World

Comment le Front National, aujourd’hui présidé par Marine Le Pen, a lutté contre la Yougoslavie

Leave a comment

Nous avons écrit auparavant sur l’implication du Front National dans la guerre Yougoslave des années 90. Nous avons vu qu’ils ont envoyé des volontaires et des convois humanitaires suspects. Nous avons décidé d’investiguer un peu plus sur leur rôle dans cette guerre et nous avons trouvé des informations très intéressantes.

Dans un de ces convois humanitaires parti le 19 décembre 1991 d’Avignon, nous trouvons : Alain Sanders, un journaliste qui couvre la guerre pour le quotidien catholique Chrétienté-Solidarité et le Présent, Bernard Anthony, dirigeant de Chrétienté-Solidarité et député européen du FN, Thibault de la Tocnaye, membre du comité central du FN et conseiller pour la région PACA, Jean-Marie le Chevallier, député européen du FN, et Jacques Barthélémy, un habitué des voyages en Croatie. A cette occasion ils ont rencontré Dobroslav Paraga et Milo Dedokavic du HSP (formation paramilitaire néonazi croate). Une autre information très intéressante est que les participants du convoi qui s’est fait arrêter à la douane slovène avec des armes, ont donné comme contact le numéro de téléphone de Jacques Bompard, un des fondateurs du Front National.1

Le fait que le rôle du FN dans cette guerre ne se limitait pas à l’aide humanitaire, est confirmé par Francis Bergeron, un journaliste et scénariste français, classé généralement à droite, membre du comité central du FN, qui est décrit par ses collègues comme quelqu’un qui a consacré toute sa vie au FN et qui a fidèlement défendu ses idées.2 Il avait déclaré pour le quotidien Présent du 10 octobre 1993 que « La Croatie s’est une aventure. C’est en Europe, à quelques heures de voiture, la possibilité pour nos jeunes militants de vivre une aventure utile grâce à l’action caritative ou de vivre une aventure militaire… Cette expérience-là quand on a 20 ans, il faut avoir eu l’occasion de la faire. »3

Et nombreux sont ceux qui ont saisi cette occasion-là. Parmi eux nous trouvons Gaston Besson, le filleul de Jean-Marie Le Pen. Gaston Besson a combattu dans le 6ème bataillon du HOS (formation paramilitaire néonazi croate),4 ensemble avec l’infâme Major Chikago, puis après le démantèlement du HOS, il sera intégré dans la garde nationale croate (HVO).5 Actuellement il habite à Pula, en Croatie, et il organise la formation paramilitaire, néonazi, ukrainienne Azov,6 qui combat au côté du gouvernement ukrainien. Dans une interview pour le RTS suisse il dit : « J’en ai marre de tuer des gens. J’ai passé l’âge », alors maintenant il est juste dans l’organisation du bataillon.7 Nous avons visité son compte facebook, ainsi que sa page, où nous avons trouvé des photos de guerre,8 des extrais de son livre autobiographique Ainsi va l’homme, dans lesquels il parle ouvertement des crimes de guerre commis à l’encontre des serbes. Dans un chapitre intitulé „Pas de prisonniers“, il raconte une bataille en Bosnie, en 1993, dans laquelle comme le titre le dit, ils n’ont pas fait de prisonniers, mais ont exécuté sommairement tout serbe qu’ils ont croisé sur leur chemin. Bruler des villages serbes et des églises chrétiennes orthodoxes ne lui ai pas étranger non plus.9 Parmi ses photos on le trouve dans son jeune âge, à côté de Jean-Marie Le Pen, 10 qui est devenu pour Besson, comme il l’explique, son parrain officiel après la mort de son père. Toujours d’après les mots de Besson, son père était un des fondateurs du FN et membre du groupe terroriste OAS, qui a opéré en Algérie avec l’intention de remettre l’Algérie sous la domination française, d’où vient la réciprocité avec les Le Pen. Il est intéressant de constater que malgré la campagne politique de Marine Le Pen, dans laquelle elle tente de se représenter comme plus modérée par rapport à son père, puis elle essaie de flatter la Russie, Gaston qui combat au côtés des néonazis ukrainiens la soutient quand même fortement.11

Parmi ces aventuriers nous avons également Michel Roch Faci, qui était chef du service d’ordre du FN, et dont nous avons déjà parlé dans le passé.12

Un autre personnage très intéressant lié au FN, qui a participé dans la guerre yougoslave  en tant que combattant au côté croate est André-Yves Beck. En 1991 il a participé à la création de Nouvelle Résistance avec laquelle il a était parmi les premiers à rejoindre la Brigade Internationale. Nouvelle Résistance aurait maintenu sa présence auprès des croates de 1991 jusqu’à la fin de la guerre.13 Lors de son retour en France, il est devenu le responsable de la communication de Jacques Bompard, qui est comme nous l’avons mentionné plus haut un des fondateurs du FN et le personnage impliqué dans le convoi « humanitaire » chargé d’armes. Jacques Bompard a été maire d’Orange entre 1995 et 2013, et tout ce temps il a été fidèlement servi par André-Yves Beck. De 2014 à août 2016, Beck a été directeur de cabinet de Robert Ménard à Béziers. Rappelons que la candidature de Ménard a été soutenue par le FN. Pour le moment on ne sait pas où est-ce que Beck va continuer sa carrière politique, mais des rumeurs cours qu’il sera peut-être intégré dans le cabinet de Marine Le Pen.14

