#tkp-ml — Public Fediverse posts

TKP/ML Prisoner Pays Tribute to Assassinated Indian Maoist Leaders: Türkiye

From his cell in Türkiye, Hüseyin Uzundağ, held in a high-security prison since 2002, has published a long poem dedicated to several leaders of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) who died in clashes with Indian security forces. He pays tribute to Basavaraj (Nambala Keshava Rao), General Secretary of the CPI (Maoist), killed on May 21, 2025, along with 27 other members of the movement, as well as to Hidma, commander of the People’s Liberation Army, and Renuka, a Maoist activist, both killed in 2025. Entitled “Farewell to the Tigers of Gundekot,” the text celebrates the people’s war in India and the figures of the fighters from the Adivasi communities, the indigenous population of central India.

TKP/ML Prisoner Pays Tribute to Assassinated Indian Maoist Leaders: Türkiye

From his cell in Türkiye, Hüseyin Uzundağ, held in a high-security prison since 2002, has published a long poem dedicated to several leaders of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) who died in clashes with Indian security forces. He pays tribute to Basavaraj (Nambala Keshava Rao), General Secretary of the CPI (Maoist), killed on May 21, 2025, along with 27 other members of the movement, as well as to Hidma, commander of the People’s Liberation Army, and Renuka, a Maoist activist, both killed in 2025. Entitled “Farewell to the Tigers of Gundekot,” the text celebrates the people’s war in India and the figures of the fighters from the Adivasi communities, the indigenous population of central India.

Let’s Rise Up, Fight, and Win Against Imperialism and Its War Machine NATO! — Joint Statement

The Soviet Union, the Red Army, the Soviet peoples, workers, and laborers, having emerged victorious from the Second Imperialist War of Partition against the counter-revolutionary front and German fascism, inflicted a historic defeat on the imperialist capitalist states. Following this victory of the Soviet Union, the “threat of socialism” became a concrete reality for the capitalist world. Oppressed nations, colonial states, workers, women, and youth declared war against the rulers, dictatorships, and imperialists. Revolutionaries, communists, and patriots, carrying the Red Flag in their calloused hands, captured the strongholds of the occupiers, colonialists, and imperialists one by one; they overthrew their regimes and added new links to the victories of the struggle for freedom and socialism. One-third of the world’s population broke free from the capitalist system and became liberated. The death knell has begun to toll for imperialist capitalism. The imperialist monopolistic bourgeoisie has found itself in a nightmare.

Hitler’s Germany, one of the imperialist powers of the time that sought to re-divide the world, had been brought to its knees by the Soviet Union; France had lost its economic and military power; Britain had suffered heavy blows; and Japan had surrendered. Britain and France had lost some of their colonial territories to peoples fighting for independence, and some of these areas had fallen under the influence of the USA. Imperialist USA, on the other hand, had emerged from both world wars relatively unscathed compared to Britain and France, and had begun to replace British imperialism.

The USA, having become the leader of the imperialist camp, declared the Soviet Union an enemy as soon as the Second World War ended, and the “Cold War” period began. The then-US President Truman announced the doctrine named after him in 1947. The essence of the Truman Doctrine was… The Soviet Union was a target of hostility towards socialism, communism, and national liberation struggles.

US imperialism launched a campaign to encircle the Soviet Union, weaken the influence of socialism, crush national liberation struggles, and defeat all anti-fascist, anti-imperialist, and anti-colonial movements worldwide, thereby securing new markets and colonial territories. On September 18, 1947, the US established the CIA, a center of counter-revolution. Based on this foundation, on April 4, 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed, led by US imperialism and comprising 12 countries (USA, Great Britain, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Italy, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and Luxembourg). Through cooperation between the US, NATO, and the CIA, countless assassinations, massacres, conspiracies, coups, and invasions were carried out; anti-communist organizations, torture centers, and counter-guerrilla organizations were established. This counter-revolutionary network, known as Gladio, was organized in each NATO country. And through these counter-guerrilla organizations, revolutionaries, communists, artists, trade unionists, scientists, intellectuals, and anti-imperialists were demonized, and thousands were arrested, tortured, and murdered in “witch hunts.” From its inception, NATO has played the role of the imperialists’ most trusted and indispensable institution, the planner, implementer, and controller of the most brutal policies of oppression, torture, massacres, juntas, and in short, all counter-revolutionary activities carried out against the working people of the world. No other imperialist institution has been remembered in the collective memory with so much death, blood, and massacre. Wherever the name NATO is mentioned, events that pave the way for imperialist monopolies, in other words, bring blood and oppression to the working people, have inevitably occurred; just as they have turned every corner of the world into a slaughterhouse today…

Workers, laborers, and the oppressed and exploited peoples of the world!

NATO is the counter-revolutionary war machine of the imperialist capitalist order. It was an enemy of the people yesterday, and it continues to play the same role today. NATO is the center of terrorism in the camp led by US imperialism. It continues to turn the Middle East, the Balkans, the Caucasus, and Europe into a bloodbath in line with the interests of imperialist monopolies. It wages genocidal wars against resistance centers in every corner of the world. The genocidal war waged by Zionist Israel in Palestine/Gaza and Lebanon since October 7, 2023, is fueled by NATO. All NATO components, including Turkey, are accomplices in the genocide perpetrated by Israel. The Turkish bourgeoisie, under the helm of the AKP-MHP, has also become complicit in the genocide in Gaza and Lebanon through its trade with Israel. To wage a revolutionary struggle against NATO means to wage a struggle against the presence of imperialism in Turkey, Kurdistan, and the Middle East.

On July 7-8, 2026, the NATO meeting will once again be held in Turkey. Once again, they are gathering to make decisions that will bring bloodshed and oppression to the world’s peoples, workers, and laborers… They are meeting in Turkey to unleash a new world war on the oppressed peoples of the world. To thwart these dirty policies of the imperialists and their lackeys; let us raise the banner of anti-imperialist, anti-fascist, anti-chauvinist, and anti-patriarchal struggle that we inherited from Deniz, Mahir, İbrahim Kaypakkaya, and Mazlum Doğan, and make the streets of Ankara unbearable for the NATO forces.

Just as the revolutionary forces used every means and form of struggle to prevent the NATO meeting in 2004; let us escalate the anti-imperialist and anti-fascist struggle by employing every means and form of struggle.

We call on all workers and laborers, all oppressed peoples, to fight against the reactionary and imperialist war organization NATO, for freedom and socialism!

Down with imperialism and its war machine, NATO!
Down with NATO, the enemy of workers, laborers, and peoples!
Long live the united, organized struggle for freedom of the peoples!
Forward to dismantle the Turkish branch of the NATO war machine!

DKP/Birlik, DKP/BÖG, MKP, MLKP, TKEP/L, TKP-ML
June 2026

Let’s Rise Up, Fight, and Win Against Imperialism and Its War Machine NATO! — Joint Statement

The Soviet Union, the Red Army, the Soviet peoples, workers, and laborers, having emerged victorious from the Second Imperialist War of Partition against the counter-revolutionary front and German fascism, inflicted a historic defeat on the imperialist capitalist states. Following this victory of the Soviet Union, the “threat of socialism” became a concrete reality for the capitalist world. Oppressed nations, colonial states, workers, women, and youth declared war against the rulers, dictatorships, and imperialists. Revolutionaries, communists, and patriots, carrying the Red Flag in their calloused hands, captured the strongholds of the occupiers, colonialists, and imperialists one by one; they overthrew their regimes and added new links to the victories of the struggle for freedom and socialism. One-third of the world’s population broke free from the capitalist system and became liberated. The death knell has begun to toll for imperialist capitalism. The imperialist monopolistic bourgeoisie has found itself in a nightmare.

Hitler’s Germany, one of the imperialist powers of the time that sought to re-divide the world, had been brought to its knees by the Soviet Union; France had lost its economic and military power; Britain had suffered heavy blows; and Japan had surrendered. Britain and France had lost some of their colonial territories to peoples fighting for independence, and some of these areas had fallen under the influence of the USA. Imperialist USA, on the other hand, had emerged from both world wars relatively unscathed compared to Britain and France, and had begun to replace British imperialism.

The USA, having become the leader of the imperialist camp, declared the Soviet Union an enemy as soon as the Second World War ended, and the “Cold War” period began. The then-US President Truman announced the doctrine named after him in 1947. The essence of the Truman Doctrine was… The Soviet Union was a target of hostility towards socialism, communism, and national liberation struggles.

