| |
Ibrahim Kaypakkaya on the Kurdish National Question
The
following text is excerpted from a lengthy polemic by Ibrahim Kaypakkaya
entitled The National Question in Turkey. This work was originally
completed in December 1971, before Ibrahim Kaypakkaya led the genuine
Marxist-Leninists in splitting with the Shafak revisionists, who
were also billing themselves then as the Revolutionary Workers and
Peasants Party of Turkey (TIIKP), and founded the Communist Party
of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist (TKP/ML) in April 1972. The National
Question in Turkey was re-edited by Ibrahim Kaypakkaya in June 1972,
soon after the organisational split with the TIIKP revisionists.
The
excerpts printed here are translated from a collection entitled
Selected Writings, Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, which was published by Ocak
Yayinlari, Istanbul, 1979. AWTW
2.
Who is subjected to national oppression?
According
to the Shafak revisionists, it is the Kurdish people who
are being subjected to national oppression. This fails to grasp
what national oppression means. National oppression is the oppression
to which the ruling classes of the dominant nation subject the oppressed,
dependent and minority nations. In Turkey, national oppression is
the oppression by the ruling classes of the dominant Turkish nation
not just of the Kurdish people but of the entire Kurdish nation,
and not even of the Kurdish nation alone, but of all minority
nationalities.
People
and nation are not the same thing. The concept of people today
generaIIy includes the working class, poor and middle peasants,
semi-proletarians and the urban petit bourgeoisie. In backward countries,
the revolutionary wing of the national bourgeoisie, which forms
part of the ranks of the peoples democratic revolution against
imperialism, feudalism and comprador capitalism, is also included
among the classes of people. However, the concept of nation comprises
all of the classes and strata, including the ruling classes....
People,
in every historical period, refer to those classes and strata, which
benefit from revolution and form the revolutionary ranks. People
are not a social grouping that appears in a specific historical
period only to disappear later on; it exists in every historical
period. However, nations have appeared together with capitalism
and in the epoch of rising capitalism and will disappear in an
advanced stage of socialism.
The
concept of people, in every stage of the revolution, changes. However,
nation does not depend on the stage of the revolution.
Today,
Kurdish workers, Kurdish poor and middle peasants, semi-proletarians
and the urban petit-bourgeoisie and the revolutionary wing of the
Kurdish bourgeoisie, which is to join the ranks of peoples democratic
revolution, are included in the concept of Kurdish people. Whereas,
other than these classes and strata, all other sections of the Kurdish
bourgeoisie and the Kurdish landlords are also included in the concept
of Kurdish nation. Certain overly knowledgeable wiseacres claim
that landlords are not considered part of a nation. Whats more,
these gentlemen even hatched the marvel that the Kurds do not yet
constitute a nation due to the existence of landlords in the Kurdish
region. This is a frightfully demagogic statement and a sophistry.
Do the landlords not speak the same language? Do they not reside
on the same land? Are they not part of the unified economic existence
and spiritual formation? And besides, nations emerge not with capitalist
development reaching its final limit but at the dawn of capitalism.
With capitalism penetrating into a country and unifying the
markets in that region to a certain degree, the communities already
meeting all the other conditions are considered a nation. If it
were not so, all stable communities in the backward countries and
regions where capitalist development is limited could not be considered
nations. In China up until the 1940s there was a rather strong
state of feudal fragmentation, and according to this logic, one
would have to deny the existence of nations in China previously.
Until the 1917 revolution, feudalism had a strong presence in the
broad countryside of Russia; this understanding would lead to rejecting
the existence of nations in Russia. In Turkey, for instance, during
the years of the Liberation War [this refers to the war waged under
the leadership of the Turkish comprador bourgeoisie and landlords
against imperialist occupation forces after the First World War
AWTW], feudalism was much stronger than it is today; according
to this understanding, one would have to conclude that during those
years in Turkey there were no nations. In Asia, Africa and Latin
America, feudalism exists in varying degrees; with this understanding,
it would be necessary to reject the existence of nations. Obviously,
the thesis claiming that the Kurds do not constitute a nation is
patently absurd from beginning to end, contrary to facts and also
harmful in practice. Harmful, because such a thesis only serves
the ruling classes of the dominant, exploiting and oppressing nations.
Hence, they would have found a justification to vindicate all the
privileges and inequalities in their favour and to legitimise the
national oppression and suffering to which they subject the oppressed,
dependent and minority nationalities. Thus, the struggle the proletariat
must wage for the equality of nations and for doing away with all
national oppression, privileges, etc., would be cast overboard.
The right of nations to self-determination would be abandoned. The
imperialists colonisation of backward nations, intervention in
their internal affairs and perfidious violation of the right of
nations to self-determination would all be legitimised by the notion
that they do not constitute a nation . Similarly, in the multi-national
states, the dominant nations every form of oppression and bullying
of the minority nationalities would be legitimised away. Those who
claim that there would be no nation to speak of if landlords existed
are sounding a trumpet for the dominant nations. Those who claim
that the Kurds do not constitute a nation are blowing the horn of
the Turkish ruling classes. As is known, the Turkish ruling classes
maintain that the Kurds are not a nation. By defending the privileges
of the Turkish ruling classes, these gentlemen treacherously sabotage
the mutual confidence, solidarity and unity amongst the masses of
working people of various nationalities...
