We are publishing below a series of four articles translated from the Turkish by the comrades of Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol, all dealing with the recent strike at Türk Telekom. Readers will remember that we have already published an article on this subject (the second in this series), entitled "Victory at Türk Telekom" which covered the end of the 44-day strike by 26,000 workers, which ended with a 10% wage increase. We are now able to publish the complete series of the articles published on the subject by EKS: the first was written at the beginning of the strike and analysed briefly the forces in the conflict, while the second covered the end of the strike which it considered as a victory for the workers.
The two articles that followed were published as part of a debate within EKS as to the real nature of the end of the strike: comrade Temel argues that whatever the appearances the strike was in reality a defeat, while comrade Devrim's reply returns to the original analysis of the strike and to comrade Temel's criticisms to conclude that whatever its weaknesses, the strike was on the contrary a victory in both economic and in political terms.
We think that the debate expressed in these articles is an important one for the working class as a whole. Not only do they raise general questions about what constitutes a victory for the workers and what does not, but they do so in a general context which should draw the attention of workers and communists all around the world. For most workers in the world's big industrial centres, imperialist war is an ever-present backdrop to our lives - a permanent reminder of the enormous lie of the "peace and prosperity" that we were promised after the collapse of the Eastern bloc - but it is not an immediate issue in our daily lives. For Turkish workers however, the question of war and the attitude to adopt towards war is an immediate, burning issue: the Turkish ruling class has been conducting a more or less permanent war against its own Kurdish population since the 1980s and the military operation authorised at the end of 2007 is by no means the first time that the Turkish army has conducted incursions into Northern Iraq (Kurdistan). Moreover, unlike the US or British armies fighting in Iraq the Turkish army is made up in large part of conscripts and the horror and brutality of war is a daily trauma for the workers whose sons, brothers, fathers and husbands are fighting and dying in this bloody but little reported conflict (see the report from EKS on the invasion of Iraq [1], published on our website). The attitude of the Turkish workers in struggle is thus of the greatest importance for workers and communists internationally, and we want here to comment on some of the arguments put forward in the different articles, with a view to contributing to the debate.
Temel begins by asking "...if the necessary environment for a strike to occur in Telekom was ready", and it is certainly true that revolutionaries need to have some assessment of the balance of class forces (are the workers in a more or less favorable position against the bosses for example?) when agitating in the struggle. However, the criteria for judging the strength of the strike are certainly open to question:
These questions are common to most strikes in industrialised countries today. But the most important issue in our view is the reaction of the Telekom workers to the war. Here it is necessary first of all to avoid a false debate: the Telekom workers did not strike directly against the war, nor in our view would this have been possible without a far greater degree of militancy and class consciousness than exists in the present period. We need only consider what it means for masses of workers to strike consciously against the bourgeois state's military operations: in effect, it means that the working class is calling into question the power and the right to rule of the bourgeoisie, and this can only happen in a revolutionary or pre-revolutionary situation precisely because it poses the issue of power. In the situation in Turkey today the real question is whether workers are ready to renounce the struggle in defence of their own interests in the interests of the bourgeois war machine. We agree entirely with the reply to Temel when it says that "If there had been a spontaneous return to work in order to maintain the Telecom system in times of war, it would have been an absolute disaster. This didn't happen. In fact workers stayed on strike despite being told the media, and various members of the political class that they were acting against the national interest. This is to be applauded". That workers' should continue to defend their interests despite the war frenzy of the bourgeois media is not enough to prevent war in itself - the Turkish army invaded Kurdistan despite it - but it puts a brake on the generalised outbreak of imperialist war. It is the indispensable foundation for the development of a deeper consciousness within the class of the antagonism between the interests of the bourgeois nation and their own.
Finally, we want to express our wholehearted appreciation of and agreement with the spirit in which this debate has been and is being conducted by the comrades of EKS: "discussions of the real issues that face workers in a struggle can only add to the development of the communist organisations", and we would add, more broadly, to the development of the consciousness and self-awareness of the proletariat as a whole.