US imperialism launched a campaign to encircle the Soviet Union, weaken the influence of socialism, crush national liberation struggles, and defeat all anti-fascist, anti-imperialist, and anti-colonial movements worldwide, thereby securing new markets and colonial territories. On September 18, 1947, the US established the CIA, a center of counter-revolution. Based on this foundation, on April 4, 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed, led by US imperialism and comprising 12 countries (USA, Great Britain, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Italy, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and Luxembourg). Through cooperation between the US, NATO, and the CIA, countless assassinations, massacres, conspiracies, coups, and invasions were carried out; anti-communist organizations, torture centers, and counter-guerrilla organizations were established. This counter-revolutionary network, known as Gladio, was organized in each NATO country. And through these counter-guerrilla organizations, revolutionaries, communists, artists, trade unionists, scientists, intellectuals, and anti-imperialists were demonized, and thousands were arrested, tortured, and murdered in “witch hunts.” From its inception, NATO has played the role of the imperialists’ most trusted and indispensable institution, the planner, implementer, and controller of the most brutal policies of oppression, torture, massacres, juntas, and in short, all counter-revolutionary activities carried out against the working people of the world. No other imperialist institution has been remembered in the collective memory with so much death, blood, and massacre. Wherever the name NATO is mentioned, events that pave the way for imperialist monopolies, in other words, bring blood and oppression to the working people, have inevitably occurred; just as they have turned every corner of the world into a slaughterhouse today…

Workers, laborers, and the oppressed and exploited peoples of the world!

NATO is the counter-revolutionary war machine of the imperialist capitalist order. It was an enemy of the people yesterday, and it continues to play the same role today. NATO is the center of terrorism in the camp led by US imperialism. It continues to turn the Middle East, the Balkans, the Caucasus, and Europe into a bloodbath in line with the interests of imperialist monopolies. It wages genocidal wars against resistance centers in every corner of the world. The genocidal war waged by Zionist Israel in Palestine/Gaza and Lebanon since October 7, 2023, is fueled by NATO. All NATO components, including Turkey, are accomplices in the genocide perpetrated by Israel. The Turkish bourgeoisie, under the helm of the AKP-MHP, has also become complicit in the genocide in Gaza and Lebanon through its trade with Israel. To wage a revolutionary struggle against NATO means to wage a struggle against the presence of imperialism in Turkey, Kurdistan, and the Middle East.

On July 7-8, 2026, the NATO meeting will once again be held in Turkey. Once again, they are gathering to make decisions that will bring bloodshed and oppression to the world’s peoples, workers, and laborers… They are meeting in Turkey to unleash a new world war on the oppressed peoples of the world. To thwart these dirty policies of the imperialists and their lackeys; let us raise the banner of anti-imperialist, anti-fascist, anti-chauvinist, and anti-patriarchal struggle that we inherited from Deniz, Mahir, İbrahim Kaypakkaya, and Mazlum Doğan, and make the streets of Ankara unbearable for the NATO forces.

Just as the revolutionary forces used every means and form of struggle to prevent the NATO meeting in 2004; let us escalate the anti-imperialist and anti-fascist struggle by employing every means and form of struggle.

We call on all workers and laborers, all oppressed peoples, to fight against the reactionary and imperialist war organization NATO, for freedom and socialism!

Down with imperialism and its war machine, NATO!
Down with NATO, the enemy of workers, laborers, and peoples!
Long live the united, organized struggle for freedom of the peoples!
Forward to dismantle the Turkish branch of the NATO war machine!

DKP/Birlik, DKP/BÖG, MKP, MLKP, TKEP/L, TKP-ML
June 2026

History is Calling us: Let’s Follow Kaypakkaya’s Path! — TKP-ML/MKP

With rifles in hand, they traversed the rugged mountain trails with great boldness and conviction, fully aware that they were fundamentally shaking the course of history. As the leader representing the communist face of the 1971 armed revolutionary breakaway, İbrahim Kaypakkaya, through the theses he put forward, both captured a fundamental break and shattered all the untouchables of the fascist dictatorship; he also tore through the fifty-year-old veil of reformist capitulation with a knife and cast it into the dustbin of history.

Comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, the indomitable bastion of theory and practice, of word and deed, personally led the way in walking the path of his own claims. In accordance with the historical role of the struggle, he was the first to take up arms and set out on the path through the mountains. By exposing the reformist, liquidationist essence of the struggle—which was being confined to magazine offices and conference halls—he resolutely demonstrated that liberation lies in the arming of the workers and peasants, and that the task of the class vanguard is to open the path to the class’s arming. Comrade Leader İbrahim Kaypakkaya proved that he was the communist intellectual of the working class by turning his words into action.

History, within its own cycle, has vindicated Comrade Leader; before long, workers and peasants flocked to the revolutionary struggle in droves. This was what could not be seen in the pitch-black darkness of March 12, and Comrade Leader İbrahim Kaypakkaya has slammed this reality in the face of every form of liquidationism.

Today, however, the historical cycle has created a new dilemma. Either a free world will be created through the power of necessity to create the new; or, swept into the vortex of reformism, pacifism, and every current that rejects the revolutionary option, we will become mere pillars of this decaying, obsolete order of the past. This is precisely the dilemma being imposed on the international communist movement and the international proletariat today.

The pillars of the imperialist capitalist system have eroded. The imperialist capitalist system is floundering in a crisis vortex. The widening and deepening of the rift between imperialist blocs has intensified the struggle for dominance over market areas and trade routes. Shrinking markets and losses of hegemony are pushing the imperialist bloc led by the U.S. and Britain into a more aggressive and belligerent stance against China and Russia.

At this stage, the doors to a new imperialist war of partition are being forced wide open. Conflicts and wars have become widespread, particularly in the Middle East and Africa, in line with imperialist competition.

Precisely for this reason, a comprehensive campaign of liquidation has been launched against the communist and resistance movements engaged in armed struggle, aimed at preventing the oppressed peoples of the world from turning to the revolutionary option in the face of this crisis. The concept of annihilation and destruction has been put into action through various means.

The rulers of the imperialist capitalist system have launched comprehensive military operations to physically annihilate the international communist and revolutionary movement; where they have failed, they are attempting to achieve this from within by imposing a line of surrender and betrayal. This is the role played by the traitors who emerged from within the CPI(M). These traitors serve as tools of the imperialist capitalists’ concept of liquidation and annihilation.

In our country as well, the masses are searching for answers in the face of the poverty and misery they endure. The Turkish ruling classes are waging an intense offensive to keep the spontaneously developing mass movement within the bounds of the system. They have deployed every means to keep the masses’ reactions and anger within legal limits, attempting to suppress them through repression and violence. In line with their imperialist masters, while on one hand conducting military operations against the armed struggle front and ideologically propagating that “the era of arms has ended,” on the other hand, they are striving to narrow the actual legitimate arenas of struggle as much as possible.

And of course, reformists and other currents that reject the revolutionary struggle are coming to the aid of the Turkish ruling class. The fact that the Turkish Revolutionary Movement has been pushed back to the legal boundaries has left it facing a serious ideological siege.

Today, the masses’ need for a vanguard to clear the path is greater than ever. The illegal armed struggle front is the breakwater against the wave of liquidationism. Today, no line of struggle that does not strategically address the armed struggle can break through fascism and imperialist encirclement, nor can it mobilize the masses to fight against imperialist encirclement. If the masses are not organized around revolutionary violence, their descent into reactionary nationalist sentiments, chauvinism, and the poisonous circle of patriarchy will be inevitable. In this sense, while organizing the working class and the broad masses against the oppression of the AKP-MHP regime is one aspect of the task, the other aspect is the revolutionary duty of the moment: to keep the advanced masses vigilant against the reformist, revisionist, and pacifist currents clustered around the CHP. We can only advance the path opened by our Leader Comrade on this basis and prove worthy of the legacy he left us. To this end, the development of a united revolutionary struggle stands before us as an imperative task.

The path that our Leader Comrade İbrahim Kaypakkaya did not hesitate to walk remains relevant today. This is the only true path that will lead the working class and the oppressed laborers to liberation. It is within our power to embark on this path and break free from routines and entrenched habits. Marching forward and advancing through struggle is the tradition of our struggle. This tradition is the sole legacy left to us by our leader comrade.

We will not hesitate for a single moment to march forward through struggle on the path opened by our leader comrade; we will advance along the path he opened. This is the call of our leader comrade that reaches us today.

Long live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

Long live Proletarian Internationalism!

Heed Kaypakkaya’s call, and advance along the path he has opened!

Maoist Communist Party

Communist Party of Turkey – Marxist Leninist

May 2026

source: TKP-ML

History is Calling us: Let’s Follow Kaypakkaya’s Path! — TKP-ML/MKP

With rifles in hand, they traversed the rugged mountain trails with great boldness and conviction, fully aware that they were fundamentally shaking the course of history. As the leader representing the communist face of the 1971 armed revolutionary breakaway, İbrahim Kaypakkaya, through the theses he put forward, both captured a fundamental break and shattered all the untouchables of the fascist dictatorship; he also tore through the fifty-year-old veil of reformist capitulation with a knife and cast it into the dustbin of history.

Comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, the indomitable bastion of theory and practice, of word and deed, personally led the way in walking the path of his own claims. In accordance with the historical role of the struggle, he was the first to take up arms and set out on the path through the mountains. By exposing the reformist, liquidationist essence of the struggle—which was being confined to magazine offices and conference halls—he resolutely demonstrated that liberation lies in the arming of the workers and peasants, and that the task of the class vanguard is to open the path to the class’s arming. Comrade Leader İbrahim Kaypakkaya proved that he was the communist intellectual of the working class by turning his words into action.

