Lessons of the Resistance in SEKA
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
 
Other articles
 

The resistance of SEKA* was an occupation of work-place. Together with their husbands/wives and children, the SEKA workers did not leave their workplace for 51 days. They resisted with great commitment and insistence. Now the resistance of SEKA has resulted with compromise. The actions of the SEKA workers and other labourers, who supported the resistance of SEKA, could not repulse the privatisation attack. As it happened with others, it was not possible to repulse the general attack through a single and local resistance.

The resistance of SEKA has ended via voting for show only by the trade union bureaucrats in Turk-Is **. The Government's suggestion alienating SEKA's workers, means of production and right to make business to the Izmit council has been accepted by 510 YES, 61 NO and 13 EMPTY votes. Thus, the Government took a step back from its former decision to end workers' jobs by closing down the SEKA. But also the workers demand on the continuation of production in SEKA has been pushed into uncertainty.

SEKA has shown an example of effective and vanguard resistance in the struggle of the working class. They cleared the way for huge and shaking resistances in the future. Just like NETAS strike in 1987. For, firstly, SEKA was the occupation of workplace by the workers as a method of struggle. The occupation of workplace brought the will, strength and commitment to win, the development of the internal organisation and solidarity, and the mobilisation of external dynamics and support.

Our Party MLCP has already established the necessity of workers to defend their workplaces against the privatisation attack through the action of occupation and made calls to implement it. As in the example of SEKA, the occupation of workplaces is a method of struggle that shows and reveals the resistors' strength and commitment. Therefore, SEKA has become the source of inspiration for other sections of the workers, especially to the workers in TEKEL enterprise, who are face to face with the privatisation attack at the moment. It encouraged the working class movement to struggle on the line of legitimate resistance. It carried the action of occupation to the agenda of class again.

Secondly, the other element which made the action of occupation of workplace very effective was the participation of workers' husbands/wives and children in the resistance. The action of occupation has attracted them, and, on the other hand, they strengthened the action. The same situation was also seen during the OPEL workers' resistance in Germany. The participation of the women and children in the resistance has occupied a big space in the labourers' social conscience, feelings and thoughts. Again, by the support of the oppressed classes and sections, SEKA gradually became a local centre of resistance in Izmit. The occupation of the factory, as being the nucleus of the resistance, and the waves of social movements built around the resistance, gradually led Government and the Capital to worry and represented one of the important factors that forced rulers to make a compromise.

Thirdly, the strength of the support and solidarity movement conducted as an advanced method of struggle has represented the other element which made the occupation action more effective. This developing action of the class, doubtlessly, played a principle role for SEKA to achieve a much more effective result compared to other anti-privatisation actions.

The resistance in SEKA has caused an important effect upon the general movement of the working class in the country and an important revival on the axes of the struggle against privatisation. SEKA was no more SEKA and Izmit at that moment, but put the slogan "Everywhere SEKA, Everywhere Resistance" on the agenda. It developed a conscience of struggle and awakening among the workers of enterprises like TEKEL, TUPRAS and others which are the next enterprises to be privatised. And the workers in these enterprises have given their support under the slogan "SEKA is a spark, TEKEL is a fire".

Of course there are lessons which MLCP should also take here:

Firstly, the Marxist Leninist Communists have practically taken part in the action through their tent which was opened in front of the factory. There were moves of resistances in SEKA before and, on each occasion, the privatisation was postponed. But every action of occupation was also giving the signals of tougher struggle in the future. In accordance with this, the communist vanguard could have been more prepared concerning working inside the factory and developing relations with the workers beforehand. Because only then would it create opportunities in terms of being more effective when interfering in the action.

Secondly, SEKA was more important than former fights on the basis of struggle against privatisation. But its limits were also known very well. By considering this, MLCP forces have developed their plans and organised their forces. In this frame, MLCP succeeded in integrating itself to the resistance in SEKA, and showed an advanced initiative in order to spread and generalise the resistance. But, despite the reflection of the movement plan to SEKA, it was not enough to make the subject become considered more effectively in the agenda. So, it is once more being seen that the local resistances of the working class with its historical and social role can sometimes be turned into a spark that lightens the general resistances.

It is also being seen that every fight against privatisation brings to the open the question of property. This question, on the practice of SEKA, was replied to with "SEKA belongs to the people, it cannot be sold" and "SEKA is motherland". Answering the question within these borders is a product of incorrect consciousness and is dangerous because it dims the essence of the question of property. Factories, enterprises and etc. belong to the capitalists not to the people. Belonging to the private sector or the public sector, does not change the capitalist characteristics of property. Therefore, the anti-privatisation fight's programme with class consciousness must show why property does not belong to the workers and the people.

Propagating the demand "property must be given to the hands of the people" and defending the socialisation of property once more forces itself. Because, if we want to destroy the bourgeois power through struggle against privatisation and if we want to turn it into the experience and achievement of the class struggle against the basis of capitalism, then we are obliged to educate workers on the essence of property by socialist enlightenment. If not, this free place will be filled by the bourgeois nationalist and liberal left politics.The practice and experiences of the resistance in SEKA is an important laboratory for developing and advancing the class struggle. MLCP and the class have learned from it.

SEKA* is a public sector paper factory in the city of Izmit. It always wanted to be privatised, but postponed it because of the resistance.

Turk-Is** is a confederation of yellow trade union in Turkey.
 

