What is the state of the trade unions in Turkey?

Basic Information on Trade Unions

Trade unions in Turkey are organized in the form of confederations composed of the trade unions of business branches. Since the Code of State Officials numbered 657 prohibits the organization of the laborers employed under the statute of officials in the same trade union with workers, officials’ and workers’ trade unions have emerged separate from each other. Officials’ and workers’ trade unions that are disintegrated due to the blessings of the director seats of the trade unions compete with each other.

The current biggest three confederations in Turkey are TÜRK-İŞ, DİSK and HAK-İŞ respectively. The oldest of these three confederations is TÜRK-İŞ founded in 1952.

Türk-İş was founded through the encouragement and guard of AFL that pursued its competition with the Soviet Union in the syndical field within the international workers’ movement. Particularly during the first decade since its foundation, Türk-İş members who occasionally visited the USA were trained well during these visits. The role of this training was crucial with the trade union leading the campaigns against the socialists and revolutionaries. Türk-İş was among those who supported the coup détat of 1980 and the 12th September Constitution prepared by the generals following that coup. Due to its attitude, Türk-İş became the unique trade union that was not closed in 12th September era. Referring to the numbers reported by Türk-İş i.e. the biggest workers’ confederation in Turkey since its foundation to the Ministry of Labor, Türk-İş has more than 1 million members.

The trade union indicated as the alternative of Türk-İş which is often indicated and criticized as the supporter of the state and the government is generally DİSK. DİSK that was founded in 1967 upon the departure of the social democratic trade unioners within TÜRK-İŞ made more emphasize on class struggle than did TÜRK-İŞ between 1960-1980. The principal workers’ actions that marked the era namely 15th-16th June, Profilo, Tariş became the actions to which the trade unions organized by DİSK rather than TÜRK-İŞ intervened. Furthermore DİSK was the one that was mistreated by 12th September contrary to Türk-İş.

However it would be misleading to conclude through these facts that DİSK is less statist or more revolutionary than Türk-İş. What the word “revolutionary”, that appears at the beginning of the abbreviation of DİSK, meant was explained as follows in the establishment manifestation of the trade union:

“We mean by revolutionism as changing the current conservative, reactionary, economic, social and political relations within the framework of the constitution and realizing the abovementioned principles in real life. Revolutionism will comprise the esence of our syndical works since it will provide all of us the chance to be owners of property and to benefit equally from the blessings of civilization.”

Similarly during the 15th-16th June actions that were the biggest workers’ uprising in Turkey Kemal Türkler, the head of DİSK spoke to the workers as follows:

“Our constitution orders all sorts of meetings and marches to be without guns and attacks. Since we are workers who tightly loyal to the constitution, none of our acts can be contrary to the constitution. However those who seek for various purposes can join us in various appearances. Even the worse, they can throw stones to a member of our dear honorable Turkish Army with evil purposes and can agitate them. I warn you in the capacity of the President of Revolutionary Workers’ Trade Unions Confederation of Turkey.”

DİSK just like Türk-İş supported the coup d’etat on 12th March 1971 as well. Similarly when Turkish troops occupied Cyprus in 1974 DİSK published a communique and called the workers who are its members to contribute to the war fund of the state with minimum wage of a day. Simultaneously all laborers were called for working for an excess hour and thus contributing to the war fund. Finally the conclusion of the strikes with compromise was among the demands of disk as well.

After 12th September, thousands of DİSK members were trialed and its property was usurped. DİSK could resume its activities in 1991.  DİSK currently has no difference from TÜRK-İŞ even to the degree that it had before 12th September. DİSK has approximately 393 thousand members on the basis of the numbers it reported to the Ministry of Labor.

The third trade union getting organized within the workers class is HAK-İŞ. It is a trade union that NSP (National Salvation Party) which was supported by the Islamist currencies got to be founded in 1976, that comprises the traditional work branches  particularly in Anatolia. This trade union that developed organizationally in the era when NSP was in power before 12th September and that strengthened depending on the Islamic trade unionism approach failed seriously due to the political prohibition for NSP after the coup détat though 12th September did not bring serious obstacles for it. However it nearly caught disk particularly on the basis of number of members pursuing its organizational activities particularly in Central Anatolian Region due to the rising of the Islamist parties by late 80s. Nevertheless, unlike the situation in the past the sector in which Hak-İş performed organizational activities were no longer comprised traditional sectors but rather the middle enterprises named the Anatolian Tigers due to the fact that they were the engine of the manufacture sector in Turkey.

The trade unions of the officials are divided into three principal confederations as well. KESK among these was born as a result of the syndical struggle of the state officials who were deprived of their syndical rights in 1980s. KESK is the trade union where socialists had the most determinant and active role in post-12th September era. In mid-90s  when the state began to take steps toward removing the syndical prohibitions against the public laborers it preferred founding trade unions with which it could compromise more easily in order to exclude KESK. One of them was Memur-Sen that was the symmetry of Hak-İş in the level of public employees. Nonetheless due to the restlessness within the hegemonic bourgeois block created by the fact that Memur-Sen got closer to the Islamist parties a third trade union was founded as well namely Türkiye Kamu-Sen. The number of members of all three trade unions are approximately the same.

Certainly there are political distinctions among the mentioned trade union confederations. Some of these confederations are more rightist than the others and some are more leftist than the others. Nevertheless the political distinctions among the trade unions should not lead to the illusions that some trade unions are more revolutionary than others. The terms right and left merely indicate that one trade union stands close to the bourgeois parties that serve for the bourgeoisie either in a rightist-liberal manner or in leftist-social democratic manner.

