Sunday, November 16, 2014
Tuesday, October 07, 2014
Iraq has effectively been divided into three parts after the US led occupation. Kurds have taken control in the North while the Shiites in the East and South and the Sunni Arabs in the West. The power in Iraq has been shared between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds but the collaboration did not last long. Kurds virtually announced a free Kurdistan in the North. Sunnis complained from their lack of say in governance of the country and distribution of petrol, opposing and resisting Shiites, sometimes engaging even in armed struggle. During this period, radical religious powers such as Al-Qaeda and Salafi Jihadists gained strength. These groups have been supported by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Later, when the armed struggle supported by the imperialist powers - led by the US - against the government in Syria started, the Al Qaeda and Salafi forces in Iraq entered Syria and became the main force fighting against the Assad regime. They had the weaponry, the experience and a centrally led organisation while the FSA forces supported by the US were fragmented, disorganised and lacked any real experience of war. The anti-Assad coalition led by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia as well as the US and the EU, have supported the Al Nusra Front that included Al Qaeda linked and other radical groups, believing that they had the power to defeat Assad. However, the practices of radical religious groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Egypt and Syria have disturbed the US and its allies. These groups, while serving the US and its allies on the one hand, tried to establish Sharia Law in their localities and caused damage to US interests on the other.
Following these developments, especially after the murders of US diplomats in Libya by radical groups and the events in Egypt, the US and its allies reduced the support provided to radical religious organisations in Syria.
Groups such as Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Salafis, etc., upon realising they cannot defeat the Assad forces in Syria, declared their sovereignty and set up an ‘Islamic State’ covering the areas of Syria under their control and areas under Sunni Arab control in Iraq.
Meanwhile, taking advantage of the vacuum created by the fighting between the Assad forces and FSA and Al Nusra, Syrian Kurds have created three autonomous regions near the Turkish border in Northern Syria. The area controlled by the Kurds is called Rojava (meaning West or the West of Kurdistan in Kurdish). Kurds, having established their autonomous Cantons in Rojava, armed themselves, mainly against the attacks from radical religious groups. Representatives of these Cantons have been arguing that governance was not exclusively Kurdish but Arabs, Yazidis, Armenians, Turkmens and other minorities and religious groups were sharing power and hence they created a democratic autonomous alternative. But it is clear that the PKK’s political line is dominant in the governance of Rojava. This line is represented by the Democratic Union Party (PYD). The security of Rojava is under the domain of the armed People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Women’s Protection Units (YPJ). YPG/YPJ have about 5000 armed members. Following the outset of the civil war in Syria, PYD has political and military control of the cities of Kobane, Afrin and Cinderas in the state of Aleppo; the towns of Amude, Derik and Efrin in the state of Hasaka, the cities of Darbasiyah, Resulayn (across Ceylanpınar in Şanlıurfa, Turkey) and the town of Tirbesipiye. YPG, the armed wing of PYD, have taken over the town of Resulayn from Al Nusra forces after an armed conflict and brought the tanks they seized from them to Kobane.
The three Cantons in Rojava do not share borders with each other. Assad Regime established Sunni Arab villages between Kurdish settlements. These are now under IS control.
About four months ago, IS armed forces have started their advance towards the east aiming for Baghdad. They quickly took over the city of Mosul, a major city in Iraq. In the areas of the advance and in Mosul, where Sunni Iraqi soldiers put up no resistance and handed their weapons over to IS. Some joined the ranks of IS and some fled to the east. While IS was advancing on Baghdad, the Shiite leader of the Iraqi government was replaced, the US provided the Central Iraqi government with arms and military experts, and supported them with air strikes against IS. The IS reaction was to do a u-turn and advance on the Kurdish areas of Iraq and Syria. The Barzani forces of the Kurdistan Regional Government of Northern Iraq could not withstand the IS onslaught and retreated, abandoning their positions and weapons.
In Iraqi Kurdistan, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) forces (which have been waging a war for 30 years against Turkey until the recent ceasefire) confronted the IS forces and managed to halt their advance in places. IS forces got closer to the Iraqi Kurdistan’s capital Erbil and the important oil town of Kirkuk and they overran the Yazidi city of Shengal. Tens of thousands of Yazidis fled Shengal and have taken refuge in Turkey.
The US support helped stop the IS advance on Iraqi Kurdistan and following this IS began to attack Kobane. It is now surrounded on three sides by IS forces in the east, south and west, except for the border with Turkey in the north. IS forces have tanks and heavy artillery while the YPG/YPJ forces in Kobane only have light infantry rifles. The elderly, women and children in Kobane have escaped to Turkey. Tens of thousands are in the town of Suruc in Turkey, camping in the open and going hungry.
Kobane wants arms to fight against IS. They want Turkey to open a corridor for them to bring tanks and heavy artillery abandoned in the Eastern Canton by the Iraqi Kurds and Iraqi military forces and seized by the YPG. IS forces are now within 1km of the YPG positions.
Our party and other progressive democratic forces in Turkey are staging demonstrations to get peoples’ support and force the government to help Kobane. Those that support the resistance go to Suruc in the Turkish side to access Kobane to bring in food and other supplies. They guard a 25km stretch of the Turkish-Syrian border to prevent IS militants filtering into Turkish borders and launching an attack from the north. Many Kurdish youth from Turkey cross the border into Kobane to fight against IS and support the resistance.
Meanwhile, the Turkish government has joined the US coalition against IS and wants to create a 40-50km wide buffer zone in Rojava, along the Turkish-Syrian border to settle the Syrian refugees that crossed the borders into Turkey during the civil war. The populations in this zone will be disarmed (hence PYD and YPG will lose control and influence in Rojava and the coalition forces, including Turkey, will defend the area against IS and the Assad forces). Later, an FSA army to be set up in this area to fight the Assad forces.
The progressive and democratic forces in Turkey stand against this plan. We oppose a buffer zone and the Turkish military crossing the border. We want Turkey to stop supporting IS and allowing its militants use Turkish borders. We want Turkey to support the peoples of Kobane and Rojava against IS attacks.
Our party believes that in the current situation international solidarity and support for Kobane is vital. We call on your parties and organisations and your peoples to support and show solidarity with Kobane and Rojava.