History, within its own cycle, has vindicated Comrade Leader; before long, workers and peasants flocked to the revolutionary struggle in droves. This was what could not be seen in the pitch-black darkness of March 12, and Comrade Leader İbrahim Kaypakkaya has slammed this reality in the face of every form of liquidationism.

Today, however, the historical cycle has created a new dilemma. Either a free world will be created through the power of necessity to create the new; or, swept into the vortex of reformism, pacifism, and every current that rejects the revolutionary option, we will become mere pillars of this decaying, obsolete order of the past. This is precisely the dilemma being imposed on the international communist movement and the international proletariat today.

The pillars of the imperialist capitalist system have eroded. The imperialist capitalist system is floundering in a crisis vortex. The widening and deepening of the rift between imperialist blocs has intensified the struggle for dominance over market areas and trade routes. Shrinking markets and losses of hegemony are pushing the imperialist bloc led by the U.S. and Britain into a more aggressive and belligerent stance against China and Russia.

At this stage, the doors to a new imperialist war of partition are being forced wide open. Conflicts and wars have become widespread, particularly in the Middle East and Africa, in line with imperialist competition.

Precisely for this reason, a comprehensive campaign of liquidation has been launched against the communist and resistance movements engaged in armed struggle, aimed at preventing the oppressed peoples of the world from turning to the revolutionary option in the face of this crisis. The concept of annihilation and destruction has been put into action through various means.

The rulers of the imperialist capitalist system have launched comprehensive military operations to physically annihilate the international communist and revolutionary movement; where they have failed, they are attempting to achieve this from within by imposing a line of surrender and betrayal. This is the role played by the traitors who emerged from within the CPI(M). These traitors serve as tools of the imperialist capitalists’ concept of liquidation and annihilation.

In our country as well, the masses are searching for answers in the face of the poverty and misery they endure. The Turkish ruling classes are waging an intense offensive to keep the spontaneously developing mass movement within the bounds of the system. They have deployed every means to keep the masses’ reactions and anger within legal limits, attempting to suppress them through repression and violence. In line with their imperialist masters, while on one hand conducting military operations against the armed struggle front and ideologically propagating that “the era of arms has ended,” on the other hand, they are striving to narrow the actual legitimate arenas of struggle as much as possible.

And of course, reformists and other currents that reject the revolutionary struggle are coming to the aid of the Turkish ruling class. The fact that the Turkish Revolutionary Movement has been pushed back to the legal boundaries has left it facing a serious ideological siege.

Today, the masses’ need for a vanguard to clear the path is greater than ever. The illegal armed struggle front is the breakwater against the wave of liquidationism. Today, no line of struggle that does not strategically address the armed struggle can break through fascism and imperialist encirclement, nor can it mobilize the masses to fight against imperialist encirclement. If the masses are not organized around revolutionary violence, their descent into reactionary nationalist sentiments, chauvinism, and the poisonous circle of patriarchy will be inevitable. In this sense, while organizing the working class and the broad masses against the oppression of the AKP-MHP regime is one aspect of the task, the other aspect is the revolutionary duty of the moment: to keep the advanced masses vigilant against the reformist, revisionist, and pacifist currents clustered around the CHP. We can only advance the path opened by our Leader Comrade on this basis and prove worthy of the legacy he left us. To this end, the development of a united revolutionary struggle stands before us as an imperative task.

The path that our Leader Comrade İbrahim Kaypakkaya did not hesitate to walk remains relevant today. This is the only true path that will lead the working class and the oppressed laborers to liberation. It is within our power to embark on this path and break free from routines and entrenched habits. Marching forward and advancing through struggle is the tradition of our struggle. This tradition is the sole legacy left to us by our leader comrade.

We will not hesitate for a single moment to march forward through struggle on the path opened by our leader comrade; we will advance along the path he opened. This is the call of our leader comrade that reaches us today.

Long live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

Long live Proletarian Internationalism!

Heed Kaypakkaya’s call, and advance along the path he has opened!

Maoist Communist Party

Communist Party of Turkey – Marxist Leninist

May 2026

source: TKP-ML

Ban on Seven Books and Issues of the Newspapers Yeni Demokrasi and Sosyalizm U Azadi: Türkiye

In Türkiye,, the Tunceli District Court ordered the withdrawal of seven books, as well as a ban on their publication, distribution, and sale. The titles in question are works by authors associated with the revolutionary left: “Heroic Songs” by Muzaffer Oruçoğlu, “The Dawn of Communism” by Arif Çelebi, “The Guide to Courage” by Nazlı Gürbüz Top, “Our Çakır: The Life of a Revolutionary” by Mukaddes Erdoğdu, “On Life” by Kutsiye Bozoklar, “Materialist Philosophy” by İbrahim Okçuoğlu, and “On the Illuminated Slopes of Struggle” by Serkan Günebakan.

Judicial authorities believe these publications contain elements constituting “terrorist propaganda,” justifying their confiscation and ban. At the same time, several newspapers, including four issues of Yeni Demokrasi and 14 of Sosyalizm U Azadi, have also been subject to similar court decisions, with distribution suspended and seizures. These measures are part of a series of proceedings targeting publications accused of disseminating content deemed illegal by the authorities.

source: Secours Rouge

Ban on Seven Books and Issues of the Newspapers Yeni Demokrasi and Sosyalizm U Azadi: Türkiye

In Türkiye,, the Tunceli District Court ordered the withdrawal of seven books, as well as a ban on their publication, distribution, and sale. The titles in question are works by authors associated with the revolutionary left: “Heroic Songs” by Muzaffer Oruçoğlu, “The Dawn of Communism” by Arif Çelebi, “The Guide to Courage” by Nazlı Gürbüz Top, “Our Çakır: The Life of a Revolutionary” by Mukaddes Erdoğdu, “On Life” by Kutsiye Bozoklar, “Materialist Philosophy” by İbrahim Okçuoğlu, and “On the Illuminated Slopes of Struggle” by Serkan Günebakan.

Judicial authorities believe these publications contain elements constituting “terrorist propaganda,” justifying their confiscation and ban. At the same time, several newspapers, including four issues of Yeni Demokrasi and 14 of Sosyalizm U Azadi, have also been subject to similar court decisions, with distribution suspended and seizures. These measures are part of a series of proceedings targeting publications accused of disseminating content deemed illegal by the authorities.

source: Secours Rouge

TKP-ML Joint Statement: Let’s Follow Kaypakkaya’s Path!

History Is Calling Us: Let’s Follow Kaypakkaya’s Path!

With rifles in hand, they traversed the rugged mountain trails with great boldness and conviction, fully aware that they were fundamentally shaking the course of history. As the leader representing the communist face of the 1971 armed revolutionary breakaway, İbrahim Kaypakkaya, through the theses he put forward, both captured a fundamental break and shattered all the untouchables of the fascist dictatorship; he also tore through the fifty-year-old veil of reformist capitulation with a knife and cast it into the dustbin of history.

Comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, the indomitable bastion of theory and practice, of word and deed, personally led the way in walking the path of his own claims. In accordance with the historical role of the struggle, he was the first to take up arms and set out on the path through the mountains. By exposing the reformist, liquidationist essence of the struggle—which was being confined to magazine offices and conference halls—he resolutely demonstrated that liberation lies in the arming of the workers and peasants, and that the task of the class vanguard is to open the path to the class’s arming. Comrade Leader İbrahim Kaypakkaya proved that he was the communist intellectual of the working class by turning his words into action.

History, within its own cycle, has vindicated Comrade Leader; before long, workers and peasants flocked to the revolutionary struggle in droves. This was what could not be seen in the pitch-black darkness of March 12, and Comrade Leader İbrahim Kaypakkaya has slammed this reality in the face of every form of liquidationism.

Today, however, the historical cycle has created a new dilemma. Either a free world will be created through the power of necessity to create the new; or, swept into the vortex of reformism, pacifism, and every current that rejects the revolutionary option, we will become mere pillars of this decaying, obsolete order of the past. This is precisely the dilemma being imposed on the international communist movement and the international proletariat today.

The pillars of the imperialist capitalist system have eroded. The imperialist capitalist system is floundering in a crisis vortex. The widening and deepening of the rift between imperialist blocs has intensified the struggle for dominance over market areas and trade routes. Shrinking markets and losses of hegemony are pushing the imperialist bloc led by the U.S. and Britain into a more aggressive and belligerent stance against China and Russia.

At this stage, the doors to a new imperialist war of partition are being forced wide open. Conflicts and wars have become widespread, particularly in the Middle East and Africa, in line with imperialist competition.

Precisely for this reason, a comprehensive campaign of liquidation has been launched against the communist and resistance movements engaged in armed struggle, aimed at preventing the oppressed peoples of the world from turning to the revolutionary option in the face of this crisis. The concept of annihilation and destruction has been put into action through various means.

The rulers of the imperialist capitalist system have launched comprehensive military operations to physically annihilate the international communist and revolutionary movement; where they have failed, they are attempting to achieve this from within by imposing a line of surrender and betrayal. This is the role played by the traitors who emerged from within the CPI (Maoist). These traitors serve as tools of the imperialist capitalists’ concept of liquidation and annihilation.