Not
just the Kurdish people but the whole Kurdish nation is being
subjugated to national oppression, with the exception of a handful
of big landlords and a few big bourgeois. The Kurdish workers, peasants,
urban petit-bourgeoisie as well as small landlords all suffer national
oppression.
In
fact the target, in essence, of national oppression is the bourgeoisie
of the subjugated and dependent nation, because the capitalists
and landlords of the ruling nations want to possess the entire wealth
and market of the country unchallenged. They want to keep the privilege
of establishing a state right in their own hands. By banning other
languages, they want to bring about a unity of language , which
is crucial for the market. The bourgeoisie and landlords of the
oppressed nationality stand as an important obstacle to this, because
they too would like to be the master of their own market and to
control it and to exploit the material wealth and peoples labour
themselves.
These
are the powerful economic factors that pit the bourgeoisie and the
landlords of two nations against each other; hence the unceasing
attempts of the bourgeoisie and landlords of the ruling nation to
perpetrate national oppression; from this stems the fact that national
oppression is directed against the bourgeoisie and landlords of
the oppressed nation.
Today,
fascist martial law has filled Diyarbakir Prison with democratic
Kurdish intellectuals and youth representing the Kurdish bourgeoisie
and small landlords. Today, small landlords and some of the Kurdish
religious figures are also in jail, or are being hunted down for
imprisonment.
As
for the handful of big landlords, their cohorts and a few big bourgeois,
they have long since established an alliance with the Turkish ruling
classes. All the privileges are just as accessible to them as they
are to the Turkish ruling classes. The army, the gendarmerie, the
police are also at their service& A very large section of the Kurdish
bourgeoisie and small landlords is subject to national oppression
by the Turkish ruling classes. They face oppression even by the
big Kurdish feudal beys [governor of a district or province]. A
handful of big landlords are taking large sums of extortion money
from the small landlords through pressure and force. The fact that
the Kurdish bourgeoisie and small landlords are enraged by the big
feudal beys and their cohorts are based on these two factors....
By
maintaining that national oppression is being administered to the
Kurdish people, the Shafak revisionists fall into one of two
errors: either the concept of Kurdish people is being used
correctly and therefore not all of the Kurdish bourgeoisie and small
landlords are included within it; in that case, the national oppression
perpetrated against the Kurdish bourgeoisie and small landlords
is being overlooked and therefore indirectly being given approval,
thus they descend to the line of Turkish nationalism. Or, the Kurdish
bourgeoisie and small landlords are being incorrectly included within
the concept of the Kurdish people as a whole; in this case, the
heavy oppression of the Kurdish people, who suffer class oppression
in addition to national oppression, is being concealed; the national
movement and class movement are being portrayed as one and the same
thing, and thus they descend to the line of Kurdish nationalism.
Besides,
other than the Kurdish nation, there are minority nationalities,
which do not constitute a nation; and in the form of banning their
language, etc., national oppression is perpetrated against them.
The Shafak revisionists leave this point aside completely.
3. What
is the purpose of national oppression?
According
to the Shafak revisionists, the purpose of national oppression is
to daunt the Kurdish people. The pro-American governments have
carried out vicious oppression and torture in order to daunt
the Kurdish people. (My emphasis I.K.) Certainly, one of
the purposes of the pro-American governments is to daunt the Kurdish
people. In fact the purpose of their oppression over even the Turkish
people and generally over the whole people of Turkey, including
Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Arabs, Vazs, etc., is to daunt
them. But is this the purpose of national oppression? If that were
true, how could the oppression perpetrated against the Kurdish bourgeoisie
and small landlords be explained? What would be the meaning of banning
the Kurdish language? If that were true, what difference would there
be between the oppression inflicted by the pro-American governments
against the Turkish people and that against the Kurdish people?
The pro-American governments want to intimidate and cow the Turkish
people as well, and they carry out the most vicious oppression and
torture to this end. The martial law courts are crammed with hundreds
of Turkish workers, peasants and intellectuals. After the events
of 15-16 June (1970), hundreds of Turkish workers were barbarically
tortured by the police. The peasants involved in land occupation
were mercilessly beaten in police stations. Leaders were thrown
in dungeons. Therefore, the purpose of the pro-American governments
does not solely consist of daunting the KURDISH PEOPLE . That is
the policy implemented by all reactionary governments against the
whole working people regardless of their nationality. Beyond that,
not just the Kurdish people, but also the whole Kurdish nation (excluding
a handful of the big feudal beys) is subject to oppression and torture
in order to achieve not just daunting but a more basic purpose.
What is that purpose? In its most general expression, that purpose
is to own the entire market and material wealth of the country unchallenged.
It is to obtain new privileges, to expand and use the old ones to
the utmost. To this end, the bourgeoisie and landlords of the ruling
nation spend great effort to maintain the political borders of the
country in order to prevent at all cost the separation of the regions,
where the various nationalities live, from the country. One of the
conditions for the development of commerce to the fullest is a unified
language. For this purpose, the bourgeoisie and landlords of the
ruling nation would like to have their language spoken throughout
the whole country and even try to make this accepted through force.
In Comrade Stalins words, who will control the market , that is
the essence of the question. The slogans national unity and indivisible
unity and integrity of the state together with its country and nation ,
are the expression of the selfish interests of the bourgeoisie and
landlords and their desire to unconditionally control the market .