Un journaliste suisse du nom de Christian Würtenberg s’était infiltré dans cette Brigade internationale afin de la suivre de près. Il enquêtait sur leurs moyens de financement, leurs liens avec la droite européenne, et surtout le FN, ainsi que sur le trafic de drogues et d’armes à travers les Balkans. Au début de 1992 il a été découvert par Eduardo Rozsa Flores, qui l’a torturé et assassiné. Flores va par la suite participer au nettoyage ethnique des musulmans à Mostar. Ensuite il va combattre auprès de l’UNITA en Angola, pour réapparaitre au Kosovo dans l’uniforme de l’UCK, où il a assassiné cinq policiers à Korenica avec le but de provoquer une escalade du conflit. Aujourd’hui le monde peut dormir tranquillement en ce qui le concerne, car Eduardo Rozsa Flores s’est fait abattre par la police bolivienne en avril 2009 alors qu’il menait les séparatistes de Santa Cruz avec lesquels il avait planifié une série d’attentats, dont un contre le président Evo Morales en personne.

On se doit de constater que le fait que certains serbes de droite soutiennent aujourd’hui le FN avec sa présidente Marine Le Pen relève d’un énorme paradoxe. De cette manière ils crachent dans la figure d’autre gens qui ont parlé contre cette guerre et qui ont soutenu le côté serbe, car ils sont tous d’orientation marxiste : Michael Parenti15, Heather Cottin avec son mari Sean Gervasi, qui est décédé à Belgrade,  Michel Collon, et bien d’autres. Nous avons également les minorités opprimés à l’Occident, comme Mumia Abu Jamal, qui a parlé encore à cette époque-là contre cette guerre, puis le magazine afro-américain The Burning Spear, qui a consacré tout un article à cette guerre dans son édition de avril 2003, où ils disent que « d’après le point de vue du Parti socialiste du peuple africain (African People’s Socialist Party), les nationalistes serbes qui veulent la Serbie libre et la paix dans les Balkans, doivent s’unir avec le reste du monde qui n’est pas blanc et combattre la suprématie blanche imposée par les Etats Unis et l’Europe.16

Et voilà qu’aujourd’hui nous avons certains serbes de droite qui veulent aller ensemble avec la droite européenne, qui a participé à des crimes de guerre contre les serbes, défendre maintenant une certaine Europe „blanche et chrétienne“. Nous leur disons „Non merci! Pas en notre nom!“

 

  1. http://reflexes.samizdat.net/les-phalanges-du-desordre-noir/  ↩

  2. http://www.fn42.fr/article-deces-de-francis-bergeron-61561512.html  ↩

  3. http://reflexes.samizdat.net/les-phalanges-du-desordre-noir/  ↩

  4. https://www.facebook.com/gastonbessonpublique/photos/a.537793616292959.1073741835.537693449636309/1185100274895620/?type=3&theater  ↩

  5. https://www.facebook.com/gastonbessonpublique/photos/a.537793616292959.1073741835.537693449636309/1185940058144975/?type=3&theater  ↩

  6. https://www.facebook.com/gastonbessonpublique/photos/a.537793616292959.1073741835.537693449636309/1121719897900325/?type=3&theater  ↩

  7.   https://www.rts.ch/info/monde/6686719–j-en-ai-marre-de-tuer-des-gens-j-ai-passe-l-age-.html  ↩

  8. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1206925046047765&set=pb.100001908435483.-2207520000.1487537504.&type=3&theater  ↩

  9. https://www.facebook.com/gastonbessonpublique/posts/1340836429322003AEoAQ  ↩

  10. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=794025914004349&set=a.412017018871909.96164.100001908435483&type=3&theater  ↩

  11. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=807282999345307&set=a.412017018871909.96164.100001908435483&type=3&theater  ↩

  12. http://www.princip.info/2017/02/13/ko-je-voda-nacista-sa-snimka-koji-je-predvodio-borbu-protiv-srba/  ↩

  13. http://reflexes.samizdat.net/les-phalanges-du-desordre-noir/  ↩

  14. http://www.midilibre.fr/2016/04/02/andre-yves-beck-un-expert-de-la-com-qui-aime-l-ombre,1310305.php  ↩

  15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEzOgpMWnVs  ↩

  16.   https://archive.org/stream/BurningSpearVolume23Number1/spear-2003-04#page/n9/mode/2up  ↩

Analysis

Operating behind enemy lines

Leave a comment

Corporate media reported a few weeks ago that Greek “leftists” and anarchists are behind the project of resettlement of African and Asian refugees in abandoned homes, which brings them to conflict with the owners of these buildings.1 We inquired about it amongst comrades in Greece, but none could confirm who the mentioned “leftists” are. What is certain is that anarchists have been involved in helping refugees with finding shelter and other necessities, for a while now. Also, in speaking to some immigrants from Molenbeek, the “infamous” Brussels neighborhood, we learned that, during violent racial and social unrest that shakes the peripheries of western European cities from time to time, it’s only the anarchists that offer (violent) actions of solidarity with minorities. Or, in their own words, “the only ones we sometimes let in”.

