Monthly Archives: March 2016

Analysis

Communism and Violence

Leave a comment

One of the most common ways to disparage communism has been to point to the violence which went into its making. Sometimes, the numbers of people who were killed by communist regimes like the one in the former Soviet Union have been exaggerated to a degree that can only be characterized as comical. Some historians have claimed that Stalin had killed almost 100 million people in his purges. This claim falls on its face immediately when one employs a minimum of basic logic. Given the fact that the Soviet Union lost about 27 million people during WWII and that its population was somewhere around 100 million people after the October Revolution, it would seem that the number of people Stalin killed would be greater than the total number of people who lived in the entire country, which is completely absurd. On the other hand, the numbers reported by some more serious historians should also gives us pause because, with the exception of WWII, the population of the Soviet Union was on the constant rise. In 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the population of that country was the highest ever. It is also worth pointing out that number of people living in Russia declined significantly in the decade following the collapse of the Soviet Union and has since then been recovering.

Despite all of this, there has undeniably been some violence in the Soviet Union particularly under Stalin but the number of people killed definitely pales in comparison to the actually reported numbers. Nonetheless, some would claim, one person killed is one too many. Well, let’s then take that argument and compare it to the history of capitalism. After all, in order to disparage communism, this argument is only valid if the rival system, capitalism, was much more peaceful and less violent than Soviet communism. However, when we actually take a look at the history of capitalism we find that the violence that went into its making was far greater than what went on in the Soviet Union even when we rely on the ridiculous figures cited above. There were many important pillars that were placed in the foundation of modern capitalist systems all of which included some degree of violence, but here I would like to tackle only thee of those.

First, it is by no means controversial that the process of Enclosure in Great Britain was a precondition for the rise of capitalism. The process of Enclosure involved violent seizure of the common land that peasants used for farming and raising livestock. During the 18th century, most of this land was seized by wealthier farmers in order to create vast possessions on which to raise sheep and produce wool for the rising textile industry. The unknown numbers of peasants were then forced to move to the city and become a cheap labor force that had to work under unimaginable conditions in order to survive. It is not at all surprising that the life expectancy of these people was under 30 in many cases. Essentially, they were simply worked to death. However, it is also not surprising that peasants revolted against this violent seizure of the land that they had been using for centuries and large numbers of them were simply killed in the revolts.

Secondly, the discovery of America was one of the key engines that drove the rise of capitalism. The abundance of resources in this country was the fuel that generated the enormous explosion of wealth, which in turn created the European bourgeoisie. The acquisition of these resources was not a non-violent process at all as North America was populated by millions of American Indians (today referred to as Native Americans). To acquire their land, Europeans in many cases had to fight them to death and in the process they wiped out virtually the entire population committing some of the most outrageous atrocities in human history. It is by no means an overstatement to say that this was the first case of genocide or holocaust in human history and that is something that has to be taken into account in every discussion of capitalism, socialism and violence, but unfortunately it is not. Next, the build up of America was also crucially dependent on Atlantic Slave trade in which by conservative estimates, about 11.5 million Africans were shipped to North America to work mainly on cotton plantations. These people were treated simply as natural resources and not as human beings. There were many instances when slaves were thrown overboard when a ship had to reduce its cargo faced with a storm or some other kind of challenge on the open sea. There is no available figure about the number of slaves who were killed this way. Also, those who did arrive to North America were also subject to various kinds of torture and treated as cattle that worked as much as it could and left to die after its strength disappeared.

Thirdly, to arrive at the status of industrial superpower, the United States, employing a capitalist mode of production had to exert tremendous force in order to keep the wages of workers low and secure their obedience. All of this is a part of 19th century US history, which is something everyone should learn in history books and yet it is often simply skipped. As a famed US historian Howard Zinn points out, the US had one of the most violent labor histories in the world. Often, the army was employed to shut down workers’ strikes. On numerous occasions, the army would open fire into the unarmed workers killing dozens of them at a time. Moreover, the conditions in which workers labored were so unsafe that industrial accidents like fires took thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of lives. In one such accident in 1911, in a shirt factory in New York, around 150 young girls lost their lives in a fire due to unsafe working conditions. It should be stated that during this entire period, workers had no rights, very little schooling and virtually no healthcare protection.