National oppression that is carried out for controlling the market
by the bourgeoisie and landlords and national oppression carried
out by the ruling bureaucracy for caste purposes extends to the
appropriation of democratic rights, including mass murder (that
is, genocide). In Turkey, there have been many examples of genocide.
Thus,
the oppression against the labourers of the oppressed nationality
assumes a compound character. First, the class oppression perpetrated
against the working people to exploit them more and to suppress
class struggle; second, the national oppression perpetrated against
almost all of the classes of the minority nations and nationalities
for the purposes mentioned above, namely national purposes. Communists
must distinguish between these two forms of oppression. Because
the Kurdish bourgeoisie and small landlords, for instance, are in
favour of the first type of oppression, while opposing the second
type. We however are against both forms of oppression. We support
the struggle of the Kurdish bourgeoisie and small landlords to eliminate
national oppression; but on the other hand we have to struggle against
them also in order to eliminate class oppression. The Shafak revisionists
depict national and class oppression as though they were one and
the same thing....
5. Those
Who Champion National Oppression in Turkey and Their Accomplices
In
our country, the real champions of national oppression are the big
Turkish bourgeoisie, that is, of comprador nature, and the landlords.
The US imperialists support and instigate their policy of national
oppression and racism. But the Turkish middle bourgeoisie, which
has a national character, participates with more refined and stealthy
methods in the same crime. As Comrade Lenin expressed it, they:
...approach
the language question in the same way as they approach all political
questions like hypocritical hucksters, holding out one
hand (openly) to democracy and the other (behind their back) to
the feudalists and police.
While
on the one hand opposing the feudal stick in the hands of the state
by putting forward that it will be of no use, they cannot refrain
from proposing more refined and polite methods of national oppression...
The wrecking of the brotherhood between the Turks and the
Kurds, based on historical roots, of the national unity in Turkey
and the territorial integrity of Turkey, in whatever form, would
lead to consequences contrary to the real interests of both the
Turks and the Kurds and strengthen the position of imperialism in
this part of the world. (My emphasis.)
Is
this not exactly ruling nation chauvinism itself? Posturing in favour
of the equality among nations in words, but in reality extending
the recognition of the privilege of forming a state only to the
Turks and liquidating the right of the Kurds to form a state
with demagogic bourgeois slogans, such as national unity and territorial
integrity , is this not to defend inequality among nations and the
privileges of the Turkish bourgeoisie? Socialists [revolutionary
communists AWTW] oppose even the smallest privilege favouring
a nation and inequality. Whereas in Turkey, to form a national state
has always been a privilege of the Turkish nation and still continues
to be so. We the communists do not defend this privilege either,
just as we do not defend any other privileges. We defend and continue
to defend the right of the Kurdish nation to form a state with all
our might. We will respect this right to the end; we do not support
the privileged position of Turks over the Kurds (and over other
nationalities); we educate the masses to recognise this right without
hesitation and to reject the right to form a state as a privilege
in the monopoly of any single nation. Comrade Lenin points out that:
If
in our political agitation, we fail to advance and advocate the
slogan of the right to secession, we shall play into the
hands, not only of the bourgeoisie, but also of the feudal landlords
and the absolutism of the oppressor nation.
While
on the one hand posturing as opponents of privileges, our middle
bourgeois of national character and our social-opportunists stealthily
and jealously embrace with two hands the privileges favouring the
Turkish bourgeoisie. These hypocritical shopkeepers hold out one
hand (openly) to democracy and the other (behind their backs) to
the reactionaries and police agents, to unbridled and fanatic Turkish
nationalism, feudal racism, and become their accomplices.
8. The Kurdish
National Movement
The
national movements in Turkey are neither new nor solely composed
of the Kurdish movement. They began even before the collapse of
Ottoman society and have continued to the present. Bulgarians, Greeks,
Hungarians, Albanians, Kurds, Armenians, Arabs, Yugoslavs, Romanians...
have all repeatedly risen up against the dominant Turkish nation
within the Ottoman state; history has brought all, except the Kurdish
movement, to a certain resolution. Today, within the borders of
Turkey, the national movement that has not been resolved yet is
the Kurdish movement. The natural tendency of the national movement
in Turkey also has been the formation of states with national unity.
Capitalism, which quietly entered the life of East Europe and Asia
at the end of the nineteenth and at the beginning of the twentieth
century, has aroused the national movements in these regions. To
the extent that capitalism and commodity production developed, the
other nations within the borders of Turkey have separated themselves
from Turkey and become organised in separate national (or multi-national)
states, with the exception of the Armenians, who were massacred
and driven from their lands en masse in 1915 and 1919-20.
The
Lausanne Treaty divided the Kurds among various states. Trampling
upon the right of the Kurdish nation to self-determination and defying
the Kurdish nations own desires and inclinations, the imperialists
and the new Turkish government defined the borders by bargaining.
Thus,
the Kurdish region was divided up among Iran, Iraq and Turkey.