In our country as well, the masses are searching for answers in the face of the poverty and misery they endure. The Turkish ruling classes are waging an intense offensive to keep the spontaneously developing mass movement within the bounds of the system. They have deployed every means to keep the masses’ reactions and anger within legal limits, attempting to suppress them through repression and violence. In line with their imperialist masters, while on one hand conducting military operations against the armed struggle front and ideologically propagating that “the era of arms has ended,” on the other hand, they are striving to narrow the actual legitimate arenas of struggle as much as possible.

And of course, reformists and other currents that reject the revolutionary struggle are coming to the aid of the Turkish ruling class. The fact that the Turkish Revolutionary Movement has been pushed back to the legal boundaries has left it facing a serious ideological siege.

Today, the masses’ need for a vanguard to clear the path is greater than ever. The illegal armed struggle front is the breakwater against the wave of liquidationism. Today, no line of struggle that does not strategically address the armed struggle can break through fascism and imperialist encirclement, nor can it mobilize the masses to fight against imperialist encirclement. If the masses are not organized around revolutionary violence, their descent into reactionary nationalist sentiments, chauvinism, and the poisonous circle of patriarchy will be inevitable. In this sense, while organizing the working class and the broad masses against the oppression of the AKP-MHP regime is one aspect of the task, the other aspect is the revolutionary duty of the moment: to keep the advanced masses vigilant against the reformist, revisionist, and pacifist currents clustered around the CHP. We can only advance the path opened by our Leader Comrade on this basis and prove worthy of the legacy he left us. To this end, the development of a united revolutionary struggle stands before us as an imperative task.

The path that our Leader Comrade İbrahim Kaypakkaya did not hesitate to walk remains relevant today. This is the only true path that will lead the working class and the oppressed laborers to liberation. It is within our power to embark on this path and break free from routines and entrenched habits. Marching forward and advancing through struggle is the tradition of our struggle. This tradition is the sole legacy left to us by our leader comrade.

We will not hesitate for a single moment to march forward through struggle on the path opened by our leader comrade; we will advance along the path he opened. This is the call of our leader comrade that reaches us today.

Long live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

Long live Proletarian Internationalism!

Heed Kaypakkaya’s call, and advance along the path he has opened!

Maoist Communist Party

Communist Party of Turkey – Marxist Leninist

May 2026

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/joint-statement-history-is-calling-us-lets-follow-kaypakkayas-path/

TKP-ML Joint Statement: Let’s Follow Kaypakkaya’s Path!

History Is Calling Us: Let’s Follow Kaypakkaya’s Path!

With rifles in hand, they traversed the rugged mountain trails with great boldness and conviction, fully aware that they were fundamentally shaking the course of history. As the leader representing the communist face of the 1971 armed revolutionary breakaway, İbrahim Kaypakkaya, through the theses he put forward, both captured a fundamental break and shattered all the untouchables of the fascist dictatorship; he also tore through the fifty-year-old veil of reformist capitulation with a knife and cast it into the dustbin of history.

Comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, the indomitable bastion of theory and practice, of word and deed, personally led the way in walking the path of his own claims. In accordance with the historical role of the struggle, he was the first to take up arms and set out on the path through the mountains. By exposing the reformist, liquidationist essence of the struggle—which was being confined to magazine offices and conference halls—he resolutely demonstrated that liberation lies in the arming of the workers and peasants, and that the task of the class vanguard is to open the path to the class’s arming. Comrade Leader İbrahim Kaypakkaya proved that he was the communist intellectual of the working class by turning his words into action.

History, within its own cycle, has vindicated Comrade Leader; before long, workers and peasants flocked to the revolutionary struggle in droves. This was what could not be seen in the pitch-black darkness of March 12, and Comrade Leader İbrahim Kaypakkaya has slammed this reality in the face of every form of liquidationism.

Today, however, the historical cycle has created a new dilemma. Either a free world will be created through the power of necessity to create the new; or, swept into the vortex of reformism, pacifism, and every current that rejects the revolutionary option, we will become mere pillars of this decaying, obsolete order of the past. This is precisely the dilemma being imposed on the international communist movement and the international proletariat today.

The pillars of the imperialist capitalist system have eroded. The imperialist capitalist system is floundering in a crisis vortex. The widening and deepening of the rift between imperialist blocs has intensified the struggle for dominance over market areas and trade routes. Shrinking markets and losses of hegemony are pushing the imperialist bloc led by the U.S. and Britain into a more aggressive and belligerent stance against China and Russia.

At this stage, the doors to a new imperialist war of partition are being forced wide open. Conflicts and wars have become widespread, particularly in the Middle East and Africa, in line with imperialist competition.

Precisely for this reason, a comprehensive campaign of liquidation has been launched against the communist and resistance movements engaged in armed struggle, aimed at preventing the oppressed peoples of the world from turning to the revolutionary option in the face of this crisis. The concept of annihilation and destruction has been put into action through various means.

The rulers of the imperialist capitalist system have launched comprehensive military operations to physically annihilate the international communist and revolutionary movement; where they have failed, they are attempting to achieve this from within by imposing a line of surrender and betrayal. This is the role played by the traitors who emerged from within the CPI (Maoist). These traitors serve as tools of the imperialist capitalists’ concept of liquidation and annihilation.

In our country as well, the masses are searching for answers in the face of the poverty and misery they endure. The Turkish ruling classes are waging an intense offensive to keep the spontaneously developing mass movement within the bounds of the system. They have deployed every means to keep the masses’ reactions and anger within legal limits, attempting to suppress them through repression and violence. In line with their imperialist masters, while on one hand conducting military operations against the armed struggle front and ideologically propagating that “the era of arms has ended,” on the other hand, they are striving to narrow the actual legitimate arenas of struggle as much as possible.

And of course, reformists and other currents that reject the revolutionary struggle are coming to the aid of the Turkish ruling class. The fact that the Turkish Revolutionary Movement has been pushed back to the legal boundaries has left it facing a serious ideological siege.

Today, the masses’ need for a vanguard to clear the path is greater than ever. The illegal armed struggle front is the breakwater against the wave of liquidationism. Today, no line of struggle that does not strategically address the armed struggle can break through fascism and imperialist encirclement, nor can it mobilize the masses to fight against imperialist encirclement. If the masses are not organized around revolutionary violence, their descent into reactionary nationalist sentiments, chauvinism, and the poisonous circle of patriarchy will be inevitable. In this sense, while organizing the working class and the broad masses against the oppression of the AKP-MHP regime is one aspect of the task, the other aspect is the revolutionary duty of the moment: to keep the advanced masses vigilant against the reformist, revisionist, and pacifist currents clustered around the CHP. We can only advance the path opened by our Leader Comrade on this basis and prove worthy of the legacy he left us. To this end, the development of a united revolutionary struggle stands before us as an imperative task.

The path that our Leader Comrade İbrahim Kaypakkaya did not hesitate to walk remains relevant today. This is the only true path that will lead the working class and the oppressed laborers to liberation. It is within our power to embark on this path and break free from routines and entrenched habits. Marching forward and advancing through struggle is the tradition of our struggle. This tradition is the sole legacy left to us by our leader comrade.

We will not hesitate for a single moment to march forward through struggle on the path opened by our leader comrade; we will advance along the path he opened. This is the call of our leader comrade that reaches us today.

Long live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

Long live Proletarian Internationalism!

Heed Kaypakkaya’s call, and advance along the path he has opened!

Maoist Communist Party

Communist Party of Turkey – Marxist Leninist

May 2026

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/joint-statement-history-is-calling-us-lets-follow-kaypakkayas-path/

TKP-ML CC Statement: İbrahim Kaypakkaya Is Our Compass!

We Have Not Forgotten May 18, And We Will Not Let It Be Forgotten!

It has been 53 years since the assassination of the communist leader İbrahim Kaypakkaya. This period of time—long for a human life but short for societies—has validated a significant portion of the theses İbrahim Kaypakkaya put forward. The class struggle and social practice have more than sufficiently confirmed the views he defended as a young communist leader. History has proven İbrahim Kaypakkaya right. As his successors, we continue to draw inspiration from his struggle and expand his legacy by internalizing his stance toward life—the very stance that enabled him to create miracles.

The 1960s and ’70s were years when political, social, and national liberation struggles developed and intensified, both globally and in our country. The momentum gained in ’68 had, by the time the ’70s arrived, undergone a qualitative leap within the framework of political struggle; the tools, methods, and paths of political struggle underwent a radical transformation. The youth’s struggle merged and developed with the spontaneous actions of the working class, peasant masses, and the laboring people as a whole.

The “1971 Armed Revolutionary Uprising” was a revolutionary breakthrough resulting from this new search for and understanding of political struggle, and it took place under conditions where fascist attacks were intensifying. In this sense, the ’71 uprising was the culmination of the anti-imperialist, anti -fascist struggle of the youth—characterized as the “’68 Generation”—which began in the ’60s, the working class’s June 15–16 Resistance and increasing strikes, peasant actions, and the world-shaking impact of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution—all converged to shatter the reformist line that had become dominant following the massacre of the Mustafa Suphi group. This makes the ’71 Uprising a significant milestone in the history of the Turkish revolution. İbrahim Kaypakkaya was the communist face of this uprising.

