This article was published on The Masses before it was a part of the People’s Defense Committee. The editorial board of The Masses will occasionally republish articles from that period based on their practical, theoretical and historical significance.
By Yeni Demokrasi Gazetesi (New Democracy Gazette)
Old Editor’s Note: This is first of two articles we have opted to repost in English which were originally published on the website of Yeni Demokrasi. Because no English language version of this article is searchable online, we have opted to publish this translation to bring the attention of the masses and organizers everywhere, since we believe it to be particularly relevant to our understanding of the revolutionary situation currently. This article was originally published on 15 October 2021 and sets the basis for the follow-up, “The Dialectical Development of Mass Organizations in Revolutions“.
The different stages of the revolutionary struggle necessitate different tactics in terms of forms of struggle and organization. The proletariat’s advances and setbacks in the fight for power, the fluctuations in mass movements, developments and regressions in organizational strength, intensifications and relaxations of repression mechanisms, and other factors all require these varied tactics. Form is determined by content, and this is true for all forms of organization and struggle. Therefore, when discussing organizational forms, it is important to also address the concrete realities of class struggle, the content and needs of the struggle at the time. If these issues and needs are only considered in their formal aspects, various errors on the mass line are inevitable, which can harm the revolution.
Like many other issues, the principles and understandings of mass organizations—specifically democratic mass organizations—must be continually discussed and applied to concrete problems in each period. This also includes grasping and properly positioning our theory and concepts. For example, in the “ideology-politics-organization” triad, it is known that the primary and essential element is ideology, politics must be directed by that ideology, and the organization is an instrument for these political goals. Each of these represents certain social interests, which find their real meaning in class interests. Thus, at the core of every issue is class struggle; the proletariat’s class interests. This holds true for organizational forms as well.
The proletariat has various organizational forms in the revolutionary struggle, with its vanguard organization being the Communist Party (CP). Other forms are trade unions, determined by the difference between the proletariat’s “political struggle for power” and its “economic-democratic struggle.” The CP is an instrument directly focused on political power, while mass organizations serve the revolution and power struggle indirectly. Thus, organization and struggle methods differ. The party is a tool for political struggle, while trade unions are tools for economic struggle. Lenin’s discussion of “consciousness in itself” and “consciousness for itself” in his work What Is to Be Done? defines the theory that shapes the proletariat’s approach to organizational forms.
When discussing mass organizations, we must start with the proletariat and its class struggle, as the issue at hand is one of proletarian revolution. The fundamental truths of the proletariat’s revolutionary struggle guide other tools and methods of struggle. Therefore, to correctly understand mass organizations, we must first understand the CP— proletariat’s “vanguard organization”—and, relatedly, “trade unions” or mass organizations. Trade unions are the primary mass organizations of the working class and part of the network surrounding the CP. Mass organizations are not just unions but share a common essence with them, particularly in their economic-democratic struggles. This points to the fact that mass organizations emerge from class and social contradictions and needs.
The necessity of mass organizations rising from the contradictions and needs of the masses is often misunderstood, leading to errors like “narrow cadre associations” or “legal party offices” under the guise of democratic mass organizations. Despite their claims, such practices result in the CP losing connection with both its members and the masses it seeks to organize. As a result, mass organizations created with the goal of being democratic often dissolve or are shut down by the enemy. The central issue here is a failure to recognize that mass organizations must be trade unions—economic-democratic struggle organizations.
In addressing mass organizations, both right-wing and left- wing errors can develop. Both of these errors, rooted in spontaneity, hinder the involvement of the masses in the revolutionary struggle and the CP’s influence. One such error is the right-reformist line. Even though mass organizations have an economic essence, the struggle in democratic mass organizations is not limited to economic demands. Drawing a “Great Wall” between economic and political struggles, limiting the demands of democratic mass organizations to economic ones, is a sign of right-reformist thinking. This denies the task of politically educating the masses and bringing them closer to revolution. Economic struggles must be transformed into political struggles, with the ultimate aim of linking them to revolutionary struggle and establishing the communist party’s leadership over the masses. Promoting mass organizations as “neutral” or “above factions/institutions” reflects this right-wing approach, which effectively means allowing reformists, opportunists, or system actors to dominate the masses. The unity of the people cannot be achieved by establishing peaceful unity between communists and opportunist groups who call themselves “communist” or “revolutionary.” On the contrary, to achieve unity under communist leadership, the influence of these opportunists within the people must be destroyed.
The other error is the “left” line, which tends to use democratic mass organizations directly for party propaganda, based on a metaphysical understanding of bringing these organizations closer to the party. However, there is a clear distinction between the content, methods of struggle, and propaganda of the party and mass organizations. Lenin says, “The organizational character of any organization is naturally and inevitably determined by the content of its activity.” The party must work within mass organizations, striving to dominate the area with the party’s politics through cells and direct the broad masses. However, this must be done while respecting the mass organization’s program. Any view that eliminates the distinction between party and mass organization is harmful, as it detaches the party from the masses. The “left” line, by reducing the party to the level of a mass organization, ultimately fosters right- wing practices.
The principles and understanding of the Proletarian Party regarding mass organizations are clear and were summarized at the 1st Conference as follows:
- Mass organizations are fundamentally organizations built on a professional basis. They should be organized based on occupations with different concrete conditions.