Here
another point deserves attention: The partitioning of Kurdistan
in violation of its right to self-determination is certainly
a historical injustice. And, as Comrade Lenin stated on a different
occasion, the task of the communist parties in such a case is to
unceasingly protest this injustice and to condemn the entire ruling
class. But it would be mindless to put the rectification of such
an injustice in the programme. This is because there exists
a whole number of examples of historical injustices that have long
since lost their character as a contemporary issue. So long as
these are not historical injustices that continue to hinder social
development and class struggle directly , the communist parties
should not adopt a stand for their redress, which would divert the
attention of the working class from fundamental questions. The historical
injustice, which we mentioned above, has already lost the character
of being an issue of the day. Therefore, communists should not display
stupidity and lack of circumspection by demanding its rectification...
Within
the borders of Turkey, as determined by the Lausanne Treaty, the
Kurdish national movement has continued. From time to time uprisings
occurred. The most important of these have been the 1925 Sheik Said
Rebellion, the 1928 Agri Rebellion, the 1930 Zilan Rebellion and
the 1938 Dersim Rebellion. These movements, along with a national
character, had a feudal character as well: the feudal beys, who
had been sovereign up until that point, clashed with the central
authority, which had begun to undermine their sovereignty. This
was the essential factor driving the feudal beys to rebel against
the central authority. In the face of the central authority held
by the Turkish ruling classes, the desire of the Kurdish bourgeoisie
to control its own internal market merged with the desire of the
feudal beys for sovereignty. As for why the peasant masses participated
in these movements on a wide scale, this was because of national
oppression. As Comrade Stalin pointed out, the policy of national
oppression diverts the attention of the broad masses of people
away from the social problem towards the common problems of the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat. This in turn creates an atmosphere
suitable for spreading the lie of the harmony of interests,
for covering up the class interests of the proletariat (and the
peasants) and for spiritually enslaving the proletariat (and the
peasants).
All
these reasons united the feudal Kurdish beys, the rising Kurdish
bourgeoisie and the intellectuals, and the Kurdish peasants against
the Turkish bourgeoisie and landlords, who controlled the new state,
and against the ruling bureaucracy, which acted in conjunction with
them. The Turkish bourgeoisie and landlords, masters of the new
state, proceeded to resurrect racism and spread it in every sphere.
They re-wrote history from the very beginning, inventing a racist
and absurd theory about the origin of all nations from the Turks.
The origin of all languages was also Turkish (!). The theory of
the Sun Language was concocted in order to prove this. The Turks
were the master nation (really, those who were masters were the
Turkish ruling classes): the minorities were obliged to obey them.
Speaking any language other than Turkish was forbidden. All the
democratic rights of the national minorities were suspended, and
every form of humiliation or immiseration of these peoples was legitimate.
Those who were Kurdish were given degrading names. Efforts were
made to disseminate Turkish chauvinism among the Turkish workers
and peasants, and this was more or less successful. Martial law,
implemented throughout the country, assumed especially intense forms
in the East. The Kurdish region was frequently declared a prohibited
military zone , etc. As a reaction to this dominant nation chauvinism,
the nationalism of the oppressed nation was inevitably strengthened.
It was unavoidable that this drove the Kurdish peasants into the
ranks of the bourgeoisie and the feudal beys of their own nation.
The Kurdish people, the vast majority of whom didnt even speak
Turkish, and especially the Kurdish peasants naturally reacted violently
to the officials of this new regime who oppressed, degraded and
tyrannized them just like a colonial governor. By necessity this
righteous reaction of the peasants wound up uniting with the reaction
of the feudal Kurdish beys and the Kurdish bourgeoisie. And thus
were born the Kurdish rebellions.
The
communists support the progressive and democratic elements of these
rebellions those which are directed against oppression and the
policy of the oppressor nation, against inequality and privilege.
But they oppose the desire of the feudal beys to secure sovereignty
for themselves as well as the bourgeoisies struggle for its own
superiority; and they do not defend the privileges and supremacy
of the bourgeoisie and the landlords of any one nation. At that
time, the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) thoroughly supported the
policy of national oppression adopted by the Turkish ruling classes
because it followed an incorrect policy. Instead of uniting the
powerful and righteous reaction of the Kurdish peasants against
national oppression with the leadership of the proletariat, it tailed
after the Turkish bourgeoisie and landlords, and thus did great
damage to the unity of the working people of the two nationalities;
and among the Kurdish labouring people it sowed seeds of distrust
of the Turkish workers and peasants.
Those
who applaud the barbarous suppression of the Kurdish rebellions
by the Turkish state and the subsequent mass-scale massacres as
a progressive , revolutionary movement directed against feudalism
are incorrigible nationalists on behalf of the oppressor nation.
Such people choose to overlook the fact that the new Turkish state
not only attacked the feudal Kurdish beys but also savagely attacked
all the Kurdish people, including women and children. Such people
forget that, while carrying out these massacres, the new Turkish
state was actually quite friendly with the feudal beys, who did
not oppose it, and it implemented a policy of strengthening and
supporting them. Such people choose to overlook the extremely important
difference between the factors compelling the Kurdish peasants to
rebel and those compelling the Kurdish feudal beys to rebel.
