Gwadloup: 50th Anniversary of the Massacre of Mé 1967!

Fifty years ago, on the 26 and 27 May 1967, the French government repressed in cold blood a demonstration by construction workers in Guadeloupe. Construction workers demanded a 2% wage increase and organized a rally in front of the Pointe-à-Pitre Chamber of Commerce. The CRS and then the gendarmes (the “red kepis”) opened fire on the demonstrators and chased them all night, checking one by one all the streets of the city.

This colonial massacre is part of a long tradition of French colonialism of bloody repression of popular and independent movements in the colonies (in Setif in Algeria on May 8, 1945, in Haïphong in Vietnam in 1946, in Casablanca (Morocco) in 1947, in Madagascar in 1947, the massacre of 17 October 1961 and many others …).

Fifty years after the massacre, the French state continues to maintain secret archives and the truth is not yet made. Today the people of Guadeloupe continue to demand justice and truth.

A brief historical review of the colonial rule of Guadeloupe

Colonial France began to occupy Guadeloupe as early as 1635 with various colonial companies. Before that, the population of Guadeloupe resisted to numerous invasions of the Spanish colonists from 1496.

The occupation of Guadeloupe, especially by the Chevalier de l’Olive, who had become the governor of Guadeloupe by Richelieu, marked the beginning of the great colonial massacres committed by France in Guadeloupe. From then on, the people of Guadeloupe never stopped resisting the settlers.

The first slaves arrived on the island in December 1644 but it was from 1654 that the number of slaves transported from Africa began to increase drastically. The slaves were sold as soon as they arrived at the port and the name of the master is stamped to them with hot iron on the chest. Some slaves managed to escape and some fought hard against their former masters: they burned the harvests, poisoned their masters … Those were the ones called “brown negroes” by the colonists who repressed them violently (ears removed, hams cut … ).

In 1656, a great uprising of slaves took place. This one was led by Jean Leblanc, native of Angola and by Pèdre, native of Cape Verde. They faced the settlers for 15 days but ended up being massacred, Pèdre and Leblanc were quartered.

After the French Revolution, in August 1793, at Sainte-Anne, a revolt of more than 1200 slaves took place. After fierce battles they were also massacred.

In 1794, during the English occupation, the governor Victor Hugues enlisted more than 3000 Guadeloupeans to fight against the English. In the same year he declared the abolition of slavery, it was the first “abolition of slavery” in Guadeloupe. It is, however, a strange “abolition”: the slaves must continue to work for their former masters and to move, they must be in possession of a laissez-passer.

This short “abolition” of the slave ceased in 1802 with Napoleon who sent a squadron on May 6 to restore slavery as quickly as possible. The resistance is strong, the restoration of slavery is done by crushing the insurgents led by Ignace and Delgres. Several thousand Guadeloupians were massacred.

In 1848, the abolition of slavery was again proclaimed, but soon, in the face of the many former slaves who rejected wage labor, a law on compulsory labor was established.

After the Second World War, in 1946 the status of Guadeloupe changed, without any consultation of the Guadeloupean people of course, it is the law of Assimilation: Guadeloupe becomes a French department. Since then the social and independence struggle has never ceased in Guadeloupe.

Mé 67: Popular revolt and colonial massacre

The year 1967 was a great year of popular revolts in Guadeloupe. These culminated with the strike of 5,000 construction workers who were suppressed in blood on 26 and 27 May 1967.

In the 1960s, many cane mills began to close. The massive cultivation of cane sugar is the result of the colonial economy of Guadeloupe, where large monocultures of cane sugar formed more than 50% of the cultivated land. With the closure of sugar factories, many workers find themselves in misery and are going to swell slums around cities to work in the construction sector that is booming. These workers ruined by the closure of their factories work in extreme conditions for wages of misery.

In 1967, the legislative elections were held. The GONG (National Organization Group of Guadeloupe) called for boycotting them and for claiming national independence. There was more than 53% abstention. The GONG was founded in 1963, it was the organization at the forefront of the struggle for national independence. The GONG was based on Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought. The GONG had as line the People’s National Democratic Revolution for the independence of Guadeloupe, it rejected autonomism and reformism. It opposed in particular the revisionists of the PCG (Communist Party of Guadeloupe) which relegated a possible self-determination of Guadeloupe after firstly haven took the power in the French metropole.

