard or anti-fascist organizations of the left. Large sections of society are oppressed by the official and civilian forces of the fascist palace regime. The permanent repression, the endeavor of fascism to control the entire social structure, and the institutionalized existence of the fascist chief regime lead to the need for defense and unity to develop within the broadest parts of society. However, an essential part of the discussions in the ranks of the revolutionary democratic movement is far from taking a path that can lead to a solution to this question. If we look at what has been said, we will see that there is a combination of right and wrong opinions. As with any other topic, the right solutions and the right results can only be achieved if the right questions are asked. It is clear that not all of these efforts go beyond subjective theoretical and political considerations. The necessary method is therefore always to highlight the concrete problems of political practice. Which political goal should the struggle against fascism target? How should an anti-fascist power alternative be achieved? The common agenda in the fight against fascism is known to play an important role. However, it is necessary to remember that the fight against fascism does not need bourgeois-democratic solutions. Since the current regime cannot change its fascist character towards bourgeois democracy, the success of the anti-fascist struggle contents the victory of a democratic people's revolution. The fight against fascism is a question of revolution and must target the existing state structure, as the revolutionary movement often said in the period of revolutionary ascent from 1974 to 1980.
Discussing the question of unity in the fight against fascism is therefore not a discussion of the unification of action at the usual time, but the creation of a basic strategic means and the construction of a suitable mode of action. Wherever the need for unification is discussed, the forms, means and organization of the revolutionary struggle must be discussed. In this sense, the unified struggle must respond to the concrete needs of the struggle. The demand for an abstract unification against fascism, which does not involve a concrete struggle and does not undertake any concrete action and work, can have no effect and remains a simple declaration of intent. Then the question remains: what is the need for the current struggle, which political requirements will be the lever of the unified struggle and the source of new impulses? The question of the allies determines the unified struggle and is taken in hand with the contradictions in the socio-political environment of the struggle. The MLKP answers this question with the structural contradictions between state and society and, based on political freedom, developed the idea of the unified revolution and the unified revolutionary leadership. A state structure that pursues a policy of assimilation, destruction and annihilation against a religiously, culturally, nationally and ethnically diverse society inevitably causes contradictions and violent confrontations. The resistance of social diversity to the monistic formative constraints of the state has created a historical course in which uprisings on the one hand and fascism on the other were caused. The state tried to control the structural contradictions by provoking conflicts between Alevis and Sunnis, secular and religious, Kurds and Turks. Where that was not enough, coups and methods of reactionary civil war followed. In this connection, the conflicts caused by the capitalist development resulting from the contradiction between labor and capital were suppressed. From this reality, we are pursuing the revolutionary strategy of letting the state's divide-rule tactics foil. This strategy manifests itself with the demand for political freedom. The flag of political freedom is raised where the state produced contradictions, namely in the unification of the Turks and Kurds, Alevis and Sunnis, religious and non-religious against the fundamental and irreconcilable contradiction of capitalist society, the contradiction between labor and capital. This requires a programmatic rapprochement that brings these social dynamics together, positions them against the fascist regime and forms them into a social and political force. It is particularly about the connection of the Turkey revolution with the Kurdistan revolution. An understanding that is not aimed at uniting these two revolutions and their vanguards is far from a successful unified struggle. Trying to distance oneself from the Kurdish revolution and its vanguards does mean not to see that our revolution started in Kurdistan. As a result of the uneven growth in the relationship between the two revolutions, wrong and apolitical approaches to the Kurdistan Revolution are emerging. Kurdistan is a great revolutionary motor that can influence all revolutions in the region if the political-military struggle is expanded and the conditions are created for a stronger confrontation with the fascist regime. Trying to keep as far away from the Kurdish revolution as possible and to close one's eyes to its meaning is nothing other than the wish to remain in „safe waters" in the fight against fascism. Today's need for unity requires an active defensive stance; this active defense secures the morale of the anti-fascist forces and continually strengthens their ranks, organizes the masses of people and develops revolutionary forces. To sum up, the unified struggle against the fascist chief regime is carried out a) in the political-military struggle, b) in the de facto legitimate and militant street fights, c) in the mass movement and the social movements. On the political-military struggle: Throughout history, the problem of the unified struggle against fascism has also been discussed with the question of creating a revolutionary war force against fascism. Because the problem of fighting fascism, which is a regime of terrorism, also means the organization of revolutionary warfare, which is the only form that can defeat it. Therefore, the demands for anti-fascist unity, without considering the revolutionary war and political-military struggle, have no strategic goals and are far from the demand for revolution. Any topic that sees the fight against fascism as a question of revolution must also take on the task of expanding its basic strategic instrument. The unified revolution of Turkey-Kurdistan created a strategic level of war, a means that should not be underestimated. It manifests itself within the HBDH. Attempts are currently being made to intensify the war from the rural areas to the cities.
Another need for the anti-fascist struggle is the practical legitimate militant struggle. The importance of these street fights is greater than ever under the conditions in which the streets have been torn from the masses to liquidate any revolutionary politics. A measure of action has to be created that militantly fights the street to overcome the current state. And it is clear that one way to do this is through revolutionary action.
The history of our struggle against fascism shows that the first step is the unity of the revolutionary actions that are carried out on the street. A continuous line of resistance that develops from the grassroots despite the state attacks is a position on a militant line. For the organization of self-defense of the population and creation of revolutionary mass violence, there are also fighting organizations, the foundation of which has been planned well in advance. These are the unified and flexible anti-fascist resistance committees that are waiting to be mobilized for the revolution. It is clear that the energy of the revolutionary vanguard must focus on the organization and functioning of these committees in all areas of life instead of repeating the simple demands for unity.
A similar problem exists in the discussion of unified organizations in which the mass movement is organized. There may be dozens of platforms, fronts, initiatives or organizations of revolutionary forces. It seems that the problem is the lack of action and movement. Regardless of which new organization is built in the unified struggle, without a practice on the street, without a revolutionary mass policy, without changing the previous perspective, the new platforms will soon resemble the old ones. It should be briefly noted that the most advanced form of alliances, platforms and units of force was obtained on October 15, 2011 with the founding of the Democratic Peoples' Congress ( HDK ). As a result of upcoming elections, the Democratic Party of the Peoples ( HDP ) emerged from it. The HDK, which creates examples of direct democracy in the form of councils, has turned to a key attraction in its history.
If the needs of the political struggle change and develop, the organizational policy needs of the unified struggle can of course also change. Today we have organizations that can lead the unified struggle from revolutionary war organizations to areas of legitimate mass struggle. The use of revolutionary energy to strengthen these organizations will contribute much more to the future of the unified struggle than abstract discussions.
 