As this piece isn’t intended for broader masses but strictly Third worldist comrades, let’s not waste time on explaining the material conditions imperialism creates at home, such as social-chauvinism on the Left and lack of class interest amongst the western proletariat in abolishing capitalism-imperialism. In our previous piece “Creative Marxism and lumpen-proletariat”, besides the attitudes of great Marxist thinkers towards this class, we’ve shown what its possibilities and limitations are, in a variety of conditions. We’ve also recognized it as the only revolutionary subject in the West today, unable to overcome spontaneity without being organized by the forces of proletariat, and proposed linking it to objective revolutionary forces on the periphery.2

It may sound good in theory, but we were naive to think it might work in practice, considering the conditions of the revolutionary struggle on the periphery. Apart from a small number of revolutionary organizations that we might call the “objective forces”, anti-imperialist resistance in the periphery, although more and more widespread, has not reached the point of centralization and transnational coordination, which, in this global conflict, is of the utmost importance. Sure, the imperialists are being challenged today on more fronts then ever before. However, not by our own forces but mainly by radical islamists. To understand that, we need to ask ourselves what reasons lay behind the support they receive from the oppressed masses and why are they preferred over any type of leftist alternative currently on the table.

The reasons concern both doctrine and violence. The former touches on the influence of liberalism within our ranks – whose sprouts “must be removed from our heads”, which allows for the left to be viewed as an ally or tacit supporter of imperialism in the moslem world, unlike the islamists who not only do not require cultural transformation, but fiercely oppose it. The latter is of equal importance, and shows that under the conditions of occupation, you need not sell your doctrine as much as prove yourself efficient in fighting the enemy. We’ll address both issues in a higher stage of preparation for action.

In another article – “The dialectics of Trump”, we’ve shown how the antagonisms between the First and Second world powers tend to soften at the account of the Third world, which might further tighten our space for maneuver in deepening the contradictions between the imperialist powers and dearly restrict the diplomatic and armed actions of our peoples in the periphery. Yet, the cracks might open in the Center itself.3

Accordingly, it is the issue of refugees, that is of increasing importance for the development of the struggle against imperialism in countries of the imperialist Center.

Parallels with migrations during the period of primeval decolonization at the periphery are obvious. Landless laborers left the rural areas and moved towards the cities where they formed makeshift settlements – ghettos, that surround the city, from where they penetrated colonial cities and ports looking for work. The rebellion that later sprung up in rural areas infiltrated the cities through this layer of rural settlers, residents of the ghetto, lumpen-proletariat, which has not yet managed to find a way of gnawing the colonial bone. Gnawing the imperialist bone is equally made impossible to most of today’s African and Asian refugees in the West, which might be the key to penetrating the imperialist home soil and the possibility of future destabilization of the oppressing countries.

If “imperialism is the world system, the last stage of capitalism – and it must be defeated in a world confrontation; If a “the strategic end of this struggle should be the destruction of imperialism”, let’s see what our role is. Che saw our role as “the responsibility of the exploited and underdeveloped of the world to eliminate the foundations of imperialism: our oppressed nations, from where they extract capitals, raw materials, technicians and cheap labor, and to which they export new capitals — instruments of domination — arms and all kinds of articles; thus submerging us in an absolute dependence”, and proposed opening several international fronts – creating “many Vietnams”.

However, he hasn’t neglected the importance of “operating behind the enemy lines”, which, according to the dominant opinion on the revolutionary left of his epoch, was wrongly assigned to Western proletariat, without proper social and economic analysis of conditions that could open up such a possibility. In studying those, the comrades from Danish KAK (later M-KA) understood quite properly that, under conditions at the time, the lever was to be applied only to the periphery. The dynamics of capitalism requires continuous analysis of ever-changing conditions for vanguard to direct the class struggle accordingly. Thus, the inflow of three million Arab and African refugees to Europe in the last two years (still pouring in) in addition to those already present on imperialist soil, cannot be neglected.

Those newcomers, for the most part, cannot escape the process of lumpen-proletarianization and social marginalization due to a number of factors such as unskillfulness, language barriers and, of course, racism. On the other hand, the Western proletariat has recently shown that in times of crisis it leans to fascism, and so the radicalization of refugees, as well as the already present racial minorities, isn’t even in question.