In March 1967, a major revolt took place against the European merchant Srnsky. He let his dog on Mr. Balzinc, a disabled shoemaker-nailing pedestrian, saying “Say hello to the negro”. The revolt will last for three days. Planes full of CRS had to come to the rescue. The shop and the car of Srnsky were burned.

On May 1, a demonstration for the Workers’ Day was organized at the call of the GONG and gathers hundreds of protestors.

On May 24, 5.000 construction workers went on strike. They were demanding a 2% increase in wages. On the morning of May 26, the workers gathered in front of the Pointes-à-Pitres Chamber of Commerce where the negotiations were held. The bosses don’t want to give up anything. Mr. Brizzard, representing the employers, would have said: “When the negroes will be hungry, they will resume work.” This will trigger an enormous anger among the struggling workers who will not hesitate to attack the forces of repression. Shortly afterwards, Prefect Bolotte ordered his troops to fire in the crowd. Firstly, the CRS were repressing, but then came the gendarmes, the “red kepis”. Those will pursue the demonstrators throughout the afternoon and all night shooting. The action of Prefect Bolotte was approved by Secretary of State Jacques Foccart, an expert of anti-colonial repression very close to De Gaulle. The crackdown will continue until 27 May.

In hospitals, deaths are not recorded. The bodies “disappear” and the official report of the prefecture will announce only 7 dead and 60 wounded. This “sum” is taken up by the entire press, which relays information as  news.

The reality is that that night, it was the massacre of more than a hundred Guadeloupeans that took place. The first to be martyred under the bullets of the armed forces of the French State is Jacques Nestor, a great militant of the GONG. The French State was clearly seeking to defeat the independenceists that they saw as the origin of the demonstrations and as the greatest threat to French colonialism in Guadeloupe.

In addition to the dead, there were dozens of wounded and hundreds of arrests. In June 1967, 18 GONG independentists appeared before the courts in Paris. On the side of the State, no one was tried as responsible for the massacre.

It was only in 1984 that the secretary of State for the overseas Georges Lemoine announced the figure of 87 dead. But this still has nothing of official recognition and is far from shedding light on the truth about the massacre. The archives are still closed today.

The task remains the same today

Today, Guadeloupe still suffers from colonial domination on all levels: economically, politically and socially. The economy is still dominated by the békés, it has remained a colonial type of economy serving the interests of the great French monopolies. Inequality continues to grow and poverty is increasingly widespread. This was particularly noticeable after the 2007 crisis.

Guadeloupe has never ceased to revolt against the French State. We recall the great general strike of 2009. This strike has shown that the people of Guadeloupe does not surrender and is ready to fight to assert their rights.

The Guadeloupeans continue to courageously reject the French state, this is seen especially through the elections. During the presidential elections of April and May, there was a 60% abstention in the first round and 50.8% in the second round.

The only way for Guadeloupe is to get rid of the colonial domination of the French state in order to regain its destiny in hand. The only way to achieve this is through revolution, not through elections, a revolution led by a genuine Communist Party firmly based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

Justice and truth for the victims of Mé 1967!

Long live the struggle of the Guadeloupean people!

Tribute to Comrade Yetiş Yalnız

It’s with a great pain that we learned the death of Yetiş Yalnız and his eleven comrades of TIKKO.

We express our condolences to the comrades of the TKP/ML, the TIKKO and their front organizations, and also to the families of the martyrs.

We want to pay a special tribute to Yetiş because we had the chance to know him.

Yetiş was first and foremost an exceptional human being.

Yetiş was born in France and grew up there in Nevers, then in Strasbourg.

Yetiş comes from a family of exiled Communists from Turkey who is aware that the struggle for revolution continues in France and wants to change the society.

Yetiş was a son of the people, and it is quite natural that he committed himself at an early age to fight the capitalist oppression in France in Nevers, Strasbourg and then in Paris.

Yetiş was an example of altruism and each and every one of his comrades of YDG, and beyond, recognized him as a respected organizer and leader.

Thus, Yetiş very early took important responsibilities and was enthusiastically involved in the YDG for example through the newspaper “L’audace” and more generally the organization of democratic youth in France.