Common Characteristics of the Trade Unions

 The common characteristic of all the current trade unions in Turkey is that they are all bureaucratic organizations without the audit of the base and with a parasite caste on the top. Collecting the fees on the basis of the check-off system in post-12th September has consolidated this situation. According to the check-off system, trade unions no longer collect the fees from the workers but from the capitalists who deduct fees from the wages every month. Briefly the trade unions have no need to found relations with the workers even to survive financially.

As it is the case in all bureaucratic organizations, in the trade unions in Turkey it is not possible to transform the existing trade unions through the pressure applied from the below and to repel the parasites that occupy the cornerstones without disintegrating the current syndical structure and creating a new syndical organization on basis completely different from the current one. However there are many revolutionary currents that are deceived by these fancies. These currents are excluded from the trade unions as long as they insist on being revolutionary and the more positions they gain within the trade unions the more the get distant from revolutionism.

Lack of political currents that both follow a revolutionary political line and have crucial influence in the trade unions does not mean that leftist currents are completely distant from the trade unions. On the contrary there are socialist currents that have noteworthy influence in the trade unions. However the “influence” these currents that range from reformist-legal parties to Trotskyite sects has been achieved through compromising with the bureaucracy of trade unions rather than conflicting with them and through following a political linnet hat does not disturb the trade union bureaucracy.

Trade unions in Turkey are losing blood as the trade unions in many places all over the world. One method to be used in order to see the number of members of the trade unions may be looking through the member declarions reported by the trade unions to the Ministry of Labor. According to this, in July 2006 three million of five million workers are a member of a trade union. However this information is completely misleading. Because neither is the number of the employed merely composed of registered workers nor is the information on the members of trade unions correct.

Including the daily waged workers as well, the total number of waged laborers in Turkey is approximately twelve millions. This number does not cover the unemployed, unwaged family workers, the women who get works per piece from the mills though they appear to be housewives.

As for the number of the members of trade unions, a sham is in question in this field.  Trade unions in Turkey exaggerate the number of their members since they are obliged organize at least ten percent of the workers in the sector they get organized in order to be able to sign collective contract. Though the Ministry of Labour may be aware of the case, it ignores this exaggeration with the anxiety of indication that the rate of membership in trade unions in Turkey close to the rate of membership in trade unions in EU countries.

Also, though their names are trade unions, it would be false to deem organization of public laborers as trade union. Because the said trade unions have no right to conduct collective contract leave aside the right to strike. These trade unions can participate in collective bargaining provided that they pass the ten hundredth limit and undertake the function of a consultation organization without the right of all sorts of bargaining.

In order to fix the real rate of the union member workers in Turkey the method to be followed is to rate the total number of wage workers that are in the scope of collective contract to the employed population, using The Household Labor-Power Statistics which provides more realistic estimations.  Looking through these rates, we can not only see that a very small portion of the waged labor in Turkey is union member but also the trade unions have been losing their members for many years. While in 1988 22 per cent of the wage workers are union members in 1998 this rate fell half and half and current it has fallen to approximately 8-9 per cent. (Figure 1) Waged labor that was composed of approximately seven million people in 1988 became 11 million with the participation of 4 million workers in 2004 but within this period the number of the workers within the scope of collective contract was reduced by six hundred thousand and became one million instead of one million six hundred thousand. (Figure 2)

Existing Trade Unions Cannot Protect the Economic Interests of Their Members

The basic pretext used by the trade union bureaucracy in order to prevent those who desire to perform revolutionary politics is that the trade unions are organizations of economic interest rather than political and that trade unions should mainly deal with improving the living conditions of the workers.

Figure 3. Real Wages in Private Manufacturing Sector

 However looking through the real wages from 1980 up to date, we see that the trade unions have failed in this field as well. (Figure 3) Real wages in Turkey within the last thirty years have decreased by 14 percent leave being increased aside. It is possible to observe a similar case looking through the share of the waged labor in manufacture industry in the created value added. This rate that sailed over thirty percent between 1960-1980, that even increased to 38 percent in 1979 has decreased half and half since 1980 and became sixteen percent.

A more striking case appears when comparing the situation of the union member workers and the registered non-union member workers. Surely there is still great income difference between these two worker groups. In 1998 the hourly real wage of the union member workers was twice that of the non-union member workers. However while the income of the union member workers decreased by 13 percent within this period of time, the wages of the non-union member workers increased by five percent. Inability of the trade unions to preserve the economic conditions of their members even compared to the non-union member workers should be deemed to be a significant data with regard to understanding the unwilling of the non-union member workers to get organized in the current trade unions, though it is not the main explanation for decrease in membership of the trade unions.

Furthermore trade unions also failed to preserve the job guarantees, which are more important than wages as well. Trade unions could not be able to prevent the privatization and the following the attacks of non-unionism and discharge experienced. One the reasons for the decrease in the number of the members of the trade unions.

Certainly the coup détat of 12th September has determinant role on the failure of the trade unions acting as trade unions of wage. Nevertheless it should not be forgotten that the real member loses of trade unions happened in the post-12th September era when the syndical prohibitions were removed. It should be kept in mind that currently the real wages of the workers in private manufacture industry are below the wages of 1989 when syndical prohibitions were removed gradually and the workers’ actions spread. Military coup détat certainly deprived the workers’ organizations of many things. Still, after the removal of these prohibitions trade unions won nothing and they even got contended with somewhat less wages than the real wages of the said era.