One of the key factors distinguishing Kaypakkaya from his contemporaries was the lessons he drew from the developing working-class struggle, particularly the Great Workers’ Resistance of June 15–16. Drawing on the experience of this resistance, he clearly demonstrated that the struggle for power would succeed not through reformist or parliamentary means, but by organizing the struggle of the masses. Kaypakkaya did not advocate for the “revolution” (!) of a handful of intellectuals and the “vital forces” of the army that were in vogue at the time, but rather for a revolution led by the working class, grounded in the peasantry, requiring the participation of the masses, and led by the Communist Party.

In this sense, Kaypakkaya is not a “peasant revolutionary,” as he has often and mistakenly been portrayed in propaganda. He emphasized the vanguard and leading role of the working class in the revolution and defended a line of armed struggle based on the fundamental worker-peasant alliance under the leadership of the working class. This was one of the defining points that distinguished Kaypakkaya from other revolutionary leaders of the time.

Another key point distinguishing Kaypakkaya from other revolutionary leaders of the time is his approach to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR). Kaypakkaya took a stand in favor of the GPCR, which was a decisive development for the International Communist Movement of his era. He adapted the universal lessons of the GPCR to the practice of class struggle in our region; he concretized this by stating, “Our Movement is a product of the GPCR.”

Kaypakkaya clearly declared his stance in the international arena regarding the polarization within the communist movement between Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and modern revisionism. Furthermore, in this ideological struggle, he achieved a definitive break by taking a firm stance against the revisionism and reformism entrenched within the TKP, fighting these ideologies on the basis of MLM, and by founding the TKP-ML, he raised the banner of communism. This point is crucial for understanding Kaypakkaya’s role within the TDH. His fundamental understanding and orientation during this process were characterized by a clear stance against revisionism, the exposure of the true nature of Kemalism, a clear position and analysis regarding the national question/Kurdish national question, and a clear stance on issues such as state analysis and armed struggle.

Theory Derived From The Practice of Class Struggle

The fact that the views Kaypakkaya put forward remain relevant today is directly linked to his approach to the struggle of the masses. Kaypakkaya was never a “desk-bound revolutionary”; he immersed himself in the masses’ class struggle practice at every opportunity. He was able to synthesize the lessons and experiences gained from these practices with the science of MLM, the most advanced science of our era.

From this perspective, we can confidently state that Kaypakkaya’s theses were shaped within the practice of the masses’ class struggle; as he learned from the masses’ practice, he synthesized these experiences with the MLM science. His revolutionary method has ensured that his theses continue to live and exist within the practice of the masses’ class struggle even today.

For example, his revolutionary work in the Kurdish provinces led him to advance his theses on the “National Question” specifically regarding the Kurdish national issue; subsequent social practice and the development of the Kurdish national movement have confirmed the importance of these theses. Kaypakkaya’s approach to the national question—not from the perspective of the oppressor or oppressed nation, but from the standpoint of the proletariat’s class interests—has led to a clear demarcation among those who identify as communists or define themselves as revolutionaries under today’s conditions.

A similar situation applies to the evaluation of Kemalism—the official ideology of the Turkish ruling classes—the definition of the Turkish state apparatus, the leadership of the Communist Party, the path and methods of the revolution, and all other such decisive issues.

He approached every contradiction in line with the interests of the working class and the toiling masses. It can and must be said that, under today’s conditions, the criterion for being a communist should be evaluated based on one’s approach to İbrahim Kaypakkaya’s theses. Because his theses were distilled from the actions and practices of the masses within the class struggles of our region.

His ideological development and the process of concretizing MLM science in our country—beginning with his involvement in mass struggles within the TİP (Turkish Workers’ Party) ranks, particularly among the student youth; the intense questioning of the ideology guiding the TİP while he was in those ranks; his subsequent break with parliamentarism and reformism; his alignment with the National Democratic Revolution ranks; and his critical approach to and break from that ideology; followed by the clarification of the role of the masses in the revolution and his alignment with the ranks of the Proletarian Revolutionary Enlightenment, his subsequent break with the Dawn Revisionists—the successors of this movement—as a result of his critical analysis, and finally, the presentation of his programmatic theses, all of which can be summarized as the MLM period.

As can be understood from this, Kaypakkaya carried out a continuous break with the MLM direction in the practical, political struggle within the ideology of the working class, the proletariat; he “discarded the stale and embraced the fresh,” condemning the forms that bourgeois ideology had taken while breaking with the past, and advanced continuously through intense struggle. This is the meaning of his being the communist face of the Revolutionary movement of Turkey.

Don’t Forget May 18!

İbrahim Kaypakkaya’s differences are strikingly clear and systematic. In the struggle between right and wrong, discarding what is wrong and erroneous and replacing it with what is right; concretizing this in the next practical orientation; the ability to bring potential, dynamics, and power to the fore; a practice of work and organization rooted in deep trust in the masses and a firm belief that the revolution will be the work of the masses.

All of these are of such value and importance that they will serve as our compass in every revolutionary practice, large or small, carried out under today’s conditions. The fundamental aim of all these revolutionary efforts is to reach, organize, and build broader masses by adopting Kaypakkaya’s revolutionary method.

The process we are going through necessitates the task of defending Kaypakkaya’s revolutionary line against revisionism, all forms of reformism, and parliamentary illusions, and of forging a revolutionary communist line within the masses. As preparations for a new imperialist war of partition accelerate, as the Turkish ruling classes reposition themselves through NATO meetings in anticipation of this war, and as the “expiration” of armed struggle is declared, and under conditions where every revolutionary resistance hub is being targeted for elimination under the banner of “Turkey Without Terror,” our compass must be the Kaypakkaya line, and our practical orientation must be the revolutionary tasks of the moment!

Wherever we are, whatever revolutionary work we undertake, our motto must be: “Do Not Forget May 18!”

In the words of our Leader, “for a tighter, stronger, and more resolute struggle”, with his boldness and courage, let us fan the flames of rebellion wherever the working masses stand against imperialist wars, exploitation, and poverty!

İbrahim Kaypakkaya Is Immortal!

Long Live Our Party TKP-ML, TİKKO, KKB, TMLGB

Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

TKP-ML Central Committee

May 2026

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/tkp-ml-central-committee-ibrahim-kaypakkaya-is-our-compass/

TKP-ML CC Statement: İbrahim Kaypakkaya Is Our Compass!

We Have Not Forgotten May 18, And We Will Not Let It Be Forgotten!

It has been 53 years since the assassination of the communist leader İbrahim Kaypakkaya. This period of time—long for a human life but short for societies—has validated a significant portion of the theses İbrahim Kaypakkaya put forward. The class struggle and social practice have more than sufficiently confirmed the views he defended as a young communist leader. History has proven İbrahim Kaypakkaya right. As his successors, we continue to draw inspiration from his struggle and expand his legacy by internalizing his stance toward life—the very stance that enabled him to create miracles.

The 1960s and ’70s were years when political, social, and national liberation struggles developed and intensified, both globally and in our country. The momentum gained in ’68 had, by the time the ’70s arrived, undergone a qualitative leap within the framework of political struggle; the tools, methods, and paths of political struggle underwent a radical transformation. The youth’s struggle merged and developed with the spontaneous actions of the working class, peasant masses, and the laboring people as a whole.

The “1971 Armed Revolutionary Uprising” was a revolutionary breakthrough resulting from this new search for and understanding of political struggle, and it took place under conditions where fascist attacks were intensifying. In this sense, the ’71 uprising was the culmination of the anti-imperialist, anti -fascist struggle of the youth—characterized as the “’68 Generation”—which began in the ’60s, the working class’s June 15–16 Resistance and increasing strikes, peasant actions, and the world-shaking impact of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution—all converged to shatter the reformist line that had become dominant following the massacre of the Mustafa Suphi group. This makes the ’71 Uprising a significant milestone in the history of the Turkish revolution. İbrahim Kaypakkaya was the communist face of this uprising.

One of the key factors distinguishing Kaypakkaya from his contemporaries was the lessons he drew from the developing working-class struggle, particularly the Great Workers’ Resistance of June 15–16. Drawing on the experience of this resistance, he clearly demonstrated that the struggle for power would succeed not through reformist or parliamentary means, but by organizing the struggle of the masses. Kaypakkaya did not advocate for the “revolution” (!) of a handful of intellectuals and the “vital forces” of the army that were in vogue at the time, but rather for a revolution led by the working class, grounded in the peasantry, requiring the participation of the masses, and led by the Communist Party.

In this sense, Kaypakkaya is not a “peasant revolutionary,” as he has often and mistakenly been portrayed in propaganda. He emphasized the vanguard and leading role of the working class in the revolution and defended a line of armed struggle based on the fundamental worker-peasant alliance under the leadership of the working class. This was one of the defining points that distinguished Kaypakkaya from other revolutionary leaders of the time.