ICC
The current strike of 26.000 telecommunication workers at Türk Telecom demonstrates clearly what the real political issues are in Turkey for the working class today. While the Government tries to raise interest in the referendum, and its continual wars in the South East, the working class has posed the question very clearly. For us the real issue in Turkey today is workers' salaries.
The representatives of the bourgeoisie are very clear on this point. If anybody has missed it, Paul Doany, CEO of Türk Telekom spells it out ‘No employee can expect an increase above inflation'. What they mean by this is that they would like every employee to receive an increase below inflation, and this means that every employee receives a pay cut.
The real issue today is whether workers organised together can try to stop the continual attacks on living conditions that have taken place over the last ten years. For the communists, and for all workers this is the most important issue today.
Of course everyone expects that the capitalist papers will attack the workers. There will continue to be stories in the press like the one about the sad death of Aysel Tosun[1]. One of the things that we do find strange though is how political commentators can get so upset about one death when enthusiastically supporting the preparations for war in the South East.
What many will not be expecting is the language coming from ‘their' union leaders. Ali Akçan, President of Haber-İs[2] was quick to join the owners in condemnation of workers' acts of sabotage "This is slander. Our union has nothing to do with any of these incidents. Let them find those responsible, and we will punish them together". The strike is but a few days old, and already the unions are offering to act alongside the police in attacking militant workers. For us the issue is clear, we support the struggles of the working class to defend its living conditions, and if that means cutting a few telephone cables that means cutting a few telephone cables. Those who run to join the management in condemning workers are showing whose side they are on.
The question is whether we should find ourselves surprised by the position of ‘our' leaders. After all of the militant talk last year, the only action for coming from KESK[3] was one day of ‘not working'. The unions see their role as one of promoting social peace, and submission to the bosses. At the end of the THY[4] strike Salih Kılıç said that "I am honored to put my signature under this contract". Oğuz Satıcı, chairman of Turkish Exporters Assembly expressed the position of the capitalists perfectly "Wisdom and conscious won, Turkey got the best". We say that after a decade of defeat it is time for workers in this country to stop putting Turkey first, and to start to put their own living conditions first. When the bosses say that "Turkey got the best", they mean that the Turkish bourgeoisie got the best. And that means that the workers got screwed. Anyone who is ‘honoured' to sign the documents confirming this is a class enemy.
If workers can't trust their ‘own' trade unions who can they trust? The answer is similar to that old nationalist proverb. The only friend of the worker is another worker. Workers at Telecom must form committees to control their own strike, and not leave it in the hands of the unions, who will be ‘honoured' to sell them to the bosses. Many workers across Turkey want to struggle. The willingness of THY, and Public employees to fight was shown earlier this year. Today Telekom workers stand proudly at the head of the Turkish working class. It is up not only to them but also to all workers to make sure that they don't stand alone. We say to support Telekom strikers, all workers must fight against wage cuts in real terms at their own workplaces.
Devrim
[1] A woman who allegedly died because of the strike
[2] The Main Telecommunication Workers Union
[3] The Leftist Public Workers Union
[4] Turksih Airlines
The following article from the comrades of Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol [6], which gives an account of an important strike at Türk Telecom was originally published on our site in December 2007; we are publishing it now in the context of the debate within EKS over the strike's significance. Over and above the importance of the strike itself and the lessons to be learned from it, the EKS comrades very rightly emphasise the strike's importance within the context of the current atmosphere of rampant war-mongering nationalism, and the clear class line separating the patriotism of the Haber-İş union president and the workers' determination to defend their own living conditions. National defence and the workers' interests are not compatible!
The massive strike by over 26,000 Türk Telekom workers is over. After 44 days the strikers went back to work. At 1,100,000 working days lost it makes it the biggest strike in Turkish history after the 1991 miners strike. It is time to draw up a balance sheet of the events.
