We’ll start by ditching the anachronistic “Victorian Marxists’” theory of development of human history (which tended to map the pattern of historical development of Europe onto the whole world) in favor of the modern Marxist World-System theory.
Therefore, the modern World-System is a capitalist World-System, the roots of which go back to the beginnings of the 16th century. Previous – pre-capitalist – systems were only regional. The more advanced among them are called “tributary” (Amin), which refers to the systems of 300 BC – 1500 CE. What they have in common is that they extracted the surplus through peasant activities through transparent mechanisms in connection with the organization of the power hierarchy, which was reproduced (and legitimized) strictly by the dominance of ideology (state religion). Therefore, there the government was the source of wealth, while in capitalism the opposite is the rule.
The general capitalist market provides a framework in which economic laws (competition) act as forces independent of subjective will. No pre-modern society was based on such principles. Those did contain elements of proto-capitalism, but they succumbed to the prevailing tributary logic. Within and among them exchanges of every kind were intense and served as a means of significant redistribution of surpluses. However, the eventual “centralization” of the surplus was essentially linked to the centralization of political power, and this never crossed local, state or regional borders (except in two shorter periods: the Macedonian and Roman expansions, neither of which gave rise to mechanisms of continuous reproduction).
On the other hand, they gradually crystallized the preliminary elements of the capitalist mode of production; affirmation of modern forms of private property, protection of these forms by law and significant expansion of wage labor (in agriculture and crafts).
So, as shown in the illustration, multipolarity was inherent to pre-capitalist relations of production. The disruption of multipolarity was conceived by the colonization of the Americas and the slave trade, which greatly accelerated the expansion of the proto-capitalist elements mentioned above. Mercantile society, with the accelerated development of production forces, over time imposed the “factory” as the main form of production, a system based on the minimization of production costs in order to maximize profits, giving priority to the endless accumulation of capital (Wallerstein) and non-interfering forms of government.
The vertical expropriation of the surplus (which transformed the aristocracy-peasant polarization into the bourgeoisie-proletariat) gradually lost its primacy over the horizontal one (which, by universalizing the law of value, established the center-periphery antinomy) due to the need to extend the reach of the system to ensure a reduction in costs, thereby peripheral regions historically developed as complementary to the central ones. Capital’s search for unpaid costs and the organized allocation of elements of the production process according to the cheapest labor force are the basic elements of the global transfer of value (Heinrichs), and without global transfers of surplus there can be no world capitalism (Frank).
Therefore, we can define the capitalist world-system as a hierarchy of the center-periphery complexes through which the surplus is drawn from the periphery to the center, which makes it not homogenizing but polarizing (Cleland). Accordingly, imperialism is not a phase of capitalism (nor its highest stage), but capitalism was imperialistic and inherently polarizing from its inception. So, can capitalism be multipolar? If we allude to a more permanent version of multipolarity, the answer is definitely negative. Multipolarity within capitalism is possible only temporarily, during the process of restructuring the world economy, until the new division of cards is completed (the First and Second World Wars are the most recent examples).
Imagine the situation where we had several capitalist centers that simultaneously extracted value from the periphery – they would need at least one more planet. In reality, in order to form a new – parallel – center (like the East-West bipolarity in the 20th century), it is absolutely necessary that the other pole exists outside the capitalist world-system, that is, in socialism. Precisely such conclusions are imposed on Russia today, which, due to the necessity of economic efficiency under sanctions and military pressure of imperialism, has no alternative to the application of at least some socialist policies and a more internationalist approach to international relations than it practiced in previous decades.
However, as our perspective is always the perspective of the most oppressed social strata, whether in a national (proletariat) or world framework (Global South), every struggle for restructuring the World-System is our chance for further revolutionary advances. The struggle for the establishment of new capitalist metropolises also requires political means to disrupt that complementarity, which meant submission to the hegemonic capitalist power (Aglietta). The Bolshevik revolution, national liberation and unification of the Southern Slavs, the rise of anti-colonial struggles, etc. are just some of the examples of using these contradictions, and there is no doubt that for now West Africa and the progressive countries of Latin America use the given advantage most effectively.
Missing a chance for an alliance with a block of countries challenging the global hierarchy would mean remaining stuck in the current – complementary – role in each of the combinations of the future world order.
Idealists labeling Russia an “imperialist” power are sprouting like mushrooms these days. No valid analysis of course, just talking gibberish. The only ones putting an effort into actually articulating their theses are the ones who rely on Lenin’s “5 points” to make a case for themselves, which is expected as being “uncreative Marxists” (Stalin’s term) they remained stuck on archaic positions, and fail to see Marxism as an ever developing theory. These dogmatists have no clue that it’s not Capital export but Unequal exchange that’s at the core of North-South system of exploitation and the uneven development (although it’s not the only form and Capital export still plays a significant portion of it); they have no clue that historical capitalism has actually always been imperialist, in the sense that it has led to a polarization between centers and peripheries since its origin, which has only increased during later globalized development; let alone explain the development of generalized-monopoly capitalism, as capital’s response to the challenge of its long systemic crisis.
Their failure of understanding Russia’s position in the world capitalist system is, therefore, of no surprise. Although reduced to almost complete dependence in the 90-ies, Russia has risen from the world periphery (due to numerous factors) to become the growing semi-peripheral power, whose rise naturally pressures the Core countries for restructuring the monopolies of capitalist reproduction and imperialist exploitation. Such a request, as a result of objective economic growth, may reach the consent (as in case of China before Trump) or resentment (Iran) of the Core countries, which in turn shapes foreign policy of the country in question. In case of Russia, the pressure from the Core countries (actual imperialism) forced its foreign policy to play a progressive role, resorting to sort of fair-trade in it’s struggle to obtain desperately needed markets, and counter the aggressive geostrategy of the imperialist powers, which is opposed to any attempt by the peoples and states of the periphery to get out of the impasse. Luckily for Syrians, that meant avoiding the Serbian or Libyan scenario, and the most concrete form of help. Countries seeking an alternative to adjustment to structural imperialism are watching the development of the situation in Syria and their future choices heavily depend on it.
Which is why, when the world was pealing about the Chinese “green light” for the coup in Zimbabwe, Bashar al-Assad appeared unannounced in Moscow, where he was paraded all over the city. That was a clear message to all the underdeveloped countries seeking a way to overcome the limited possibilities of transformation within the capitalist world economy: “Watch how China treats their allies and see how we treat ours!”. But for Russia to hold on and win this long-lasting battle, in such unfavorable conditions, it must overplay the classic scenarios. And that includes some very unpopular moves amongst the progressive countries. For instance, when the US defeated the USSR in 1980-ies, they achieved so by imposing an arms race and convincing Saudi Arabia to reduce the price of oil in the long run. This time the Russians managed to secure good relations with the Saudis and achieve some kind of cooperation (Moscow gave Riad an excellent deal in managing its desperately needed diversification of economy), ensuring the scenario would not repeat itself.
So should we – the peoples of neocolonies – not take advantage of the situation as analyzed here? Yes, we should ally with Russia in our struggles to defeat imperialism. However, we should be careful not to develop a new dependency. That’s not an issue as long as Russia is compelled to obtain new markets (beyond the official one) and while under the pressure of imperialism. But since it is not socialist, it might become an issue once it is freed (if freed) from the pressure of imperialism. This seems the most favorable moment for the countries of the periphery, seeking an alternative to structural imperialism to use Russia for obtaining “development investments”. In the absence of the socialist superpower and with the final goal of complete delinking, although revolutions are immediately less likely, what we could and should achieve are the “revolutionary advances”.