Without operating behind the enemy lines, our anti-imperialist resistance at the periphery, even if victories were achievable here and there, is not sustainable in the long term, due to our military, technological and economic inferiority, and every kind of isolation. Deeper contradictions between First world and Second world powers, played at our hands to some extent (it didn’t help the Iraqis nor Libyans but has benefited Syrians), in, partly, breaking up the global imperialist hegemony, and offering the possibility of practical assistance at the local level. In seeking to prevent imperialist aggressions, or sliding towards autarky, we tend to recognize that alliance as lesser evil, which raises the issue of prevention of further development towards socialism. Namely, this aid does not come for free and without concessions, and so involves tolerating a significant private sector. Instead of pushing towards total delinking, anti-imperialist governments and movements are forced upon a modified relinking.

In this sense only, it is in these anarchist organizations (Anarcho-syndicalists) in the West, that we’re gaining new allies. As with the aforementioned Danish group, the proletariat makes a negligible part of the membership of anarchist organizations in the West. These revolutionaries mainly arise from the ranks of the of the petty bourgeoisie – class traitors, primarily motivated by ideological, not material motives. The petty bourgeoisie in our ranks at the periphery (in post-colonial times) poses a risk of opportunism, precisely due to conflict of interest, while at the core countries it seems not to be the case. Conflicts of interest are equally represented among all classes in the core (except among those that we marked as revolutionary potential), but unlike the proletariat, which reacts and is led exclusively by interests, members of the petty bourgeoisie, as we see in practice, in small numbers and under certain circumstances, could work against their own class, driven by ideological motives.

Are we suggesting that anarchists organize African and Asian refugees in the West? Yes and no. Yes – because Marxism is dealing with objective antagonisms, based on what things are like, not what we’d like them to be, and these groups are the only ones pulling their weight in this matter of dear importance. No – because such a scenario is neither completely desirable nor possible. It is not desirable for well-known idealogical reasons – a necessity of Marxist training of the revolutionary subject, reactionary idealism and anti-materialism shown by most anarchists, favoring anti-authoritarianism over anti-imperialism, the risk of spontaneous and uncontrolled terrorism. It is not possible for political reasons – liberal anti-theism, lack of understanding of the necessity of particularity and it’s role in decolonization, as well as historical stages of human development, the passive attitude towards the anti-colonial and national liberation struggles, etc.

As we know, we’re still talking about the First world ideology based, ultimately, on the idea of ​​superiority of the cultural heritage of the West, but incoherently, without the open support for (neo)colonial policy (unlike Trots). However, they seem to be the only ones who sniffed the revolutionary subject in Western Europe. Opposed to racism and motivated by humanism, they had played a progressive role in relation to refugees, providing concrete assistance, launching solidarity campaigns, and in few cases (France & Greece), inspired the frightened people to oppose police terror, and encouraged radicalization. Just as violent anti-imperialist uprisings at the periphery were “hijacked” by islamists, so is the “operation behind enemy lines” in the core, at least in it’s embryo, by anarchists.

Here, we have presented the opinion that in the imperialist center, under the conditions of imperialist super-profits, class character barely determines political attitude of an individual, therefore progressivism and radicalism are a thing of idiosyncrasy. We brought to light the importance of “operating behind enemy lines” and its achievability under the conditions of mass migrations. Finally we propose concrete measures of action towards building the International of Third worldist-Marxist organizations, centralizing the transnational anti-imperialist front and coordinating the revolutionary struggle in the periphery and the core, with a clear mission of creating many Vietnams and operating behind enemy lines.

 

  1. http://time.com/4501017/greek-anarchists-are-finding-space-for-refugees-in-abandoned-hotels/  ↩

  2. https://rnp-f.org/2015/04/24/kreativni-marksizam-i-lumpenproletarijat/  ↩

  3.  https://en.rnp-f.org/2016/12/09/dialectics-of-trump-and-death-of-the-liberal-left/  ↩

Analysis

Marx and the Three Basic Problems of Socialism

Leave a comment

„Water, water everywhere

And all the boards did shrink

Water, water everywhere

Nor any drop to drink“

T. Coleridge

Communism everywhere

Yet all our hopes did sink!

Comunism everywhere

But all we need is think!

Before Lenin, Marxist theorists, for the most part, avoided the discussion on how a communist society should be structured. Marx’s work was primarily focused on identifying the contradictions of capitalism and explaining the inevitability of its collapse and the subsequent communist revolution. The main reason why Marx made this principled decision was that he was extremely frustrated with the Utopianism of French socialist thinkers so even though he shared their desires he agreed with the conservative dismissals of Saint Simon who was ridiculed as a person whose view was that under socialism, the Atlantic Ocean would turn into lemonade. However, Marx noticed an extremely important fact in his historical works, which is that revolutions are always midwives of history in the sense that in revolutionary times a new world is not created out of thin air; rather, the social relations which are already highly developed at that moment simply rise to the position of the dominant ones, which are in deep crisis. In that way, he explains the French Revolution as a moment in which the capitalist class, which had existed for several centuries before the revolution itself, overthrew the monarchy as the social arrangement which was in terminal decline. In that sense, it would be natural to expect from Marx to identify the social forces, formations and tendencies in capitalism that contain the elements of socialism which can be expected to overthrow the bourgeoisie in the moment of revolution.