Another key point distinguishing Kaypakkaya from other revolutionary leaders of the time is his approach to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR). Kaypakkaya took a stand in favor of the GPCR, which was a decisive development for the International Communist Movement of his era. He adapted the universal lessons of the GPCR to the practice of class struggle in our region; he concretized this by stating, “Our Movement is a product of the GPCR.”

Kaypakkaya clearly declared his stance in the international arena regarding the polarization within the communist movement between Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and modern revisionism. Furthermore, in this ideological struggle, he achieved a definitive break by taking a firm stance against the revisionism and reformism entrenched within the TKP, fighting these ideologies on the basis of MLM, and by founding the TKP-ML, he raised the banner of communism. This point is crucial for understanding Kaypakkaya’s role within the TDH. His fundamental understanding and orientation during this process were characterized by a clear stance against revisionism, the exposure of the true nature of Kemalism, a clear position and analysis regarding the national question/Kurdish national question, and a clear stance on issues such as state analysis and armed struggle.

Theory Derived From The Practice of Class Struggle

The fact that the views Kaypakkaya put forward remain relevant today is directly linked to his approach to the struggle of the masses. Kaypakkaya was never a “desk-bound revolutionary”; he immersed himself in the masses’ class struggle practice at every opportunity. He was able to synthesize the lessons and experiences gained from these practices with the science of MLM, the most advanced science of our era.

From this perspective, we can confidently state that Kaypakkaya’s theses were shaped within the practice of the masses’ class struggle; as he learned from the masses’ practice, he synthesized these experiences with the MLM science. His revolutionary method has ensured that his theses continue to live and exist within the practice of the masses’ class struggle even today.

For example, his revolutionary work in the Kurdish provinces led him to advance his theses on the “National Question” specifically regarding the Kurdish national issue; subsequent social practice and the development of the Kurdish national movement have confirmed the importance of these theses. Kaypakkaya’s approach to the national question—not from the perspective of the oppressor or oppressed nation, but from the standpoint of the proletariat’s class interests—has led to a clear demarcation among those who identify as communists or define themselves as revolutionaries under today’s conditions.

A similar situation applies to the evaluation of Kemalism—the official ideology of the Turkish ruling classes—the definition of the Turkish state apparatus, the leadership of the Communist Party, the path and methods of the revolution, and all other such decisive issues.

He approached every contradiction in line with the interests of the working class and the toiling masses. It can and must be said that, under today’s conditions, the criterion for being a communist should be evaluated based on one’s approach to İbrahim Kaypakkaya’s theses. Because his theses were distilled from the actions and practices of the masses within the class struggles of our region.

His ideological development and the process of concretizing MLM science in our country—beginning with his involvement in mass struggles within the TİP (Turkish Workers’ Party) ranks, particularly among the student youth; the intense questioning of the ideology guiding the TİP while he was in those ranks; his subsequent break with parliamentarism and reformism; his alignment with the National Democratic Revolution ranks; and his critical approach to and break from that ideology; followed by the clarification of the role of the masses in the revolution and his alignment with the ranks of the Proletarian Revolutionary Enlightenment, his subsequent break with the Dawn Revisionists—the successors of this movement—as a result of his critical analysis, and finally, the presentation of his programmatic theses, all of which can be summarized as the MLM period.

As can be understood from this, Kaypakkaya carried out a continuous break with the MLM direction in the practical, political struggle within the ideology of the working class, the proletariat; he “discarded the stale and embraced the fresh,” condemning the forms that bourgeois ideology had taken while breaking with the past, and advanced continuously through intense struggle. This is the meaning of his being the communist face of the Revolutionary movement of Turkey.

Don’t Forget May 18!

İbrahim Kaypakkaya’s differences are strikingly clear and systematic. In the struggle between right and wrong, discarding what is wrong and erroneous and replacing it with what is right; concretizing this in the next practical orientation; the ability to bring potential, dynamics, and power to the fore; a practice of work and organization rooted in deep trust in the masses and a firm belief that the revolution will be the work of the masses.

All of these are of such value and importance that they will serve as our compass in every revolutionary practice, large or small, carried out under today’s conditions. The fundamental aim of all these revolutionary efforts is to reach, organize, and build broader masses by adopting Kaypakkaya’s revolutionary method.

The process we are going through necessitates the task of defending Kaypakkaya’s revolutionary line against revisionism, all forms of reformism, and parliamentary illusions, and of forging a revolutionary communist line within the masses. As preparations for a new imperialist war of partition accelerate, as the Turkish ruling classes reposition themselves through NATO meetings in anticipation of this war, and as the “expiration” of armed struggle is declared, and under conditions where every revolutionary resistance hub is being targeted for elimination under the banner of “Turkey Without Terror,” our compass must be the Kaypakkaya line, and our practical orientation must be the revolutionary tasks of the moment!

Wherever we are, whatever revolutionary work we undertake, our motto must be: “Do Not Forget May 18!”

In the words of our Leader, “for a tighter, stronger, and more resolute struggle”, with his boldness and courage, let us fan the flames of rebellion wherever the working masses stand against imperialist wars, exploitation, and poverty!

İbrahim Kaypakkaya Is Immortal!

Long Live Our Party TKP-ML, TİKKO, KKB, TMLGB

Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

TKP-ML Central Committee

May 2026

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/tkp-ml-central-committee-ibrahim-kaypakkaya-is-our-compass/

Interview With a TKP-ML TİKKO Guerrilla

Disclaimer: We are not in agreement with all the positions in this interview. Nonetheless we find it important share.

Firstly welcome; can you present yourself?

Hello. My name is Eylem Munzur. I am a commander of TİKKO. Before I start to talk, I want to say something about the process. As it is known, March is the month of resistance and massacre. In the memory of the people it is takes place like this. Firstly I respectfully remember all of the ones, that lost their life in the of Halepçe, Qamişlo, Beyazıt, Gazi and Umraniye. We are also remembering Mahir Çayan and his comrades who were immortalized in Kızıldere on the 30th of March. In the last week we celebrated 8th of March. At the whole world women and LGBTI+ people filled the streets. They painted streets with rainbows against the patriarchal system. We salute this will. Even if it is late, but we congratulate to all the women and LGBTI+ people for the 8th March. In the next days there is Newroz. Newroz is the celebration of resistance for all Middle Eastern people but firstly for the Kurdish People. The fire, which is started by Blacksmith Kawa, became to the hammers shot by the Kurdish workers and laborers towards the head of the Despots. We celebrate the Newroz of our people. Newroz ji bo hemû gelê me pîroz be.

Firstly, I want to ask you about an current topic. We speak about the attacks of USA and Israel against Iran and the response that Iran give. On the 2nd congress of your Party, you pointed out that the imperialists are preparing for an new imperialist war of partition and expressed as a prior duty the necessity of struggling against this danger of war. How do you evaluate firstly the occupation of the Ukraine through Russia, then the Israeli attacks on Palestine, Lebanon and Iran, where they used the attacks of the 7th October as pretext and in the end the USA-Israeli attacks against Iran?

As you said, there are detailed clarifications about the lived process and specially about the situation of the imperialist-capitalist system in the documents of the 2nd congress of our party. The document about the situation in the country and the world is giving very clear perspective for us, as well as for the international proletariat and the people of the world. The imperialist-capitalist system is living the result of the crisis of the year 2008, that they couldn’t overcome. Because of this, they focused more to the regional wars. But these regional wars didn’t bring the solution for imperialist-capitalist system’s crisis. In this process, two blocks were bulid, on one side USA-England and the European union, on the other side China and Russia. Today we face with the war in Ukraine, as well as with the attacks to Iran, Lebanon and Palestine as a result of the competition between these two blocks. It is a “preventive” attack of the US imperialism against China, appearing as a “new and young” imperialist force on the market competition. For this purpose, the US imperialism is using the Israeli Zionism as their forward base in the Middle East and at the same time one of the reasons for these attacks is to solidify the security of the Israeli Zionism. The attacks against Iran should be understood like this. The Iranian Molla-Regime is a reactionary regime. Of course, the Iranian Molla-Regime doesn’t have the goal for liberation of exploitation, independency and democracy for the Iranian people. But at the same time the Us is making propaganda that they started these attacks to bring democracy for Iranian people, which is a big lie. In response to the US attack, reaction, nationalism and chauvinism is fed in Iran. Some years ago, Iran made a longtime contract with the Chinese imperialism about the country’s underground sources, which they hid from the people. This hidden contract led to big reactions under the Iranian People, Revolutionaries and Progressivist.

In this case how do we have to evaluate to currently war?

It needs to be expressed clearly; this war is an unjust and reactionary war. As I mentioned, this unjust and reactionary war isn’t in the interests of the working class and laborer people, neither in the US nor in Iran. This war is to strengthen the US hegemony again. Through using of the propaganda of the “Big and little devil” inside of Iran Chauvinism and Nationalism is strengthen. The statements of the US president Donald Trump about his “personal will” and “trader” standing are for sure not true. Trump is not a reason, he is a result. The US imperialism tries to overcome the weakening of their hegemony through the perspective of “Make America Great Again”, personalities like Trump are representant of this. Not just for the Iranian and the US proletariat, but for the whole international proletariat and the people of the world this war means hunger, poorness and stealing of their rights. As we pointed out on the documents of the 2nd congress, this war should be seen as part of the preparation for the 3rd imperialist war of partition. So of course, it is necessary to organize ourselves against this kind of reactionary and unjust wars of partition and to take place in the progressive, revolutionary and just wars. To be against the unjust and reactionary wars should not be just a slogan, it means at the same time to fight with the weapon in the hand.