So why exactly have the leftists from the imperial Core suddenly swamped us with “Russian imperialism” nonsense? The answer is actually quite simple: After the air strikes on Damascus, it has finally struck them that they have been supporting the the Axis of evil (US/UK/France/Israel) in Syria from the start, by giving them a foothold in Rojava, thus helping them achieve their geostrategic objectives and commit genocide over the peoples of the Middle East. A small portion of them repented, self-criticized and corrected themselves. But the larger part needed a new thesis as a support for their deviation. Thus, they’ve managed (in their heads, of course) to finally find a theoretical cover for equalizing the oppressor and the oppressed and continue serving as the prolonged hand of the imperialism in the Third World. Remember their slogan “Neither NATO nor Gaddafi”? If not, you should.
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.
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.
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.
This article has been published originally in Turkish in: Yuruyus [The March], June 7th 2015, Issue: 472
The wolves make peace with the sheep after a thousand years-long war. Peace is useful for both. Yes, the wolves had swallowed many confused sheep, but the shepherds had sewn many coats out of the wolves’ fur.
It was difficult to prey as it was to graze. It was impossible to benefit from what you owned. As we said, they make peace and exchange the prisoners. The wolves pick up their babies; the sheep, their dogs.
The parties agree and make peace, but just as the signatures on the peace agreement was about to dry: the baby wolves grow up and become adults. As they smell the blood and see no shepherds around, they strangle the sheep, bite the ones that are most plump and retreat into the jungle. Secretly informed by their friends, others immediately attack as well and strangle the dogs…
Confident that the promises will be kept, dogs are torn down in their sleep, none of them can survive.
Here is the moral of this story: You should fight against the evil without giving a break. Making peace is good, that’s without a doubt; but it is in vain, futile to make peace with the fickle enemy…
***
The tale says that the sheep and the wolf do not make friends. This should be our lesson: The oppressor and the oppressed, the people and their enemies can never be friends, that is what we say.
The peace negotiations and the peace agreements can never lead to a real peace… The agreements between the opposite classes that have antagonistic contradictions against each other can never benefit any of the sides. Therefore, if there is an agreement, it is an agreement of imposing the will of the powerful party upon the weaker one.
The peace between the wolves and the sheep will end as soon as the sheep become unwary.
This is how the “peace” negotiations between the Colombian State, the fascist collaborator of the US Imperialism and the FARC take place.
The sheep are the feed on the dinner table of the wolves
The Colombian State murders the FARC guerrillas if it has the chance. The “peace” negotiations, however, continue between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the fascist Colombian State in the Havana city of Cuba.
Weeks ago, Colombian army murdered one of the top commanders of FARC, Alfredo Alarcon Machado in a military operation. A member of the Central Military Council, “Roman Ruiz” Machado was commanding the northwest block of FARC.
Colombian State had set a 500.000 dollars price to seize Roman Ruiz. It is said that 5 more FARC members were also killed with him.
It is not an evaluation to say “there cannot be peace between the oppressor and the oppressed”. There is no peace negotiation here: They are imposing a total submission to FARC…
FARC declared a unilateral ceasefire. The negotiations followed. The President of the fascist Colombian State Juan Manuel Santos had already declared that the military operations against FARC would not stop as the negotiations went on… And Colombian State did not stop killing the FARC guerrillas since the beginning of the negotiations.
Apart from the guerrilla commander Alfredo Alarcon Machado, FARC has lost 34 more guerrillas recently. After the operation when 8 more FARC guerrillas have been killed, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos permitted the attacks against FARC despite the peace negotiations which led the killing of dozens of more guerrillas. Recently, 34 guerrillas have lost their lives in the army bombardments.
After the killing of 26 guerrillas in Cauca and 8 in Antioquia, FARC made a statement and declared that they were forced to end the unilateral ceasefire that they have been observing for 6 months.
As mentioned in the FARC statement, it is an obligation to end the ceasefire. This statement is the evidence of the fact that there can be no peace with the fascist Colombian State.
We should not, however, think that FARC would abandon this line of reconciliation and decide to fight to the end… There is no peace negotiation at all… The Colombian State is imposing surrender. FARC is either going to surrender or to fight. There is no third way like “reconciliation”… Now it is up to FARC to make its own decision without deceiving itself with “peace and negotiation”…
Dining with the wolves for 33 years
The peace negotiations that the FARC and Colombian Government declared to be launched on 8th of October in the capital city of Norway, Oslo are not the first. In this 48 years-long war, many negotiations took place between FARC and Colombian State. There have been occasional ceasefires during which the Colombian army continued to massacre the guerrillas.
In 1982 newly elected President Belisario Betancourt made a call for negotiations to FARC and other organizations that were waging an armed struggle. FARC replied this call. After months of reconciliation negotiations, FARC and the government undersigned the La Uribe Agreement. According to it, the agreement and the ceasefire would begin in 1984 and continue until 1990. This agreement gave birth to the Patriotic Union which included the guerrilla groups, unions, human rights organizations. Colombian Government, however, violated the agreement.
The first negotiation took place at the beginning of 1984. FARC declared ceasefire at the end of the negotiations. FARC launched its armed struggle once again after the army violated the agreement.
Nothing came out from the negotiations that took place during the Presidency of Cesar Gaviria between 1990-1994. Cesar Gaviria attacked against the FARC headquarters in Casa Verde during the negotiations in 1990.
In 1999, Pastrana government accepted the implementation of unarmed regions in five provinces that was proposed by FARC. At that period FARC attempted to build its own organizations in the political, administrative, legal and educational fields and to train and strengthen its army for the future. The negotiation process that was launched once again in 1999 fell apart at the beginning of 2002, when the Colombian President Andres Pastarana launched a military offensive.
The result of the negotiations with the wolves: Massacres against FARC
Financially and militarily backed by the US, the new President Alvaro Uribe launched massacres against FARC and the people in 2002.
The ceasefire broke down in February 2002, when FARC hijacked a plane to kidnap a member of parliament.
FARC gave huge losses on the level of guerrilla forces and commanders/leaders between 2002 and 2008.
FARC commander Ricardo Palmera was imprisoned in May 2004.
A leading cadre of FARC, Ricardo Palmera was murdered in a cross-border bombardment on May 1st, 2008.
Special Forces of Colombian Army inflicted great losses on FARC during a military operation in 2008. Colombian Army took back Betancourt and 14 hostages who had been captured by FARC for 6 years.
Jorge Briceno, a military commander of FARC nicknamed as Mono Jojoy was murdered by the fascist Colombian Army in 2010.
FARC leader Alfonso Cano was murdered on November 4th 2011, after the attacks by the Colombian Army in Suarez and Loperz de Mikay regions.
20 FARC guerrillas have been killed after a military operation against the FARC camp while the negotiations between the government and FARC was going on in Oslo, Norway on December 4th, 2012.
39 FARC guerrillas have been massacred during the attacks by Colombian State between 19 and 21st January 2014.
Alfredo Alarcon Machado, nicknamed Roman Ruis has been killed in May 2015.
33 years-long negotiations between the Colombian State, the lackey of US and FARC guerrillas brought nothing but massacre and poverty. Today, there are the “peace” negotiations on the one hand, and the massacres on the other.
FARC’s statement about ending the ceasefire would not mean anything unless the organization makes a thorough self-criticism and decides to fight with the perspective of making a revolution rather than reconciling with the Colombian State.
The peace between the imperialists and the oppressed people is not possible
FARC does not need to go far to see the consequences of making agreements with imperialism and its collaborators. It would be enough if the organization looks at what happened to other armed organizations as a result of “peace policies”. Nothing has been won for the people through reconciliation with imperialism and collaborator powers. On the contrary, a new world that has been the hope of the people was lost. They have agreed on sending a couple of members to the parliament, the price of it being hundreds of thousands of lives lost.