Demonstrating unflagging involvement as an exemplary communist leader, he was at the forefront of all struggles. It is for this reason that the French State has monitored, tracked and imprisoned him through its anti-terrorist judges.

Yetiş then decided to take part in the Protracted People’s War in Turkey within the TIKKO.

Finally, Yetiş was a remarkable singer and player of saz. If he gave up a career as a professional artist, it was because it took too much time to allow him also to be the activist he wanted to be.

He reconciled art and revolution through his songs and performed in parties and festivals of revolutionary organizations without sectarianism. In the army he was a member of the TİKKO Müzik Topluluğu.

Yetiş, you humbly fought concretely for communism. May your memory serve as an example and guide us. Let us carry high the flag of the revolution!

France, Reims: the PCM was present at the 44th Commemoration of the Martyrdom of Ibrahim Kaypakkaya

The PCM was invited to the commemorational evening for the 44th year of the death of the comrade and communist leader Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, organized by the comrades of Partizan. Here is the statement of PCM that was read on this occasion:

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya left us 44 years ago, assassinated by the armed forces of the Turkish reactionary state. Ibrahim Kaypakkaya was the founder of the TKP/ML (Turkish Communist Party / Marxist-Leninist) and it armed wing TIKKO (Turkish Workers ‘and Peasants’ Liberation Army). He represented in Turkey the red line of the communist movement having broken with the revisionists and the opportunists. He fought against revisionism in its highest form at that time: the revisionism of Safak within the TIIKP. With the foundation of TKP/ML and TIKKO, he was the glorious initiator of the Protracted People’s War in Turkey. Ibrahim Kaypakkaya left immortal contributions to the people of Turkey to advance towards the Revolution of New Democracy and then Socialism.

For this occasion our Party decided to publish in French one of the fundamental texts of Ibrahim Kaypakkaya: The National Question in Turkey.

Our Party also published for this occasion a long statement aimed at presenting the life and teachings of Kaypakkaya in French, particularly on the issue of armed struggle, Kemalism and the Kurdish national movement.

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya is a source of inspiration for all Communists around the world. His revolutionary commitment, his theoretical analyzes and his sacrifice for the revolution represent models for every communist in the world.

By founding the TKP/ML and TIKKO, Kaypakkaya has armed the Turkish people with its most powerful weapons to overthrow imperialism, bureaucratic capitalism and feudalism.

Our Party wishes to salute the members of the TKP/ML and the fighters of the TIKKO. In particular, our Party wishes to pay the highest possible tribute to the 12 fighters of the TIKKO who fell into martyrdom last year. Among these revolutionaries, we particularly welcome Comrade Yetiş. Yetiş was born and raised in France. He was an activist fighting in France. Yetiş was imprisoned in France for his Maoist engagement. Yetiş was not only a revolutionary but a great artist who put his talents at the service of the people’s cause.

Our Party expresses its warmest greetings to the TKP/ML and the TIKKO, which is continuing the struggle for the Revolution of New Democracy by following the strategy of the Protracted People’s War adapted to the conditions of Turkey.

The teachings of Ibrahim Kaypakkaya are immortal!
Long live the TKP/ML! Long live the TIKKO!
Long live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!
Long live the Protracted People’s War!
Long live the World Proletarian Revolution!

Tribute to Ibrahim Kaypakkaya

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya died 44 years ago, assassinated by the armed forces of the Turkish reactionary state. Ibrahim Kaypakkaya was the founder of the TKP/ML (Communist Party of Turkey / Marxist-Leninist) and it’s armed wing TIKKO (Liberation Army of the Workers and Peasants of Turkey). In Turkey he represented the red line of the communist movement having broken with the revisionists, and initiated the Protracted People’s War in Turkey. Ibrahim Kaypakkaya left immortal contributions to the people of Turkey to advance towards the Revolution of New Democracy and then Socialism. The Turkish intelligence services themselves saw Kaypakkaya as the biggest revolutionary threat, so in an official report of the MIT (National Intelligence Organization) of 1973 it is noted:

“Within the communist movement in Turkey, Ibrahim Kaypakkaya’s idea’s are the most dangerous. The views he presents in his writings and the methods of struggle he advocates are, as we can safely say, the application of revolutionary communism to Turkey. ”

A life in the service of the people

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya was born in 1949 in the village of Karakaya. He was the son of a peasant family. He became familiar with progressive ideas while being a student in the 1960s. He was a very good student and successfully enrolled at the IUFM in Capa and the University of Physics in Istanbul in 1965, a year when the Turkish student resistance was in full swing.