In the case of Soviet Union, it is worth pointing out that the country was transformed from a feudal agricultural economy with illiteracy of about 95% to an advanced industrial nation during several decades. This entire process took far less casualties than industrialization under capitalism in the West. Not only was industrialization quicker and more efficient but the workers had all the rights to organize and participate in decisions. They had a right to universal education and healthcare. Also, a lot of attention was paid to the working conditions.

The violence that took place in the Soviet Union was largely political and it was aimed at those who wanted to restore the Tzarist regime or opposed the progressive reforms. On the other hand, the violence that took place with the development of capitalism in the West was structural, which means that it was the result of the very process of capitalist industrialization. It was exerted through all the existing social institutions and aimed directly against the vast majority of the population – namely, the working class. This capitalist violence, if it did not kill people it left them alive only to work for as long as they can and then to die in utter destitution.

The argument against communist based on violence that went into its making is then simply a case of using double standards. Surely, there was some violence but this kind of violence pales in comparison with the atrocities that went into the making of capitalism.

 

World

The Kurdish nationalist movement is abandoning a conception of armed struggle while not giving up armed actions

Leave a comment

(Yuruyus [“March”] magazine no. 512, March 13, 2016, p.31-3. Translated from Turkish)

The Kurdish nationalist movement is abandoning a conception of armed struggle while not giving up armed actions.

Its most powerful actions involving hundreds of kilos of explosives are simply about continuing the conciliation process and getting the AKP back to the negotiating table!

The quality of an armed action and the political strength of it depend on their content! The Kurdish nationalist movement’s armed actions do not mean that it is defending armed struggle!

The Ankara action and the arguments caused by it

On February 17, 2016 in the state quarter of Ankara, a vehicle carrying military personnel (soldiers and civilian civil servants) was targeted in an action. As a result 29 people died and dozens were injured. Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and President Tayyip Erdogan lost no time after the action in issuing statement after statement that the PYD-YPG in Syria had carried out the action, and said a refugee from Rojava named Saleh Nejjar had carried it out. Not long after the PYD denied any connection to the action and said nobody of that name was affiliated to them.

But despite this the AKP persisted in attributing it to the PYD, and it kept trying to prove it, calling the ambassadors of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (USA, France, Russia, Britain and China and the German ambassador to the ministry. Moreover the current EU chair and the chair of the Turkey EU delegation were informed…

The AKP counted on intervening in Syria in order to prevent the creation of a Kurdish area and maintained this effort at the highest level… In particular in its debate with the USA on the subject of the PYD, it sought to strengthen its own case, and by pushing the PYD into a corner it sought to prevent it from taking any steps independent of Turkey. It sought to use this action too for this goal.

From the first moment of the action, Kurdish nationalist circles also made statements and assessments to the effect that the action might be a contra-guerrilla1 one. But a short time later a statement was made implying the action was perhaps a PKK one, when Cemil Bayik said, “An action carried out in Ankara at the centre of militarism might be an action to achieve vengeance for the inhuman, savage and genocidal massacres carried out against our people.” None of these statements attributed responsibility and this came across as a rather feeble voice emerging from the swamp of conciliation. It was a statement that confused many when it came to attributing responsibility for the action, and essentially it amounted to a threat being made to the AKP government.

After a statement was made that the USA was not accepting the AKP’s claims, on the third day after the explosion it was claimed by TAK (Teyrambaze Azadiya Kurdistan – Kurdistan Freedom Falcons)… Despite this claim the AKP continued to maintain that the PYD and the PKK were not independent of one another, that they were the same organisation, and it persisted in trying to get others to accept its versions.

Until this claim was made, it is necessary to say that there was a good deal of confusion in the minds of Kurdish nationalists. While the AKP persisted in attributing the action to the PYD, Kurdish nationalist writers and those who tail them sometimes took a cautious attitude in the press organs of the Kurdish nationalist movement, but some thought it was a contra-guerrilla action.