We think that solidarity with the peoples of the region against the imperialist plans and attacks is one of the most urgent political tasks.
Imperialism will lose and the victors will be the peoples.
Long live the Kobane resistance
Labour Party (EMEP), Turkey
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Reactionary anti-communist bourgeois theories that conceal the restoration of capitalism in Soviet Union (1953-1990) Part B
Reactionary anti-communist bourgeois theories that conceal the restoration of capitalism in Soviet Union (1953-1990) Part B
B. The reactionary anticommunist bourgeois theory of "developed socialism" of the Khrushchevit social-democracy
After the violent overthrow of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the victory-triumph of the Khrushchevian revisionist counter-revolution in the Soviet Union in 1952, while pursuing the scheduled and systematic policy of gradual restoration of capitalism facilitated by the implementation of capitalist economic reforms, the leading anti-communist group of Khrushchev-Brezhnev of, what is by now, the bourgeois social-democratic Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), sought to formulate a suitable theory to conceal this reactionary process from socialism-communism to capitalism.
In their attempt to formulate a new and suitable “theory” concealing this reactionary process and the emerging society of restored capitalism euphemistically called “developed socialism” (!), the Khrushchevian-Brezhnevite revisionists came up with the well-known theory of “advanced socialism”
Both the theory of “developed socialism” promoted by the Khrushchevian traitors and the theory of “convergence” promoted by the western bourgeois reaction are anti-communist reactionary bourgeois theories because during the period of their dominance (1955-1990) were directed against the communist perspective of the Proletariat, obscured the Proletariat’s communist prospect presenting the restored capitalism of the Soviet Union as “the communist” future while, at the same time, they were in total breach with the objective historic progress of society toward socialism-communism. The class character and content of the two theories was based on the defence of capitalism: the theory of “convergence” defended was traditional capitalism of the Western countries, while the theory of “developed socialism” defended the restored capitalism of the Soviet Union and the other revisionist countries (Details can be found at “Anasintaxi”, no. 373, August 2012, p. 3).
Since the treacherous, renegade Khrushchev-Brezhnev group “managed”, in the 20th Congress of CPSPU in 1956, to present arbitrarily and provocatively the capitalist-fascist Yugoslavia of Tito as “socialist”(!) – a view imposed on the international communist movement (N.S. Khrushchev: “Report in 20th Party Congress, 1956: “Yugoslavia has not small successes in the socialist construction”, a clear proof that the Khrushchevian clicque had decided to follow Tito’s counter-revolutionary, capitalist path – and promoted a kind of “socialism”(!) that would result “peacefully” without the need of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, this group officially confessed and publicly admitted, during the 22nd of Congress of CPSU (1961), that there was neither Dictatorship of the Proletariat nor revolutionary communist party in the Soviet Union of that period and that these had been replaced by the “state of all people” and “party of all people” and mentioned, for the first time, the “transition period from capitalism to socialism” to which the Dictatorship of the Proletariat “corresponded”. At the same time, they formulated the theory of “developed socialism” without using yet the terms that became well known later: “developed socialism” and “advanced socialist society”.
The theory of “developed socialism” promoted by the Khrushchevian renegades constitutes, as it will be shown below, a complete revision and a blatant, crude rejection of revolutionary Marxism.
As a theory, the so-called “developed socialism” has nothing in common with the revolutionary theory of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin, it amounts to its negation and it is an anti-communist bourgeois theory. The so much advertised, but non-existent “advanced socialist society” was nothing more than the restored capitalism of the Khrushchevian-Brezhnevite period as shown in previous articles. According to the anti-communist Brezhnev, this type of society had already been in November of 1967, that is to say, when capitalism had been fully restored (on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution, he had declared that “In the USSR a developed socialist society has been built”).
The theory of “developed socialism” dominated later the new bourgeois constitution (i.e. the constitution of the restored capitalism) of the Brezhnevite period while the euphemistically called “advanced socialist society” found its full expression in this – a constitution which, for the first time, officially legalized and confirmed not only the state-capitalist (articles 10-11) and collective-capitalist ownership (article 12) but also the individual capitalist ownership (articles 13-17) in the Soviet Union’s society of that time. It also legalized the capitalist competition between the autonomous enterprises, the “socialist commodity producers”, and the capitalist profit (article 16). In this constitution, the content of the “advanced socialist society”, that is, of the Soviet Union’s restored capitalism is generally described.
The elements-views from which the theory of “developed socialism” was made are the following: “the party of all people”, “the state of all people”, “transition period from capitalism to socialism”, “three phases of the communist society”, “socialism: a new autonomous mode of production”. Concerning the theory of “advanced socialism” and the euphemistically called “advanced socialist society” there is a vast literature of many articles and books. However, we will make a limited use of them and cite only those extracts that highlight the counter-revolutionary essence of this bourgeois reactionary theory.
1. “Party of all people” or revolutionary communist party?
In the 22nd Congress of CPSU (1961) it is mentioned: “our Marxist-Leninist Party that was born as a party of the working class, has become the party of all people”, an anti-Marxist view which later passed to the new Brezhnevite bourgeois constitution (1977) where it was formulated as: “CPSU exists for the people and to serve the people”. (Article 6 of the Soviet Constitution, 1977)
Some quick comments on the anti-Marxist view “party of all people”:
1. The adoption of this view meant the abandonment of the Marxist theory not only about the revolutionary, new type of party but also about all political parties considered as separate organisations that defend the different interests of particular classes.
2. The Khrushchevian social democrats promoted the well known bourgeois view according to which parties stand above classes and they are, therefore, defenders of the interests of “most” or “all classes”.
3. As known, according to revolutionary Marxism there are no organisations and parties that belong to “all people”, that is parties of all classes. Since, the Khrushchevian revisionists themselves admitted that there was not any more a revolutionary communist party in the Soviet Union of that period, because, according to them, the Marxist-Leninist party had been replaced with the party of “all people”, then the new CPSU, that is the so-called party of “all people” could not be nothing else but a bourgeois, social-democratic party. Consequently, the revolutionary, until the beginning of the 1950’s, CPSU changed its class character: from a Marxist-Leninist party of the working class, it became a bourgeois party: a defender of the class interests of the emerging soviet bourgeoisie.