Quickly after becoming a student, he joined the FKF (Federation of Clubs of Idea) founded in 1965. The FKF was a progressive anti-imperialist organization composed of several trends. He openned a section of the FKF in Capa with his comrades in 1967. At the heart of the FKF, he fought against the revisionism of the leadership and opposed their reformism, supporting a line of national democratic revolution.

In 1969, he moved away from the university to struggle with the workers and peasants and to make them familiar with Marxist-Leninist ideas. In 1970 Turkey experienced major worker’s struggles , the most important of which was on the 15th and 16th of June 1970 and was suppressed by tanks and cannons. This struggle is an important lesson about the objective conditions of the revolution in Turkey for Kaypakkaya, and he says about this struggle that it is the “proof that the objective conditions of the revolution have become mature in Turkey”.

In 1970, he became a member of the TIIKP (Workers’ Revolutionary Party and Peasant Party of Turkey), which was a party claiming to be Marxist-Leninist and a follower of Mao-Tse Tung Thought, but it had important right-wing deviations.

In March 1971 martial law was declared with the military takeover of the government. This martial law was the result of the development of people’s struggles in Turkey. It was in this context that Ibrahim Kaypakkaya affirmed the need to start the Protracted People’s War in Turkey. On international level, this took place during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, at the most intense moment of the national liberation struggle in Vietnam and after the mass movements in the major imperialist countries in 1968 and 1969 (France, Germany, United States, Japan …).

Kaypakkaya wrote: “The ever-increasing struggle of our courageous working class, our altruistic peasants and our valiant young people, the increasingly widespread Marxist-Leninist books, the effects of the global shake-up of the Great Cultural Proletarian Revolution which took place in China under the command of Mao, prepared the augurs of an environment in which a young communist movement was to emerge in our country to lead the struggle of the masses. ”

The TIIKP claimed to be following Marxism-Leninism and the contributions of Mao Zedong, but in practice they where not. These fundamental theses led to pacifism. Kaypakkaya led the line struggle within the organization to its maximum before separating from this organization to found a Communist Party on a just basis, revolutionary bases opposed to revisionism, reformism and chauvinism. That was the foundation of the TKP/ML (Communist Party of Turkey / Marxist-Leninist) on April 24, 1972 under the leadership of Ibrahim Kaypakkaya. To break with the revisionists of the TIIKP and its bourgeois leadership was essential. It made it possible to affirm the main character of activity in the peasant regions in relation to their activities in the large cities, it also made it possible to affirm the armed struggle and the illegal activities as principal in relation to the non-military and legal activities.

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya followed Mao’s theses on the three instruments of the revolution: the Party, as the general staff of the proletariat, the people’s army and the united front. So, a few months after the founding of the TKP/ML, the TIKKO (Turkish Workers ‘and Peasants’ Liberation Army) was founded to lead the Protracted People’s War in Turkey.

In 1973, when Ibrahim Kaypakkaya and his comrades were engaged in activities in the Dersim area, they were hunted down and forced to take refuge. Because of a denunciation, their refuge was discovered and attacked by gendarmes on 24 January 1973. Kaypakkaya was wounded but managed to escape, after which he spent five consecutive nights hiding in a cave but was denounced by a villager after asking for help.

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya on armed struggle

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya and his critique of the TIIKP (“The Roots and the Development of our Differences with the Revisionism of Safak: A General Criticism of the TIIKP”, June 1972) criticized Safak’s revisionist theses on the issue of armed struggle with precision and accuracy. These theses are, without astonishment, theses that are still very widely understood today by our contemporary revisionists, by all those who oppose the strategy of the Protracted People’s War. Thus, the analysis and refutation of these theses by Ibrahim Kaypakkaya deserve to be studied by every communist throughout the world.