Here are some examples:

“Mahir Kaynak said, ‘who does it benefit?’ Who does benefit from it? Neither the USA nor Russia. Neither Assad nor the YPG! Look, Yeni Safak2 adds Iran to the mix and says ‘everyone is a partner’! But it doesn’t benefit anyone! The YPG is only one problematic actor in this.”3

“Surprising, isn’t it, people close to the vehicle where the bomb exploded were torn apart, body parts caught fire and burned, but despite this while the smoke was still billowing Prime Minister Davutoglu said the suspect was Saleh Nejjar, a Syrian Kurd and YPG member. The Turkish media came up with identification and a photograph, the President began howling about the ‘terrorist PYD’. But no, the world knew well who it was and whose hands were in whose pockets. Human beings have their throats cut by proxy, bombs are set off by proxy.”4

“24 hours had not gone by before the AKP said it had solved the Ankara event, let us reflect on the fact it could not solve over a period of years Roboski and Reyhanli, or over a period of months Suruc, the October 10 Ankara bombing or Sultanahmet. Developments here should cause people to think about what the head of MIT5 , Hakan Fidan, meant when he said ‘send four men and I will get them to fire eight missiles.’“6

Moreover Saleh Muslim7 also made a statement pointing to contra-guerrillas: “This is definitely not right. Kurds have no connection with the event in Ankara. Here there is a connection with Turkey’s struggle with ISIL. In the same way this was done by ISIL members living in Turkey.”8

It should not be as simple as this for an action to become confused with a contra-guerrilla action. But actions by Kurdish nationalists can have this confused character. The reasons for this are undoubtedly connected to the conception of actions derived from the past history of the Kurdish nationalist movement, and its viewpoint on armed struggle and actions today.

The Kurdish nationalist movement’s conception of armed actions and armed struggle is distorted

When the PKK first entered the arena of struggle in 1978, armed struggle was a basic part of its line… Despite some distortions in targeting and conception of armed struggle, in a stable manner it set in motion armed struggle and its targets were obvious ones. And this made the Kurdish nationalist movement worthy of esteem.

Another reason for this is that at the start the PKK was a movement whose line was influenced by both socialism and revolutionary models derived from socialist countries, and its aim was power on a national basis.

But with the collapse of the socialist countries, the PKK began to turn towards imperialist countries and to seek conciliation.

In 1993 it declared a cease-fire and gradually for the Kurdish nationalist movement armed struggle became downgraded to a “tactic”. Cease-fire decisions followed one after the other. A reformist approach began to determine all PKK politics and tactics, the armed struggle included. The first steps on the road towards conciliation were taken in 1993. It can be said that after this the armed struggle completely became about increasing the power of conciliation efforts and about getting the imperialists and Turkey’s oligarchy to sit down at the negotiating table.

When it set out on the road the aim was independence, but in every subsequent period its demands were whittled down a little more each time, and finally the Kurdish problem was reduced to the language question. At this point the aims of the struggle and methods of the struggle were openly in contradiction with one another. The demands were those that could be made by any legal party or democratic organisation, for they were within the system, and so for these demands neither a guerrilla force nor armed struggle were required.

The process also gathered pace after Ocalan was captured. In all these periods we have seen ever more obvious deviations in the PKK line, both in its conception of actions and in its targets. On the one hand, in the name of conciliation it has continually made concessions, like retreating from the aim of “Independent Kurdistan” to an “autonomy” model consisting of partial self-government by local authorities, while on the other it reached the point that the armed struggle had reached its sell-by date and was being abandoned within the frontiers of Turkey. Armed struggle is also unnecessary for a movement distancing itself from the aim of power and merely seeking autonomy for local authorities.

Nor is the Kurdish nationalist movement restricting itself to this – outside Turkey it is entering into relations with imperialism and has reached the point where it has no problems with serving as its ground forces. At the point it has reached, the PKK is itself rejecting armed struggle and saying weapons have served their purpose. The Kurdish nationalist movement has largely undermined its basis for engaging in armed struggle, both ideologically and strategically.

Carrying out armed actions does not mean a defence of armed struggle!