It is not Correct to Interpret the “Spring Actions” as the Awakening of the Working Class

In post-12th September period, there is an era that is generally called as Spring Actions, remembered particularly by socialist milieu nostalgically. Spring actions are recalled as a period when the workers class re-awakened after the 12th September and blew out the attacks it had suffered from. (Figure 4) Again the same period is supposed to provide socialist currents to get recovered as well. Today, currents that conduct activities within the trade unions, that try various methods to enter in the trade unions or currents that call for “general strike-general resistance” exteriorly without paying any effort in this direction hope to create a new action wave resembling the Spring Actions through the activities they conduct.

The meaning attributed to the Spring Actions is misleading since it covers the outcomes of these actions with regard to workers’ movement and socialists, and since it often turns these outcomes upside down. It is certainly true that the Spring Actions were the most massive worker actions of post-12th September era, and similarly as a result of these acts real wages increased an even the wages went beyond the numbers of the pre-12th September era. However it is not true that Spring Actions resulted by victory for the working class and the socialists.

Before anything else the wage increases between 1989-91 could not be preserved even for one year. Furthermore after 1991, the wages of the workers fell rapidly excluding some zigzags. (Figure 3) The governments of the time, took back what workers had gained through strikes, even more than that, by inciting the inflation.

Even more significantly, since 1989, year deemed as the beginning date of the Spring Actions, a rapid deunionization attack have started.  Since then a more striking decrease in number of workers within the scope of collective contract than it is the case in real wages has occurred. In other words, the union member workers became a much smaller and privileged portion of the working class after the Spring Actions. (Figure 1-2)

Finally it is impossible to explain the winnings between 89-91 merely through the strikes that realized in this era. Behind the government being so “generous” for the workers’ movement was not only the confidence that it would take the wage increases back by inciting the inflation but also the worry about the national movement that rapidly got massive and militant particularly in the cities of Kurdistan. The government that wanted to relieve its hands in order to go for the serhildans (uprising in Kurdish) in Kurdish provinces behaved more concussively to the union member workers for short term.

Spring Actions did not Serve for the Revolutionaries Either

It is not correct either that the Spring Actions served for the revolutionaries. Spring actions served rather for the liquationists who aimed at transforming these currents to loose workers’ organizations that perform politics in legal platforms. Liquidationists made use of the Spring Actions as the evidence that indicated that trade unions got revolutionary and militant. Presenting these actions as revolutionary workers’ actions, they put the currents they are in to the tails of the trade unions and consequently the trade union bureaucrats.

The liquidationists maintained that it was necessary to organize the middle rank trade union directors who “led” the militant workers’ movement in order to lead these movements. Thus suggestions regarding the necessity to elasticize the existing structure of revolutionary organization, i.e. legalizing it, in order to create an organizational platform that can attract the abovementioned portions began to be heard more often within this period. In this regard the period of 89-95 that covers a few years of the post-Spring Actions period became a period when the plans of “Open Party”, “Revolutionary Mass Party”, “Revolutionary Workers’ Party”, “Workers’ Mass Party” were applied and the biggest illegal organizations of the left of Turkey such as Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way), Kurtuluş (Salvation), TDKP (Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey), TKP (Communist Party of Turkey), TKEP (Communist Labor Party of Turkey) got legalized swallowing smaller organizations as well. 

 What is the State of the Right of Strike in Turkey?

In the territory we live the first regulation (indeed prohibition) regarding workers’ actions was put in effect through the Polis Nizamnamesi (Regulation of Police) issued in 1845. The document that defines one task of the police as ”İşini ve gücünü terk ile mücerret ta’til-i mesalih-i ibat garazında olan amele ve işçi makulelerinin cem’iyet ve zihamlarının ve gerek bu misillü asayiş-i ammeyi ihlal edecek her gune fidne ve fesat cem’iyetlerinin def‘ ve izalesiyle ihtilal vuku’unun önü kestirilmesi esbabına teşebbüs ve müsaberet.” prohibits strikes.

Though the actions of the workers within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire that may be named as strike began in 1870s, the workers within the boundaries of the empire were first introduced to strikes was realized through the wave of strikes in 1908, immediately after the declaration of Constitutional Monarchy. In this period, in 1908 workers of various work branches such as tobacco, railway, textile, leather, stocking, trade, office, accomodation and entertainment places in Salonica, Izmir, Istanbul, Aydın, Beirut, Samsun, Üsküp and other provinces went on strike.

It was realized in a short time that the promises of Union and Progress (İttihat ve Terakki) that declared the Constitutional Monarchy to give the right of strike was nothing more than a demagogy. Union and Progress declared the Code of Tatil-i Eşgal one year later in order to prevent the strikes. According to this code, going on strike before passing the compromise phrase was prohibited. Strike was prohibited under all conditions for the state officials in official state departments, workers of alchololic drinks and tobacco and the employees of Duyun-u Umumiye that undertook the function of IMF Undersecretariat of the era. It was deemed as a crime to establish trade union in work branches where social services were performed.

The right of strike was not recognized with the establishment of Republic either. On the contrary workers’ organizations suffered from heavier blows. In the Code of Penalty issued using the Şeyh Sait Riot that broke out in 1925, in 13 provinces of Kurdistan as a pretext all sorts of actions with a status of strike were prohibited. And in the Code of Labor that was prepared with an inspiration fron fascist Italy in 1936 these prohibitions and penalties got heavier.