Are there other signs for the 3rd imperialist war of partition that you mentioned?

Of course. At first, I can give the example of the since fore years continuing war between Ukraine and Russia. This occupation war is not independent of the contradictions and conflicts between the imperialist forces. Because of this on this topic I could give countless examples. But, in our opinion one of the biggest sign for the preparation of a new war of partition, is the aiming of revolutionary and progressiv organizations and movements of opposition, of communist organizations, different national movements, as well as states, which are not under the control of the imperialist and regional reactionary forces and that shows a risk for their interests

It is clear, that Socialism is still the biggest fear of the imperialist-capitalist system. Even if today there is no Democratic Peoples Power or socialist state, which both are important experiences and alternatives to the imperialist-capitalist system. But still, the attacks against the only alternative to the imperialist/capitalist system is continuing. Specially the bourgeois ideologs started a new wave of attacks against Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

More than this, the attacks are not restricted to the ideological sphere, in the military sphere these attacks are turned to physical liquidations and erasing.  In this context there are military aggressions in form of execution attacks in the Philippines against the New People’s Army, led by the Communist Party of Philippine. As well as in India, where the reactionary Indian state serious attacks on the Peoples Liberation Gerilla Army, led by the Communist Party of India (maoist) started. In the “Kagaar operation” of the Indian state, we lost a lot of important cadre and fighters, firstly comrade Basavaraju. But we know and we have no doubts, that besides these attacks of the Indian state, the revolution of India will stand up on their feet again, even stronger than before and continue to go forward, as they did in the past. Because the history is not stopping to go forward. We are greeting our comrades, that were immortalized with honor by waving the red flag of the international Proletariat, we bow with respect in front of their struggle.

For sure these attacks of liquidation and erasing are not only directed against the communist parties, as the most forwarded positions of the international Proletariat. At the same time, whatever organization or structure which is not under the control of the imperialist forces, is an aim of these attacks. One of the most important examples of are the attacks against the resistance of the Palestine People under the pretext of the Aksa Tufan operation from the 7th of October. The imperialist and Zionist Propaganda put the Hamas in front to delegitimate the resistance of the Palestinian national movement. They made a lot of propaganda about this. But despite these black propaganda, the international Proletariat stood side by side with the struggle of the People of Palestine.

In Lebanon the aggressions directed to the Hezbollah are continuing. The attacks on Hezbollah, as well as the attacks on Iran needs to be see parallel to each other. The Kurdish national movement is under a serious attack of liquidation and disarming. These attacks begin firstly on Rojava. Rojava is an important example, as there were democratic achievements for the people, the women and the different nationalities and ethnics reached. As the experience of the Rojava Revolution isn’t in the interests of the imperialist and regional reactionary forces, they brought a salafist, jihadistic organization in power. Through this they want to erase the gains of the Rojava revolution.

Exactly at this point I want to ask something. As TİKKO fighters under the leadership of your Party you took place in the war in Rojava. In the last stage of the process in Syria they stated that the agreement between HTS and the Self administration got solified. How do you evaluate the developments in the last time in Rojava?

To answer this question, I will continue from the one before. The US made a choice, they changed their tactical agreements. Even if there was resistance against the last wave of attacks against Rojava, as the main line, the SDF put the line of agreement and compromise. And together with this line, they started to retreat step by step. In this process the arab clans decided to not fight in the ranks  of the SDF, so then the main force on the frontline was out of Kurdish forces. Despites the line of pulling back, the resistance continued. As you mentioned before, we took place in the resistance of Rojava in this process, as well as in the ones before. Also other revolutionary organizations of Turkey took place in this process. The Martyr Nubar Ozanyan Armenian Battalion was stationed on the frontline. The forces specially took place in the frontlines of the capitol city Heseke and its surrounding. We should take attention to the point, that the contribution of the Revolutionary organizations of Turkey in the Rojava resistance was a point of trade for the fascist Turkish State. Hakan Fidan’s declarations showed that very clearly, and in the last time it became even more clear. Today we can observe that the medias under the control of the fascist Turkish republic, are still sharing a lot of news against Rojava in general and specially against the revolutionary movement of Turkey inside the Rojava resistance.

From your Partys and Armies perspective, how do you evaluate this process?

I can say, that this periode is difficult for us. First I can express the following. We are followers of the comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya. In this sense, if the interests of the Party and the People come against each other, we are on the side of the People. In this process, under different circumstances, we follow this principle. Of course we can find several critics on this process. Besides all the negative aspects of the war period, the Kurdish national movement declares, that they could take concrete gains in their hands. But the time will show if these gains can be solidified or not. We know, that this current developments in Rojava are not restricted to the borders of Rojava. Since more than a year the Kurdish national movement, under the leadership of Abdullah Öcalan, is going through a “process” with the Turkish republic state.

If I understood right; the latest developments in Rojava will continue to be connected to the “process” between the Kurdish national movement and the Turkish republic state. At this point, can you say something about the current perspective of the Kurdish national movement in Türkiye?

Yes. Actually, it would be uncomplete to call this “process” only as the perspective of the Kurdish movement. Actually in the beginning of the interview I said, all of these developments should be seen as preparation of 3rd imperialist war of partition. The imperialist forces  USA, England and the European union, as well as the regional reactionary forces as the Israeli Zionism and the Turkish republic fascism are doing serious preparations. The whole process is connected to that. How I told before, this process took it’s form through the interventions of the fascist Turkish republic. The western imperialist brought Colani, as the one that promised the most profit for them, to Power. If you remember, the English imperialists stated, that they prepared Colani some years ago. One of the reasons why they brought Colani to power, is, that they don’t allow structures like the Rojava Revolution, where the people reached important democratic gains. The imperialists didn’t make a choice between the Kurdish national movement and HTS, they just don’t need the  Kurdish National Movement anymore. And it needs to be accepted, that the Turkish republic state could combine successfully their one politics and the interests of the imperialists.

It is no secret that the developments in Rojava are connected to the ongoing “process” between the Turkish state and the leader of the Kurdish national movement Abdullah Öcalan. On the one side, this process is calling as like “Peace and democratic solution process” by Kurdish National Movement and Abdullah Öcalan but, as we know, the fascist Turkish state is following other politics. On the council’s report it was clear, the enemy is still talking about “cleaning the country from terrorism”. We think, that this process is not done in an ethic way. Because on one hand Abdullah Öcalan is still imprisoned,under these circumstances every statement and every information that is send from the prison get questioned a lot. On the other hand, from the beginning on this process should be done openly in front of the people. But still a lot of points are keeping secret and hidden.

Our party shared before how we are evaluating this “process” as well as the call of Abdullah and the “paradigma. Because of this I think here it is not needed to go into detail again. Now they are mentioning some changes of the constitution in the month of April. They mention things like the law of regret and similars. This discussion shows clearly the politics of the fascist Turkish republic to “solidify the inner front”, whereas Peace is no topic. It shows clearly, that this preparation is leading to an increasing of the oppression against the People and the Masses.

In the end, do you want to add something?

In next July, there is a NATO summit in Türkiye. We are calling all the women, youth, LGBTI+ people, workers, peasants and all of the oppressed people to the resistance against that summit.

And as I said just before, the fascist Turkish state has no any goal as like peace or democracy. In contrary, they always say this process is about “solidify the inner front”. Not just the Turkish state, at the whole world there are preparations. There are serious attacks against the gained rights of the people. And our duty is to strengthen our preparations against these attacks. As our Party pointed out in the documents of the 2nd congress, we should build up and take place in the anti-fascist anti-imperialist unities. At the same time we have to fight with our weapon in the hand the just war against the unjust wars. The reactionary forces, as well as the imperialst-capitalist system are directing all their attacks to disarm us and our People, to break the trust of the people in the armed struggle, we need to stay against this.

Because of this, we call foremost the youth and the women, as well as all of our people of different ethnics and beliefs to organize yourself inside in the ranks of the People’s Army and to fight with the weapon in the hand against imperialism, comprador capitalism, patriarchy, feudalism, racism, chauvinism, and all kind of reaction.

We thank you for this possibility.

We also thank you.

source: TKP-ML

Interview With a TKP-ML TİKKO Guerrilla

Disclaimer: We are not in agreement with all the positions in this interview. Nonetheless we find it important share.

Firstly welcome; can you present yourself?