FARC cannot say “We are different, we will not be like that”.
What happened so far is what will be in the future. You do not need to be an oracle to tell what the FARC will meet. Colombian State is saying that they will not halt the operations. They are saying that they are going to continue murdering.
Bourgeoisie has a very strong class hatred: It does not forget!
A farmer and a snake became friends and started to live in the same house. One day, the child of the farmer cut the tail of the snake with a knife when he was playing. And the snake bit the child and killed him. When the farmer saw the snake years later he said “past is the past, let’s be friends again”.
The snake replied, “I have this pain in my tail and you have this grief because of your child, we can never be friends”.
This is the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the people. They can never be friends. And bourgeoisie knows from its hundred years of experience that even the smallest compromise given to the revolutionaries who struggle to destroy them and to liberate the oppressed people might end up with its own destruction. That is why the parasite bourgeoisie hates the working people and their vanguards.
If we do not feel the same hatred, we end up being the feed at the table of the wolves.
Good intentions do not work in politics and peace cannot be won with good intentions. Peace is won through war. The organizations in El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico that wage a guerrilla struggle got weaker ideologically after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the counter-revolutions in the Balkans in the 1990s. They lost the perspective of seizing the political power, the hope of liberation and they were liquidated. The results of the peace and agreements between the oligarchies and the guerrilla forces in those countries were a total disaster.
The fates of the revolutionary organizations in Latin America that attempted to reconcile with oligarchies and imperialism taught us valuable lessons.
To conclude:
There can never be peace between the wolves and the sheep, imperialism, collaborator powers and the oppressed people.
Making “peace” with imperialism and its collaborators would mean submitting to their will. Peace is the liquidation of the armed liberation struggle of the peoples.
The liberation of the people lies in revolution not in reconciliation. Revolutions are made with guns and protected with guns.
There is no other solution than growing the war for revolution and to fight to bring a real peace.
FARC is fighting against the Colombian State for 53 years. This war has cost 4.5 million exiles, 600.000 deaths, 60.000 disappeared and 8.000 militants in prisons. Fascist Colombian State is responsible from all these losses. And there can never be peace unless the Colombian State is defeated decisively.
“I would like to point out that the airstrikes of the coalition have saved many civilian lives, as well as contributed to the YPG resistance. Therefore I am conveying my hopes that the bombings will not cease. They are exerting a strong influence on the friendly ties between our people and the forces that are fighting for world peace and democracy. In the name of my Party and the people of Kobane, I would like to express my gratitude to the International Coalition and the people around the world who have given us support.” – Salih Muslim
With these words the president of PYD and the leader of the Kurdish Armed Forces in Syria had brought to an end the press-conference concerning the “liberation” of the Syrian city of Kobane.1
There was a hush among the leftists following Mister Muslim’s statement. Leaving aside the Indian Maoists and the African national socialist party (APSP), we can safely say that the entire global left-wing, being liberal or radical, has been vigorously propagating and encouraging the Kurdish struggle for the defense of the city of Kobane in Syria, as well as in northern Iraq, where the Islamists have succeed in making an armed breakthrough into the territory under the Kurdish control. The “civilized” and “progressive” Kurds as opposed to the “primitive” and “fanatical” barbarians, higher degree of women emancipation as opposed to patriarchal “oppressors” etc. These are some of the images which propagandize the Kurdish “cause”(the opposite of what they are doing to the Islamic one).
The fact that this narrative was installed mostly by the liberals and leftists of the developed nations and was indisputably accepted by most of the left on the periphery and the semi-periphery, further stresses out the newly-acquired habit of evading class analyses, anti-imperialism and poor understanding of the “evil” nature of the supremacist ideology of “the empire”, so the lack of theoretical framework needed for analyzing and understanding the complexity of the current situation in the Middle East (as well in the other epicenters of the world) doesn’t come as a surprise.
Had the leftists by any chance observed the events concerning the relationship between the Kurdish political representatives and the imperialists over the last fifteen years, and not only after the erupting headlines in the corporate media, Salih’s speech wouldn’t have surprised anyone.
In the absence of real information from the media regarding the background of this relationship, we are going to put an effort to bring about some of the less known details regarding this. As well as offer an analysis of the situation from the Marxist point of view.
PKK is not a Marxist organization.
PKK was formed in the year 1978. Under the name Worker’s Party of Kurdistan, by the Kurdish students under the leadership of Abdullah Öcalan. The primary and completely legitimate goal of this organization was to create an independent state of Kurdistan; made up of territories belonging to Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria, where the Kurds made most of the population. Also, it is estimated that in Turkey, the Kurds make up around 20% of the population. Marxism-Leninism was the official ideology the Organization. From the year 1983, the Organization has been employing the method of armed struggle, creating paramilitary formations which have been operating mostly on the Turkish territory. By the end of the 1980-s, the PKK had gained a massive support from the Kurdish population and had gained first military accomplishments by succeeding in taking over and administrating some parts of the Turkish territory near the border with Iraq and Syria , which they have been winning and losing periodically. One of the combat methods they were employing were the suicide bombing attacks with which Turkey was then confronted for the first time.
In the beginning of the 1990-s, after the collapse of the USSR, the organization looses its greatest financial injection, and for the sake of survival moves to alternative financing methods, including the distribution of narcotics.2 In the mid 1990-s, under pressure from fierce offensives of the Turkish Army, they were periodically retreating to inaccessible areas of the Southern Mountains; from where they would launch guerilla assaults on the Turkish Army, causing it considerable losses. By putting pressure on the International Community, the Turkish authorities have succeeded in adding the PKK on the international terror list. That kind of stalemate, which also diminishes the security and soverenity on the Turkish side, and causes considerable economic losses, while at the same time prevents the Kurdish side from gaining important military and political victories, was the basis for imminent negotiations and peace talks by which, with help from western imperialists both sides involved in the conflict reached important political achievements. All that, of course, in the name of economic “stability” of the region, and the American hegemony in the Middle East, at the expense of the peoples of Iraq and Syria.
Contacts with the Turkish authorities and the United States that led to progress in the Turkish-Kurdish conflict were already being held. It is speculated that Öcalan was offered kind of autonomy in Turkey, as well as a significant role in the political life of Iraqi (and later Syrian) Kurdistan, after the invasion of Iraq, which the Americans planned in early 2000. All this, of course, provided that the PKK disarm, renounce Marxism-Leninism and the goal of an independent state on the territory of Turkey. The first publication of contacts and cooperation involving the PKK and the MIT-TV (Turkish secret police) was published by the journalist Ugur Mumcu, who sadly paid for that matter with his life, and his executors have never been found.34 Ankara proved to be a tougher negotiator, and what followed on the Kurdish side was supposed to be a shock to the entire world left, but it seems that important political decisions and ideological contortions among the Third World movements remain relatively poorly observed, due to the dominance of Eurocentric discourse and opportunism which, quite wrongly, assumes that solving the main antagonisms today shall be dealt with within the core countries, with a domino effect in the periphery, as we’ve previously written. Öcalan (who was hiding in Syria at that time), gave an interview to Michael M. Gunther5 , the professor of the University of Tennessee, where he promoted the new concept, Federalism, as a substitute for previous goal of independence, and refused to be labeled a communist:
“The dialogue between Turkey and the PKK, then the agreement would be good for Turkey and would make it stronger. All we ask for is real democracy in Turkey. I am more of a Turk than the Turkish leaders! … It is not possible for us to be communists. Why the Soviet Union collapsed and the United States did not? Because in communism the government is everything but a human being is nothing. USA is development. “- March 1998.