There
are also so-called communists who attempt to defend the national
oppression policy of the Turkish ruling classes, claiming that British
imperialism was behind the Sheik Said rebellion. Here we shall not
discuss whether British imperialism was behind it or not. We shall
discuss whether the policy of national oppression could be supported
on the basis of such a claim. Let us assume that British imperialism
had a hand in the Sheik Said rebellion. Under such circumstances,
what should have been the stand of the communist movement? First,
it should have been to oppose the Turkish ruling classes suppression
of the Kurdish national movement by force, to wage an active struggle
against this, and to demand that the Kurdish nation itself decide
whether to form its own state. In practice this would have meant
that there should have been a general plebiscite in the Kurdish
region, without interference from outside, and that in this or some
similar fashion the Kurdish nation itself should have determined
whether to secede. The communist movement would have struggled first
for the withdrawal of all military units that were sent to suppress
the Kurdish movement, for preventing any interference whatsoever,
for the self-determination of the Kurdish nation; and it would have
vigorously fought against the Turkish ruling class, going among
the masses to expose its policy of suppression, oppression and intervention.
Secondly, it would have also exposed to the masses the British imperialists
policy of pitting nationalities against one another and the damage
this inflicts on the labouring people of all nationalities and on
their unity, and it would have vigorously fought against British
imperialisms policy of interference in internal affairs. Thirdly,
it would have evaluated the secession of the Kurdish nation on
the basis of the interests of the proletariats class struggle for
social development and for socialism as a whole , and reached a
conclusion on whether to actually support secession. Had it considered
secession beneficial to the interests of the proletariat, it would
have conducted propaganda for this end among the Kurdish workers
and peasants; and the Kurdish communists especially would have carried
out propaganda among their own people for unity, struggling against
the attempts to subordinate the fight against national oppression
to the strengthening of the mullahs, the beys, etc....
The
national oppression perpetrated by the Turkish ruling classes has
continued until this day. And it still continues. Parallel to this,
the Kurdish national movement has continued as well, with the difference
that a section of the Kurdish feudal beys have defected to the ranks
of the Turkish ruling classes. Also, certain big Kurdish bourgeois,
whose number is extremely limited, have joined the ranks of the
Turkish ruling classes. The Kurdish bourgeoisie has developed quite
a bit of strength, while feudal influence over the Kurdish national
movement has weakened. Today the Kurdish intellectuals and small
landlords who have adopted their ideology are leading by the strengthened
Kurdish bourgeoisie, and the Kurdish national movement. As for the
Kurdish workers and peasants, compared to the past they stand relatively
more free of the influence of the Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords.
Marxist-Leninist ideas have begun to develop roots among the Kurdish
workers, poor peasants and intellectuals, and are spreading rapidly.
Under
these conditions, what should be the attitude of the communist movement
in Turkey toward the Kurdish national movement? We pass on to this
point now and shall examine the line of the Shafak revisionists,
which is erroneous and harmful to the unity of the peoples....
10.
Within the Kurdish National Movement, the Positive Action of the
Bourgeoisie and Small Landlords Strives to Fortify Nationalism
Generally
in every national movement and specifically in the Kurdish national
movement, the real aim of the bourgeoisie is to obtain its own supremacy.
Its real aim is to control the market, and to monopolize the material
wealth, etc., in its region. It is to attain inequality and privileges
in its own favour and to ensure its own national development. The
bourgeoisie and, to the extent that they participate in the national
movement, the landlords, thus demand inequality and privileges in
their own favour. They want to appropriate the democratic rights
of other nations. They want to inflict national oppression on those
who are weaker and less powerful than themselves. They seek to segregate
the proletarians with national barriers and to have the proletariat
and other labourers of their own nation support their nationalist
aspirations unconditionally. They want to substitute their own national
culture for the international culture of the proletariat and democracy;
they want to develop the national culture (that is, the culture
of that bourgeoisie in power), to feed the proletariat and labourers
with national culture and to make them unconditional supporters
of its own class aspirations.
The
bourgeoisie and landlords resist the historical tendency towards
the assimilation of nations, leaving aside the question of forced
assimilation; that is, they resist spontaneous assimilation, they
resist the spontaneous obliteration of national distinctions, they
resist the unity and amalgamation of the workers of all nationalities
in a given country into united workers organisations, and instead
want to divide the proletarians according to nationality and to
unite the proletarians of their own nation not into class organisations
but into national organisations and for their own class aims.
Within
the Kurdish national movement today, it is impossible not to see,
along with the general democratic content, the reactionary aspirations,
similar to those above, that strive to fortify nationalism. These
are the aspirations of the bourgeoisie and landlords, which lead
the Kurdish national movement.
The
Shafak revisionists have completely ignored the positive action
of the bourgeoisie and the landlords that strives to fortify nationalism
within the Kurdish national movement. According to the Shafak revisionists,
the movement that is developing in the Kurdish region of Turkey
is not a national movement, with its progressive and reactionary
aspects, but a completely progressive peoples movement waged
against national oppression and assimilation and
for democratic rights, equality of nations and self-determination.
Thus, the Shafak revisionists provide support for the nationalist
and anti-proletarian aspirations of the Kurdish bourgeoisie and
small landlords and, by tailing them, hamper the solidarity of the
two peoples. The Turkish-chauvinist line of the Shafak revisionists
has been reconciled with Kurdish nationalism....
11.
What Should be the Stand of the Class-conscious Proletariat in Turkey
on the Kurdish National Movement?