 

Archive

 

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

 

Lessons of the Resistance in SEKA
fc Share on Twitter
 

The resistance of SEKA* was an occupation of work-place. Together with their husbands/wives and children, the SEKA workers did not leave their workplace for 51 days. They resisted with great commitment and insistence. Now the resistance of SEKA has resulted with compromise. The actions of the SEKA workers and other labourers, who supported the resistance of SEKA, could not repulse the privatisation attack. As it happened with others, it was not possible to repulse the general attack through a single and local resistance.

The resistance of SEKA has ended via voting for show only by the trade union bureaucrats in Turk-Is **. The Government's suggestion alienating SEKA's workers, means of production and right to make business to the Izmit council has been accepted by 510 YES, 61 NO and 13 EMPTY votes. Thus, the Government took a step back from its former decision to end workers' jobs by closing down the SEKA. But also the workers demand on the continuation of production in SEKA has been pushed into uncertainty.

SEKA has shown an example of effective and vanguard resistance in the struggle of the working class. They cleared the way for huge and shaking resistances in the future. Just like NETAS strike in 1987. For, firstly, SEKA was the occupation of workplace by the workers as a method of struggle. The occupation of workplace brought the will, strength and commitment to win, the development of the internal organisation and solidarity, and the mobilisation of external dynamics and support.

Our Party MLCP has already established the necessity of workers to defend their workplaces against the privatisation attack through the action of occupation and made calls to implement it. As in the example of SEKA, the occupation of workplaces is a method of struggle that shows and reveals the resistors' strength and commitment. Therefore, SEKA has become the source of inspiration for other sections of the workers, especially to the workers in TEKEL enterprise, who are face to face with the privatisation attack at the moment. It encouraged the working class movement to struggle on the line of legitimate resistance. It carried the action of occupation to the agenda of class again.

Secondly, the other element which made the action of occupation of workplace very effective was the participation of workers' husbands/wives and children in the resistance. The action of occupation has attracted them, and, on the other hand, they strengthened the action. The same situation was also seen during the OPEL workers' resistance in Germany. The participation of the women and children in the resistance has occupied a big space in the labourers' social conscience, feelings and thoughts. Again, by the support of the oppressed classes and sections, SEKA gradually became a local centre of resistance in Izmit. The occupation of the factory, as being the nucleus of the resistance, and the waves of social movements built around the resistance, gradually led Government and the Capital to worry and represented one of the important factors that forced rulers to make a compromise.

Thirdly, the strength of the support and solidarity movement conducted as an advanced method of struggle has represented the other element which made the occupation action more effective. This developing action of the class, doubtlessly, played a principle role for SEKA to achieve a much more effective result compared to other anti-privatisation actions.

The resistance in SEKA has caused an important effect upon the general movement of the working class in the country and an important revival on the axes of the struggle against privatisation. SEKA was no more SEKA and Izmit at that moment, but put the slogan "Everywhere SEKA, Everywhere Resistance" on the agenda. It developed a conscience of struggle and awakening among the workers of enterprises like TEKEL, TUPRAS and others which are the next enterprises to be privatised. And the workers in these enterprises have given their support under the slogan "SEKA is a spark, TEKEL is a fire".

Of course there are lessons which MLCP should also take here:

Firstly, the Marxist Leninist Communists have practically taken part in the action through their tent which was opened in front of the factory. There were moves of resistances in SEKA before and, on each occasion, the privatisation was postponed. But every action of occupation was also giving the signals of tougher struggle in the future. In accordance with this, the communist vanguard could have been more prepared concerning working inside the factory and developing relations with the workers beforehand. Because only then would it create opportunities in terms of being more effective when interfering in the action.

Secondly, SEKA was more important than former fights on the basis of struggle against privatisation. But its limits were also known very well. By considering this, MLCP forces have developed their plans and organised their forces. In this frame, MLCP succeeded in integrating itself to the resistance in SEKA, and showed an advanced initiative in order to spread and generalise the resistance. But, despite the reflection of the movement plan to SEKA, it was not enough to make the subject become considered more effectively in the agenda. So, it is once more being seen that the local resistances of the working class with its historical and social role can sometimes be turned into a spark that lightens the general resistances.

It is also being seen that every fight against privatisation brings to the open the question of property. This question, on the practice of SEKA, was replied to with "SEKA belongs to the people, it cannot be sold" and "SEKA is motherland". Answering the question within these borders is a product of incorrect consciousness and is dangerous because it dims the essence of the question of property. Factories, enterprises and etc. belong to the capitalists not to the people. Belonging to the private sector or the public sector, does not change the capitalist characteristics of property. Therefore, the anti-privatisation fight's programme with class consciousness must show why property does not belong to the workers and the people.

Propagating the demand "property must be given to the hands of the people" and defending the socialisation of property once more forces itself. Because, if we want to destroy the bourgeois power through struggle against privatisation and if we want to turn it into the experience and achievement of the class struggle against the basis of capitalism, then we are obliged to educate workers on the essence of property by socialist enlightenment. If not, this free place will be filled by the bourgeois nationalist and liberal left politics.The practice and experiences of the resistance in SEKA is an important laboratory for developing and advancing the class struggle. MLCP and the class have learned from it.

SEKA* is a public sector paper factory in the city of Izmit. It always wanted to be privatised, but postponed it because of the resistance.

Turk-Is** is a confederation of yellow trade union in Turkey.