The first and most important lesson to be learned from this is that workers can protect their living conditions by struggling. Türk Telekom's original offer of 4% was well below the forecasted end of year inflation figure of 7.7%. In effect Türk Telekom was offering a pay cut to its workers.
The settlement of 10% for this year, and 6.5% plus inflation next year is certainly a massive victory. Following shortly after THY workers winning a 10% increase by only threatening to strike, it gives a clear message to all workers in Turkey today. The only way to protect salaries against inflation is by unity, and collective action.
It shows a clear way forward for all other workers and especially public employees who have been offered an insulting 2%+2% by the government. All pay rises that are less than inflation are pay cuts. In many ways the public sector is the most important sector in Turkey. Many working class families have at least one member who works for the state. A victory in that sector would be a victory for every worker in the country.
The second lesson concerns those who have been accused of committing acts of sabotage. It is positive that all employees who were dismissed in the strike have been reinstated. However, those workers who are facing charges of sabotage can only return to their jobs if they are found innocent of the charges. Unlike the management, the bosses media, and the unions we refuse to condemn workers fighting to defend their living conditions. It is important that these workers are not forgotten. How to react if workers are convicted of sabotage, and dismissed is a key question that all Telekom workers need to discuss.
The next lesson concerns the allegations of treachery. Haber-İş President, Ali Akcan was quick to claim that striking workers were not ‘traitors', and claimed that if the country needed it in case of war, the strikers would ‘do their duty'. To us it is very obvious that the working class in this country have put the interests of the nation before their own interests for far too long. The working class has paid for the states war in the South East not only through years of inflation, and austerity, but also through its children's blood. It is time to put our interests as workers first.
The final lesson concerns the entire working class. The Telekom workers struggled alone. Even while there were picket lines at workplaces the clerks in the PTT were still working. Yet the issue that the Telekom workers were struggling for, the defence of salaries from inflation concerns the entire working class. The unions lock workers into their different sectors. If Telekom workers alone won 10% what could they have won if they had linked up with PTT workers? What could they have won if they had linked up with public sector workers? What is needed is for workers to avoid being isolated in their own sectors, and to make links with other sectors. If strikers had gone directly to PTT workers, and appealed to them to join the strike, the victory could have been both greater, and quicker.
Inflation is not going to go away, the central bank has again revised its inflation forecasts. Not only will public sector workers have to struggle to defend their salaries against pay cuts, but Telekom workers will have to struggle again in the near or medium future to defend the victory won in this strike. And struggling together is the best way to do this.
EKS
When the Turkish bosses woke up on 28th of November, they realized that things weren't going as they were used to. The lines of Istanbul Stock exchange were cut off due to an accident on a building site, and as there was a strike at that point at Turkish Telekom they weren't able to send a technical observer to the building firm and thus the stock exchanges first session couldn't open. This caused Ali Bahçucav, the chairman of the foundation of stock investors, a representative of fictious capital, to raise a very hard yet a very meaningful voice. According to Bahçuvan, either the Telekom administration had to "solve the problem, or Telekom had to be nationalized again". If the Oger Group[1] wasn't even capable of dealing with problems as such today, what were they going to do when there were "serious problems" in the area of "defense" tomorrow? Thus, the other factions of the bourgeoisie started pushing Telekom capital because of the key importance of Telekom. As a result, the "unsolvable" disagreements and the "impossible" trade-union demands were settled in a meeting where "there were no winners or losers" (as the trade-union leader said) of course with the "mediation" and rupture of the Minister of Communication. After the long negotiations, Telekom managers had presented their complaints to the minister who in turn gave the trade-union bureaucrats a slap on the head. And then what? Hurriyet[2] reports in 30 November that:
"After the agreement reached at the negotiations, Communications Minister Binali Yildirim, Turk-Is (Turkish-Work) Chairman Salih Kilic, Turkish News-Work Union Chairan Ali Akcan and chairman of the Turkish Telekom Managerial and Adminstrative Committee Paul Donay ate dinner at Beykoz Trautters and Tripes Saloon."