The character of a party, according to Marxism, is determined first of all by the its ideology and, among others by its programme. The new CPSU, that is, the so-called “party of all people”, was not guided any more by the ideology of the revolutionary Marxism, that is, Leninism-Stalinism, but by the counter-revolutionary ideology of Khrushchevian revisionism (which is a version of bourgeois ideology).
The new CPSU of Khrushchev-Brezhnev as well as the Khrushchevian parties of all countries in the following decades were (and still are) bourgeois, social-democratic parties because: a) they were not guided revolutionary Marxism, b) they had reformist programmes that cannot lead to the overthrow of capitalism, c) they adopted a anti-Marxist view of socialism-communism since they advertised the restored capitalism of the Khrushchev-Brezhnev-Gorbachev period as “socialism”(!), in other words they claimed that there was allegedly “socialism” in the Soviet Union during 1953-1991.
4. Neither socialism can exist nor the construction of socialism can continue without a revolutionary communist party of a new type, that is, of Leninist-Stalinist type. Therefore, after 1953, it was inevitable that the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union finally stopped and the new CPSU, that is, the “party of all people”, was at the forefront of the capitalism economic reforms that completely eliminated socialism and resulted in the full restoration of capitalism by the mid 1960’s.
5. Socialism-communism cannot to constructed without a marxist-leninst-stalinist party, precisely because this party “has always as a primary task the class, political organisation of the proletariat as an autonomous political party and sets the next goal to be the struggle for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat” (MARX-ENGELS: Bd.18, pp.267-268, Berlin 1969) and also it is the party that : first, is the organiser and the leader of the giant work of socialist-communist construction and second, without this party the Dictatorship of the Proletariat possible cannot exist. That’s why Stalin is very right to point out that “the dictatorship of the proletariat is exercised through the Party, that without a united and cohesive party the Dictatorship of the Proletariat cannot exist”, that “the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is possible only through the party that is its guiding force” and that “the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is complete only if it is led by one party, the Communist Party, which does not and cannot share power with other parties” (Stalin, Collected Works vol. 10)
2. “State of all people” or Dictatorship of the Proletariat
In relation to the state of the Soviet Union of that period, it is mentioned in the 22nd Congress that the state of the working class had been transformed to the “all people’s state”: “The state of all people is the new state in the development of the socialist state, the most important landmark in the path of development of the socialist state to a communist self-governing society” (22nd Congress of CPSU, p. 205, Athens 1961) and that “the dictatorship of the proletariat was not any more necessary …” (ibid, p. 208) for the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union. Later, this anti-Marxist view passed to the new Constitution (1977) – from which the term Dictatorship of the Proletariat had been deleted (justifiably so since it had been already been overthrown in 1953) – and which confirms that the Soviet Union was not any more the state of Dictatorship of the Proletariat as it was in the era of Lenin-Stalin but the “state of all people” (“Constitution 1977”, p. 42: “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of the whole people”).
The anti-marxist view of the Khrushchevian about the “state of all people” is raising some important questions worth of special consideration:
First, by denying the necessity of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat during an important phase of development of socialism-communism, the soviet revisionists-social democrats and in such an important and central question the reformist Khrushchevian parties abandoned Marxism and it known that nobody can be regarded as Marxist without the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat as Lenin noted: “Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is what constitutes the most profound distinction between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeois. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism should be tested” (Lenin, “State and revolution”)
Second, it is important to note the open confession and the official admission made by the Khrushchevians that there was no Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the Soviet Union of that period and, it was exactly for this reason why there was no socialism any more. Moreover, the construction of socialism had stopped in 1953 after the death-murder of Joseph Stalin. The continuation of socialist construction in a country without the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is totally impossible and inconceivable. Also, the maintenance of socialism is unimaginable without the Dictatorship of the Proletariat since, for Marx, the concepts of socialism and Dictatorship of the Proletariat are inseparable. As early as 1850, Marx noted that socialism: “the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations” (MARX-ENGELS: vol.7, p. 89-90, Berlin 1969).
Third, the Khrushchevian concept of the “state of all people” not only meant a rejection of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat but it constituted a complete revision of the Marxist theory on the state of Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and the state in general, and this is why Lenin emphasized that “the essence of Marx's theory of the state has been mastered only by those who realize that the dictatorship of a single class is necessary not only for every class society in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period which separates capitalism from "classless society", from communism” (Lenin, State and Revolution.”)
Fourth, the Khrushchevian concept of the “state of all people” bears no relation to Marxism. It is alien to Marxism because according to the Marxist theory there is no state standing above classes, that is to say, “state of all classes” of a society; this is a bourgeois view. On the contrary, the state has always a class character: either it is the state of the bourgeoisie or it is the state of the proletariat. In the period of transition from capitalism to socialism-communism, there can be either the dictatorship of the proletariat or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. This is why the famous English Marxist George Thomson, in 1971, very rightly emphasized that the “state of all people” declared by the treacherous Khrushchevian clique was in reality “a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”, or to be more exact, a dictatorship of the new soviet bourgeoisie.
Fifth, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, according to the teaching of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin, is established right after the victory of the armed Proletarian Revolution and the complete annihilation of the state machinery, is preserved and strengthened and it is absolutely necessary for the whole transitional period from capitalism to socialism. The state of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is never transformed to the “state of all people” (it is also known that Max and Engels rejected with irony the so-called “free state” in the Critique of the Gotha Program. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat exists until it withers away in the higher stage of communist, in the communist classless society: “For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary” and that The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". (Lenin, “State and Revolution”)
Monday, September 08, 2014
The current international situation and the tasks of the revolutionaries
In the midst of joy and enthusiasm, the 18th International Seminar, Problems of the Revolution in Latin America, was closed. The event was held with the participation of 28 organizations from 15 countries; it is estimated that about 1500 people attended the seminar during its 5 days. The fruits of the hard work of the last week is attested to below:
With an air of apparent tranquility and optimism, the economic analysts of the international bourgeoisie announced to the world that the economic crisis that broke out in 2008 had come to an end and a period of capitalist recovery loomed. Indeed, demonstrations of a small economic recovery can be seen in some countries, such as the United States and Germany, but at the same time, other economies are suffering new setbacks. During these years, the center of the crisis has been moving from one region to another; its economic effects are still present around the world accompanied by the intensification of political and social conflicts.