Many sectors completely misunderstand why the PKK supports guerrillas and carries out armed actions. One day a cease-fire will be declared, the next it will be ended for no obvious reason. On the one hand it will say that “armed struggle has passed its sell-by date”, on the other it will say “we will never give up our weapons”. One day it will say, “from now on we will wage a political struggle”, then it will say, “let us join the guerrillas.” But there is no confusion here. The PKK has ceased aiming for power. It has left the aim of Independent Kurdistan to one side. Essentially it has removed its basis for waging armed struggle. In taking steps forward and back, its only aim is to bring the oligarchy to the negotiating table.

The Kurdish nationalist movement is at a point where it has no solutions. This is indisputable. But this point it has reached is not because of armed struggle but the result of it distancing itself from armed struggle and tending in the direction of reformism. All the gains of the armed struggle are dead ends and surrenders, and these are the consequences of nationalism and reformism.

Carrying out a large number of armed actions does not mean that an armed struggle is being conducted. Essentially armed struggle is a political struggle. The quality of the armed struggle depends on the correctness and health of the ideology directing and being directed by it. As we view it this way, the way the Kurdish nationalist movement is slipping and sliding ideologically means it cannot maintain a persistent and stable line on armed struggle.

The Kurdish nationalist movement’s conception of armed struggle is not revolutionary

Throughout these periods the PKK has also expressed a great many distortions in armed struggle and armed actions. This ultimately comes from distortions in its understanding of actions. As a petit bourgeois nationalist movement, it carries out actions in revenge for the oligarchy’s contra-guerrilla attacks on the people which themselves harm the people, and look like actions the contra-guerrillas might have carried out. From the Cetinkaya shop action to village massacres in Basbaglar, it has put its signature to quite a few actions like that. And it has defended this behaviour for years.

So in a number of places, PKK actions resemble contra-guerrilla actions and this makes it easy for the oligarchy to engage in demagogy about the PKK, and contra-guerrilla actions can easily be passed off as PKK actions.

In recent years the PKK has had a line of “discussions” and “conciliation”, so it has been more circumspect about carrying out actions that affect civilians, but it has never made an open and sincere self-criticism for past actions and continues to see them as feasible types of action.

Actions by TAK in particular have a character of not targeting the military but harming civilians. Also TAK comes across in these actions as having the force of a kind of PKK. And this is why it can quite calmly be stated by the Kurdish nationalist environment that these kinds of actions might be contra-guerrilla ones. At the very least it might give rise to this thought: if a major action is carried out in an area called “The State Quarter” (Turkish: Devlet Mahallesi) and if there is an absence of political clarity in an action targeting the state forces, with civilians also travelling in the service vehicles being targeted in addition, the thought will readily come to mind that this is a contra-guerrilla action.

On the other hand the Ankara action was not clearly and unambiguously claimed by the PKK, it was claimed in the name of TAK. In other words, the Ankara action was also assessed as part of the process of conciliation and carried out with this aim in mind. While the behaviour underlying the action created confusion in people’s minds, claiming the action clears the matter up.

In a lengthy interview with Cemil Bayik carried in the 19 February Ozgur Gundem newspaper, the PKK was glorified at great length and described as the most correct and clear in everything it did, it had never done anything wrong and so it can come as no surprise when he made the following statement:

 “An action carried out in Ankara at the centre of militarism might be an action to achieve vengeance for the inhuman, savage and genocidal massacres carried out against our people. We cannot know who carried out this action. But what we do know is that when previously massacres were perpetrated in Kurdistan, actions such as these were carried out as vengeance. In any case, let those who carried out the action explain why they did it. But it is clearly understood that when such a tyrannical war is being conducted against the Kurds, some will carry out revenge and reprisal actions. A state that slaughters young people and civilians in Cizre has no right to talk about these actions. But if the intellectuals, writers, journalists and politicians of Turkey do not come out against the tyranny of the Turkish state, angry Kurdish youth may take vengeance for these attacks perpetrated against the Kurdish people.”