We always need to remember that whenever the press, trade-unions, or bureaucrats of capital are in trouble, they try to reduce the matters to numbers and percentages by bringing out complicated statistics which they hope the workers won't understand. The problem started like this in the process of the Telekom strike. During the seventh round of the negotiations, the trade union and the Oger group had agreed on around twenty issues and had not agreed on about ninety issues. According to the union, the flexibility of work, subcontracts, the differences between the wages of unionized and non-unionized workers were the main problems. The trade-union portrayed those problems to the working class as an "attack" of international, foreign capital. However when examined it is easy to see that the problem is much more simple. Turk-Is[3] had always been shaped as a union by the divisions within the ruling class, that is the block in power and the mainstream bourgeois opposition. If the change in power in Turk-Is is observed, the fact that the majority of the confederation went to a pro-AKP direction while the minority has moved close to the nationalist opposition would verify this. Just before this change in power in at the general conference of the trade-union confederation, the "opposition" made up of Haber-Is[4], Petrol-Is and some other trade unions started blaming the pro-AKP trade-union for ‘submission'. Of course the bargaining behind the curtain could be interpreted as the negotiation of to what extent the nationalist trade-union bureaucrats will be liquified.
Thus it is not surprising that the pro-AKP wing took the administration right before the Telekom strike. In reality all the trade-unions in opposition (Haber-Is, Petrol-Is, Gida-Is[5]) are either organized in privatized workplaces, or workplaces that are in the process of privatization. In places where both cases are absent, those trade unions are trying to organize in sectors that have been developing recently, such as Novamed. In the first case, the trade-unions are facing the danger of losing the representative position they have with the state. As seen at Telekom, the bosses in privatized workplaces are giving the workers who quit the trade-unions certain privileges and thus are liquidizing traditional state unionism. In the second case, we can see the efforts of trade-unions connected to Turk-Is to organize, and this partially conflicts with the government policy of cheap labor in free trade zones.
Thus when certain trade-unions within Turk-Is are confronted with the possibility of being liquidized by the state, they respond by bothering and threatening the state with strikes. It could be helpful to examine the history of Turk-Is in order to understand this tendency within it.
As soon as it was founded as a trade-union confederation, Turk-Is became a product of the political struggle between the DP (Democratic Party)[6] and the CHP (Republican People's Party) and their conquest to establish their rule over the working class. In this sense, the bourgeois faction that had the majority in parliament always ended up in power within Turk-Is. In this sense Turk-Is assumed the role of the most solid Trojan horse of the dominant bourgeois ideology within the working class. What is more is that Turk-Is was created specifically for this purpose and this purpose only! Inspired to the AFL-CIO in America, Turk-Is was directly formed, funded and shaped by American imperialism. Even the "anti-imperialist" nationalists who are in the nationalist wing of Turk-Is today had said this in the past, although now obviously the situation is different (!)
All those facts show that Turk-Is was formed in order to manipulate the workers movement arising in 1950's in Turkey after the long counter revolution starting at the end of 1920's. The bi-polar imperialist struggle under the name of Cold War after the end of the Second World War required satellite countries to be shaped in a statist manner. While this was done in the name of "socialism" in Russia and it's satellites, in states directed by the US it was done under the name of "democracy". This transformation after the 1950's that pushed the Turkish state into wearing a "democratic and western" mask against the USSR was reflected in the trade-unions and in the mid fifties the heating tensions made an organ such as Turk-Is necessary for the interests of the state and of the bourgeoisie. In order to replace the previous ideological understanding which was almost a fascist corporatist ideological understanding which stated that the state represented all classes, and even that classes didn't exist in Turkey with a Western model which included the "the freedom of expression and organization", laws regarding trade unions and strikes were started to be regulated. However ironically in this period while the trade-union rights rapidly expanded, the right to strike was tightened and the structure of ‘referee' rules was changed in order to increase the legitimacy of the state in the eyes of the workers.