The world is the scene of acute social-political confrontation between the peoples and the ruling classes, between dependent countries and imperialist states, and among imperialist powers themselves which are fiercely contesting control of areas of influence, markets, natural resources of the dependent countries, etc. This explains the political-military conflicts that are taking place in various parts of the world, such as Ukraine, Syria or the Middle East.
In this agitated world, the workers, youth and peoples in general are making their way with their struggles, seeking to affirm the historic leading role that they deserve.
The onslaught of capital to place the burden of the crisis on the backs of the workers has clashed with the combative response of the peoples in Europe. From the other side of the ocean, the Latin American peoples have watched with joy and optimism the general strikes, street demonstrations, the combative days of struggle that have spread throughout Spain, Greece, Portugal, Italy, Germany, etc. that is, in almost the whole old continent. In this practice of mass struggle the revolutionary organizations are redoubling their efforts to provide the right direction to these fights, contending with right-wing and opportunist forces that see in such circumstances the opportunity to provide political solutions to the crisis without affecting the framework of the bourgeois institutions.
Faced with the savage mechanisms and levels of capitalist exploitation in Asia and Africa, the response of workers is to strike. Thousands, tens of thousands of workers, miners and agricultural workers are stopping work in companies that are mostly subsidiaries of imperialist transnationals.
The American continent, which at one point in history committed itself to taking up arms to defeat colonial domination, is also the scene of popular protests, of acute political confrontations and inter-imperialist disputes.
The course of the so-called progressive governments is showing serious problems. The public and social work that they were able to develop in previous years due to the unusual income from the sale of raw materials on the international market, now has difficulties in continuing: the economic problems are causing havoc. In their search for resources they have opted for doing what the bourgeoisie in power has traditionally done, prostrating themselves before international financial capital and putting their hands in the pockets of the workers.
Chinese, Russian, Canadians and U.S. capital are flowing into this region to engage in mining, oil, energy projects, etc., or through loans that, in one case or another, maintain an existing state of economic dependence. Several of these "progressive" governments, in the name of a supposed anti-U.S. attitude, are actually carrying forward a renegotiation of dependency on China in particular.
In many aspects of economic and political practice there is no major difference between the "progressive" governments and the openly right-wing ones. Both apply policies and laws to restrict or even eliminate the rights of the workers and peoples – with different labels but identical purposes; "anti-terrorists" laws are passed that seek to prevent popular protest through its criminalization; they coincide in promoting extractive and agro-energy projects that plunder our wealth and cause disastrous and irreversible consequences to nature.
Of course, there are more examples of the application of anti-people and anti-national policies; therefore the discontent and struggle of the workers, youth and peoples are growing... and repression as well. In the Americas, as in other parts of the world, the increasingly reactionary nature of the state is a fact that, however, strikes the struggle of the people in the most varied forms.
Faced with this reality, and bearing in mind that the reason for existence of the revolutionary forces is to organize the leading role of the masses in the revolution, we the participants in this International Seminar commit our struggle to defend the immediate and strategic interests of the workers and peoples, and to defend national sovereignty under the sign of class independence.
We reaffirm the principle of the unity of the workers and people as the fundamental basis to defeat their common enemy, anti-imperialist unity to carry through our struggle successfully.
We work for the revolutionary ideas to open the way and take root in the consciousness of the peoples; therefore it is essential to confront and defeat the ruling classes and imperialism in the ideological field. It is not enough to fight the openly reactionary and right-wing positions; it is fundamental to unmask the pseudo-leftist and opportunist theses and positions that operate in the popular movement to make it work for pro-capitalist projects in the name of supposed revolutions of the 21st century.
We take as our own the struggles of the workers and peoples that are developing in whatever part of the world, therefore we are in solidarity with them all. In particular, we raise our voices and our fists with indignation against the genocide being carried out by the Zionist state of Israel with Yankee support against the Palestinian people: our solidarity with the heroic struggle of the Palestinian people to regain their territory and their right to self-determination. Our voices of support go out to the Venezuelan people fighting to defend the democratic gains made in recent years, and our condemnation of the interventionist and destabilizing action of U.S. imperialism and the bourgeoisie of that country. We stand with the people of Ukraine who are victims of the ambitions of domestic corrupt and reactionary groups and of conflicts between foreign powers.
We demand freedom for the people’s fighters, for the political prisoners and political prisoners of war and for all victims of repression prosecuted for their beliefs in different parts of the world.
These views, the result of an open and respectful debate in the context of the 18th International Seminar, Problems of the Revolution in Latin America, held in Quito, we present to the peoples of Latin America and of the world.
Our objective is the social and national revolution, the liberation of all mankind from the yoke of capital: that purpose we direct our best efforts.
Quito, August 1, 2014
Revolutionary Communist Party of Argentina
Revolutionary Marxist-Leninist Party of Argentina
Coordinator of Neighborhood Unity – Teresa Rodriguez Movement, Argentina
Revolutionary Communist Party of Brazil
Olga Benario Women's Movement – Brazil
Class Struggle Movement – Brazil
Democratic Constituent Movement – Colombia
Communist Party of Colombia (Marxist-Leninist)
Maoist Communist Party of Colombia
Communist Party of Labor – Dominican Republic
Dominican Association of Teachers
Revolutionary Popular Front – Mexico
Communist Party of Mexico (Marxist-Leninist)
Peruvian Communist Party Marxist-Leninist
National Democratic Front of the Philippines
Caribbean and Latin American Coordinator of Puerto Rico
Bolshevik Communist Party (Russia)
Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist)
Workers' Party of Turkey
Bolshevik Communist Party (Ukraine)
Party of Communists of the United States
February 28th Revolutionary Organization – Uruguay
Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador
Popular Front – Ecuador
Democratic Popular Movement – Ecuador
Revolutionary Youth of Ecuador
Ecuadorian Confederation of Women for Change
Revolutionary Front of the University Left – Ecuador
Together with the workers and peoples of the world, we are outraged and condemn the genocide of the Israeli government and army against the Palestinian People!
Coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the Declaration of Quito, which proclaimed the birth of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations, we the Marxist-Leninist communist parties of Latin America, together with the fraternal participation of the Marxist-Leninist comrades of Turkey and Spain, met to review the individual and collective work that we carried out in the last year; it is an occasion in which we also analyzed the situation in our respective countries and that of Latin America and the world in general.