- Mass organizations should pursue a policy aimed at uniting the broadest sections of the masses they seek to unite.
- Mass organizations should struggle within “legal” limits, with one aspect of their struggle being to expand these “legal” boundaries.
- Mass organizations are tools that serve the revolution and power struggle indirectly. They cannot directly take on the party’s tasks and fight for power.
- Mass organizations should neither follow a right- reformist line by limiting themselves to purely economic or democratic demands, nor should they disregard these demands and adopt a so-called “left” line.
- Mass associations should not be the legal propaganda offices of the party.
- Mass associations must oppose imperialism, social imperialism, fascism, feudalism, and their states and systems. They must take a pro-revolutionary stance and fight for people’s democracy.
- Mass associations must adopt and implement democratic centralism within themselves.
As can be understood from what we have conveyed, mass organizations must primarily be defined by their trade union, professional, and economic-democratic essence, must be based on the needs of the masses, and should develop as an organizational form in which the masses are the subjects. These emphases form the foundation upon which mass organizations are built. They also emerge as essential requirements that cannot be overlooked if democratic mass organizations (DMOs) are to play a role in the revolutionary struggle and embrace the masses. If there are uncertainties and inadequacies at this point, the issue must be discussed in another form, focusing on the concrete reality and its needs. As Comrade Mao said, the way forward involves conducting social research. We could also call this field and process analysis. Wherever we discuss mass organizations (whether leading the formation of new ones or working within existing ones), our discussion should, first and foremost, be based on a class-based, political analysis. We must start with contradictions, differentiate these contradictions according to their primary and secondary characteristics, and clearly define the contradiction (or contradictions) that creates the need for a mass organization and upon which it will be built. This is because forms of struggle and organization are not arbitrary or invented tools. These forms are tools that emerge from the historical struggles of the masses and, like all other forms of struggle and organization, are developed and systematized by the communist vanguard.
Undoubtedly, the Communist Party (CP) can lead the formation of legal or semi-legal mass organizations due to various necessities. For example, in a fascist country with a semi-colonial, semi-feudal socioeconomic structure like ours, mass movements and the DMOs (Democratic Mass Organizations) emerging from these movements may be at a more backward stage. Additionally, at different stages of the struggle, these organizations might be closed down, be restructured in a way that serves the bourgeoisie, or be transformed into the backyard of opportunist movements. Furthermore, the various phases of the revolution can give rise to different needs within mass organizations. In this regard, communists should not be conservative in their approach to forms of struggle and organization. However, regardless of the name, form, or the leadership of their founders, these organizations must be based on the correct principles that we have outlined above. Otherwise, they will remain nothing more than a wish, unable to bring the masses closer to the Communist Party, and may even contribute to the development of incorrect “left” or right-wing lines.
As for large cities, the mass organizations we work with or lead the formation of should primarily be trade union organizations of the working class. If our work does not include the trade union struggle and organizations of the class, this must be addressed first; the other contradictions and needs related to mass organizations should be defined around this core issue. The mass work within the working class, in any form—whether through legal trade unions, semi- legal trade union alliances, or associations—should be the foundation of our work in large cities. Similarly, in our work on different contradictions and needs, class contradictions must always be the basis, and those struggles must be developed in a way that ties them to class struggle.
For example, in the working-class neighborhoods of large cities, many class-based and social contradictions are likely to be found together. Issues such as housing, drug abuse and gang activity, high costs and financial hardship, infrastructure and environmental problems, youth, the elderly and children, education, as well as manifestations of national, religious, or sexual oppression, can all be particularly prominent in these neighborhoods. When looking at working-class areas, we see mass organizations beyond trade unions, or organizational forms that could be considered as such, largely consisting of environmental and local associations, Alevi associations and community centers (cemevis), housing-related associations, women’s organizations, youth groups or branches, Kurdish organizations, etc. Although there are many other associations and clubs, the ones that most concern us in terms of social contradictions are these. Given that we do not reject these contradictions and struggles, and view them as parts of our revolutionary struggle, we must have a perspective, a struggle program, and the appropriate tools for these issues. What we want to emphasize is the essence and content of these programs and tools. We must apply our principles for mass organizations to all these contradictions, fields of struggle, and tools, and link them to class struggle and the CP’s leadership. One way to do this is to organize according to the specificity of each field and contradiction, and the other way is to subject these fields and contradictions to class-based work. By doing so, all our work in mass organizations, even if it goes through different channels, will ultimately be correctly positioned under the leadership of the CP in class struggle.
The issue of mass organizations is vast, but we must finally emphasize that, in order to better understand the issue, the discussion should be directed not at the forms of organization, but at the nature of the contradictions and forms of struggle that determine those forms. What determines any kind of organization is the political needs and the mass work carried out according to these needs. Trying to define an organization or organizational form and then giving it a political or economic-democratic content would be to reverse the relationship between politics and organization. Therefore, in situations where the specific, concrete need defined by certain contradictions or the mass (or mass relations) that would answer that need are not sufficiently clear, we must be more questioning and cautious about leading the formation of mass organizations. In such cases, mass work and mass relations may be directed to already existing mass organizations, or they may become part of the mass work and organizations led by the CP in areas such as labor, youth, women, or the environment. In this way, mass work will be developed, mass relations will gain experience within these activities, and the foundation for future plans regarding the masses will also be laid.