 

Archive

 

2020
January
2019
December November
October September
August July
June May
April March
February

 

The Unified Revolution In The Fight Against Fascism
fc Share on Twitter

 



International Bulletin / Issue 206 / January 2020
Discussions about the need for a unified struggle have recently increased within the revolutionary democratic forces, workers' organizations and anti-fascists in Turkey. This is undoubtedly an expression of a search for more qualitative struggles and a declaration of intent to strengthen the fight against the fascist chief regime.
The will and striving for unity are not limited to the revolutionary vanguard or anti-fascist organizations of the left. Large sections of society are oppressed by the official and civilian forces of the fascist palace regime. The permanent repression, the endeavor of fascism to control the entire social structure, and the institutionalized existence of the fascist chief regime lead to the need for defense and unity to develop within the broadest parts of society. However, an essential part of the discussions in the ranks of the revolutionary democratic movement is far from taking a path that can lead to a solution to this question. If we look at what has been said, we will see that there is a combination of right and wrong opinions. As with any other topic, the right solutions and the right results can only be achieved if the right questions are asked. It is clear that not all of these efforts go beyond subjective theoretical and political considerations. The necessary method is therefore always to highlight the concrete problems of political practice. Which political goal should the struggle against fascism target? How should an anti-fascist power alternative be achieved? The common agenda in the fight against fascism is known to play an important role. However, it is necessary to remember that the fight against fascism does not need bourgeois-democratic solutions. Since the current regime cannot change its fascist character towards bourgeois democracy, the success of the anti-fascist struggle contents the victory of a democratic people's revolution. The fight against fascism is a question of revolution and must target the existing state structure, as the revolutionary movement often said in the period of revolutionary ascent from 1974 to 1980.
Discussing the question of unity in the fight against fascism is therefore not a discussion of the unification of action at the usual time, but the creation of a basic strategic means and the construction of a suitable mode of action. Wherever the need for unification is discussed, the forms, means and organization of the revolutionary struggle must be discussed. In this sense, the unified struggle must respond to the concrete needs of the struggle. The demand for an abstract unification against fascism, which does not involve a concrete struggle and does not undertake any concrete action and work, can have no effect and remains a simple declaration of intent. Then the question remains: what is the need for the current struggle, which political requirements will be the lever of the unified struggle and the source of new impulses? The question of the allies determines the unified struggle and is taken in hand with the contradictions in the socio-political environment of the struggle. The MLKP answers this question with the structural contradictions between state and society and, based on political freedom, developed the idea of the unified revolution and the unified revolutionary leadership. A state structure that pursues a policy of assimilation, destruction and annihilation against a religiously, culturally, nationally and ethnically diverse society inevitably causes contradictions and violent confrontations. The resistance of social diversity to the monistic formative constraints of the state has created a historical course in which uprisings on the one hand and fascism on the other were caused. The state tried to control the structural contradictions by provoking conflicts between Alevis and Sunnis, secular and religious, Kurds and Turks. Where that was not enough, coups and methods of reactionary civil war followed. In this connection, the conflicts caused by the capitalist development resulting from the contradiction between labor and capital were suppressed. From this reality, we are pursuing the revolutionary strategy of letting the state's divide-rule tactics foil. This strategy manifests itself with the demand for political freedom. The flag of political freedom is raised where the state produced contradictions, namely in the unification of the Turks and Kurds, Alevis and Sunnis, religious and non-religious against the fundamental and irreconcilable contradiction of capitalist society, the contradiction between labor and capital. This requires a programmatic rapprochement that brings these social dynamics together, positions them against the fascist regime and forms