During the presentations and discussions, we established that our parties have been active to different degrees and with weaknesses in development in different aspects; they have been making strenuous efforts to link up with the working class and the popular sectors, in order to promote their political positions, advance their struggles and win their consciousness; and, with a view to increasing their ranks and advancing towards becoming political forces that affect the national political life, always with the perspective of the seizure of political power.
We live in the midst of a complex situation that requires a deeper and continuous attention on our part. Although Latin America still remains an area that is the fundamental domain of United States imperialism, other imperialist powers, the European Union among them, and now China and Russia in an unusual way, through the BRICS, are embarking on the search for an important share of the natural resources and market in the area. This makes Latin America into an important area of inter-imperialist contention, which has and in the future will have some political implications that we will have to know how to deal with very intelligently.
Another element that adds complexity to the situation in Latin America is the fact that, besides the puppet governments that continue to be tied to the worn-out neoliberal prescriptions, in several countries the politics of the system are expressed through proposals of governments that define themselves as progressive and even leftist, while still keeping a good part of our peoples under their influence.
We note that in most countries there is a growing tendency to curtail democratic rights and civil liberties; to criminalize protests and carry out judicial prosecution of revolutionary militants and trade union and popular activists in general with charges up to terrorism and rebellion against the state. This is only because they might be organizing activities for demands in favor of the popular masses or of opposition to government policies. Facts that show this trend in our continent can be seen clearly in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Paraguay, Ecuador and in most countries of Central America.
This negative trend places before us the urgent necessity to raise the struggle in defense of democratic rights and the achievement of human rights, at the same time as we strengthen international solidarity among our parties and peoples.
The overall situation demands of our parties a theoretical and propaganda work that is much broader than we have so far developed, which has been limited.
Among the many other phenomena that are presented to us is the BRICS project and its policies, stated recently with special emphasis by the governments of the countries that make it up. This could create a lot of confusion among our peoples, leading them to believe that China and Russia, and the government of Brazil, are led by leftist positions, when in fact the first two are imperialists, and the third is a bourgeois government allied to imperialism.
We are confronted with the challenge of denouncing the imperialist character, the specific interests and policies of this project, which finds an important ally in the government that call themselves left-wing, by which they deceive the popular masses and therefore discredit the real leftist positions.
Our propaganda has to promote our revolutionary and socialist ideal as the real solution to the problems of our countries, the working class and peoples and to highlight the anti-national and anti-popular character of U.S. imperialism, the European Union and BRICS.
In the presentations and discussions the elements of the policies were emphasized that in one way or another, but with the same content and purpose, are being applied in Latin America, all of which seek to contribute to a phase of expansion of capital. They are:
1. The concessions to the multinationals for the exploration and exploitation of resources, mining, oil and gas, among other things, as part of the effort of finance capital and the multinationals to find new investments, seeking to recover the average rate of profit, as well as to ensure control of sources of raw materials.
This policy of conceding territory for mining exploration and operation hides the terrible affects that they would cause and, in fact, are causing to the environment, the fresh water and the communities and populations that are located there.
2. The promotion of genetically modified crops that in agribusinesses seek a source to expand the profitability of capital and that use the false discourse of fighting hunger. This affects the productive culture of our people that is a fundamental part of their sovereignty, while it harms human health.
3. The promotion of so-called policies for economic growth for the governments in office; this is not for development, but is based on low wages, reduction in the achievements and rights of the workers and popular sectors in general and the destruction of natural resources. The so-called competitiveness on the international level of these growth policies is based on these components; therefore, they stimulate the growth of GDP but, at the same time, they maintain and increase the levels of poverty of the popular majority.
4. Adoption of laws, decrees, regulations and contracts, which under the euphemism of the "rule of law" and "governability," ensures the possibility of making those concessions; they cover up the investments of the multinationals and capital in general.
5. Neo-developmental policies, which give the State the power to make investments in areas that are not in conflict with private capital and instead pave the way for its circulation; while, in general, they are expenses that have a high component of "public charity" to mitigate the effects of privatization of public works and to disguise the poverty, but essentially they do nothing more than maintain an electoral following.
6. Policies of internal and external debt, almost always by issuing government bonds, which finance capital and businesses buy up, aware of the fact that the countries have natural reserves that serve as guarantors, thereby affecting national sovereignty. Besides this they place more taxes on the peoples and cut social investments in the public budgets that should benefit the people through education, health care and social security, among other things. In general it can be stated that all our countries face big fiscal deficits that cause multiple repercussions.
The implementation of these policies has led to the response of our peoples. In the majority of the countries important popular struggles have developed demanding the cessation of the policies of handing over natural resources to the multinationals, as well as for the achievement of better wages and democratic rights for the majority.
Although those struggles still do not mean that there is an upsurge of the popular movement, they do show a trend that is growing. Something that is very important and that our parties should bear in mind is the fact that various social sectors take part in these, being affected in one way or another by these policies. By their diverse composition, these movements express forms, even though in the beginning stages, of popular fronts that our parties should encourage and propose to lead.
It is a reality that these policies make up expand the social bases for the opposition to the governments and political regimes and institutions that protect and support them. This is the importance of political line and tactics.
In our discussions we have kept in mind that our parties and organizations, grouped in the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations, have been taking up and promoting the need to develop popular front policies that in each country will have a name and composition that the specific realities call for. We concluded that this approach is correct and calls for more work on our part.
This is a challenge to the revolutionaries: to build a powerful broad front of the masses, that strikes the official policy and interests of finance capital and the multinationals, and in this struggle it is proposed as an alternative of power.
This challenge leads us to other challenges without whose solution it is difficult, almost impossible, for us Marxist-Leninist communists to fulfill our role of fighting revolutionary vanguard of the working class and of our peoples; that is, the need to increase our ranks, to become communist parties with deep roots among the masses, capable of leading the political processes taking place up to the seizure of power. If we are not big, strong and influential and, above all, if we do not place our sights on the conquest of power, the social democratic or overtly right-wing currents will take advantage of the circumstances and gain the leadership of the peoples and of power.