First
of all, it should be pointed out that, regardless of its nationality,
the class-conscious proletariat in Turkey shall not take up a position
under the banner of bourgeois nationalism. In Comrade Stalins words:
The conscious proletariat has its own tested banner and there
can be no need for it to hold rank under the banner of the bourgeoisie.
Second,
regardless of its nationality, the conscious proletariat in Turkey
shall endeavour to gather the masses of workers and peasants around
its own banner and lead the class struggle of all labouring classes.
On the ground of the state of Turkey, it shall unite the workers
and labourers from all nations in Turkey within common class organizations.
Third,
regardless of its nationality, the conscious proletariat in Turkey
shall unconditionally support the general democratic content of
the Kurdish national movement that is directed against the oppression,
tyranny and privileges of the Turkish ruling classes as well as
the removal of all forms of national oppression and the equality
of nations. It shall resolutely and unconditionally support the
movements of the other oppressed nationalities that strive in the
same direction.
Fourth,
whatever the nationality, the conscious proletariat in Turkey shall
remain totally neutral to the struggle waged by the bourgeoisie
and landlords of various nationalities to secure their own supremacy
and privileges. The conscious proletariat in Turkey shall never
support the tendency within the Kurdish national movement that strives
to strengthen Kurdish nationalism; it shall never aid bourgeois
nationalism; it shall in no way support the struggle undertaken
by the Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords for their own supremacy
and privileges; namely, it shall be content to support the general
democratic content of the Kurdish national movement and shall not
go beyond that...
The
Shafak revisionists present the Kurdish national movement, within
which there are different elements, as a homogeneous Kurdish peoples
movement and depict it as a movement that is completely and utterly
progressive; by not specifying which points are progressive and
which are reactionary, or the point beyond which the reactionary
aspirations of the bourgeoisie and landlords take over, they reach
exactly those conclusions that benefit the bourgeoisie and landlords.
Thus, in relation to the Turkish proletariat generally, and the
Kurdish proletariat specifically, the Shafak revisionists make concessions
to the Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords! Tomorrow, when the positive
action of the Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords makes itself more
strongly felt, we are curious what the Shafak revisionists would
do. But really what they will do is already evident! They will unconditionally
join ranks with the Turkish nationalists.
Let
us state this point as well: communists always and absolutely distinguish
between the nationalism of an oppressed nation and that of an oppressor
nation and between the nationalism of a small nation and that of
a big nation.
Comrade
Lenin has the following to say on the subject:
In
respect of the second kind of nationalism we, nationals of a big
nation, have nearly always been guilty, in historic practice,
of an in finite number of cases of violence; furthermore, we commit
violence and insult an infinite number of times without noticing
it....
That
is why internationalism on the part of oppressors or great nations,
as they are called (though they are great only in their violence,
only great as bullies), must consist not only in the observance
of the formal equality of nations but even in an inequality of the
oppressor nation, the great nation, that must make up for the inequality
which obtains in actual practice. Anybody who does not understand
this has not grasped the real proletarian attitude to the national
question, he is still essentially petit bourgeois in his point of
view and is, therefore, sure to descend to the bourgeois point of
view.
Comrade
Lenin continues with the following:
...Nothing
holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class
solidarity so much as national injustice; offended nationals are
not sensitive to anything so much as to the feeling of equality
and the violation of this equality, if only through negligence or
jest to the violation of that equality by their proletarian
comrades. That is why in this case it is better to overdo rather
than under do the concessions and leniency towards the national
minorities. ( The Question of Nationalities or Autonomisation
[Continued], Selected Works, Volume 3, p. 690.)
Is
what the Shafak revisionists do anything like what Comrade Lenin
proposes? No, not at all! The Shafak revisionists today follow a
line that is in essence Turkish nationalism; with a heap of demagogy,
they wantonly trample on the Kurdish nations right to selfdetermination;
and they take the representatives of Turkish chauvinism as their
flag-bearer. What they do is completely at variance with what Comrade
Lenin upholds&
Previously
we have mentioned that the general tendency of every national movement
is to form an independent national state, that the requirements
of capitalism and commodity production are best satisfied in this
manner and that the most profound economic factors operate in this
direction. Certainly the general tendency of the Kurdish national
movement as well is in the direction of forming an independent national
state. However, the general tendency is one thing and the concrete
demands formulated by a national movement are another. The concrete
demands do not contradict this general tendency. But not every national
movement may choose this general tendency namely, to form a separate
state as its concrete aim. There are innumerable factors that
determine whether this happens. The relation of forces in the country
and on a world scale, the considerations of the bourgeoisie and
the landlords of various nationalities within the country concerning
their own interests, the character of the national oppression, tactical
concerns, etc. all such factors determine the concrete aims formulated
by a national movement....
In
Turkey, the Kurdish national movement has not yet openly formulated
the demand for secession. Currently the demands openly formulated
by the Kurdish national movement are the recognition of the Kurdish
language (in reading, writing and speech), radio broadcasts in Kurdish,
the removal of obstacles hindering the free dissemination of the
national culture (in reality, the culture of the Kurdish bourgeoisie
and landlords), the ending of the policy of assimilation, the availability
of schools providing education in Kurdish, the recognition of the
right to self-determination, etc. The various reasons that we have
gone into above prevent the Kurdish national movement from openly
formulating the demand for secession; therefore, at least
today, it is not correct to say that, not the Kurdish people but
the Kurdish nation is struggling for self-determination.