The theses of the revisionists of Safak at the time condemned the revolutionary movement to pacifism, legalism and wait-and-see. It is for all these reasons that Kaypakkaya broke with the TIIKP to found a truly Marxist-Leninist Party, a Party that acquired Mao Zedong’s contributions to Marxism-Leninism, a Party capable of leading the revolution.

Let us look at some of the revisionist theses on the armed struggle that Kaypakkaya has endeavored to reject:

First, the Safak revisionists followed the organizational policy of organizing peasants and workers in study groups. The groups were gathering around the newspaper’s study sessions and increasingly removing the masses from the issue of armed struggle in addition to being a very vulnerable structure to repression. The revisionists had thus made a prerequisite for participation in the armed struggle to first of all study Marxism-Leninism in groups of study, thus preventing many peasants full of class hatred for the enemy to join the armed struggle. In the same way it started from the absurd idea that someone who would be good at the theoretical study of Marxism-Leninism would naturally be good at conducting the armed struggle. These erroneous considerations were nothing but the expression of a pacifist petty-bourgeois revisionist line.

In opposition to this erroneous line which claims to represent a “revolutionary mass work,” Kaypakkaya develops what the correct practice of Marxist-Leninists should be in mass revolutionary work:

“The policy of the Marxist-Leninists on how to organize among peasants is clear: Organize a party committee in each village. In each village, organize armed contingents, namely the peasant militia, from the ranks of the revolutionary poor peasants, be they connected or not to the party, who continue to engage in production. Organize from the ranks of those connected to the Party special task units and cells related to the Party village committee. In addition to this, organize professional guerrilla units connected to the regional committee of the Party regardless of the village structure. The purpose of all this organizational work is to build the Party and the armed people’s forces among the agricultural workers and poor peasants. The construction of the Party will not take place peacefully but in the course of the armed struggle. And the key to organizing the Party to understand how to organize the peasants is to organize guerrilla units and village militias. ” (“The Roots and the Development of our Differences with the Revisionism of Safak: A General Criticism of the TIIKP”, June 1972. Likewise for all the quotes of this part)

Secondly, the Safak revisionists put forward as a prerequisite for the armed struggle the condition that the Party must be developed on a national scale and capable of leading the masses. The revisionists Safak claim that the armed struggle can only be triggered over the whole territory starting from a peasant movement supported by the cities. The revisionists claim that a red power can only arise if a peasant movement of national scale is first united behind a Party that is also developed throughout the country.

This conception of armed struggle is the manifestation of right-wing and revisionist theses that are incapable of understanding the dialectical development of the Party and the People’s War.

Here is what Kaypakkaya answers to the revisionists of Safak:

“For the emergence of a red base zone, the revisionists do not consider it necessary to have a protracted guerrilla activity developing from the small to the broad, from the weak to the strong, from the simple to the complex; Within this activity to build a popular army step by step, develop guerrilla units to regular army units; And to transform the guerrilla war into a war of movement. In fact, they do not even think about it. They demand a generalized peasant revolt for the emergence of a red base in this region. […] Therefore, be careful – the peasants should not try to revolt and we should not try to organize such a revolt either, etc. ”

“Organizing on the basis of peaceful struggle is a hollow organization. Even if an organization of this kind came to embrace the whole country, it would not be able to lead the people’s struggle, lead the armed struggle, and in a period of climbing white terror it would collapse like a card castle… ”

Thirdly, the revisionists assert that armed struggle can not be launched without the entire masses being prepared for it. Incapable of understanding the unequal development of the revolution, the revisionists shut themselves up in idealistic theories that Kaypakkaya sums up: “In order to launch the armed struggle, the Safak revisionists demand that the whole prairie be dry. “. Kaypakkaya goes on to show that such an erroneous line leads in mass work to fall behind and concentrate only on the most remote sections of the peasants rather than direct the struggles of the most advanced peasants.

Fourthly, the revisionists artificially oppose political struggle and armed struggle. The revisionists of Safak accuse Kaypakkaya of having a purely military point of view because he places the guerrilla unit at the center of the political struggle. Incapable of understanding the armed form of political struggle and armed struggle as the main form of struggle, the revisionists in fact completely reject the very idea of ??armed struggle that they always sweep under the rug. The purely military point of view engage in the activity of fighting to fight, which is totally different than using the armed struggle to accomplish political tasks.