Therefore we must always keep in mind the popular masses; know what their aspirations and level of consciousness are; be one with them in thought and action; sum up their aspirations and demands in a platform of struggle; bring them to the struggle, be concerned with raising their level of consciousness; and in the process help them become political leaders. This is a matter of the line of our parties, but once the policy is defined, they must become concrete, they must be converted into actions through the men and women, through the membership; this determines everything. The theoretical and political training and the political readiness of the membership to explain and promote our politics among the masses is a vital issue in order for us to fulfill this orientation by our parties.
Aware of our challenges and commitments, mainly to the working class and working people, we will continue to work with greater determination in fulfilling the orientation of the ICMLPO to contribute to the building of Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations in other countries.
We take up these commitments and challenges conscious of the fact that our realities are complex and difficult for revolutionary political work, but there are also favorable conditions for it.
In that sense, we are striving to gain more clarity on the situation and, above all, to make our membership increasingly aware that we must work more, and that we can grow.
The world today, despite some initial indicators of economic recovery that signal the end of the cyclical crisis that began in 2008, also shows the reality that in many countries the external debt is high and in order to pay it the governments must use much of the public revenue; there are fiscal deficits and high levels of unemployment and underemployment persist, all of which could lead to reversing the trend towards growth.
Beyond this, and as an important element for revolutionary propaganda and agitation, the capitalist system is starkly showing its cruelty and its harmful impact on the lives and conditions of the peoples. There are millions of households without any of its members having a decent job; there are millions of young people without access to education and employment, among other problems.
The stage of getting out of this economic crisis has intensified the dispute among the monopolies and the imperialists in the world. It has unleashed the greed of financial capital in seeking to take advantage of the destruction of productive forces caused by the crisis and to gain possession of the principal strategic centers of energy, raw materials, cheap labor and consumer markets,. This is exacerbating the conflicts and confrontations, the wars of aggression and intervention against the peoples, even creating the dangers of an escalation towards a confrontation between the imperialist powers.
To this logic there correspond, among other things, the war in Ukraine and Syria, the increasing confrontations in the Africa continent, the restructuring of forces in contention in Iraq and the contradictions between China and Vietnam.
The onslaught of the Israeli government and army against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip deserves special mention; it is a genocide carried out with the approval of U.S. imperialism and the complicit silence of the European Union and the UN.
We restate our revolutionary solidarity with the heroic Palestinian people and with all the workers and peoples fighting against the aggression of the imperialist powers and against the oppression of capital.
Revolutionary Communist Party – Brazil
Communist Party of Colombia (M-L)
Communist Party of Labor – Dominican Republic
Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador
Communist Party of Mexico (M-L)
Peruvian Communist Party (M-L)
Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela <>
Communist Party of Spain (M-L)
Party of Labor – EMEP – Turkey
Ecuador, July 2014
Saturday, September 06, 2014
Tuesday, September 02, 2014
By Raul Marcos
Member of the PCE/ML
The answer is a resounding YES. They are necessary and indispensable given the condition of oppression and exploitation, that are worsening, and which the people are suffering. The proletariat, with its party at the forefront, should be at the head of the popular masses, to organize and lead its struggles. It is not an easy task, but all difficulties can be overcome. For that to be, it is necessary to work to link up in a broad manner with the advanced masses, win their recognition.
The fundamental contradictions of the period in which we live and struggle, are perfectly defined: The contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; the contradiction between capitalism and socialism; the contradiction between oppressed peoples and nations on the one hand and imperialism on the other; the contradiction among imperialist and financial powers. The last contradiction manifests itself in the local wars, the aggressions against the peoples, the disputes for geostrategic zones and the exploitation of the neo-colonies, the manipulation of the democratic and patriotic sentiments of the peoples. It is rapidly growing contradiction.
We live in the period which Lenin defined, but with new characteristics and forms. Presently, we see the expression of a tendency towards fascism as organized groups of neo-Nazis carry out actions in various countries, and this should concern us. In many cases they are protected by the governments (such is the case in Greece, Hungary, Spain, etc.) Power and state apparatus, with some exceptions, are in the hands of parties and governments which are reactionary and anti-popular. The big powers and their puppet governments speak of democracy, of human rights, of peace among the people…while they are savagely subjugating and exploiting the people who are oppressed, in many cases through force of arms.
This is a general situation, not in every country: in different grades and different forms and intensity, it is a general tendency. The communist parties must daily confront situations of repression, of struggles for social conquests, against laws which encroach and suppress labor and social rights which had been achieved through many decades of struggle.
In his report to the VII Congress of the Communist International (1935), and with a similar situation at hand, Dimitrov focused on the importance of creating popular fronts against the conditions which arose with the growth of Nazi-fascism (Italy, Germany, Portugal, Japan…). Despite the years which have passed and the events that have taken place, the report is still very relevant and can serve as a general orientation to parties. It is evident that the present circumstances are not the same as the 1930s. The context in which we live is very different from that period, and it is enough to recall the dismemberment of the Soviet Union, the opportunist degeneration of many of the parties then, and that today, with some rare exceptions, Marxist-Leninist parties are very weak, without much influence upon the broad masses.
The importance of Dimitrov’s writing is undeniable, yet we should keep in mind that the international situation is not the same, although there are problems of a similar nature, (which are reflected in the fundamental contradictions), and it is also necessary to act according to the particular circumstances of each country and party. The work of a front cannot be carried out in the same manner in every country, since we have to take into consideration the inevitable unequal development, of the political forces as well as the Party and of society itself. Its undeniable that we cannot compare the situation which Ecuador is living under (in all of the aspects pointed out), with that of Germany, for example, in Spain, in Denmark, Turkey, Morocco, France, Venezuela, etc. etc., there are different conditions and therefore, tactically there will be difference, secondary differences, but in the end differences.
Defending the importance and the present aspects of Dimitrov’s speech should not lead us to apply every detail each and every aspect which his text considers. To study, analyze and discuss the writings of great communist leaders, and Dimitrov is one of them, should not lead us to convert them into catechism, infallible doctrines, something which is opposed to the Marxist Leninist dialectic.
Each of our parties should consider these questions. There are no prefabricated answers. Only the dialectic examination, that is of the moment which can change from one day to the other, without separating ourselves from tomorrow’s strategy, the course of which cannot be predicted nor defined, will allow us to assume tactical positions and measures to confront and attempt to solve the problems.