Another important Marxist thinker, Vladimir Lenin, started where Marx had left off. His work was partly motivated by the recognition that Marx had left no sketch of a communist society that could be offered as a platform for revolutionary struggle. Therefore, Marx’s anti-Utopianism proved to be self-defeating because it left no clear idea for the revolutionary party in the sense of precise goals of the struggle. Lenin’s work in this domain was, of course, later motivated by the practical needs because his part managed to gain power in Russia through a revolution. To illustrate how a communist society should look like, Lenin once stated that the socialist society should function like the German postal system. In that sense, Lenin had identified an existing structure in the capitalist society, distilled its key features and determined that the principles on which it was organized would be useful for a communist society. Here, the goal will be to describe several forms of social relations in capitalism that provide a potential answer to the question of how to regulate the social relations in socialism. Of course, the sketch that will be given here represents merely an invitation for Marxist forces to further analysis, motivated by the realization that Marxism cannot entirely abandon its utopian or programmatic character. Based on the experience so far, we are also aware that many Marxists will criticize this attempt as pure Utopianism and ultra-leftism. However, following Lenin, we must realize that without any kind of general sketch or platform, we cannot expect the support of the masses for a dash into the unknown. As revolutionaries, we owe to the working class at least some kind of description about what we want to create. It should also be mentioned that the sketch that we are about to present refers to the goals that should be achieved without any discussion of how to achieve them, which is also a crucial topic for the discussion. It is certain that some of those solutions should be prioritized over others in the period of transition to socialism, but for now, we will not address the criteria according to which such prioritization should be carried out. Those problems will be left for some other occasion.

The sketch presented here is inspired by the answers to three crucial problems of capitalism which are analyzed in turns in three separate volumes of Marx’s Capital. First, is the problem of the capitalist production and exploitation of labor power (volume I). Second, the problem of capitalist distribution of the market economy (volume II). The third problem is the problem of money, banks and finance (volume III). From the perspective of the volume I of Capital and the problems of capitalist production, the key issue is the exploitation of labor power or the fact that in a capitalist enterprise, surplus value (profit) has to be created. The surplus value is produced by paying the worker less than the value that he created during in his working time. Therefore, we are dealing with exploitation. There we have the problem of alienation because workers are not owners of the products they make, they do not influence the decisions that affect their work and they are alienated from their co-workers who are mainly seen as competition for promotions and the like. In socialism, this problem has to be solved through elimination of exploitation and alienation, which means that workers have to collectively decide about the issues pertaining to their work and they have to be paid in accordance with the amount of work they complete.

There are historical examples of enterprises that have functioned this way in the framework of socialist countries as well as the examples of companies that work this way in capitalist economies. The example of workers’ self-management in former socialist Yugoslavia is one of the examples that are frequently cited. It can be said, as it has been frequently pointed out in the literature, that the problem of exploitation was solved quite successfully in the former Yugoslavia. However, Yugoslavia had a major problem from the perspective of volume II of Capital, which was the problem of the restoration of the market economy which resulted in stratification among enterprises and consequent inequality among individuals and regions. In essence, it can be said that Yugoslavia had a capitalist market and a socialist organization of enterprises. There are also examples of similar, worker-managed, enterprises operating inside capitalist economies. The best-known example is Mondragon in the Basque country in Spain, which employs around 100 thousand people. Mondragon has been competing very successfully with capitalist corporations for decades and it has been growing consistently. Of course, Mondragon is not a perfect model for a socialist enterprise because inequalities in income of different workers are significant and have been growing. However, what is very useful is the principle of worker’s self-management, which ensures a lot smaller income inequalities, almost complete protection from unemployment (even when it goes against the company’s profits), guaranteed education and professional development, collective solidarity in terms of healthcare, etc. There are many more examples of such firms that compete in the capitalist markets quite successfully, and just like in the case of capitalist firms – some of them thrive and some of them fail.

Next problem that needs to be solved is the problem of distribution or markets as mechanisms for the distribution of goods and services. The bulk of trade in goods and services in capitalist societies takes place in the market where those who have the money can buy practically anything while those who do not have the money are deprived from even the most basic necessities. In contrast to the liberal doctrine that the market leads to a balancing of prices, quality, supply and demand, as Marx argued, the market is a highly volatile system which constantly oscillates and periodically leads to crises. A completely free market can be thought of as a traffic system without signs and lights. Such a system is certainly good for those who drive tanks, but it is in no way desirable for those who ride bicycles. That way, markers naturally benefit the biggest and strongest companies that push the smaller firms out of the market competition, thereby forming monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Luckily, traffic systems are not organized according to market principles. Rather, detailed analyses are carried out in order to reduce the risks for all participants and ensure a relatively high level of security. Communist or socialist economies have to contain elements of planning. As the example of Yugoslavia has shown, good organization inside the enterprises does not reduce the risk of growing inequality because stronger companies grow bigger and the weaker ones collapse. The Soviet Union, in contrast to Yugoslavia, had a much stronger planning system, but it lacked the democratic organization of enterprises. In that sense, we can say that Yugoslavia had a better answer to the problems of volume I of Capital while the Soviet Union had a better solution in terms of volume II issues. However, it is necessary to resolve all the potential sources of contradictions in order to establish a stable socialist economy.