Kaypakkaya is very clear that the armed struggle is not opposed to agitation and propaganda:

“In our country too, the guerrilla units that will form the embryo of the popular army will not be satisfied with just fighting. At the same time they will have important tasks such as driving agitation and propaganda among the masses, organizing and arming them. As these gentlemen regard the political struggle as the opposite of armed struggle and political struggle as simply a publishing activity, they accuse us of rejecting political work, rejecting agitation and propaganda and mass work. In reality, they themselves recognize only the peaceful forms of agitation and propaganda and the political struggle. They reject the armed forms of political struggle and agitation and propaganda. ”

“Kemalism is fascism”

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya was the first to scientifically define the class character of Kemalist ideology correctly. It has swept away all the erroneous and opportunistic analyses that see Kemalism as a partly progressive movement and as the manifestation of the nationalist petty bourgeoisie or the national bourgeoisie. It has clearly shown that Kemalism is an ideology of the comprador bourgeoisie and that if it opposes direct colonial rule, it also contributes to maintaining the semi-colonial and semi-feudal structure of the country. In this sense Ibrahim Kaypakkaya showed the absurdity of those who make Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk), a Turkish Sun Yat-Sen, and clearly demonstrates that Kemal would be rather the equivalent of Chiang Kai-shek.

Let us see what Kaypakkaya says about kemalism:

“The realities of Turkey tell us that:

Kemalism means fanatical anti-communism. The Kemalists brutally drowned Mustafa Suphi [Note: the first president of the Communist Party of Turkey] and 14 of his comrades. They mercilessly crushed the Turkish Communist Party (TKP) after the death of Suphi, although the party did not deserve that name. What the pro-American fascist courts of martial law do today, Kemalists have done so many times. Every two years, quite often at least once a year, there are general tours, with hundreds of tortured and left to rot in the police stations and prisons. When it suited their interests they flattered the Soviet Union, the rest of the time they fed a ferocious and insidious animosity against it.

Kemalism means the violent and bloody repression of the class struggle of the working and peasant masses, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the surveillance of public servants. Kemalism means for workers only bayonets and shots, batons and the hit of rifle butts, the courts and the jail, the prohibition of strikes and trade unions. For the peasants, this means the tyranny of the landowners, the beatings by the gendarmes, the courts, the prison and the banning of any organization. All comrades should remember the examples given by Comrade Schnurov on how the workers of the Adana-Nusaybin train line were shot.

Kemalism is a chain attached to all forms of progressive and democratic ideas. Any publication activity that does not praise Kemalism is banned. In the future, the mere possibility that an article may emerge against the Kemalist government will be sufficient reason for any publication to be closed. An endless “martial law” terrorizes the country with every proclamation lasting for years. The parliament is a toy in the countries of a small clique of administrators heading the CHP (Republican People’s Party) and their unchanged president Mr. Kemal. The Constitution and all the laws are the same, although in reality it is the army that runs the country.

Kemalism means the incitement of Turkish chauvinism in all spheres, the establishment of a merciless national oppression against national minorities, forced turquism and massacres.

The principle of “complete independence” of Kemalism means a willingness to accept semi-colonial conditions.

A Kemalist Turkey is a semi-colonial Turkey. The Kemalist government means a collaborative government that was initially a lackey of British and French imperialism and subsequently of German imperialism. As Schnurov demonstrated, the class brotherhood of the Kemalists with the imperialists was stronger than their national animosities. ”

“All these realities clearly illustrate the class character of Kemalism, the ideology of which class it is: Kemalism is the ideology of the right wing of the Turkish comprador big bourgeoisie and the middle bourgeoisie. “The Kemalist dictatorship was a fascist military dictatorship. ”

(“Safak’s Revisionist Theses on the Kemalist Movement, Kemalist Government Period, World War II, Post-War Period and May 27”, January 1972)

Support for the Kurdish national liberation struggle

In his text The National Question in Turkey (December 1971), Ibrahim Kaypakkaya demonstrated the democratic content of the Kurdish national movement. He showed the absolute necessity for the Communists to support the right of self-determination of the Kurdish nation. He showed the necessary fight against Turkish chauvinism propagated by the ruling class and which also affects the Turkish proletariat.