Further indications of willingness of Öcalan to renounce revolutionary activity we notice in his statement that he could not cooperate with the DHKP-C (the Turkish revolutionary organization)6 because they are “responsible for several murders of prominent businessman”, thereby showing his readiness to condemn the attacks on big capital owners.
The dialogue which Öcalan referred to, went on hold, since he was only a few months later denied hospitality by the Syrian government, and after a temporary stay in Moscow and Athens, got arrested in Nairobi in a joint operation by the secret services of Turkey, Israel and the US, and was delivered to Ankara .7 Turkey seems to have won a victory, holding a trump card which would facilitate future negotiations needed. Öcalan was initially sentenced to death for betrayal, but his sentence was, as expected, renamed to life imprisonment.
Pro-Kurdish protest in the USA
Öcalan ‘s Democratic Federalism
During the first few years of captivity Öcalan developed his theory of “Democratic Federalism” in details8 , based on the works of Murray Bookchin and his “Libertarian Municipalism” model. This emerging structure aims not at eliminating private property nor the abolition of classes, and the fact that the tribal system remains, and that the tribal leaders are involved in the administration shows that the goal is not to eliminate feudal and capitalist relations of production, but instead “building a democratic nation.”9
Socio-economic vision of the PKK, in the short term, is the economy based on cooperatives, which would, as they say, “contributed to the democratization” of society. The Co-president of PYD, Asia Abdullah, on the instructions of the “ideological center”, spoke of the economic ideas to rebuild Rojava, in February 2014:
“Who should own the means of production? The state, the cantons, the capitalists? In general we have to protect private property. However, the property of the people must also be protected. ”10
Öcalan’s analysis of the collapse of “real socialism” is reduced to the already well-known liberal ideas of the idealists that the Soviet bloc collapsed because of “totalitarianism”, and so the historical and materialist discourse of that development is absent. For him, socialism and the workers’ struggle is of secondary importance in relation to questions of religious and ethnic identity and democratic freedoms, and he believes that recognizing the democratic rights of all these different identities would lead to a new “democratic civilization”. According to him, the twentieth century was marked by “the disappearance of the material basis of class division,” because of “technological progress”, but the possibility of a society without class divisions remains unfeasible because “the state controls the social structure”.11 Any discussion on the capital is, of course, absent.
It remains a mystery how Öcalan’s “pluralistic democratic structure” solves the class issue, if not striving towards the elimination of capitalist relations of production, but we will not pursue that any further, since we suspect a different pragmatic motive behind the transfiguration of Öcalan and the PKK, and we attribute the theoretical ambiguities and contradictions to the lack of dialectical materialism, as well as the fruitless attempt to transfer the “inevitable” opportunistic and juggling practice to paper or a new ideological framework. In his defense, Ocalan often repeated that the world has changed, but we know that for the proletariat, the dominant role of capitalist class society has not undergone a change. In war or in peace, the proletariat is obliged to be able to discern the reality of class society from fantasy, so the idealistic vision of Öcalan and Bookchin about the alleged overcoming of political categories such as nation, state, and class antagonisms, we see as ignorance or betrayal of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction, because the truth remains that all these categories are very problematic, real, tangible and alive for the proletarian class, and the only way to overcome those is precisely the class struggle.
What we are most interested in, is the right turn and ideological transformation of the PKK leader, under the direct influence of the new circumstances of the prison environment and cooperation with the imperialists, of which the “Democratic Federalism” is the first step. Öcalan suddenly equates the Democracy with parliamentary, capitalist countries of the West: he argues that the European countries developed the “high level of democracy” and that it led to “the supremacy of the West”, therefore the “Western civilization can be labeled a democratic civilization”.12 “In general, the Western democratic system – which was set up by the huge sacrifices – contains everything needed for the solution of social problems.”13
In the courtroom he continued with reinterpretation of history and ideology of the PKK, where he expressed regrets over the death of Turkish soldiers. When the court asked whether it would be right to transcribe his words as an apology, he agreed. He did not mention the suffering of the Kurds but found time to praise Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, and has gone so far as to say that if Turkey would faithfully follow the ideas of Ataturk, there would be no “Kurdish issue”. He added that the goal of an independent Kurdish state is unattainable, even in the long run, and that it is not even desirable.14
Soon after, at the eighth Congress of the PKK, held on 16 April 2002, the “democratic transformation” was voted, which meant that the PKK rejected the violent means to achieve the “liberation”, demanding political rights of Kurds in Turkey. Since that Congress, the PKK has been transformed by creating a new political organization, “Freedom and Democracy Congress of Kurdistan” (KADEK), whose task was to fight exclusively by democratic means. It was also decided that the Armed Forces (HPG), the military wing of the PKK, will not be dismantled yet. Over time, the KADEK turned into more moderate “Kurdistan National Congress” (Kongra-Gel), so as to be allowed to take part in talks with the Turkish authorities and to facilitate the participation in the parliamentary arena. It is also the main body of “Democratic Federalism” and, in essence, the proto-state of Kurdish people under the direction of the PKK, and gathers many other Kurdish forces that recognize the supreme authority of the PKK.
PKK and friends
This new, reformed PKK acquired new friends in the international arena. When in May 2010, after the terrorist attack on Iskerun, one of the leaders of the PKK, Kenan Yıldızbakan, was arrested, close links between the Kurdish organization and the State of Israel were revealed, which turned out to have lasted for eight years, since the eighth Congress in 2002. In Yıldızbakan’s possession, wiretapping equipment that was supplied by Israel, was found, as well as evidence of logistic support. Israel has used the fictitious company established in Azerbaijan to deliver the PKK listening devices produced by an Israeli telecom company “Tadiran”. The units were shipped to Iran from Azerbaijan and then to Turkey through northern Iraq. In 2010, just between February and June, the PKK was equipped with 60 air communication systems and 35 VHF/UHF communication systems.15
Israeli-Kurdish relationship could also have been the missing link in communication between Western imperialists and the organization they classified as “terrorist“. Late last year, after a “surprising” military alliance with the international coalition led by the United States, co-founder and one of the senior officials of the PKK Cemil Bayik said: “Co-operation and contacts between the international coalition and the PKK were held in secret, and implemented through intermediaries.”16 At the same time we heard from other PKK officials who openly acknowledged direct contact, as with US military officials also with CIA operatives.17
Regional power and geopolitics
Salih Muslim with CIA operatives and US diplomats
From Öcalan’s prison “enlightenment” and “democratic transformation” of the organization, a smaller part of the armed forces of the PKK remained in Turkey as a trump for negotiations with the government, but it’s bulk moves to Iraq where, due to the massive support, it installs itself as an important factor in creating a political atmosphere and contributes to political developments.