them into a social and political force. It is particularly about the connection of the Turkey revolution with the Kurdistan revolution. An understanding that is not aimed at uniting these two revolutions and their vanguards is far from a successful unified struggle. Trying to distance oneself from the Kurdish revolution and its vanguards does mean not to see that our revolution started in Kurdistan. As a result of the uneven growth in the relationship between the two revolutions, wrong and apolitical approaches to the Kurdistan Revolution are emerging. Kurdistan is a great revolutionary motor that can influence all revolutions in the region if the political-military struggle is expanded and the conditions are created for a stronger confrontation with the fascist regime. Trying to keep as far away from the Kurdish revolution as possible and to close one's eyes to its meaning is nothing other than the wish to remain in „safe waters" in the fight against fascism. Today's need for unity requires an active defensive stance; this active defense secures the morale of the anti-fascist forces and continually strengthens their ranks, organizes the masses of people and develops revolutionary forces. To sum up, the unified struggle against the fascist chief regime is carried out a) in the political-military struggle, b) in the de facto legitimate and militant street fights, c) in the mass movement and the social movements. On the political-military struggle: Throughout history, the problem of the unified struggle against fascism has also been discussed with the question of creating a revolutionary war force against fascism. Because the problem of fighting fascism, which is a regime of terrorism, also means the organization of revolutionary warfare, which is the only form that can defeat it. Therefore, the demands for anti-fascist unity, without considering the revolutionary war and political-military struggle, have no strategic goals and are far from the demand for revolution. Any topic that sees the fight against fascism as a question of revolution must also take on the task of expanding its basic strategic instrument. The unified revolution of Turkey-Kurdistan created a strategic level of war, a means that should not be underestimated. It manifests itself within the HBDH. Attempts are currently being made to intensify the war from the rural areas to the cities.
Another need for the anti-fascist struggle is the practical legitimate militant struggle. The importance of these street fights is greater than ever under the conditions in which the streets have been torn from the masses to liquidate any revolutionary politics. A measure of action has to be created that militantly fights the street to overcome the current state. And it is clear that one way to do this is through revolutionary action.
The history of our struggle against fascism shows that the first step is the unity of the revolutionary actions that are carried out on the street. A continuous line of resistance that develops from the grassroots despite the state attacks is a position on a militant line. For the organization of self-defense of the population and creation of revolutionary mass violence, there are also fighting organizations, the foundation of which has been planned well in advance. These are the unified and flexible anti-fascist resistance committees that are waiting to be mobilized for the revolution. It is clear that the energy of the revolutionary vanguard must focus on the organization and functioning of these committees in all areas of life instead of repeating the simple demands for unity.
A similar problem exists in the discussion of unified organizations in which the mass movement is organized. There may be dozens of platforms, fronts, initiatives or organizations of revolutionary forces. It seems that the problem is the lack of action and movement. Regardless of which new organization is built in the unified struggle, without a practice on the street, without a revolutionary mass policy, without changing the previous perspective, the new platforms will soon resemble the old ones. It should be briefly noted that the most advanced form of alliances, platforms and units of force was obtained on October 15, 2011 with the founding of the Democratic Peoples' Congress ( HDK ). As a result of upcoming elections, the Democratic Party of the Peoples ( HDP ) emerged from it. The HDK, which creates examples of direct democracy in the form of councils, has turned to a key attraction in its history.
If the needs of the political struggle change and develop, the organizational policy needs of the unified struggle can of course also change. Today we have organizations that can lead the unified struggle from revolutionary war organizations to areas of legitimate mass struggle. The use of revolutionary energy to strengthen these organizations will contribute much more to the future of the unified struggle than abstract discussions.