While transferring in multi-party life in 1946 upon the pressures of imperialist powers cosmetic regulations were made in working life as well. Establishment of class-based organizations was allowed. Thus the first syndical organizations were founded under the control of the state. Besides, both of the parties that tries to get organized independent of the state (Socialist Party of Turkey and Socialist Laborer and Villager Party of Turkey) were closed. Furthermore the trade unions where the members of these parties were getting organized were closed as well. Surely the right of strike was not recognized either.

In 1950 Democratic Party, the opposition party won the first multi-party election based on secret voting and open counting that was defined by many liberals as a popular revolution that defeated the bureaucracy. Though this party promised to legalize strike before the election, it did not take a single step toward that direction during the power it exercised for ten years. On the contrary it increased the oppression on trade unions which were supposed to have close relations with the previous government in order to defuse these organizations.

In order the right of strike to be recognized as a legal right, one had to wait till the Code of Collective Contract, Strike and Lock-Out prepared in 1963 following the coup détat of 1960. Though the right of strike was recognized through this code, significant restrictions on the right of strike were brought though regulations following the said code and new codes. One year later than the issue of the code the trade unions of public laborers were prohibited to go on strike. The next year public employees were prohibited to perform collective actions and movements as well.

The Constitution prepared upon the 12th September 1980 coup détat brought significant restrictions on the right of strike. For four years after the coup not even a strike was done. The coup regime trimmed all rights of the 1960-80 era. Political strike, general strike and solidarity strike was prohibited. The number of the work branches prohibited to go on strike was increased. The workers employed in water, electricity, air gas, lignite manufacture that fed the thermic centrals as well as the employees of transportation sector executed by public institutions were prohibited to go on strike. Similarly the broad comment of the broad state on the prohibitions included actually the works of the municipality services within the scope of strike prohibition as well.

Post-12th September regulations made it easier for the governments to postpone the strikes with the pretext of the sensitive state the country is in. The strike of the mining workers in Zonguldak which was one of the biggest workers’ actions of post-12th September era being prohibited with the pretext of the Gulf War in 1991 became a typical example for these arbitrary decisions.

Due to all these regulations, going on a strike that does not go beyond the framework drawn by the current codes of strike means to accept defeat against the capitalists in advance.

What are the Differences between the Life Conditions of the Workers Employed in Big and Small Enterprises?

Size of the workplaces and the number of the workers employed

A large portion of the workers in Turkey are employed in small enterprises. According to the 1998 household labor-force statistics, 56.6 percent of the waged in Turkey are employed in workplaces of 25 employees. Again approximately one third of the workers are employed in workplaces of less than 10 employees.

In 2001, in Istanbul where approximately one fourth of the national income is produced only thirty percent of the population working in the manufacture industry are employed in workplaces of more than 50 employees. Despite this, a portion of approximately 60 percent of the labor force worked in workplaces of less than twenty five employees.

Size of the Unregistration

In order to understand the profile of the working class in Turkey it is not sufficient to look through merely the size of the workplace and the rate of union membership rather it is necessary to look through the facts that whether the workers are insured, in other words registered.

Approximately one third of the employees working on wage or daily wage are uninsured. It is a fact that should be taken into consideration that this rate has increased by fifty percent since 1988 particularly for those who work on wage. Because after the said actions that are exalted by the liquidationists not only the attack of non- unionism was realized but also a rapid increase occurred in the number of the workers unregistered employed. Some claim that significant benefits were acquired in this era looking through the increase in the wages of the workers employed in manufacture industry between 1988-1991. Whereas particularly following this era, the number of the unregistered workers increased. A similar case was realized after the actions in 1994-95 that relatively improved the conditions of the workers employed in big enterprises and public enterprises.

This portion that compose approximately one third of the workers in Turkey are the least unprivileged portion of the working class. These workers cannot go to the hospital and buy medicines when they get ill. This portion has no right to get retired. This portion has to put up with all sorts of arbitrary attitudes.

Work accidents

The majority of the work accidents, an issue on which Turkey is the first in Europe and the third in the world, takes place in small enterprises.  According to the insurance reports, every seven out of ten accidents takes place in workplaces with less than 50 employees.  It is obvious that this number will increase when one includes the uninsured workers in small enterprises.    

The size of the workplace and the wages.

In Turkey, even the most privileged workers live around the poverty line.   The poverty line, which unions have calculated for a family of four, is 1870 YTL for August 2006, which is almost $1250.  However, even the workers working in the large enterprises with more than 500 employees, which is where the most privileged segments of the working class work, take less than this amount.  Net wages of these workers is almost half of the poverty line.  Thus a working class family with two kids working in the most privileged segments of the working class, let’s say the manufacturing industry, hardly passes above this line.

Despite this, overwhelming majority of the workers in Turkey earn minimum wage or sometimes a bit more than minimum wage and usually a wage rather less than the minimum wage –particularly in regions other than in three big provinces of Turkey İstanbul, İzmir, Ankara. According to the official numbers, 44 percent of the insured workers earn minimum wage. Taking the uninsured into consideration that compose one third of the waged labor as well, it is definite that this rate will increase. This wage that equates monthly net YTL 360 ($240) equates the absolute poverty limit calculated by the World Bank for a family of four members.