All those changes gave birth to Turk-Is and the trade-unions that are a part of it, the trade-union confederation was born as the main weapon of the new "democratic" and anti-communist Turkey within the American imperialist block. Afterwards, Turk-Is became a loyal guard dog against the Stalinist left and trade-unions close to it in the imperialist struggle and has been the main weapon of absorbing workers struggles. Although certainly not the only examples, the 1980 coup d'etat is an important example in its striking nature. During the coup, Turk-Is supported the junta effectively, and the chairman of the union was even rewarded with being made the Minister of Work in the temporary government formed by the army! This situation changed with the "normalization" at the end of the eighties with the reappearance of the of disagreements within the different factions of the bourgeoisie. Afterwards Turk-Is started losing it's privileged position rapidly. Just like the ungrateful masters who take the guard dog home when they are scared but then kick it out of the house when they are not scared anymore, the Turkish state left Turk-Is way behind in it's calculations. Because after all, the working class had been suppressed bloodily, and with the worldwide weakening of the so called "socialist" Stalinist political tendencies and of Russian imperialism and the fact that bloody practices was added to this made the marginalization complete.
Thus Turk-Is both had to find a way to keep the working class silent in line with the interests of the state, and also try to get back its place and reestablish it's significance within the state and legitimacy among the bourgeoisie. In this direction it started to conduct a "democratic" opposition which tried to show its strength to the state by threatening to take certain actions and tried to put the workers off in the meanwhile. The tactics of Turk-Is in the Telekom strike can be traced back to this. Of course those tactics became ineffective with the workers offensive at the end of the eighties and Turk-Is fell massively in the eyes of the bourgeoisie, but this matter exceeds the limits of this articles subject. The basic point which we want to emphasize is that in cases where it is pushed away from significance, Turk-Is occasionally threatening a certain faction of the bourgeoisie with fake shows that end up in a way that it is at the expanse of workers exhaustion is a very old tactic.
Of course, we can't reach a healthy conclusion if we only judge a strike from the perspective of the bourgeoisie and its tools within the working class. Nevertheless, the Telekom strike was important not just for Telekom workers but for the entire class. This strike both strengthened the illusions of trade unions supporting workers and also imprisoned workers class needs in one sector and prevented them from spreading their struggle to the rest of the class. In reality, the question that needs to be asked is the following: when does a strike win? One has to ask if the necessary environment for a strike to occur in Telekom was ready. It is clear that even in Telekom, workers were put against each other by the union and the bosses. When the unionized workers accused workers who were outside of the union or had left the union before of selfishness, they were clearly under the impact of the trade-unions and an environment of discussion wasn't present before the strike to enable those two different "sides" to act in solidarity with each other. As a result, the trade union pointed out the workers who left it for a sound reason such as getting more wages as a target to their own class brothers and sisters.
What is more, the trade union increased the dose of chauvinism and nationalist demagogy against every attack of the bourgeois media and thus succeeded in fooling the workers again. By portraying the sale of Telekom to a foreign group as an act of "treason to the fatherland", the trade-union put nationalization in front of the interests of workers. Hence accepting at the negotiations the same 10% which was offered by the bosses before the strike was justified in the name of the fatherland. When the boss of the Haber-Is trade union shamelessly declared that "the strike was economically a defeat but politically a victory" when he was speaking in the Middle Eastern Technical University, it was this situation he had in reality admitted, and he ran away quickly following the critical questions of a few students.
And this is the situation for the workers. A strike that lasted more than a month... and which brought no improvement in living standards and only served to deepen the division within the class. When the AKP government announced a 10% wage rise at the end of the year, the situation went to it's peak and this time the trade-unions in opposition hypocritically accuse the confederation chairmanship of "being sell-outs"...