Here, it is necessary to address the widespread attack on the socialist planning as an example of “inefficiency”. This critique is completely mistaken for two reasons. First, the Soviet Union accomplished the industrialization of the country and rose into the status of a global power in just several decades thereby overtaking numerous capitalist countries that took centuries to get to where they were at the time. Moreover, the sacrifices of the working class in the Soviet Union were minimal in comparison to the victims of development in capitalist countries. In the Soviet Union, from the very beginning, there was an eight-hour workday, high degree of safety at work and relatively stable wages. During the Industrial Revolution, in capitalist countries the working day lasted for fourteen hours, workers regularly died at work and wages were miserable. Also, during WWII, only the Soviet planning economy could rise to the challenge of war and subdue the fascist militarized economy. It is also worth mentioning that the British and American economies were transformed virtually overnight into planned economies because it was clear that only a system of that sort can be appropriate for the given conditions. Therefore, the idea that planning is inefficient is a complete fabrication. Economic planning exists, of course, in capitalist societies as well. The multinational corporations, whose wealth and yearly output are often bigger than the total wealth and output of many countries, are organized as planned economies. For example, individual segments of Mercedes Benz do not trade among themselves on a market. They rater distribute parts and products among themselves according to a plan. If Mercedes Benz operated according to market principles, it would constantly face a surplus of small and simple parts and a shortage of electronic equipment, engines and the like. Therefore, the organization of corporations, as the central economic institutions in capitalism, shows that planning is far more efficient than markets but this glaring fact is almost never mentioned for obvious reasons. It is important to add that large corporations, in addition to planning internal distribution, also make plans about the demand. That is, since they are unable to exert complete control over the market (as much as they would like to) but they know that planning is necessary and they cannot always work in full capacity because they would be unable to sell all their products, corporations use complicated statistical methods of predicting demand. In those tasks, based on the data about the demand in previous years and quarters they make complicated and often imprecise planning about future demand and the production is then adjusted to those estimates. The imprecision in those estimates comes of course form the unpredictable changes in the market. Using techniques of planning developed by capitalist corporations and enriched with rich data which could be added to such calculations if there were no market oscillations, a socialist economy could make incredibly precise predictions about the social needs in the coming years. This would be a powerful way of harmonizing supply and demand. The modern information technologies which were not available in the Soviet Union could help enormously in those projects. Therefore, even today, we have systems of planning and planning technologies that could be used to optimize and arrange socialist economies. Finally, the caricatures of socialism presented by right wingers about the obsessive planning in socialism that would require predictions about the exact number of paint jobs on cars or small repairs in households are completely misplaced. There is no reason to think that socialism would require a complete eradication of small businesses that perform these kinds of jobs particularly when they do not involve employer-employee relationships (i.e. self-employment or family businesses) because as Lenin said, a million small businesses count for nothing, a few giant cartels count for everything.

The third and perhaps the most complex problem is the problem of creation and distribution of money. This problem has been shown to be one of the most difficult tasks for both capitalist and socialist economies. Traditionally, capitalist economies have relied on the assumption that gold has a certain real and stable value so for a long time all the money in circulation had to have its equivalent in gold. The problem was that the capitalist production and value creation are much faster than the expansion in the amount of gold available so the prices of goods and wages declined constantly when countries held on to the gold standard. This process is known as deflation. On the other hand, when this system faced a crisis, countries would begin to print money that would have no equivalent in gold and the prices of goods and wages would rise, which is known as inflation. Therefore, the oscillations in the market were reflected in the oscillations in the value of money and vice versa. In socialism, the problem was similar because countries like Yugoslavia had a market economy but no gold standard which meant a constant tendency towards inflation. In the Soviet Union, the supply of money was also planned and the problem in the planning of production and distribution meant that the process of planning in the domain of money creation failed as well.

Today’s capitalist superpowers have abandoned the gold standard a long time ago and now money is created as the central banks hand out loans to commercial banks each time a commercial bank finds an individual prepared to incur debt. Therefore, money is created through indebtedness. This system is efficient to the extent that it guarantees that individuals would be forced to give their best to repay the loans so a certain degree of stability in the value of money is assured. On the other hand, the money needed to repay the accumulated interest is never printed which automatically means that a large number of people cannot in principle pay back their loans. This of course leads to foreclosures and crises in the banking system. It is interesting to note that regardless of who carries the loan the money always has the same value so a loan of $10 000 creates the same amount of money regardless of whether it was taken by a doctor or a worker at McDonalds. This abandonment of the gold standard and the idea of money creation in response to people’s needs as well as “equality in debt” can find certain applications in the communist economy. It is necessary to replace debt as the guarantee for the value of money with the real basis of value which is human labor. Namely, Marx was a proponent of the labor theory of value according to which value is created through human labor. The fact that different kinds of labor are paid differently because of the market mechanisms of supply and demand, made the stability in the value of money under capitalism impossible. The lesson that we can draw from modern banks is that money can be created not on the basis of debt taken on by an individual but on the basis of labor that an individual has invested. In other words, in socialism, money supply would have to be enlarged each time wages are paid by the amount of new value that they have created through labor. That way, money supply would increase in proportion to the newly created value and the contradiction of capitalism tied to the instability of the money supply would be overcome. This kind of system could not lead to either deflation or inflation by definition as the value of money would always match the value of goods in the market.