Workers in Turkey earning wages below the poverty limit as a whole does not mean there are no differences of wages within the class. There is a close correlation between the size of the workplace and wage. According to the wage earning statistics of 2006, while the gross wages in the workplaces that employ 10-49 workers are YTL 867, this number increases to YTL 1476 in the enterprises that employ more than 500 individuals. Supposing that gross minimum wage is 560 million, it is possible to claim that there is a difference that range from 2,5 to 3 times in the wages of the workers who work for minimum wage or less and who compose the overwhelming majority of the working class and the workers employed in big enterprises.

One should be careful making the distinction between large and small enterprises.

When making the arguments above, one should use the terms “large and small enterprises” with great care.  After all, this distinction is made by academicians, statisticians, sociologists and all those who either work for the state and whose minds are shaped by the bourgeois education system.

It is not necessary to repeat that bourgeois perspective cannot see the dialectical internal connections between objects and processes and that they describe the relationship between these things as mechanical and external. However a categorization which is based on the distinction between large and small enterprises result with comparing the enterprises with the total number of employees they have rather than seeing them with their internal connections.

Dividing the enterprises as large or small depends on the assumption that the production processes are independent from each other.  However, this assumption holds neither from the perspective of the capital nor from that of labor.

The small enterprises that surround the large factories are the integral parts of the production processes and they cannot be examined independently from large capital, which it is organically attached to.  Talking about these workplaces which mostly operate as auxiliary industries, is impossible without taking the large factories which surround them.  Similarly, we neither can think about these small enterprises, which are connected with the intermediary ties from Benetton to GAP, without taking the international monopolies. Nevertheless, these are not “small enterprises” with low labor productivity and which are destined to disappear as capitalism develops.  The number of these small enterprises increases in parallel to, even as a result of, concentration and centralization of capital on an international level.  Thus these small enterprises should not be seen as the competitors or rivals of large enterprises, but as their attachments.  From this perspective the small enterprises that produce for Benetton are only as small as Benetton itself.

The distinction between large and small enterprises not only blurs the relationship among capital but also the one among the laborers.  These enterprises we talk about are not the “small enterprises” which divide the workers into pieces, which isolate them from each other and cut their internal communication.  Thus they should be examined in a category which is different than those which emerge in times where capitalist production processes just started to bloom.  Today’s small enterprises are in touch with each other either in the same industrial-sites or in the same basement workshops.

It is very common to think of the worker circulation in these enterprises as an obstacle before workers’ class consciousness thus organizing the workers in these “small enterprises”.  However, it would be seen that the worker circulation in these enterprises will increase the connections between the workers, when we think of these small enterprises not as “small enterprises” but as a huge factory of small workshops in industrial sites or varoshes (ghettos).  After all, although workers in these small enterprises change their workshops a lot, they rarely change the region where they work.  Thus workers who shift from one branch of one subcontractor to another -all of which are connected to the same monopoly. 

Is not it the workers in Large Workplaces who historically played the revolutionary role?

The history of class struggle is full of insurrections and rebellions led by workers in large workplaces.  The most well known and referred case is of course the October Revolution.  Without the active contribution of the workers in large metal factories, it would be very difficult for October Revolution, led by the Bolsheviks, to be successful.

Similarly, after the First Imperialist Division War, large factory workers led all of the revolutionary actions of the Continental Europe.  In the same time period, workers in large factories of the USA gave life to one of the most militant and revolutionary movements of the USA: IWW 

Again, on these lands, workers in the large factories became the subjects of the largest worker insurgence.  June 15-16 of 1971, workers in Istanbul-Gebze region, which is the heart of the Turkish industry, revolted.  Majority of workers in this revolt were working in large factories and industries, which began to develop after the import-substitution based primitive accumulation.  

However, the militant worker struggles in the large factories is not yet history.  Today, the militant actions of the Chinese workers, working in the large factories of China, where capital accumulation is experienced the most, should be seen as the scouts of revolutionary actions which will shake Asia in the coming years.

However, taking all of these data into consideration, it will be a mistake to state that historically it is always the workers in the large workplaces who play the revolutionary role.  After all, among the Parisian communards, which gave the first instance of the dictatorship of proletariat, workers in large factories only constituted a minority.  It is also true for the textile workers of Lyon who revolted in 1830. 

Today, who shake the French varoshes are not workers in large workplaces but the most exploited and oppressed segments of the French working class, which are often not even considered as workers.  Again those who went for strike and organized the May 1st 2006 of the United States were not workers of the large workplaces but the Mexican immigrants without a union or insurance, who were not found suit to be organized by American socialists.  

On the lands that we live, the most militant labor movements after 90s burst in the varoshes.  The Gazi riot, which happened simultaneously in both Gazi neighborhood and Ümraniye 1 Mayıs neighborhood in the mid-90s, became the peak of these movements.  The two most militant May 1st demonstrations, those of 1995 and 1996, were fed by the waves from the varoshes.  Although the waves are in rest now, it is not only possible but also highly likely that the new bursts in the working class movements will come from this segment of the working classes.

Similarly, in the last 10 years, it became the Kurdish immigrants who organized the most militant labor actions in the Turkish urban cities.  Every year, in the Newroz festivals taking place in Turkish metropols and celebrated by significant crowds, it is not but Kurdish immigrant workers who constitute the core of these masses. 

This condition is not only valid for Turkey but also for Kurdistan.  The main subjects of the “serhildan”s which burst in certain periods since the early 90s, are of course the Kurdish proletariat.  However it is only a certain minority in these hundreds of thousands masses which work in large workplaces.