Just like the fact that communist revolutionaries need to take lessons from the victories of the working class, they need to take lessons from the defeats and have to defend them in other areas of class struggle. In order to do this, it is necessary for communists to be clear on every mistake they make and to use criticism as a weapon in every situation. Discussion is one of the most important tools for communists, just like it is for the working class in general. We need to accept that the Telekom strike did not end up in a victory in any way. The basic internal reasons for this are the following;
All this doesn't mean that we won't support strikes like this to the end. It just shows that we need to internalize that the first task of communists in strikes manipulated by trade-unions for their political goals, is to propagate an active solidarity among other workers with workers who are in the struggle in order to break trade-unionist bonds for them to obtain their interests. Only in this way can the workers start to see how empty the illusions regarding the trade unions are and where real victory lies in. For us communists, this lesson is one we need to protect and determinedly defend. In this sense, there is no doubt that the discussion created by the Telekom strike among the EKS will have a positive result.
Temel[1] Owners of the Turk Telekom company.
[2] "Liberty", a mainstream bourgeois newspaper
[3] Turk-Is, literally Turkish-Work, is the main trade union confederation in Turkey.
[4] Haber-Is, literally News-Work union is the telecommunication workers union in Turk-Is confederation and the union which was involved with the strike.
[5] Petrol-Is and Gida-Is, literally Petrol-Work and Nourishment-Work are petroleum and nourishment workers unions in Turk-Is.
[6] The old "Democratic Party" was in power in the fiftees after they beat the Republican People's Party in the elections. They were booted out of power with a coup, which resulted in the main leader of the party and prime minister Adnan Menderes being executed. The party was banned afterwards. All mainstream center-right and parliamentary Islamic right-wing parties have historical links with this party.
This article is a contribution to the debate within the EKS on the Telekom strike. It replies to the article, "Telekom: Bir Grevin Otopsisi", published in last month's Gece Notları, which in turn was a reply to a previous article "Türk Telekom'da Zafer [6] ".
In last month's ‘Gece Notları', Temel wrote that the strike at Türk Telekom ‘did not end up in a victory in any way'. This in itself was a response to the front page headline of February's which proclaimed ‘Victory at Turk Telekom' . Gece Notları said at the time that the strike was a victory, and maintains that position today. However, we are open to discussion on this issue, and would welcome contributions from readers on the subject.
Temel characterises the strike as a failure first, but not primarily on an economic basis. He claims that 10% was offered by the bosses before the strike, and was accepted at the end of it. This, however, is not exactly the case. The management's offer before the strike was 4%. The final settlement was 10% for this year, and 6.5% plus inflation next year. These are very different figures.
What Temel is referring to is reports in the press that indicated that Türk Telekom was willing to settle at 10%. This could be true, but it doesn't obscure the fact that what was on offer was 4%. Businesses like Türk Telekom make economic plans. They budget for what they think is possible. That does not mean that they would not have liked the settlement to be lower than it was. Of course the bosses always want the workers to get as small wage rises as possible. If they could have got away with four they would have been very happy. They couldn't, and in our opinion the strike is the reason that they couldn't.
Of course nobody knows exactly what went on in the negotiations between Paul Doney, and Salih Kiliç, but from what was published our perspective bears out.
Temel then goes on to talk about three ‘basic internal' reasons why he feels the strike was a failure. The first is that the ‘strike deepened the divisions within the working class', and created mistrust between unionised and non-unionised workers. As Temel says these are divisions created by the ruling class. However absurd it may seem, it is not uncommon in this country to have workers in a company working where others are striking. The most important way for workers to develop a struggle is to generalise it to include other workers. We can be reasonably sure that the unions have little or no interest in doing that, and the Telekom strike bears that out.
However, breaking down those barriers between different groups of workers is not in any way easy. The way that it can be done is by directly appealing to other workers for solidarity action. Of course there are many who will tell us that we have to make the union leaders act. We have seen recently what their ‘action' means, a sort of token two hour strike where very few even took strike action. If workers are to take these kind of actions. They need to take the initiative for themselves.