Here, we have sketched only the basic structural mechanism which would have to exist in a socialist economy in order to ensure the stability and safety of the entire society. It should be noted that none of the items mentioned here is utopian because each of them is already employed in some fashion in the modern capitalist society. What should be done in socialism would be to arrange the existing components in such a way as to create a completely transformed society that would be far superior to the existing one. This rough sketch should certainly be developed in far greater detail but it can definitely represent a blueprint for a program of communist organization focused not just on the critique of capitalism but on the real transformation of society as well.

 

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.

World

Interview with the Anti-Imperialist Front (part one)

Leave a comment

What is the Anti-Imperialist Front? What are the objectives it pursues and what political and ideological basis it has? Who can form part of the Anti-Imperialist Front?

The Anti-imperialist Front was created after a Symposium Against Imperialist Aggression Against People in 2014. It is an anti-imperialist unity (alliance) of 15 organisations and individuals. It is an international alliance. The goal is it to build a unity and front of struggle of all oppressed people in the world against aggression and all interests of all imperialist and fascist forces. The Anti-imperialist Front is a union, which is covering every institution agaist imperialism and imperialist aggression.

The actual situation in the world is very complicates, especially for the oppressed countries and people, and it also represents a clutter of interests which is hard to understand and analyze.  How and what kind of analysis does the Anti-Imperialist Front make about the actual situation in the world?

If we are looking at the current situation in the world on the basis of class struggle it is actually not confusing. One of the most important analysis of the Anti-Imperialist Front is, that even when the imperialist have a clash of interests from time to time, they always get to an agreement when it comes to oppress the people. Starting from this analyses we can see, that the main contradiction in the world is between imperialism and oppressed people. The contradiction between imperialism and oppressed people will be complemented with the support of the imperialist collaborators in the oppressed countries.

In the present the revolutionary and the anti-imperialist movement in the world is very scattered and divided. A question which generates a lot of divisions and debates about the existence of a single imperialist block headed by USA or there are two blocks: one headed by USA and the other one by Russia and China. What is the position of the Anti-Imperialist Front about this question?

There are two imperialists blocks: one is headed by the USA and its collaborators, the other with all its internal contradictions is headed by the EU. Russia and China are categorised as capitalist countries and acting in their own regional interests. But we cannot say, that these two countries are differentimperialist blocks. Because if we analyze them in the growth of the capitalism they are not powerful enough to be imperialist.

Independently of how are Russia and China categorized, what is clear is that they are emerging capitalist countries driven exclusively by their geopolitical and economic interests and that their help to the oppressed people of Syria, Venezuela, etc. is always conditioned by those interests. What is the position of the Anti-Imperialist Front regarding Russia and China? Currently, one part of the world left defends Russia and China as anti-imperialist and that those countries should lead the world anti-imperialist movement. What is the position of the Anti-Imperialist Front about this question?

The anti-imperialist struggle can only be driven by the united fight of the oppressed people. Russia and China are developping economical and political relations in the frame of their regional interests. It is not possible to think, that the Anti-Imperialist Front and anti-imperialist struggle can be leaded by these two countries. On the base of the anti-imperialist struggle are the oppressed people. Only because a country is confronting with Imperialism to save their own interests or has contradictions with them from time to time, doesn`t make them necessarily a part of the anti-imperialist struggle. In the case of resisting against imperialist aggression, could be supported from the oppressed in different forms. But this solidarity can only be in the frame of the right of self-determination and of the people and resisting against imperialist aggression.

The current war in the Middle East is of special importance: Syria, Palestine and Kurdish people on the side of the oppressed and USA, Israel, Turkey,  feudal arab monarchies on the side of the oppressors. What is the position of the Anti-Imperialist Front on the Middle East?

Middle East is a region, where man made divisions and contradictions by Imperialist countries exist for decades. People where divided and made enemies of each other. The main contradiction at this region is between the oppressed people and Imperialism. On the axis of US Imperialism are local collaborating governments and on the other side resisting people. The freedom of the people in Middle East only is possible, when Imperialism and their collaborators can be removed, based on the united struggle of the people. It will be suggested, that the main enemy is IS to legitimate the collaboration with Imperialism. But to make an alliance with Imperialism against IS won´t bring freedom for the people of Middle East. Only a united fight of the people against Imperialits and their collaborators, who where supporting and feeding IS, can lead to victory.