Look at this concept of actions… A movement with clear political aims and a clear concept of actions would not say such things…

What does “angry Kurdish youth” mean? Why does Bayik use such a concept so devoid of politics? He is not clearly claiming the action, presents it as the work of angry youth and is showing the iron hand in a velvet glove. He wants to say, look what will happen if you don’t reach agreement with us. At this point it has become clear that they are continuing to struggle in vain in the swamp of conciliation and this latest action was also done in the name of reaching agreement with the AKP.  It is also clear that at this point the action did not directly target state institutions.

On the other hand, we are seeing continuing threats from the PKK over a period of time… Murat Karayilan, Cemil Bayik and other KCK leaders are threatening to step up the war.  Cemil Bayik put forward winter conditions etc. as an excuse, saying that a lot of things would happen in the spring. But in reality there is no consistent and determined behaviour on display as regards renewing armed struggle or developing the war. On the contrary their behaviour is about trying to breathe new life into reconciliation. While Kurdistan is being levelled to the ground, Kurdish cities burned and destroyed and corpses disfigured beyond recognition emerge from Cizre, the Kurdish nationalists have done nothing but seek to raise false hopes in the name of reining in the anger of the people.

In conclusion:

  1. The Ankara action has caused a number of disputes about conceptions of armed struggle… The AKP wanted to use it to pressurise the PYD and obstruct the establishment of a Kurdish state. But the USA above all prevented them from doing this. The USA has moved to protect the PYD. Then the action was claimed by TAK and all the AKP’s lies were exposed.
  2. Both in the form of the action and its targets, it was also considered to be a counter-guerrilla one. Both the history of the Kurdish nationalist movement and its concept of actions played roles in this, as did the fact that rather than state institutions in the “state quarter”, civilians using service vehicles were among those targeted.
  3. While largely abandoning the line of armed struggle it had when it first emerged, the PKK has reached the point where armed actions are merely about achieving conciliation. The main reason is that their targeting has gone backwards and is governed by a petty-bourgeois nationalist viewpoint. A movement that does not aim for power also has no need to wage an armed struggle.
  4. While the PKK is abandoning a conception of armed struggle it is not giving up armed actions. It can still carry out actions today. But today the most powerful weapons it uses are in the service of reaching conciliation and continuing the process of conciliation. So it is an error to expect the PKK to restart the war and embark on open war against the oligarchy.
  5. The PKK with its threats and its statements that “we will renew the war” is trying to re-awaken hope among the people.
  6. The PKK is a movement which has broken away from a line of armed struggle and is swimming in the swamp of conciliation. The liberation of the Kurdish people means revolution and stepping up armed warfare.

  1. NOTE: Counter-guerrilla is part of the Gladio Operation in Turkey. ↩

  2. Translator’s note: a pro-AKP daily ↩

  3. Mustafa Yalciner, 20.02.2016, Ozgur Gundem ↩

  4. Ahmet Hahraman, 20.02.2016, Yeni Ozgur Politika ↩

  5. Translator’s note: Turkish state security and intelligence service ↩

  6. Hacer Altunsoy, 20.02.2016, Yeni Ozgur Politika ↩

  7. translator’s note: a PYD leader in Syria ↩

  8. AFP ↩

News

7th International Eyup Bas Symposium For Unity Of The Peoples Against Imperialist Aggression

1 Comment

WE WILL NOT BE VICTIMS OF IMPERIALISM, WE WILL BE ITS EXECUTIONERS!

IMPERIALISM AND THE PEOPLES: WHAT PATH ARE YOU ON?
LET US RAISE THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE HIGHER!

We live in an epoch of uprisings and massacres. The massacre policies of the imperialists leave the peoples no option other than to resist! Policies of conciliation and peace simply expose the peoples to yet more massacres, blood and tears. We will break imperialist encirclement with people’s resistance and barricades.

The International Eyup Bas Symposium For Unity Of The Peoples Against Imperialist Aggression is a call to all progressive, democratic, anti-imperialist organisations and organisations on the side of the people in the Middle East for ANTI-IMPERIALIST CLARITY. And there has been a response to our calls and claims from the world’s peoples and organisations, because our Symposium has continued without a break seven years in a row to the present and 46 organisations have participated and shared their experiences, and it also gave rise to a new anti-imperialist organisation, the Anti-Imperialist Front.