Iraqi Kurdistan during the rule of the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein enjoyed an autonomy, and with American assistance at the end of the nineties hit the degree of independence. The two dominant parties in the political arena of Iraqi Kurdistan have been and still remain the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) led by Djelal Talabani, and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), led by Massoud Barzani. Both parties with identical, neo-liberal economic views, were often used by the US to destabilize Iraq in the nineties, and were then engaged in a failed attempt to murder Saddam Hussein in 1996, planned in Washington, which led to the brutal revenge by the Iraqi authorities.18
Ruthless power struggle in Iraqi Kurdistan, between the KDP and PUK errupted int an armed conflict, which could not be resolved without the intervention of the already present and influential force – the PKK. Öcalan’s organization decided to support Talabani’s PUK and managed to turn the tide of the conflict in their favor. Then the Turkish air force decided to cross over the Iraqi border and deliver air strikes against the PKK and PUK positions, helping Barzani’s KDP.19
Using the general chaos, the Iraqi authorities lifted the aviation, and engaged in the conflict, which concerned the Americans who resolved to end the inter- Kurdish conflict once and for all, before the Iraqi government managed to regain sovereignty over its northern province. The ingenious US plan was put to work in 1998, by offering the two leaders (Barzani and Talabani) eleven million dollars in bribes to stop the conflict and sign a peace agreement.20 Under the agreement, the warring parties were committed to power sharing, as well as not to allow the return of the Iraqi army to Kurdistan, the United States commited to protect the Kurds from any possible future aggression by Saddam Hussein, and the Kurdistan’s air space was declared the “non-flying zone”.21 Such “independence” of Iraqi Kurdistan meant the exemption from sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1992, which are responsible for the deaths of half a million Iraqi civilians22 , thus the standard of living in the northern province has greatly improved, and a large number of foreign companies rushed to oil-rich province, to grab their part of the pie. The US military Special Forces have been given the task of organizing and training Kurdish fighters called the “Peshmerge”, who in 2003, during the US invasion of Iraq, took part in the fighting against the Iraqi regime on the side of the imperialists.23 What we find most interesting, is the fact that the PKK armed forces and their leadership got the green light from the new KDP-PUK government to remain in Iraqi Kurdistan, where they are still mostly stationed, and it is more than obvious that decisions of this caliber aren’t taken without consultations with the United States.24 It is more than a solid proof that the imperialists did not see the danger to their economic interests and investments from the new, reformed PKK.
The occupation of Iraq, “Democratic federalism” and the Sunni insurgency
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was code-named “Operation Iraqi Liberation” abbreviated OIL (oil). In very short time 148,000 US troops, 70,000 Kurdish Peshmergas, 45,000 British, 2,000 Australian, 1,300 Spanish and 194 Polish soldiers overran Iraqi troops and so crowned the ten years of imposed sanctions with the complete military collapse of the Iraqi government.25 In contrast to Kurdistan, where the imperialists were welcomed as liberators, the people of Iraq treated the invasion as an occupation which they continued to resist even after the overthrow of the Baathist regime.
Shiite militias in the south of the country during the first two years of occupation intensively attacked the British and American troops, until the peace talks in 2004, which were put into service by the new regime dominated by Shiite and Kurdish politicians. In Sunni areas of the province of Anbar, the resistance has not faded, and with more or less success has continued ever since. The remnants of the Baathist regime, Islamists and tribal militia, offered fierce resistance to coalition allies, and expanded the military operations against the newly formed neo-colonial regime in Baghdad and the new Iraqi army. Full destruction of cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi in 2003 and 2004, and a continuation of the genocidal policy of the new Iraqi authorities in 2007 and 2010, had not achieves the desired effect. The siege and indiscriminate bombing of Sunni cities led to massive civilian casualties, but also further radicalized the local population, as we have already written. Thus, contrary to the advertising campaign of the mainstream media, an organization such as ISIS has not suddenly sprung out of the nowhere, but is the result of a decade of struggle which the oppressed and abandoned Iraqi population waged against the imperialist, colonialist and racist oppression of the empire and its subjects. The Islamists did not have to sell their doctrine to be accepted but only prove effective in the fight against the empire.
Meanwhile, the development of political life in Iraqi Kurdistan led to fertile conditions for the profit of the dominant class of external power centers, foreign investment, market opening, a very small tax on profit of foreign corporations and the abundance of cheap labor and raw materials. Among the oil companies that profit the most dominate the American, British, Canadian, Turkish and French companies, but neither Russia nor China have not remained unrewarded for the tacit support of the invasion, and the non-use of the veto in the Security Council (the recipe that was repeated during the invasion of Libya, 2011) .26 The raw materials that the new Kurdistan authorities were permitted to keep to themselves found their way to foreign markets of Israel, the US, Italy, Germany and Netherlands.27
Due to the US “suggestions”, the Kurdish authorities renounced aspirations for independence and accepted federalism as the offered model of operation. According to the Constitution of 2005, Iraqi Kurdistan is a federal Iraqi entity, with its own assembly and parliamentary system.28 In the presidential election that year, Barzai and his KDP achieved victory, while his rival and leader of the PUK, Talabani, became the president of Iraq in 2007. That same year, former US President Bill Clinton at a donor party explained to the richest Americans why their troops, after the announced withdrawal from Iraq, must remain in Iraqi Kurdistan: “The Kurds are reconciled with each other and enjoy relative peace and security … And if we leave , not only may they again engage in a civil war, but the Turks may be tempted to attack them, because they do not like the fact that the PKK guerrillas are sometimes stationed in northern Iraq, where they are hiding after the attacks carried out in Turkey. ”29
Iranian PJAK, PKK sister organisation
All these data shed light on the question to why the air force of the international coalition responded instantly when fighters from ISIS stationed in Mosul waged their first attacks on the fringes of the Kurdish cities of Iraq and later in the town of Kobane in Syria. When big economic interests are at stake, the imperialists do not tend to lose time. In addition to the air strikes, military aid in arms was delivered directly to Kurdish authorities30 even though the mainstream media claimed to the contrary, and the military “advisers” and experts from the US31) , France32 , Germany and Sweden33 , Britain and Norway34 , joined the already present Israelis35 , which since 2004 trained and armed the Kurdish “militias” in Iraqi Kurdistan. Israeli Prime Minister had already openly and loudly called for support to the Kurds and the complete independence of Kurdistan36 , and the public is informed of the fact that a company owned by former Mossad chief Danny Latom and businessman Schlomi Mikaels does business with the Kurdish government, providing strategic consultations on economic and security issues , and has delivered “a ton of equipment, including motorcycles, tractors, sniffer dogs, systems to upgrade Kalashnikov rifles, body armor, etc …”37
Let’s see how the PKK organizes in this bastion of imperialism. The PKK continued engagement in the political scene of the region through the newly established organization in Turkey – HDP38 , Iraq – Gorran39 , in Syria – YPD and its armed wing YPG40 . In Turkey, the peace process is coming to an end, and the remaining soldiers of the PKK, were commanded by Öcalan to relocate to Iraqi Kurdistan where the entire military force of the PKK is now placed.41) After the complete disarmament of the PKK, the military units leaving Turkish territory, and legal political activity conducted through the HDP, what remains is to determine the details around the federal status of Turkish Kurdistan, a new electoral law and the future release of Ocalan from prison.
On the political scene of Iraqi Kurdistan, the PKK has grown into one of the three key political players, so the parliamentary results of the political movement “Gorran” are expected soon, as it was announced42 , while the military forces of the PKK actively participate in combat operations against Isis, side by side with the international coalition and the Peshmergas.
In Syria, the PKK operates through the PYD, and it’s armed wing the YPG, which during the first days of the Syrian crisis, occupied predominantly Kurdish areas in the north of Syria and by now largely self-administer the entire Kurdish North.
Of course, the “Democratic Federalism” would not be complete without the territory inhabited by the Iranian Kurds, on what issue the armed forces of PJAK, the Iranian branch of the PKK have been working intensively, until recently43 , funded by … again Israel and the United States.44
It is absurd, that inspite it all, the PKK enjoys the support of both liberal and “radical” left of the First World, and, as expected, the sympathy in liberal circles in the West, where more and more voice their support of “decriminalization” of the organization, and demand their removal from the EU and US terrorist list.