Here is Kaypakkay’s brilliant conclusion on the Kurdish national liberation struggle:

The Marxist-Leninist movement is today the most implacable and determined enemy of the national oppression inflicted on the Kurdish nation and minority nationalities by the Turkish ruling classes and is at the forefront of the struggles against the national oppression, the persecution of other languages ??and national prejudices. The Marxist-Leninist movement unconditionally supports, and has always maintained, the right to self-determination of the Kurdish nation, oppressed by the bourgeoisie and the Turkish landowners, that is, its right to secede and to create a state independent. With regard to the right to found a state, the Marxist-Leninist movement is also opposed to privileges. The most fundamental principles of popular democracy make this absolutely necessary. The unprecedented national oppression inflicted on the minority nationalities in Turkey by the bourgeoisie and the Turkish owners also makes this imperative. This is at the same time made it absolutely necessary for the struggle for freedom of Turkish workers and laborers, for if they do not demolish Turkish nationalism, liberation will be impossible for them.

[…]

The Marxist-Leninist movement supports the struggle of oppressed nationalities in general and the Kurdish nation in particular against national oppression, persecution and privilege, and fully supports the general democratic content of the national movement of the oppressed nation.

The Marxist-Leninist movement directs and administers the class struggle of the proletariat and the Kurdish workers against the bourgeois and small landowners who make up the leadership of the Kurdish national movement as well. It warns the Kurdish workers and laborers against the actions of the bourgeoisie and Kurdish owners who seeks to consolidate nationalism. The Marxist-Leninist movement remains indifferent about the struggle for the supremacy of the bourgeoisie and the landowners of classes of different nationalities.

The Marxist-Leninist movement is fighting against the efforts of the landowners, the mullah’s, the sheikhs and so on to reconcile the struggle against national oppression with their attempts to strengthen their own positions. (The National Question in Turkey, December 1971)

Accomplish the Revolution of New Democracy with the Protracted People’s War

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya thus armed the Turkish proletariat with its most powerful weapon: the TKP/ML, the Communist Party based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism capable of leading the Revolution of New Democracy to the end because it is armed with the strategy of the Protracted People’s War adapted to the conditions of Turkey.

The teachings of Ibrahim Kaypakkaya are a precious and immortal legacy for the people of Turkey in the struggle for liberation. These are the teachings that all communists in Turkey must assimilate in order to pursue the revolutionary path.

The character of Turkey has not changed today, it remains a semi-colonial semi-feudal state. Kaypakkaya’s theses thus represent the more developed form of class consciousness in Turkey.

Today, the TKP/ML and the TIKKO live and fight, continuously advancing on the road of the People’s War. They show the example of the struggle to bring down imperialism, bureaucratic capitalism and feudalism to the oppressed peoples of the world.

Last year, 12 TIKKO fighters where martyred. We want to pay the highest possible homage to those revolutionary heroes who have shown the highest form of commitment, that is the armed struggle. The heroes of the revolution are immortal. Their example sheds light on the path each communist must follow, the commitment and the sacrifice for the revolution.

Today we salute the Party of Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, the TKP/ML and it’s armed branch the TIKKO. We salute all revolutionaries who have fallen on the path of the Revolution of New Democracy in the struggle against imperialism and the Turkish fascist state.

The teachings of Ibrahim Kaypakkaya are immortal!

Long live the TKP/ML! Long live the TIKKO!

Long live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

Long live the Protracted People’s War!

Long live the World Proletarian Revolution!

Emmanuel Macron was elected. And now, what?

That’s it. As expected, Emmanuel Macron has just been elected President of the French Republic.

A man elected without passion, without massive mobilization in his favor. The candidate of the lesser worse, of the “barrage to the far right”, of the lukewarm compromise, often considered inexperienced, unpleasant and without any program. Without program, really? Let us return to some of the measures he is defending.

Imperialism: In addition to these measures and to the project to launch an “war of information”, Emmanuel Macron develops an aggressive vision of imperialism – always of course under the pretext of “war against terrorism”. Its program explicitly cites Africa, the Mediterranean and the Middle East as areas of intervention. The presence of France in its colonies like Guyana will also be strengthened. A mandatory military service of one month will be restored, the “national guard” will become more important, Operation Sentinel will be maintained, a center of command of operations inside the country will be set up … And for all of that, he plans to increase the defense budget to 2% of the GDP. In short, strengthening the pre-emptive counterrevolutionary dynamic, militarization, march towards war.