The important thing is to keep in mind at all times the reality in which our parties live and evolve, work and struggle. Therefore, we must keep in mind a decisive fact: In almost all countries, with different levels of development, the working class is the most revolutionary and its advanced members are at the head of the struggles for justice. But the working class is not the only class exploited by capitalism. There are sectors of the small and middle bourgeoisie which also suffer oppression. And although its mentality is not that of the conscious proletariat, we should take into consideration those sectors and try to get closer to them. We should keep in mind that if the working class and its party do not try to unite the other working classes, including certain patriotic and democratic sectors of the middle classes, these could be manipulated by some faction of the bourgeoisie. Undoubtedly, the working class must win over, in the ideological and political combat, the role of vanguard of all those exploited and oppressed sectors and defend their demands.
This could be the basis for forging tactical, momentary alliances. But we should not confuse or counterpoise those tactical alliances of a given moment, to the strategic alliances. That is, we do not subject establishing strategic alliances to questions of the moment, circumstantial, but neither do we subject tactical alliances to the establishment of possible strategic alliances, so long as this does not imply the abandonment of essential questions. To be more clear: we should be vigilant so as not to confuse tactical or partial, or momentary alliances, in many cases local or of a city, region or province, including agreements with special sectors, but which cannot include the most advanced general sectors.
The Popular Front should respond to the general needs of the struggle, to political questions which are proposed, and above all, to mobilize the advanced masses to incorporate them into action.
The working class, theoretically the proletariat, should be the principal force of the Popular Front. It means that in practice it should also be the leading force. We should keep in mind that theory without practice is just empty words, and that practice without theory is like blindly striking out blows.
Given the broad political nature of the forces which become part of the Front, the Party should strive to be at the head, be the leader (in relative terms depending on the circumstances) so that the proletariat can exercise its influence as the main force. That leading role is not achieved by force of will, or by a decree, it must be won by the daily practice, by the clarity of our political proposals, with the respectful and faithful application of agreements.
If the party does not fulfill that role, in the long run it will be left behind the petit bourgeoisie and that would be a grave error. Here we should keep in mind the “Law of unity and struggle of opposites”.
This leads us to the question of the ideological independence of the Party. A Popular Front, built upon minimum agreements, (depending on the circumstances), cannot assume all our proposals. But that should not lead us to renounce our political and ideological positions. Within the framework of the tasks of the Front, communists are, and will be, very careful at the time of meeting our agreements even if these are not exactly what we would have preferred.
The policy of unity in any alliance, and also in the Popular Front, should not lead us to forget the class struggle. In fact, the alliances, agreements or tactical compromises with other political forces should help us to reinforce the strength of the Party and not the other way around. That is not always understood, so that if the Party, communists, become diluted as a result of some alliance, that would result in a grave weakening and possibly the disappearance of the Party.
With much ability and tact, and without prepotency or strange maneuvers, the Party should, as Lenin affirmed, lead everything. This forces us to carry out a clear labor which is sincere with the forces which make up the Front, to respect and meet the agreed upon commitments and programs, but without forgetting:
“…only the Party of the working class, that is, the Communist Party, is in the condition to bring together, educate and lead the vanguard of the proletariat and all the working masses, the only one capable to fight the inevitable petit bourgeois vacillations of the masses…” (Lenin, Project of resolution of the X Congress of the CPSU. Our underlines.)
We should be with the advanced masses, becoming more and better, mobilize in the heart of the Popular Front and in all the fronts created which include the masses. That requires defeating the relative weakness of the parties, (without forgetting the inevitability of unequal development), since without a strong party we can do very little; and it is also necessary to be conscious of the fact that regardless how big and powerful a Party may be, we will always be a minority in society:
“…Communists are drops in the ocean, drops in the ocean of the people”, but “without a party of the proletariat we cannot even consider the defeat of imperialism, in the conquest of the dictatorship of proletariat…” and also the Party “is the vanguard of a class and its duty is to guide the masses, and not to reflect the average mental state of the masses” Lenin affirmed sharply.
For communists it is a priority to carry out a constant and face-to-face work among the masses. But this must be well planned and we should not speak of the masses in a superficial way, without being precise: we should communicate with the advanced masses and keep in mind that there are various levels of understanding among them regarding the struggle. Dimitrov said that “Sectarianism manifests itself especially in the exaggerated appreciation of the revolutionarization of the masses…” and he quoted Lenin, “…it is about not considering that the masses have not surpassed what we have already surpassed.”
Lenin, like Stalin, Dimitrov, the great leaders, were constantly concerned about the work towards the masses. Lenin précised and warned:
“There is nothing more legitimate than to point out the constant and absolute need to deepen and broaden our influence over the masses, our rigorous Marxist propaganda and agitation, our approach to the economic struggle of the working class, etc. But precisely because it is legitimate to continually point this out, under any circumstance or situation, those guides cannot become special slogans, they cannot justify the attempts to base upon them a particular tendency of social democracy. There is a limit here, beyond which to convert these guides into a limitation which are undoubtedly necessary into something which hampers tasks and the advance of the movement, into something doctrinaire which relegates to the forgotten the political tasks which are essential and of the first order of the moment.”
“to broaden and amplify the influence over the masses whether after each victory or after a defeat, in moments of political gridlock as well as in stormy revolutionary periods, and precisely because of that, of the indication to realize that work we should not convert it into a special slogan without the risk of falling into demagogy and contempt of the advanced class, the only one which is really revolutionary.” (Confusion Between Politics and pedagogy. 1905)
To overestimate the role of the masses is as dangerous as to underestimate it, since both errors misrepresent the role of the Communist Party. This also has to do with the Popular Front since its work is oriented towards precisely to the popular masses. One of the conditions for considering an alliance as a Popular Front is that it include, as a minimum sectors of the exploited and oppressed classes whether they are organized or not organized.
It is necessary to pay attention, so as not to confuse, in all our activity, the Leninist Communist Party, leader of the proletariat, of the advanced sectors of the working class, with the “mass party” which is amorphous and includes the revisionists and right-wingers of every type. There exists a demarcation line which must not be underestimated. For communists, what we define as “mass line” is to implement outside of the Party our politics and proposals in a manner which is decisive and capable. We should not limit ourselves just to our own members and intimate friends.