Thus it is wrong either to assert that workers in large-workplaces are no longer revolutionary or to argue categorically that who lead all revolutionary actions are workers in the large-factories. 

Where does KöZ choose to organize and Why?

Communists have stated very clearly which segments of the working classes they will work primary in, starting from the first edition of KöZ.  We work in Varoshes, among the least privileged segments of the working classes.

 “Working in varoshes” is already too abstract in itself.  We should concretize this.  We should understand this term as a code, where many different actions overlap.

Varoshes mean the neighborhoods and districts where the majority of the working classes live.  Thus, all problems experienced in the daily lives of the varosh’ households are included in the content of our work.  The health conditions of single households, lack of education, gangsterization, depreciation are majority of these problems.  To support or lead the initiations of the laborers to organize is also a part of our work.  Thus as communists we work in the mass organizations. 

Another set of problems with the daily life, which needs to be examined as a separate subtitle, is at the issue of consumption.  Masses who are the most oppressed by the increasing life expenses live in the varoshes.  Running consumption cooperatives is another dimension of work which aims ay meeting the fundamental needs of workers, which are necessary for the reproduction of their labor-power.

After all, varoshes are not merely the regions where working classes live; more important than that they are the regions where the least privileged segments of the working classes live.   Organizing these segments of the working class as unions is also another kind of activity that should be done at the varoshes.  The Bulletin for ready-made clothes’ workers; association for leather workers, association for shoe-workers are examples of our activities of these kinds. 

Talking about works we among the most oppressed and the most exploited segments of the working classes, we aim at expanding the scope of our work we have described in these three areas fo for.  Furthermore, we do not suffice to spend our energy on these kinds of activities, which we are determined to continue even if we are alone. At the same time, we try to establish the “coordination” among the mass organizations which aim at working among the working classes in the varoshes.

Since the fact that KöZ aims at organizing among the least privileged segments of the working classes is too much manipulated it is very important to clarify why KöZ did not choose this options.

The reason that KöZ organizes among the least privileged workers is not based on the fact that these workers are in absolute or relative deprivation of any kind. 

It is not correct to generalize that the relatively poorer segments of the society will be more revolutionary.  After all it is possible to find historical examples about the fact that workers in better conditions have engaged in more political and revolutionary actions than the least privileged segments of the working class.  Lenin talked about of these cases when he compares the metal workers to textile workers in a conference about the 1905 Revolution at the eve of the 1917 Revolution. What determines the militancy of the workers is not the discipline taken at the production processes in large or small enterprises but class struggle. 

When the bourgeois gentry and their uncritical echoers, the social-reformists, talk priggishly about the “education” of the masses, they usually mean something schoolmasterly, pedantic, something that demoralizes the masses and instils in them bourgeois prejudices.

The real education of the masses can never be separated from their independent political, and especially revolutionary, struggle. Only struggle educates the exploited class. Only struggle discloses to it the magnitude of its own power, widens its horizon, enhances its abilities, clarifies its mind, forges its will. That is why even reactionaries bad to admit that the year 1905, the year of struggle, the “mad year”, definitely buried patriarchal Russia.

Let us examine more closely the relation, in the 1905 strike struggles, between the metalworkers and the textile workers. The metalworkers are the best paid, the most class-conscious and best educated proletarians: the textile workers, who in 1905 were two and a half times more numerous than the metalworkers, are the most backward and the worst paid body of workers in Russia, and in very many cases have not yet definitely severed connections with their peasant kinsmen in the village. This brings us to a very important circumstance.

Throughout the whole of 1905, the metalworkers strikes show a preponderance of political over economic strikes, though this preponderance was far greater toward the end of the year than at the beginning. Among the textile workers, on the other hand, we observe an overwhelming preponderance of economic strikes at the beginning of 1905, and it is   only at the end of the year that we get a preponderance of political strikes. From this it follows quite obviously that the economic struggle, the struggle for immediate and direct improvement of conditions, is alone capable of rousing the most backward strata of the exploited masses, gives them a real education and transforms them—during a revolutionary period—into an army of political fighters within the space of a few months.

We have met with another example of this case in the June 15-16 riots.  The revolters did not consist of the most derived segments of the working class.

Communists do not and will not decide where to work and among whom to work after theoretical research or sociological analysis.

Before anything else, neither Marx nor Engels nor Lenin provided a diagnosis about where and whom to organize independent from time, space and existing conditions; unlike those so-called orthodox Marxists who try to solve this problem through examining Das Capital or theories of surplus-value. 

Among which segments of the working classes to work can be decided through concrete examination of the concrete conditions of the class struggle in the geography where the struggle takes place.  The concrete examination of concrete conditions cannot be made without taking the subjective conditions of those who will lead such activities into consideration.  Nevertheless such examination should consider the political possibilities and needs of the communists.

Thus to answer the question of “Why the Varoshes?” we should remind the aim of the communists who stand for KöZ and describe the objective conditions of them. 

What Reasons Lie Behind This Choice?

The aim of KöZ, which stands for the motto “Unity of the Communists before the Unity of the Workers”, is to establish the Communist Party which will lead the working classes for a revolution.  KöZ realizes that it is not possible to achieve this task by organizing the working class “out of nothing” and ignoring the already existing revolutionary forces in the socialist movements.  