“Islamic” pipeline and Syria
Syria is not a “big” oil producer, but until the outbreak of the Civil War Damascus was making a negligible four billion US dollars a year from oil sales – one third of the state budget. However, Syria is more important as the “energy crossroads” than as a manufacturer, and serves as a “conductor” of the Arab gas pipeline (AGP) from Egypt to Tripoli (in Lebanon) and IPC pipeline from Kirkuk, in Iraq, to the port of Banias (this flow is out use since the US led invasion of 2003). Syria in 2011 announced that it has discovered a promising gas field around the city of Homs, which will later see some of the fiercest battles between the government forces and rebels. But the majority of Syrian oil reserves lie in the Kurdish northeast, which is geographically located between Iraq and Turkey, and the rest is along the Euphrates River, in the south.45
Qatar, home to the world’s largest natural gas fields besides Iran, proposed the gas pipeline from the Gulf through the Syria to Turkey, from where, through the Mediterranean, the gas would be delivered to Europe. This plan was supported by the US and the EU, however, Assad in 2009, rejected the proposal, and instead, accepted the offer from Russia and Iran to build “Islamic gas pipeline” Iran-Iraq-Syria, which would have ended in the Russian military bases, Latakia and Tartus on the Syrian Mediterranean coast. Upon completion, the project would drastically reduce the strategic energy power of the allies (Qatar and the US) and eliminate Turkey from the future pipeline, which has long wanted to become the main bridge in distribution of natural gas and oil between East and West. Iran, Iraq and Syria signed an agreement for the construction of 3480 kilometers of gas pipeline back in 2010, and the deadline for the opening has been set for 2016.46 ,47
Favoring Russia and Iran against Western energy interests would cost the Syrian government dearly, and even before the construction of the agreed project began, Syria was hit by the terrible civil war, so that the whole project was stopped until further notice. In his address to Congress in 2013. Secretary of State John Kerry said that the Arab friends offered to pay for the cost of US military intervention in Syria. Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen asked for the estimated amount by which the Arabs can contribute, and Kerry responded that they offered to pay the full cost of the invasion.48
Such a scenario that excluded Turkey from the “Islamic gas pipeline” was not approved by the Kurds who make up nine percent of the population of Syria – about 1.6 million people – because every land flow of natural gas to Turkey inevitably passes through Kurdish territory of Syria or Iraq. Upon realization of the plan of federalism, which includes the Syrian Kurds, the issue of a direct route for oil exports from Iraqi Kurdistan to the Mediterranean would be sorted out, as well as an absolute control over 70 percent of Syrian oil reserves.49 In general, each post-Assad scenario that envisages the release of the gas pipeline to Turkey, relies on the peace and stability in Kurdistan, and the reformed PKK as a guarantor of security of imperialist interests. The safety factor definitely accelerated the Kurdish-Turkish peace process and successfully brought it to an end.
YPG and FSA in common operations
During 2003 and the US invasion of Iraq, PKK activists of Syrian origin established the PYD, a branch of the organization in Syria50 , and members of the PYD do not deny their subordination to PKK whose name they off the record continue to use. They recognize the “National Congress of Kurdistan”(KONGRA-GEL), as the highest organ of the Kurdish people.51 What we can say with certainty is that the PYD is not established in order to legally take part in political life in Syria because the Syrian Constitution prohibits political parties which are based on national, religious, regional or tribal basis, so due to the prohibition of action, until the start of the Civil War in Syria, it was based in Iraqi Kurdistan. In 2012, the Syrian army was forced to withdraw troops from the Kurdish areas and regroup them around the city of Homs, where some of the fiercest fighting against the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) took place, and so immediately after the withdrawal, the YPG, the armed wing of PYD, entered and occupied these territories and proclaimed the Kurdish self-rule.52
In spring 2012, the President of Iraqi Kurdistan Massoud Barzani organized a meeting of all Kurdish organizations from Syria in order to form a single organization “Kurdish National Council” to assume the role of administering conquered areas in Syria, as well as the establishment of units “Popular Defence Forces’ military wing organization. PYD, as a branch of the PKK, accepted the invitation, and joined the “Kurdish National Council,” which declared it’s main aim was to fight against the Assad regime.53 Following the takeover of the city of Kobane after the withdrawal of the Syrian army, the flags of the PKK and of Iraqi Kurdistan were hanged at the municipal building. Asked about it by journalists, the PYD spokesman stated: “The PKK is not able to administer the western Kurdistan on it’s own. We need the unity of all organizations. ”54 Shortly afterwards, a statement was issued by the PYD to the Kurdish population of Rojava, which issued a ban on leaving the province, and threatened those who want to leave their villages by seizure of assets55 , so as to preserve the Kurdish region in Syria of the potential demographic change. This was followed by another shocking statement of the PYD leader Salih Muslim for TV station “Selek“, where he said: “One day, those Arabs who have immigrated to the Kurdish region will have to be driven out”56 , referring to the Syrians who for decades inhabited those areas, in their own country.
The battle for the Kobane
What began as a rebellion of the Sunnis in Iraq has turned into a successful march against the neo-colonial regime in Baghdad, the Kurdish collaborators in Iraq and Syria, and less successful conflict with national authorities in Damascus. Intoxicated by continuous successes in the territory of the size of Western Europe, which certainly would not be achieved without the support of the locals, ISIS fighters tactlessly , but more or less successfully engaged on several fronts at once, untill the inclusion of the international coalition led by the United States in the conflict. The attack on the Kurdish town of Kobane was the “straw that broke the camel’s back”, just as was the armed threat to Iraqi Kurdistan, and under the pretext of “human rights, freedom and democracy” as always, the imperialists started off the military campaign in the service of preserving their own interests. ISIS attacks are, of course, directed mainly towards the oil-rich areas, and by 2012 the PYD controled about 60 percent of Syria’s oil facilities, which were continuously delivered to the Iraqi Kurdistan57 , where they found its way to Western markets, as we have already shown.
Opaque meetings and contacts with the imperialists of which we hear subsequently, provide clues to how the relations of production are to be regulated and how the “revolution” will win in Rojava, and given that the consultations take place in Turkey58 , London59 , Paris60 and Washington6162, the afore mentioned statement of the co-president of YPG’s about protecting private property, comes as no surprise. What we are told is that Mr. Salih Muslim, leader of the YPG, the president of Iraqi Kurdistan, Massoud Barzani, and “the highest US security and diplomatic officials” agreed on how the Syrian Kurdistan will be administered.63
During the armed conflict in Kobane, instead of class and geopolitical analysis on the Left, mostly rumors and conspiracy theories dominated, which liberal and “wannabe” radical sectors of the left promoted in order to hide their own ignorance and inertia. So according to the majority on the left, apparently the Turkish government was “definitely on the side of Isis” whom they supported with armes and logistics, while obstructing the YPG. Thus, the United States were also “arming and training the Islamists”, “very ineffective in the bombing” and were intentionally delaying the dispatchment of heavy weapons to the Kurds because they supposedly had no interest in seeing the “left-wing revolution” achieve victory in Rojava, etc, etc …
US volunteers in Kobani
To the other ones, who in their analysis track the flow of money (the only true spokesman of imperialism), a denial that followed did not come as a surprise. The President of Kurdistan, Massoud Barzani subsequently declared that the Turks, immediately after the Iranians, were among the first to send armed assistance to the Kurds during the conflict with ISIS, but have requested for personal reasons, not to go out public with that information.64 The Turks have also took care of the wounded PKK/YPG soldiers in the military hospitals in Turkey, during the conflict with the Islamists, so 422 wounded YPG and 40 PKK soldiers from Kobane were transported directly to military hospitals in Turkey where they were treated.65
Further earthquakes continued to arrive. The following straight from the PKK officials, who have revealed that they were in direct contact with the Americans since 2012 via the US ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, and special envoy for Syria Daniel Rubinstein, regarding the arms sent to YPG, and a possible coalition with the Syrian, pro-Western Opposition FSA66 .