This is much easier said than done. Workers are tied to the unions not only organisationally, but also ideologically. The communist left always advocates open mass meetings for workers of all unions and none where workers can discuss how to control their own struggles. This in itself though counts for very little though if the meeting decides to do exactly what the union bosses say.
Capitalism creates divisions between workers for its own purposes. The unions play a role in maintaining this. In this strike workers failed to break out of sectionalism and spread their strike to other workers. But, did we really expect anything different? Of course we didn't.
Most strikes are isolated in their own sectors. That doesn't mean that it is the strike that deepens the divisions between striking, and non-striking workers. It means that the working class is not strong enough to overcome those divisions.
The second point in his list is that the Telekom strike forced workers to national interests in front of their own class interests. I think that this is a strange reading of the situation. In the mass hysteria about Martyrs, and Iraq that was the background to the strike, the Telekom workers didn't stand out in any way. Personally, I remember school children as being amongst the most vocal in the defence of national interests. The Telekom workers were no more, nor no less nationalistic than the vast majority of the working class in this country. Yes, nationalistic comments were made by Telekom workers, but they were made by the majority of workers at the time.
If there had been a spontaneous return to work in order to maintain the Telecom system in times of war, it would have been an absolute disaster. This didn't happen. In fact workers stayed on strike despite being told the media, and various members of the political class that they were acting against the national interest. This is to be applauded.
Yes, workers proclaimed their patriotism. Yes, workers have been agitated against foreign capital. Is this any different from other sectors of workers in Turkey? Are there sectors of workers who are rejecting both Turkish, and foreign bosses and proclaiming internationalism? Unfortunately not.
The strike did not dissolve in a wave of national feeling. That would have been a huge defeat. What happened wasn't.
Temel's third point is that the strike wasn't sufficiently well prepared. Of course it wasn't, but then this is usually the case in strikes. In addition in this point he argued that it has dissipated the willingness to struggle within the working class, and strengthened trade unionist illusions. This is something that is difficult to prove.
As for the preparation though, the working class is not politically strong enough to prepare for strikes effectively. Most militant sectors of the working class are dominated by ‘trade unionist illusions'. In our opinion, the only thing that will break the mass of workers from the unions is by coming into conflict with them during struggles. Isolated militants, or even isolated small groups of militants may be won over in advance, but in the present situation at the start of every struggle the majority of the most workers will have illusions in the unions. How then are we supposed to prepare the strike in advance. The only ones who are capable of preparing a strike in advance are the unions. And here we are in agreement with Temel that the unions do not act in the interests of the working class.
The working class is not currently strong enough to assert its own interests clearly. It can, through struggle, break away from the ideology of foreign classes and begin to act for itself. It is not strong enough to do that yet, and therefore can not prepare itself sufficiently for strikes.
As for the suggestion that this strike has led to the will of the working class to struggle being potentially wasted, we will see what happens.
If there is a large movement against pensions reform, it will support our contention that the Telekom strike has increased the will of the class to struggle. Illusions in the trade unions are strong at the moment. We don't expect them to break over night, and we don't expect them to break without struggle. If it encourages workers to struggle, then ultimately it leads them into conflict with the trade unions. This remains to be seen.
With Temel's final paragraph though we are in absolute agreement. We support all workers strikes in defence of class interests. We need to be aware of how the trade unions will manipulate strikes. We need to argue for solidarity between different sectors of workers. And discussions of the real issues that face workers in a struggle can only add to the development of the communist organisations. This in a real practical sense it was unites us, and we look forward to continuing this discussion, and discussions that develop from other workers struggles such as the current pensions dispute.
Devrim
Links
[1] https://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/05/turkey-iraq
[2] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/turkey
[3] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/enternasyonalist-komunist-sol
[4] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/class-struggle
[5] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/turk-telekom-strike
[6] https://en.internationalism.org/forum