Labor law and gifts to the bourgeoisie: Emmanuel Macron defends a “super labor law” where company agreements would systematically take precedence over branch agreements, and which would be unfavorable to all employees. The only thing he does not want to deregulate are the compensations for workers in case of labour court: no way that companies that commited a fault will pay too much compensation to the injured parties, these compensations will therefore be capped. We can also lose our economic contributions when we are unemployment if we refuse two job offers, even if these jobs are shabby! And, of course, all these laws will be passed during the summer by presidential decree, to even not have to bother with a so-called democratic process.

Removal of the ISF, cuts in the labor code, more rights for company management… Emmanuel Macron’s program was supported by the MEDEF for obvious reasons. For us, on the other hand, it is the stick: delayed retirement, precarious work, managerial vision of society, weakening of “social dialogue”. Measures to combat poverty could make you laugh until you get sick, like the proposal to digitize the documents of people living on the streets. They will just have to find a smartphone!

Police: 10,000 policemen and gendarmes will be recruited, the police will be able to prohibit zones to an individual, to immediately impose fines for minor acts (possession of illicit drugs, for example…), will be more heavily equipped … In addition, an intelligence center under presidential monitoring will be put in place to control the population. Reassuring.

Justice: Abolition of the suspensive appeal. Basically, if you are innocent but justice has condemned you, you go to jail and you will appeal behind the bars! Same for sentence adjustment: you thought to have community service? No, you will have closed prison: no more sentence adjustment under 2 years. Hence the construction of 15,000 new prison places, and the massive recruitment of guards.

State of emergency: Having noted the interest of the state of emergency to break the social mobilizations, Emmanuel Macron declared that only the intelligence services could judge to leave it. Basically, the state of emergency will become the norm, in terms of security, reforms, information, in short, of the control of the population.

Overview: What Emmanuel Macron proposes is a society of the permanent state of emergency, militarized, where the proletarians must live in permanent precariousness. To hide this Thatcher worthy nightmare, the emphasis is on new technologies (notably the digitization of procedures or the use of drones) and incentives to secure the support of the educated middle classes. When one recalls the promises of Francois Hollande and compares them with the disastrous record of the last quinquennium for our class, one can only be worry about such an openly aggressive program.

To come to power, fascism needs to assert itself as a credible alternative of capital management in the face of a liberal compromise in full collapse. Emmanuel Macron is therefore the perfect opponent for the National Front, which will try to consolidate its role of national opposition. Undoubtedly, this government will trigger the anger of the popular classes as soon as its first reforms, and this anger will manifest itself in the results with an abstention rate of more than 25%, much higher than in the first round, a record since 1969.

Our Party had chosen the way of the revolutionary boycott of these elections, for it was necessary to delegitimize all the candidates as far as possible, none of whom represented the interests of the proletariat. It was necessary to counter the propaganda of the bourgeoisie which aims to present the presidential elections as the unavoidable means for the masses to assert their interests, whereas on the contrary, they disarm the proletarians by making them believe in the power of the bourgeoisie and therefore contains their revolutionary combativity. A communist must at all times contribute to raise the consciousness of the masses, to arm them with the tools they need to move towards the revolution. To do this today, we must prepare the struggle under this coming government of Macron. This must be done by mass work on the workplaces of the proletarians and where they live, that is to say, mainly in suburban cities, within the framework of the only clear revolutionary strategy that is the Protracted People’s War to snatch power from the bourgeoisie, set up the dictatorship of the proletariat and advance towards communism. We must continue and intensify mass work, organize the proletarians on a revolutionary basis, both in the situation if they abstained, thank to a just analysis of the bourgeois electoral system, that they have voted blank, that they have voted Macron thinking that it could constitute a “barrier” to the rise of fascism.

Today, more than ever, let us develop our class organizations, our antifascist structures, and prepare for confrontation with this new bourgeois government! Comrades, to the battle!

Facing the new government, let’s organize our class and prepare the fight!