Then, the PYD leader Salih Muslim in an interview to “Daily News” stated that the relations with the Americans are very good, and on the question of journalists whether they were armed by the US only in relation to a Kobane, Muslim replied: “No, they will send us weapons whenever request. ”67
And finally, the tip of the iceberg, a YPG spokesman Polat Can declares:
“Air strikes are very effective … Some groups of the FSA (pro-Western Syrian opposition) are here in the Kobane and help us … We have a direct relation with the coalition without any intermediaries. YPG representative is physically ready in the joint operation command center and transmits the coordinates… Hence, the victory of Kobane resistance means a victory for Kurdistan, coalition forces, USA and for every human being with a conscience. “68
A few months later, Turkey and Kurdistan signed a contract on the construction of a joint gas pipeline as part of the “Southern Gas Corridor”, from Irbil in Kurdistan to the Turkish port of Ceyhan69 , the United States opened a new military base in Kurdistan, near Irbil70 , PYD explained to Fransois Oland: “We are fighting against those who attacked Charlie Hebdo. Our resistance is your resistance. PYD and YPG are your friends. ”71 PYD agreed an alliance with the FSA (Free Syrian Army) and clashed with the Syrian army in Aleppo and Hasaka72, Salih Muslim thanks the imperialists for the help73 , yet the loud and vigorous support and contribution from the World Left no one seems to remember, even though it has played a significant role in securing unimpeded popular support for the neo-colonial project, because if we by some chance were to practice Marxism, write class analysis, organize debates, protests, pressure the imperialists, challenge its propaganda, and who knows what more radical and extreme, perhaps this imperialist plot would not have succeeded.
Conclusion
How does Öcalan’s statement of 1998 differ from Salih Muslim’s a few months ago? For Öcalan the imperialists are “development”, and for Muslim “forces defending peace and democracy in the world”. Abandonment or misunderstanding of Marxism-Leninism by the leadership of the PKK, as well as by the Western Left, may lead to dangerous errors of opportunism, the alienation of the oppressed masses and open or tacit support to the geopolitical games imperialists conduct daily against the peoples of the Third World, paving the way for their own economic interests. Taking to such lines tremendously damages the reputation of the left among the masses of the underdeveloped countries, it does not offer an anti-imperialist alternative to the oppressed and openly pushes away revolutionary subjects with the anti-imperialist sentiments into the hands of the Islamists, which explains their growth and strengthening.
If we accept that the US occupation of Iraq (as well as any occupation) is illegitimate and guided by clear interest in profit and capital accumulation in the centers of power, then we accept that the installed regimes in Baghdad and Irbil, which enable the realization of such, unhindered enrichment of the foreign centers of power on the expense of the Iraqi people, are also illegitimate, and that the resistance of the marginalized, alienated, impoverished, militarily and politically oppressed Sunni population is quite legitimate.
To quote Lenin: ” If we do not want to betray socialism we must support every revolt against our chief enemy, the bourgeoisie of the big states, provided it is not the revolt of a reactionary class. By refusing to support the revolt of annexed regions we become, objectively, annexationists. It is precisely in the “era of imperialism”, which is the era of nascent social revolution, that the proletariat will today give especially vigorous support to any revolt of the annexed regions so that tomorrow, or simultaneously, it may attack the bourgeoisie of the “great” power that is weakened by the revolt.”74
Things are simple as far as the struggle against imperialism is concerned, what weakens them abroad weakens them at home, so any attack on neo-colonial regimes in Baghdad and Irbil should be supported and benefits from the crisis effects that such blows inflict on imperialism should be taken advantage of. However, the problem of inertia arises as the proletariat of the developed countries, although it is not participating in the exploitation of the proletariat of the Third World, directly benefits from such exploitation75 , and the alliance with the bourgeoisie in the core countries seems unavoidable, and opportunism “inevitable”. An even greater problem is that such a proletariat, and such Left, of the imperialist core, dominates and dictates the ideological trends on which the left of the periphery gathers and wholeheartedly follows (at their own expense). This opportunism slowly but surely penetrates into our world view, and gives it a certain liberal ideological framework that favors anti-authoritarinism over anti-imperialism.
But to us, the proletariat of the Third World, it is the imperialism, not the reactionary aspect in social and cultural issues, that should be the primary enemy, because our lived experience of oppression means that, unlike the Western Left, we can not afford the luxury of not being clear on the nature of the”Empire“. And therefore we can not afford to, such as opportunists, provide tacit support for imperialism and attribute a progressive role to the murederers of mankind. That, very racist liberal framework adopted by the Left, which equates imperialism with reactionary cultural and social practices of the Islamists, really helps to build popular support for neo-colonialist project, and we want to make it clear that the alleged superiority of Western civilization and its values, is simply based on constructed lies and myths. The contradictory nature of European self-understanding and self-perception is completely excluded from it’s practice, and we know how many people in the world see five centuries of European hegemony as a continuous hell.
Kobani air strikes
For such Left, fifty million African slaves (half of which ended at the bottom of the Atlantic)76 , the African holocaust committed against the local population in European colonies where only in Congo ten million people were killed77 , not to mention the rest of Africa, Asia and Australia, the longest genocide in the history of the world, over the American Indians that took the lives of forty million people in four centuries78 , four million children who die of hunger each year79 , a number of victims of imperialist aggression against Iraq, Somalia , Libya, Mali, Serbia, El Salvador, Vietnam, etc., the systematic impoverishment of the Third World for the sake of enriching the First, the international banking system, a brutal economic exploitation of three-quarters of the planet, etc., etc. – is equalized with the reactionary social practice of women oppression by ISIS, and “uncivilized”executions of a dozen of imperialist journalists. Ask yourself which cause such Left serves.
Using the Maoist principle to pay the attention to the main contradiction, Indian Maoists support the anti-imperialist aspect of the Islamists, while also struggling against the reactionary ideology of the social and cultural issues80 , using Marxism-Leninism as the basis of understanding the nature of imperialism. “Where will the revolution start? Where, in what country, can the front of capital be pierced first? “Writes Stalin. “Where the industry is more developed, where the proletariat constitutes the majority, where there is more culture, more democracy? No! – Answers the Leninist theory of revolution. Front of capital will be pierced where the chain of imperialism is weakest, because the proletarian revolution results in cracking the chain of world imperialist front at its weakest link; and it may turn out that the country that started the revolution, which broke through the font of capital, is less developed in a capitalist sense than other, more developed countries, which still remain in the framework of capitalism. ”81
Does this mean that we openly support the ISIS? For those who are less familiar with the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, let us explain. There is no unconditional support for the movements and organizations that do not seek the abolition of capitalist relations of production, private ownership of the means of production and strive not for socialism. But Marxism is dealing with the objective antagonisms, and the situation as it is and not as we would like it to be, based on imaginary scenarios. Accordingly, we support the progressive functioning of certain movements directed towards the destruction of the old, still existing relations and withdraw it where the operation is aimed at combating more progressive relations. Those unfamiliar with dialectical materialism will ask how the same thing is and is not, and how can we simultaneously support and condemn the same movement. To explain by an example: the communists always support the “democratic revolutions”, as they seek to destroy the reactionary feudal relations, but at the same time criticize them as they seek to establish a new, exploitative, capitalist relations.
In the case of Sunni, Baath/ISIS resistance, we support the people’s struggle against imperialism, even though we internally criticize reactionary ideology and social appearance of Muslim fundamentalism, yet we do not privilege it in relation to a key and principal contradiction, responsible for “hell on earth”. We consider that any attack on the collaborators of imperialism is an attack on imperialism itself and serves its weakening and undermining, as it contributes significantly to the loss of funding of the centers of power, and thus a weaker standard of the proletariat of the empire, as well as its re-engagement as a revolutionary subject.