In
maintaining this we do not at all overlook the powerful desire among
the Kurdish bourgeoisie and small landlords to secede. But we hold
that this desire has not become the open demand of the national
movement. For instance, today the national movement in Northern
Ireland has actually openly formulated the demand for secession.
The Kurdish national movement in Turkey had also, in the past, openly
come out with the demand for secession, etc. The fact that the Kurdish
national movement today has not openly formulated the demand for
secession does not mean that it will not do so at a later date either.
Furthermore,
various compromises are possible between the bourgeois and landlord
classes of the two nations as well; let us not overlook this either.
Indeed, the Barzani movement in Iraq has rested content with partial
autonomy. Besides, while a section of the Kurdish national movement
might demand secession, another section might not do so. Consequently,
let us not roll up our trousers before the river is in sight.
12.
Let Us Not Deny the Influence of the Nationalism of the Dominant
Nation Over the Turkish Workers and Peasants
The Shafak
revisionists hold that all of the workers and peasants of Turkey
are supporting the struggle of the Kurdish people (!) struggle against
the policy of national oppression and assimilation, and the struggle
for democratic rights, equality of nationalities and for self-determination
(my emphasis I.K.).
Here
concrete reality has been betrayed for the sake of embellished sentences.
First of all, let us correct the error that, leaving aside all
of the workers and peasants of Turkey , not even the class conscious
proletariat should, under all circumstances, support the struggle
for self-determination (not the right of self-determination).
It should support secession if, in the concrete situation, it happens
to be in conformity with the struggle waged by the proletariat for
the goal of socialism; if not, it should respect the demand of the
Kurdish nation for secession and accept secession without supporting
it actively. We shall return to this point later on.
Besides,
we cannot claim that all the workers and peasants of Turkey today
support even the most righteous and progressive demands of the
Kurdish nation. That is only something that is desirable and not,
unfortunately, something that actually exists. The consciousness
of the Turkish workers and peasants has been blinded greatly by
the Turkish ruling classes with the demagogy of nationalism. Leaving
aside the peasants, even the sights of the most advanced elements
of the proletariat have been more or less benighted by the nationalism
of the dominant nation. That is, there stands before the communists
in Turkey the task of destroying Turkish nationalism and ridding
the workers and peasants of the remnants of all forms of bourgeois
nationalism. Any evaluation that leads to neglecting or belittling
this task is only harmful with respect to the class struggle....
15. Self-determination ,
the Right to Self-determination
Self-determination
and the right to self-determination are different things. Self-determination
means to secede, to form an independent state. However, the right
to self-determination means, as we pointed out above, the right
to form an independent state. What the communists unconditionally
uphold under all circumstances is the right to self-determination ,
that is, the right to form an independent state. The right
to self-determination and self-determination , or, phrasing it
differently, the right to form a separate state and forming a
separate state must never be confounded. Although the communists
uphold the first under all circumstances, the communist movement,
in Comrade Lenins words, must decide the latter question exclusively
on its merits in each particular case in conformity with the interests
of social development as a whole and with the interests of the proletarian
class struggle for socialism. .&
What
is the stand of the Shafak revisionists? To uphold the peoples
right to make revolution (!), to trample on the right of nations
to self-determination. Moreover, by saying that, the right of the
Kurdish nation to self-determination cannot be separated from the
struggle against imperialism and from the struggle for agrarian
revolution, which rests on the poor peasants , they make even the
right of self-determination dependent on conditions. Dont forget,
this is the solution (!) that the Shafak revisionists propose for
the national question...
16.
When Does the Class-conscious Proletariat in Turkey Support the
Secession of the Kurdish Nation? When Does It Not?
Regardless
of its nationality, the class-conscious proletariat in Turkey views
the question of the Kurdish nations forming of a separate state
from the standpoint of the development and the strengthening of
revolution. If the forming of a separate state by the Kurdish nation
will increase the prospects for the development and success of the
peoples democratic revolution under the leadership of the proletariat
in the Kurdistan of Turkey, then regardless of its nationality,
the class-conscious proletariat in Turkey shall support the secession.
If the secession will delay and encumber the development and success
of the peoples democratic revolution under the leadership of the
proletariat, then regardless of its nationality, the class-conscious
proletariat shall not support the secession. Lets assume that the
communist movement developing in our country were rapidly to grow
roots among the peasants in Kurdistan, that the land revolution
were developing swiftly and spreading, and that the revolutionary
movement were developing more rapidly in the Kurdish region than
in the western region; under these circumstances the retention of
the Kurdish region within the borders of Turkey would have only
hindered revolution in this region through the obstacles caused
by the state apparatus of the bourgeoisie and landlords of the Turkish
nation. Or, let us consider that in various areas in Kurdistan,
red political power emerged while revolution was developing in the
West at a much slower pace. Again under these conditions, the repression
by the Turkish ruling classes and their state would have delayed
and obstructed the revolution developing in the East. In that case,
the secession of the East would accelerate and strengthen the development
of revolution. Such a situation, by accelerating the development
of revolution in the West and the East, would certainly affect and
accelerate the development of revolution in other countries of the
Middle East as well. In such a situation, regardless of its nationality,
the class-conscious proletariat in Turkey would desire and defend
the secession of the Kurdish nation and the securing of conditions
for even faster development of the revolution that were unfolding
rapidly in Kurdistan
On
the other hand, if in the other regions the revolution were developing
more quickly, and its development were slower in the Kurdish region;
if the secession of Kurdistan were to slow down the development
of revolution still more and strengthen the domination of the feudal
sheys, beys, mullahs, etc. in this region; and if the revolutionary
struggle in the East were to be weakened, being deprived of the
support from the West, then in that case, regardless of its nationality,
the class-conscious proletariat in Turkey would not support the
secession. If, after the victory of revolution in Turkey, a secessionist
movement under the leadership of the Kurdish bourgeoisie were to
develop, then regardless of its nationality the class-conscious
proletariat in Turkey would not support the secession, etc.