Decomposition of the revolutionary elements within the socialist movement is not possible without struggling against the opportunist trends which are dominant within the leftist groups.  Only those who struggle against opportunist trends from a direct counter front will achieve drawing the demarcation lines between themselves and opportunist movements with a clear, thick line.  Any call for the unity for communists, without differentiating and clearing themselves from opportunism, will definitely be attached to a call for liquidation. 

Although the demarcation lines against opportunism necessarily includes an ideological dimension, it also includes actual political struggle among masses as well.

Indeed, in our world at the eve of a new Imperialist Division War, the problems that reflect opportunism look very similar to the problems at the eve of the first Imperialist War: Social-chauvinism with a mask of anti-imperialism, the pacifist attitude against the unjust wars, legalism and antagonism against the revolutionary organizations.

Trends which aim at struggling against opportunism should raise the demands for “self-determination rights of all nations” for the oppressed nations against social-chauvinism, defeatism against pacifism, legitimacy and inevitable necessity of revolutionary organizations against legalism.

Thus when choosing where to organize and in order to sustain their revolutionary activity, communists for the unity of communists, should choose a platform where they will meet no auto-censorship, they will freely conduct their agitation and propaganda.

Those who struggle for the unity of communists in the direction of a party will not find it sufficient to only being the followers of a path which insists on struggling against the opportunists.  At the same time, they should be calling the revolutionary forces which will take responsibility for the construction of a revolutionary party.  Thus they find it very important that in the regions that they work, there should be strong socialist forces, the real objects of the struggle for a party, that are still revolutionary and energetic.  This is the second criteria the communists consider in their decisions.  

Why are the trade unions in the large scale firms not appropriate for our struggle?

When these two points taken into consideration, and a logical and unbiased assessment of the capabilities and the capacities of communists and the class struggle are carried through, the areas we must give priority to in the upcoming struggle will become clear to all of us.

Large scale firms and factories that are already unionized are not fertile and appropriate areas for our struggle, if we agree to carry on this struggle on the lines we have set forth. In these kinds of workplace environments the opportunists are already in full force, fully organized and fully ready to censure the activities and the politics of the revolutionaries. Firstly, because it is a privilege among the working class to be working in these institutions, these institutions carry out a extensive background check on all the factory workers they are  employing. A worker, that has been already involved in any kind of political struggle with its state will not be able to find a job in this kind of a firm. The same policies also obstruct the opportunity of migrants coming from Kurdistan to come and work for the same company. In fact, any ideological stance by the worker that the state finds threatening in the main political discussions of the day, like the discussions concerning the war, the issue of Kurdistan, and the F-type prisons, discussions where unfortunately the opportunists views are only too obvious, puts the worker at an immediate risk of being thrown out of both his job and his membership in the union.

There is no doubt that the bleak situation we have just described inside the Turkish unions is not a result of unchangeable and a-historical social laws.  It is in fact historically connected to the fact unionization in Turkey started to germinate not as a result of rising class strife, but with the efforts of workers in the public sector that were pseudo-unionists, whose views and policies were determined by government policies. But even more importantly we are living through a situation that is the direct result of the historical situation that arose in the start of the 1980`s when the revolutionary movement was defeated (12 September 1980) and violently repressed. As a result, the revolutionary movement lost its strongholds inside the trade union institutions, which have led to the situation we are discussing today.

Because of these historical and political reasons, all the socialists who do organize in large scale industries and the trade unions of these industries, are socialists who have situated themselves on a ideological line of opportunism. Organizing inside the large scale trade unions, and carrying out initiatives on a line of revolutionary politics is basically mutually exclusive. Only the socialists who agree to carry out negotiations with the bourgeoisie for short term gain(by paying the price of keeping quiet at all the crucial issues of the day) are allowed and willing to take part  in the large scale trade unions. In this respect, movements and groups who want to stay revolutionary and also want to organize inside large factories are faced with a dilemma, they can reach only one of their aims, they can either sacrifice their revolutionary aims for some positions of power inside the trade unions, or they can continue to defend the political position of influencing the trade unions without getting devoured by opportunist trade union politics. If a current example of the movements who have given up their revolutionary fervor for the sake of better relations with the trade union bureaucracy  leaders, which lead greater strength inside the trade unions in the context of Turkey is the TDKP-EMEP line, a good example of the movements that do not sacrifice their revolutionary fervour is Kizil Bayrak, which is still  actively trying to participate in the trade union level(albeit up to now with little success) , but also as a paradoxical consequence of its revolutionary outlook is seeing ever rising support for its cause in the city varoshs.

We will not be surprised if the objective and unbiased account of the political constraints that the revolutionary movement is facing in Turkish trade unions that we have provided will be criticized from a viewpoint that will falsely try identifying with Leninism, reminding us that “even the most backward trade unions are well worth working and organizing in.”

These men, the "leaders" of opportunism, will no doubt resort to every device of bourgeois diplomacy and to the aid of bourgeois governments, the clergy, the police and the courts, to keep Communists out of the trade unions, oust them by every means, make their work in the trade unions as unpleasant as possible, and insult, bait and persecute them. We must be able to stand up to all this, agree to make any sacrifice, and even -- if need be—to resort to various stratagems, artifices and illegal methods, to evasions and subterfuges, as long as we get into the trade unions, remain in them, and carry on communist work within them at all costs. (Lenin, 1920, Left Wing Communism)

Of course these points are in order.  For the victory of the proletarian revolution, one should work even in the most reactionary unions.  Those reject working in the most reactionary worker organizations will not be called communists but chatties.  However it should be reminded that those who use “working in the most reactionary unions” as a pretext not to work in the segments of the working class which are most available for political action, are “opportunists” who are at least as dangerous as the chatties.  After all, these kinds of opportunists also avoid revolutionary political action just like the left wing communists, the revolutionary chatties.  Those opportunists, who make auto-censorship to the Kurdish problem, F-type prisons, imperialist wars in order to strengthen their base at the unions, use Lenin’s abovementioned words as a pretext to avoid revolutionary political action.  