We’ll make a brief analogy of Sunni insurgency in Iraq and the many uprisings of slaves in the West. During the 400 years of slavery in the West, contrary to popular opinion, numerous uprisings of slaves were recorded. Led by such names as Gaspar Janga, a Baptist priest Samuel Sharp, Nani Marun, Nat Turner, etc., many of which were under the influence of Christian teaching, to which they, due to material circumstances, offered their own reinterpretation. The case of mentioned Nat Turner sparked revolt and anger amongst white population of America’s 19th century, even in regions where the idea of slavery did not have huge support. Nat Turner killed the landlord of the plantation where he worked, and later with a group of slaves he set free, murdered the landlords of all of the surrounding plantations, including their families, wives, children, and animals that he found on the farm. He spared only a few homes because he believed that poor whites did not have much better treatment than blacks.8283 Turner also believed that the revolutionary violence served to awaken the attitudes of white people about the reality of the inherent brutality of slavery, a concept similar to the 20th century philosopher Franz Fanon about the idea of ”violence as being purgatory.”84 He was responsible for the murder of sixty whites, then caught by national organized militia and hanged. If we support Turner’s revolt, and we, of course, won’t hesitate to, does this mean that we support the Christian fundamentalism, which inspired him ? Or are we willing to accept such ideas as a product of Turner’s material circumstances?
Captured pilot of the “International coalition” forces
Instead of denying support to the attacks on imperialists and their puppets, due to the extremist religious cultural practices of the rebels, as do the liberal left folks, we understand the suffering of the oppressed peoples caused by the imperialists and their local allies, and aspirations of the people of the Third World to free themselves from the yoke of imperialism. As Marxists, we believe that it’s not the idea, but the material circumstances that shape the reality, we understand that in accordance with such realities oppressed people of Iraq seek anti-imperialist interpretation of existing, dominant and offered ideas. Accordingly, Islamic fundamentalism seems like a logical and realistic option. But such an approach at the same time carries a large dose of self-criticism, because we are aware that our militant disengagement and lack of clear attitude, action and cooperation, leaves room for less progressive ideology and movements to organize such a struggle.
What does it mean on the paper? In the clashes of Baath/ISIS team against the puppet Iraqi government, the Kurdish collaborators and the international coalition, we support the Baath/ISIS coalition and applaud at every endangering the safety of imperialist interests. In the clashes between ISIS against the Syrian authorities (Iraqi Baath is not participating in this conflict) and Hezbollah, we support the Syrian government and Hezbollah. Why? We have shown that the Syrian government refuses to be a puppet of the West, insisting on the promotion of local interests at the expense of foreign powers and foreign companies. It leads a state that is based on anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism, Arab nationalism and the (non-Marxist) socialism, it’s disobedient to the Empire, and does not put the interests of foreign investors to make profits ahead of economic development of Syria. The State Department regrets that “ideological reasons” prevent Assad to move towards “liberalization” of the economy85 , while the American “Library of Congress” disapproves of the “socialist structure,” of the Syrian government and economy.86 Any attack on Syrian state and government, currently serves only the interests of the imperialists.
As for the Kurds and the right to self-determination, we know that Marx and Engels in a given time supported the right of individual nations to self-determination and denied support to other nations during the 19th century.87 The reason for this was that they felt that some of the newly-established, nationally liberated countries would be a prolonged hand of the then Russian Tsarism, and had consequently taken a position against the national liberation of the peoples in that, specific moment. The key here is that we have shown the link between all of the objective forces of Kurdistan and the imperialists. Why is this the key, Comrade Lenin had explained: “Many of the requirements of democracy, including self-determination, are not an absolute, but only a small part of the general – democratic (now: general – socialist) world movement. In some specific cases, part may contradict the whole; and if so, must be rejected. It is possible that the republican movement in one country is only instrument of the clerical or financial-monarchist intrigues of other countries; If so, we can not support such a movement. “88
Comrade Stalin added: “… The proletariat does not have to support every national movement, everywhere and always, in each individual case. Support must be given to such national movements which seek to undermine, overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and preserve it. Lenin was right in saying that the national movement of the oppressed countries should be appraised not from the point of view of formal democracy, but from the point of view of the actual results, as shown by the general balance sheet of the struggle against imperialism, that is to say, “not in isolation, but on a world scale.
To those who don’t understand the importance of the anti-imperialist character of the movement under siege, and who tend to repeat the liberal mantra on division between the “progressive” and “reactionary” anti-imperialism, Stalin explains: “The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible revolutionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such “desperate” democrats and “Socialists,” “revolutionaries” and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British “Labour” Government is waging to preserve Egypt’s dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are “for” socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.”
Therefore, the liberal ideological frame must be removed, not only from our ranks, but also detected and removed from our heads. This model is based on supremacist positions of colonial consciousness and survives to a greater extent as on the imperialist Right, also on the liberal left in the power centers and the semiperiphery. Through revolutionary violence, colonized recreate themselves, and our task is to start, see through and end that process.
In the very end, we shall quote Franz Fanon, and so cement our position regarding anti-imperialist struggle of the peoples of the Third World:
” Decolonization is quite simply the replacing of a certain “species” of men by another “species” of men. Without any period of transition, there is a total, complete, and absolute substitution Its unusual importance is that it constitutes, from the very first day, the minimum demands of the colonized. To tell the truth, the proof of success lies in a whole social structure being changed from the bottom up. The extraordinary importance of this change is that it is willed, called for, demanded. The need for this change exists in its crude state, impetuous and compelling, in the consciousness and in the lives of the men and women who are colonized. But the possibility of this change is equally experienced in the form of a terrifying future in the consciousness of another “species” of men and women: the colonizers. In decolonization, there is therefore the need of a complete calling in question of the colonial situation. If we wish to describe it precisely, we might find it in the well-known words: “The last shall be first and the first last.” Decolonization is the putting into practice of this sentence. That is why, if we try to describe it, all decolonization is successful.“89
Personal Website of Mutlu Civiroglu. PYD Leader Thanks US Led Coalition Against ISIS | Personal Website of Mutlu Civiroglu. ↩
Federation Of American Scientists -. MFA – V. The PKK’S Role in International Drug Trafficking. ↩
Aydin, Zulfikar Ali (27 July 2008). “PKK-MİT ilişkisini yazamadan öldürüldü”. Sabah (in Turkish). ↩
Ugur Mumcu – Journalists Killed. (1993, January 27). ↩
M. Gunter, M. (1998, ). Middle East Quarterly. Abdullah Öcalan: “We Are Fighting Turks Everywhere”. ↩
Natali, D. (2013, January 1). PKK Challenges Barzani In Iraqi Kurdistan – Al-Monitor: The Pulse of the Middle East. ↩
Jane’s intelligence digest: the global early-warning service, P1, Jane’s Information Group, 2009 ↩
Sedat Laciner, “Why Is Israel Watching the PKK?” al-Monitor (Washington, D.C.), Jan. 10, 2013. ↩
Escobar, P. (2012, August 6). Syria’s Pipelineistan war. ↩
Minin, D. (2013, May 31). The Geopolitics of Gas and the Syrian Crisis: Syrian “Opposition” Armed to Thwart Construction of Iran-Iraq-Syria Gas Pipeline. ↩
Ahmed, N. (2013, August 30). Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern. ↩
Klein, A. (2013, July 9). Is this what Syria war really about? ↩
Escobar, P. (2012, August 6). Syria’s Pipelineistan war. ↩
Hawramy, F. Exclusive: Senior Kurdish rebel leader warns Iraq must stay united to defeat ‘savage’ Isis | World news | The Guardian. ↩
Peyamner News Agency:- More Kurdish Cities Liberated As Syrian Army Withdraws from Area. (2012, July 21). ↩