What
we have said is certainly based on assumptions. But in terms of
grasping under what conditions the communist movement shall take
a position in favour of or against secession, it is useful to consider
these hypothetical cases. Besides, they are not cases contrary to
reality, nor things that cannot possibly emerge; they are in conformity
with reality and things that can quite possibly occur.
17.
If the Kurdish Nation Decides to Secede, What Shall Be the Attitude
of the Class-conscious Proletariat in Turkey?
In
case of secession, two problems would present themselves:
The
first is the situation, as we mentioned above, where secession positively
affects the development of revolution, in which case the question
is straightforward: the class conscious proletariat of every nationality
resolutely supports and defends secession.
The
second is the situation where secession negatively affects the development
of revolution. If that were the case and, despite this, the Kurdish
nation wanted to secede, then what would be the stand of the class-conscious
proletariat in Turkey? In their discussion of this question, the
Shafak revisionists responded: prevent secession by resorting to
every method, including the use of force. The response of our movement
to the same question is that in such a situation communists would
categorically reject the use of force. Although carrying out propaganda
in favour of uniting with the Kurdish workers and peasants, they
would never confront the demand for secession with force. Recognising
the right to self-determination means never to prevent secession
nor to cause hardship when a nation wants to exercise this right,
that is, to secede. Communists leave it completely and strictly
to the Kurdish nation to decide whether the Kurdish nation will
form a separate state or not. If the Kurdish nation wants to, it
forms a separate state; if not, it does not. Those who will determine
this are not others, but the Kurdish nation. In addition to not
placing obstacles in the way of a nations demand to secede, the
communists would themselves also wage an active struggle against
the attempts of the government of the bourgeoisie and landlords
to prevent secession and the use of force. The communists would
struggle against every form of interference from outside. If the
Kurdish workers and labourers were conscious of the fact that secession
weakens the revolution, then they would in any event do everything
in their power to unite. If they are not conscious of it, no one
would have the right to interfere from outside on their behalf.&
19.
The Shafak Revisionists Buttress Themselves Up with The Ruling-nation
Nationalism of M. Kemal and I. Inonu
The
Shafak revisionists approve of the national oppression brought against
the Kurdish nations and other minority nationalities in the past.
They applaud the fact that in the Sivas Congress [September 1919
AWTW] Mustapha Kemal [Ataturk, the first head of the new
state] said, in Turkey, Kurds and Turks live . They warmly embrace
the fact that in Lausanne [referring to the 1923 Lausanne Treaty]
Ismet Inonu [the foreign minister at the time] said, I am the representative
of the Turks and the Kurds , and they use these statements to buttress
themselves up. It is as if they are beckoning the ruling classes:
see, even Ataturk and Inonu recognized the existence of the Kurds;
thats all that we do too, so what is there to get angry about?
By recognizing the existence of a nation, the revisionist renegades
presume that they have the national question resolved (in fact,
they, at the moment, recognise the existence of, not the Kurdish
nation, but the Kurdish people (!)).& The bourgeoisie of the ruling
nation might recognize the existence of other nations and might
even grant certain rights when it is in a bind, as does the bourgeoisie
in Iraq. But at every opportunity it tramples upon these rights
and wants to oppress other nationalities. What distinguishes the
communists from the bourgeoisie is not whether to recognise the
existence of the minority nationalities.
Be
that as it may, in the Sivas Congress, under conditions where there
was no such thing as the central state authority and when it had
fairly nearly collapsed, M. Kemal wanted essentially to prevent
a possible secession movement of the Kurdish nation by hypocritically
alluding to the Kurds existence. He wanted to bring about a situation
where they would reconcile themselves to accepting the yoke of the
Turkish bourgeoisie and landlords. M. Kemals whole life is full
of examples of perpetrating national oppression against the Kurdish
nation and the other minority nationalities. If there is anyone
in Turkey whom the communists cannot use to support their line on
the national question, it is M. Kemal. In fact, the nationalism
that needs to be struggled against first and foremost is M. Kemal
nationalism, which is dominant nation nationalism. Inonus claim
in Lausanne that he was also the representative of the Kurds is
a blatant attack on the right of the Kurdish nation to self-determination.
It is the perfidy of determining the destiny of the Kurdish nation
from outside. It is the shrewdness of including the region inhabited
by the Kurdish nation within the borders of Turkey, namely the territory
under the domination of the Turkish bourgeoisie and landlords through
bargaining with the imperialists. And it is Turkish nationalism
manifesting itself in a most rapacious form. This is what the revisionist
renegades use to buttress themselves up!
|