At the 7th International Eyup Bas Symposium For Unity Of The Peoples Against Imperialist Aggression, we call on you to resist imperialism from every front, from behind every barricade!

What is the Anti-Imperialist Front?

As a result of the symposiums, which have been continued with persistence and determination since 2009, delegates took a joint decision to form the Anti-Imperialist Front. A very important step for the unity of the world’s peoples.
This unity was established against the policies of imperialism and includes all organisations and individuals who see imperialism as the chief contradiction and are progressive, democratic, anti-imperialist and on the side of the people.

Who is Eyup Bas?

A revolutionary from Turkey, Eyup Bas was a key figure in establishing international solidarity of the peoples and he was the first organiser of the symposium which will hold its seventh session.

Our comrade Eyup Bas was born in 1968 and after high school he was a worker in plumbing and the building trade, as well as working in factories and running a coffee shop. His work turned him to revolutionism and he joined the revolutionary struggle. He experienced the December 19 prisons massacre, the F-Types and prison isolation. After all these experiences and prison isolation, he developed cancer and at the age of only 41, we said farewell to him on November 9 2009, to the accompaniment of red banners.

Eyup said, “the Symposium is like my child” and even while receiving treatment in hospital, racked by illness and fever, he continued to work for the Symposium which he so much wanted to see. A month before the Symposium he was martyred, and in honour of the consistent labour he put into it we named it after him.

Programme

April 14, 2016 – political sightseeing trips

  • Okmeydani – visit to the tent seeking justice for Berkin Elvan
  • Armutlu – visit to tent seeking justice for Dilek Dogan
  • Gazi – Hasan Ferit Gedik war on drugs and liberation centre
  • Gazi People’s Parliament
  • Cayan – Cayan People’s Cinema open air film – cinevision show

April 15, 2016

  • 9.30 – 10.00 registration
  • 10.00 – 10.30 – opening speech
    • Umit Ilter (recently released long-time political prisoner)
    • Halk Cephesi (People’s Front)
  • 10.30 – 12.30
    I. Session – THE MASSACRE POLICIES OF IMPERIALISM

    • Kurdistan: People’s resistance, media and the courts and legitimising massacres (lawyer Behic Asci, journalist Merdan Yanardag, a person from the Halk Cephesi Cizre delegation)
    • Istanbul – Kucukarmutlu and Gazi…
    • Syria: Imperialist interventions, ISIL and the refugee question
    • Europe: Rising fascism, refugee crisis
  • 12.30-13.30 Lunch break
  • 14.00-16.00
    II. Session:
    Imperialism’s Middle East policy and growing popular resistance in the cities
  • Moderator: ……
  • Participants from Middle Eastern countries
    street resistance the world over
    Methods for developing means of resistance
  • 16.00-16.30 – tea and coffee break
  • 16.30-18.30
    III. Session:
    Democratic revolution – armed revolution
    Imperialism’s policy of disarming peoples
  • Moderator: ……
  • Cinevision showing
  • Armed struggle or elections?
    Peace negotiations by armed organisations, and what came after

April 16, 2016

  • 10.00– 10.30 Evaluation of the previous day
  • 10.30 – 12.30
    I. Session – Isolation and resistance to isolation

    • The resistance of popular forces to isolation
      Live performance… (Either dancing or theatre from the 30th anniversary of TAYAD)
  • 12.30-13.30 Lunch break
  • 14.00-16.00
    II. Session: Class struggle against imperialism

    • Workers’ resistance and trade unions (Imbat – DISK-Kazova)
    • Youth
    • Public workers – lawyers
    • Media
  • 16.00-16.30 – Tea and coffee break
  • 16.30-18.30
    III. Session: Projects against imperialism

    • Revolutionary art and theatre
    • Struggle against addiction
    • Engineering and architecture for the people

April 17, 2016

  • 10.00-11.00 – Tüm Katılımcılarla Kahvaltı
  • 11.00-12.30 –
    HOW WILL IT BE POSSIBLE TO ENGAGE IN JOINT ORGANISATION AND STRUGGLE ON AN INTERNATIONAL BASIS? HOW WILL WE DEVELOP THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST FRONT?