The question to test whether or not those who always repeat that “we should work in unions” are sincere in their revolutionary claims is very obvious: “Do these currents employ a revolutionary political line in the unions which they chose as their center of their works, or not?  Do they make their propaganda and agitation freely or not?”  Those who say “no” to these questions should be called “opportunists” without any doubt.

Why are the varoshes a fertile ground for revolutionary initiatives?

We must accept the fact that in the social conditions of today, the varoshes are giving the communists much better conditions and odds to fulfill the political duties and responsibilities that the communists have laid out for themselves.  

For starters varoshes have always been areas were the sway of the opportunists have been minimal. As Lenin has often enough remarked, the material base and the material survival of opportunist movements is based in the labor aristocracy. As a consequence, the part of the labor class that has the biggest discrepancies with the labor aristocracy will be the least likely place where opportunist politics actually flourish.

Another reason why the varoshes are not ideal breeding grounds for opportunist ideologies is because these are regions known for being the primary targets of state terrorism. The state, while allowing for a certain measure of a freedom of expression in the shape of trade unions, newspapers, and non governmental organizations in the city centre, has been much more brutal and relentless in its attacks against even the smallest public initiative in the varoshes, usually having to transgress its own legal standards, regressing into physical violence. The opportunist politics, which by definition is always more comfortable when it is negotiating with the bourgeoisie and the state on a legal basis and a non-violent condition, find it hard to adapt to the conditions of the varoshes.

Of course these objective conditions do not preclude against actual opportunist involvement in the varoshes. In contrast, KöZ has asserted that since the NATO protests in 2004 we would be meeting with a new wave of liquidation, and in fact this wave will be most visible in the new developments in the varoshes. In the process of integration with the EU, in the so called democratization period a concentrated attack has been waged by the democratic front against the organizations which are following a revolutionary method in their political involvements. On the other hand, in the same EU integration period, EU is distributing funds in the Turkish varoshes to overcome the unrest in these parts of the cities, and are indirectly creating the material conditions where bourgeois socialists could operate more freely and effectively.

Already the opportunist wave is being observed by the KöZ in the last few years. Strengthened by the democratization discourse, a growing number of members of this ideology undertake class studies, try to organize the poor and the employed against unhealthy and unsafe work and life standards. However, still their level of activity and authority is by no means comparable to their activity or authority in the trade unions.

In the face of all these new liquidation waves, one must still assert that still the majority of the people who are for a revolutionary political struggle and practice are located in the varoshes.

As a culmination of all these observations it is not surprising that the movements that want to follow through with a consistently revolutionary political outlook are located more intensively in the varoshes. Although this concentration is diminished and gets somewhat corrupted by outside influences, and the revolutionary organizations located in the same varoshes get mixed into inter-group competition that weakens them, still the true barometer of the revolutionary potential of the masses in the geography we live in is the varoshes. This is partially caused by the fact that varoshes are at the same time the areas were the opportunists are the weakest and the true revolutionaries are the strongest.

Another important reason why the varoshes have such an important place in current Turkish revolutionary struggles is because it is home to the Kurdish migrant workers, who are the most receptive segment of the proletariat when it comes to appeals for a revolutionary politics. The Kurds are not simply more receptive because they have suffered more or have been cheated out of their rights before, but contrary to common belief they are more receptive because they have a long-standing experience of struggle. In the family of the above mentioned Kurdish migrant there is sure to be at least one family member who has fought for the Kurdish independence wars, has fought in the mountains as a guerrilla, has been sentenced to jail time, and has seen physical intimidation and torture. As a result of this historical record, the new proletariat layer of the Western metropoles, is more open to revolutionary theory and practice, is more knowledgeable about the state and its crimes, and is more experienced on the front of organized struggle.

And in addition to all of this varoshes are an important gateway to not only organize the unprivileged part of the laboring classes but also to organize the priviliged part. We must remember that varoshes as living spaces are areas were the distance between the privileged and unprivileged layers of the proletariat become minimal, and the interaction between these two layers are maximized. If we keep this in mind, we should expect an effort to organize in the varoshes the unprivileged part of the working class to be much more successful than the movements which work strictly within the trade unions, where one has to negotiate with the trade union bureaucrats to be allowed to organize the unionized workers.

                                                     In conclusion

Because of all these underlying reasons we have undertaken the initiative to organize and work in the varoshes. In order to repeat, this decision was not taken by looking at raw figures describing the economic status of the varosh workers we were dealing with, nor was it influenced by generalizations that were born out of overly theoretical analysis.

We decide on where we will work by remembering what are political objectives are. We select the most suitable areas where in the context of the conditions of today our goals of creating the communist party, of facing and arguing with the opportunists, elucidating and clarifying our political views without any outside restraints, and  freely calling out to other revolutionary movements is most readily achievable. In the light of all these facts and principles we will in the future as we have done in the past continue relentlessly to implement a strategy of practicing revolutionary politics in the varoshes of the city.