How should the revolutionary and anti-imperialist world movement confront the imperialism and the wars of aggression against the oppressed countries and people?  What is Anti-Imperialist proposing in order to organize the resistance and the struggle against imperialism in the world? What is the importance that  Anti-Imperialist gives to the unity of revolutionary and anti-imperialist movement in the world? What are the basic principles of this unity?

The answer of an anti-imperialist world movement is without any doubt to support the resistance of the oppressed people. To organize that struggle should be on the basis of strengthening the unity and the quality of the union. Even if the support will be gradual. The solidarity we are talking about should be based on beginning the struggle on our own countries, as well as spreading out to the people worldwide and additionally to support it actively. The growth of the struggle depends on breadth of the struggle in the countries of the members of the organization. Apart from the expansion the struggle world wide, the main principle of the unity is: to turn towards the people and repel the imperialist aggression in a common struggle. To take a concrete statement against imperialism. Because imperialism is confusing the people with their own agenda. So friend and foe will be mixed up. So it is indespinsable to be clear in terms of imperialism. So one of the basic principles of the unity should turn against imperialism and all kind of collaborators and prevent that people make enemy of each other.

World

Latest Charlie Hebdo cartoons translated into communist language

Leave a comment

Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Joann Sfar drew several cartoons on the occasion of the terrorist attack on Paris, which he published on Instagram. Its contents touched the hearts of many liberals, and so we did our best to translate them into the language of the proletarians of all countries – Marxism-Leninism, and see if the hearts of the “barbarians” are really as cold as ice.

1.France is technologically and militarily more advanced than your desert backwater.

2.Paris is our capital city. We are known for good cuisine, products from fermented grapes and porno movies. We eat, drink and screw like crazy while our own and our brothers’ armies bomb you. You don’t know what chateaubriand is. You eat with your hands.

3.Once I went to the morgue to identify a neighbor. A young man, obesity is evil. I found out that, death smells bad, or is it formaldehyde, who knows. Maybe my thoughts are somewhat disconnected because I am wasted from champaigne. My eyes are crossed. Drink for France!

4.I am not a racist. I like Jamaican music. Sean Paul, UB-40. My neice once dated a Romainian. Our national football team has as many wide noses as you wish.

5.But these people come here and go straight to the welfare. Laziness, I guess. And their howling prayers. Way to go, Orban!

6.Inherent, hierarchical, biological differences between ‘races’ do exist. Ask both Richard Dawkins and Walt Disney.

7.Huges waves pound the shores of Paris, but „Charlie don’t surf!“.

8.You don’t want to change your profile pics into our flag? You don’t want to pray for Paris? Well, you don’t have to. We don’t need religion anyway. If God existed, wouldn’t he have saved you from slavery and colonialism? Ah, all those things we’ve done to you – ask your grannies if their memory has not failed them. That Casanova reputation we maintained in Algeria, Mali, Vietnam …. I could go on. That’s life, joy … a bit of champaign then action. Btw, Paris Hilton is way overrated if you ask me.

9.Don’t ask why my handwriting is so tiny. I’ve been holding it for an hour. I need to take a SHIT so badly.

10.Did I mention that 14 African countries still pay us colonial tax? And there is this thing called colonial pact. It’s complicated, don’t want to get into it now, but the point is that former colonies still give use money and resources out of gratitude for all the token’s of civilizaitons that we brought to them. Their good will, of course.

11.Don’t even get me started on the Western left. They are always with us. They know that without your resources, we could not have achieved this standard of living. Some of them like to imagine that they will someday ‘revolt’ and overthrow their masters, but it ain’t gonna happen. Too dumb, too brainwashed, too fat, too lazy and there’s always something ‘good’ on TV or in the stadium to divert them. Add to this the fact that they’re overworked and sleep-deprived consumer bots and you’ve got an entire nation of eternal worker-slaves with good teeth.

12.How easy it is to build support for our neo-colonial projects, you wouldn’t believe it. All we need to do is continue promoting the superiority of the Western civilizaiton and its values over your barbarism, and no one asks us where we’re headed and who we’re going to bomb. We’ve got the media, you’ve got the megaphones.

13.This is one of those 12 ships that brought 40 billion dollars worth of gold from Haiti in 1838 in order for us to grant them independence. Do you know how much gold we have hoarded from various countries throughout history? Also, a smiliar one, only much more modern, aircraft carrier has just been sent to the Persian Gulf to bomb you back into the stone age. Now, let’s see what you can do.

Fotos: Joann Sfarr/Instagram

World

People on the Road to Power

Leave a comment

Ever since ’70s the Turkish revolutionary movement has been trying to build forms of direct democracy and self-management of the people in order to counter the fascist state, oppression and to bring political, cultural and economic emancipation to the masses. Although the movement was decimated during the period of the junta, the first People’s Councils which have taken place in the slums of Istanbul in the ’70s, lived through a rebirth in the mid ’90s and achieved rapid expansion.

We are sharing with you a collection of articles which describe the whole process, forces behind People’s Assemblies and People’s Councils, the organisations that built it and it’s major achievments as of 1998.