    • What is internationalism?
    • How do we remove the obstacles to international solidarity?
    • Writing of joint statement and declaration
      (The introduction to the statement or the most striking paragraphs from it will be read from the stage at the concert)
  • 12.30-13.30 – Lunch
  • 13.30-15.00 – Trip
  • 15.00 – Participation in Grup Yorum’s “Either a free homeland or death” concert
Analysis

A nationalism not directed against imperialism

Leave a comment

An excerpt from the DHKC-P analysis on the PKK, written in 1999:

What we particularly want to touch on is why and how the transition has been made from a theory of colonialism to wanting integration into Turkey. Here, something else must be mentioned.

From the start the PKK described its aims on the basis of colonialism in the following way: “The revolution in Kurdistan is first of all targeted against Turkish colonialism. It is this that robs us of political independence, destroys and devastates the productive forces and pursues a policy of annihilating the Kurdish language, history and culture. This colonialism is supported from outside by the imperialists and internally by feudal compradors. These forces, closely connected to each other economically, are the targets of the revolution in Kurdistan. A movement that does not oppose first of all Turkish colonialism and its internal and external supporters at the same time cannot be considered to be revolutionary in Kurdistan.”

In and of itself, this statement is approximately correct. “Turkish colonialism”, imperialism and Kurdish collaborators are all described as a target, even if a correct and unambiguous formulation has not been used.

However, the PKK’s practice has never developed inside this framework. First of all, the PKK has in no way openly opposed imperialism, and if it is a question of “Turkish colonialism”, this is always presented as the main target. As a consequence of this logic, imperialism is always presented as a secondary target. In the PKK’s history there has never been a tactic of fighting imperialism.

It looks on the Turkish oligarchy as though it had seized colonies outside of Kurdistan’s borders, for example like the relationship between the USA and Vietnam. From this analogy, the liberation of Vietnam did not see the destruction of US colonial power as an aim. Also, the PKK sees overthrowing the oligarchy in Turkey as a secondary matter or shows no interest in it at all.

And if the oligarchy maintains itself in power, the PKK develops the strategy of trying to take Turkish Kurdistan away from it, and to impose this upon it. But the drawback of this is that the relationship between Turkey and Kurdistan is not the same as the relationship between the USA and Vietnam! Without taking account of the oligarchy’s relations with imperialism, and its economic, political, cultural and military dimension, one will get into endless difficulties if one tries to put the “Turkish” dimension of this in the foreground and build an entire strategy upon it.

Inside the oligarchy there is no “Turkish” national purity, despite all the bourgeois demagogy that is deployed. So for this reason it is clear that a strategy that is not aimed at overthrowing the oligarchy and the imperialism inseparable from it will not be able to free Kurdistan.

This is actually one of the most important contradictions in the PKK’s theory of colonialism. In China and Vietnam, which are always cited as examples by the PKK, an actual struggle against imperialism was conducted. Whereas in the quote above, the place of imperialism was not clearly defined.

One must ask what this analysis considers the influence of imperialism to be. Is Turkey, which is militarily, politically, culturally and economically dependent on imperialism, the determining force, or is it imperialism itself?

The publications of the PKK do not answer such questions. Today, no answer will be forthcoming. For the reason that the PKK sees the USA or Germany as forces that might resolve the Kurdish question. Now we have to ask whether the genocides and massacres the oligarchy has unleashed against the Kurdish people for years are independent of the politics of imperialism? Is that the case today?

This question is not clearly answered. If it was, the PKK would have to adopt a clear attitude towards imperialism, that is, struggling against it. But as we will later quote in detail, the peace politics of the PKK require it to have relations with imperialism.

Moreover, the PKK does not wage a serious struggle against the Kurdish rulers and major landowners, though it says it does. Nor has it waged a struggle based on the land question. This means that the class content of the struggle has completely disappeared and on all sides it is narrowing down to mere nationalism.