It is important to have a clear understanding of the lines of demarcation between Marxist Leninists and opportunists, Khrushevites, Maoists, including those who preach socialism of the 21 century. Does this mean that we should not have agreements, compromises, and unity pacts with all those who do not share our principles? Clearly, not! If we only unite with those who share our ideas and principles, we would not be talking about alliances, of popular fronts, etc. we would only be talking of unity with communists. And that is a different problem.
Presently, many of our parties have a problem which is a history of weak organizing, which is trying to fulfill the role of leaders. This is not achieved through decrees; there are no magic formulas. That will be achieved, depending upon the circumstances, through our work and dedication. Alliances are proposed to us, tactical agreements, etc. with other political forces or groups. We are not in a situation in which we can impose our position. However, we should not refuse the offer because of that. On the contrary, we should participate loyally in the discussions, present our political proposals; we should discuss and confront opinions and little by little go about winning political and ideological space.
A very simple question, but which we do not always have in mind, is that alliances of broad fronts are not meant to last forever. They must be seen as developing; there are no static alliances; what today we propose and approve as just and valid, can stop being so in another moment.
The Popular Front is created depending upon the circumstances and we do not create circumstances; we find ourselves in them and we must assume them always having in mind the evolution of these circumstances, and as Dimitrov warns with a great deal of reason: “…it is particularly dangerous to confuse wishes with realities, we must start from reality, from the actual situation, concretely.”
The Popular Front is an important task which must be considered under all circumstances in which the political struggle is developing; it is not an option, it is a necessary task. To promote it and to advance in completing that task, the revolutionary party of the proletariat must elaborate a correct revolutionary policy which takes into consideration concrete conditions and always keeping in mind the strategic objectives. The application of that policy depends not only on its correctness, but also on the potential of the Party, of its forces. A just and correct revolutionary policy can remain as a proposal if there is not a firm decision to carry it out with the advanced sectors of the masses.
The experience of the MCI, leads us to seriously consider the danger of deviations which can occur. Generally, the existing opportunism has been and is, of the right. But we cannot forget that there is also an opportunism of the left; both are particularly harmful to the work of a broad front. It is convenient to remember Marx’ warning in his Critique of the Gotha Program: “no horse trading with the principles.”
Right-wing opportunism tends to appear with the following expressions or characteristics: make concessions of principles in order to make allies; reduce the level of the struggle for fear of the enemy; lag behind the level of consciousness of the masses instead of going in front of them; exaggerate the importance of national or regional peculiarities without taking into account the general principles; and liberalism in matters of organization, of which the most dangerous is to hide the Party as if it did not exist. We should always keep Lenin in mind: “Make agreements in order to advance the practical objectives of the movement, but do not betray the principles.” (What is to be Done?)
Opportunism of the left has the following main characteristics: the false criteria of all or nothing; not knowing how to make the needed concessions and the useful compromises for the development of work; no knowing how to adapt Marxism-Leninism to the particular conditions of the reality in which we live, allowing us to be influenced by the experiences of others, which leads to not knowing how to adapt or to making mistakes about the level and forms of the struggle and the objective conditions of the masses; in adopting rigid criteria in matters of organizing.
In his Misery of Philosophy, Marx criticized opportunism. To quote the young Marx: “ Et propter vitam vivendi perdere causas”, in other words, “And to [conserve] life, we lose the causes [that are the reason] for living.”
Let’s not forget this old lesson.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
PEOPLES OF TURKEY SAID; ‘PEACE AND DEMOCRACY’
12 August 2014
We have just had the elections for the President of the republic - the second of three important elections - and the analysis of the results from all different perspectives will follow. The election process has been without regard for basic democratic criteria from the beginning and Prime Minister Erdoğan won with a 51.8% majority. AKP and its supporters are trying to show this as a victory confirming that the only choice for the country is AKP. The CHP voters protesting their party’s choice by not voting and other voters boycotting the elections contributed to Erdoğan receiving the critical level of vote that was enough to win this election. This is by no means an absolute victory for Erdoğan. The improvidence and the boycott of the elections by some left sections have handed the presidency to Erdoğan.
Considering that during the local elections it was mostly Erdoğan rather than his candidates that fronted the campaigns, there is no significant increase in the votes he received. Erdoğan secured an arithmetical rather than a political victory, using the advantages of being in office; using the resources of government finances, governors, district governors, local authorities, businessmen, media, etc. For this reason, the Presidency he narrowly secured might be legal but does not ensure legitimacy in the public eye.
The candidacy of İhsanoğlu, supported by the CHP-MHP political front but in reality representing the same ideological origin as Erdoğan, failed to meet the demands of the public. It has been proven that the tactics of “unity against Erdoğan, no matter what” has no significance in politics, that the formula is wrong.
Co-chair of HDP Selahattin Demirtaş has, representing democratic and peaceful organisations in these elections, without a doubt doubled votes received in local elections. This has shown that with his political line in supporting the workers’ and the public’s demand of democracy, peace and freedoms, Demirtaş has met the public demand to become a political agent. Demirtaş’s success in receiving votes very close to the threshold is a result of the efforts for democracy and peace by the workers’ movement over the years, and the result has increased the responsibilities of this movement.
The massacres, agitated sectarian conflicts and identity issues in the Middle East have created a greater need both to strengthen the anti-war movement and to increase solidarity among the nations of the region. It is not possible for any other party or constitution to show a tendency to solve these issues.
On the other hand, the problems faced by all identities and sections of society, denounced by problems in the workplace, assimilated, ignored and oppressed are intertwined. The possibilities for candidates and parties with real and clear solutions to problems of the public have been demonstrated to all political parties by the level of votes received by Demirtaş.
The liberal-conservative policies of AKP government and the new President Erdoğan seem likely to persist on enslaving workers, spoiling natural and historical treasures, continuing inequality and increasing pressure on women and reactionary ignorance of identities and beliefs. From this perspective, the duty to unite and develop the struggles of all the oppressed and exploited sections of the society is still very current.
In short, the message from this election has been to continue the struggle. We call on all workers, peace and democratic forces to unite and struggle together.