Hello. My name is Eylem Munzur. I am a commander of TİKKO. Before I start to talk, I want to say something about the process. As it is known, March is the month of resistance and massacre. In the memory of the people it is takes place like this. Firstly I respectfully remember all of the ones, that lost their life in the of Halepçe, Qamişlo, Beyazıt, Gazi and Umraniye. We are also remembering Mahir Çayan and his comrades who were immortalized in Kızıldere on the 30th of March. In the last week we celebrated 8th of March. At the whole world women and LGBTI+ people filled the streets. They painted streets with rainbows against the patriarchal system. We salute this will. Even if it is late, but we congratulate to all the women and LGBTI+ people for the 8th March. In the next days there is Newroz. Newroz is the celebration of resistance for all Middle Eastern people but firstly for the Kurdish People. The fire, which is started by Blacksmith Kawa, became to the hammers shot by the Kurdish workers and laborers towards the head of the Despots. We celebrate the Newroz of our people. Newroz ji bo hemû gelê me pîroz be.

Firstly, I want to ask you about an current topic. We speak about the attacks of USA and Israel against Iran and the response that Iran give. On the 2nd congress of your Party, you pointed out that the imperialists are preparing for an new imperialist war of partition and expressed as a prior duty the necessity of struggling against this danger of war. How do you evaluate firstly the occupation of the Ukraine through Russia, then the Israeli attacks on Palestine, Lebanon and Iran, where they used the attacks of the 7th October as pretext and in the end the USA-Israeli attacks against Iran?

As you said, there are detailed clarifications about the lived process and specially about the situation of the imperialist-capitalist system in the documents of the 2nd congress of our party. The document about the situation in the country and the world is giving very clear perspective for us, as well as for the international proletariat and the people of the world. The imperialist-capitalist system is living the result of the crisis of the year 2008, that they couldn’t overcome. Because of this, they focused more to the regional wars. But these regional wars didn’t bring the solution for imperialist-capitalist system’s crisis. In this process, two blocks were bulid, on one side USA-England and the European union, on the other side China and Russia. Today we face with the war in Ukraine, as well as with the attacks to Iran, Lebanon and Palestine as a result of the competition between these two blocks. It is a “preventive” attack of the US imperialism against China, appearing as a “new and young” imperialist force on the market competition. For this purpose, the US imperialism is using the Israeli Zionism as their forward base in the Middle East and at the same time one of the reasons for these attacks is to solidify the security of the Israeli Zionism. The attacks against Iran should be understood like this. The Iranian Molla-Regime is a reactionary regime. Of course, the Iranian Molla-Regime doesn’t have the goal for liberation of exploitation, independency and democracy for the Iranian people. But at the same time the Us is making propaganda that they started these attacks to bring democracy for Iranian people, which is a big lie. In response to the US attack, reaction, nationalism and chauvinism is fed in Iran. Some years ago, Iran made a longtime contract with the Chinese imperialism about the country’s underground sources, which they hid from the people. This hidden contract led to big reactions under the Iranian People, Revolutionaries and Progressivist.

In this case how do we have to evaluate to currently war?

It needs to be expressed clearly; this war is an unjust and reactionary war. As I mentioned, this unjust and reactionary war isn’t in the interests of the working class and laborer people, neither in the US nor in Iran. This war is to strengthen the US hegemony again. Through using of the propaganda of the “Big and little devil” inside of Iran Chauvinism and Nationalism is strengthen. The statements of the US president Donald Trump about his “personal will” and “trader” standing are for sure not true. Trump is not a reason, he is a result. The US imperialism tries to overcome the weakening of their hegemony through the perspective of “Make America Great Again”, personalities like Trump are representant of this. Not just for the Iranian and the US proletariat, but for the whole international proletariat and the people of the world this war means hunger, poorness and stealing of their rights. As we pointed out on the documents of the 2nd congress, this war should be seen as part of the preparation for the 3rd imperialist war of partition. So of course, it is necessary to organize ourselves against this kind of reactionary and unjust wars of partition and to take place in the progressive, revolutionary and just wars. To be against the unjust and reactionary wars should not be just a slogan, it means at the same time to fight with the weapon in the hand.

Are there other signs for the 3rd imperialist war of partition that you mentioned?

Of course. At first, I can give the example of the since fore years continuing war between Ukraine and Russia. This occupation war is not independent of the contradictions and conflicts between the imperialist forces. Because of this on this topic I could give countless examples. But, in our opinion one of the biggest sign for the preparation of a new war of partition, is the aiming of revolutionary and progressiv organizations and movements of opposition, of communist organizations, different national movements, as well as states, which are not under the control of the imperialist and regional reactionary forces and that shows a risk for their interests

It is clear, that Socialism is still the biggest fear of the imperialist-capitalist system. Even if today there is no Democratic Peoples Power or socialist state, which both are important experiences and alternatives to the imperialist-capitalist system. But still, the attacks against the only alternative to the imperialist/capitalist system is continuing. Specially the bourgeois ideologs started a new wave of attacks against Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

More than this, the attacks are not restricted to the ideological sphere, in the military sphere these attacks are turned to physical liquidations and erasing.  In this context there are military aggressions in form of execution attacks in the Philippines against the New People’s Army, led by the Communist Party of Philippine. As well as in India, where the reactionary Indian state serious attacks on the Peoples Liberation Gerilla Army, led by the Communist Party of India (maoist) started. In the “Kagaar operation” of the Indian state, we lost a lot of important cadre and fighters, firstly comrade Basavaraju. But we know and we have no doubts, that besides these attacks of the Indian state, the revolution of India will stand up on their feet again, even stronger than before and continue to go forward, as they did in the past. Because the history is not stopping to go forward. We are greeting our comrades, that were immortalized with honor by waving the red flag of the international Proletariat, we bow with respect in front of their struggle.

For sure these attacks of liquidation and erasing are not only directed against the communist parties, as the most forwarded positions of the international Proletariat. At the same time, whatever organization or structure which is not under the control of the imperialist forces, is an aim of these attacks. One of the most important examples of are the attacks against the resistance of the Palestine People under the pretext of the Aksa Tufan operation from the 7th of October. The imperialist and Zionist Propaganda put the Hamas in front to delegitimate the resistance of the Palestinian national movement. They made a lot of propaganda about this. But despite these black propaganda, the international Proletariat stood side by side with the struggle of the People of Palestine.

In Lebanon the aggressions directed to the Hezbollah are continuing. The attacks on Hezbollah, as well as the attacks on Iran needs to be see parallel to each other. The Kurdish national movement is under a serious attack of liquidation and disarming. These attacks begin firstly on Rojava. Rojava is an important example, as there were democratic achievements for the people, the women and the different nationalities and ethnics reached. As the experience of the Rojava Revolution isn’t in the interests of the imperialist and regional reactionary forces, they brought a salafist, jihadistic organization in power. Through this they want to erase the gains of the Rojava revolution.

Exactly at this point I want to ask something. As TİKKO fighters under the leadership of your Party you took place in the war in Rojava. In the last stage of the process in Syria they stated that the agreement between HTS and the Self administration got solified. How do you evaluate the developments in the last time in Rojava?

To answer this question, I will continue from the one before. The US made a choice, they changed their tactical agreements. Even if there was resistance against the last wave of attacks against Rojava, as the main line, the SDF put the line of agreement and compromise. And together with this line, they started to retreat step by step. In this process the arab clans decided to not fight in the ranks  of the SDF, so then the main force on the frontline was out of Kurdish forces. Despites the line of pulling back, the resistance continued. As you mentioned before, we took place in the resistance of Rojava in this process, as well as in the ones before. Also other revolutionary organizations of Turkey took place in this process. The Martyr Nubar Ozanyan Armenian Battalion was stationed on the frontline. The forces specially took place in the frontlines of the capitol city Heseke and its surrounding. We should take attention to the point, that the contribution of the Revolutionary organizations of Turkey in the Rojava resistance was a point of trade for the fascist Turkish State. Hakan Fidan’s declarations showed that very clearly, and in the last time it became even more clear. Today we can observe that the medias under the control of the fascist Turkish republic, are still sharing a lot of news against Rojava in general and specially against the revolutionary movement of Turkey inside the Rojava resistance.

From your Partys and Armies perspective, how do you evaluate this process?

I can say, that this periode is difficult for us. First I can express the following. We are followers of the comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya. In this sense, if the interests of the Party and the People come against each other, we are on the side of the People. In this process, under different circumstances, we follow this principle. Of course we can find several critics on this process. Besides all the negative aspects of the war period, the Kurdish national movement declares, that they could take concrete gains in their hands. But the time will show if these gains can be solidified or not. We know, that this current developments in Rojava are not restricted to the borders of Rojava. Since more than a year the Kurdish national movement, under the leadership of Abdullah Öcalan, is going through a “process” with the Turkish republic state.

If I understood right; the latest developments in Rojava will continue to be connected to the “process” between the Kurdish national movement and the Turkish republic state. At this point, can you say something about the current perspective of the Kurdish national movement in Türkiye?

Yes. Actually, it would be uncomplete to call this “process” only as the perspective of the Kurdish movement. Actually in the beginning of the interview I said, all of these developments should be seen as preparation of 3rd imperialist war of partition. The imperialist forces  USA, England and the European union, as well as the regional reactionary forces as the Israeli Zionism and the Turkish republic fascism are doing serious preparations. The whole process is connected to that. How I told before, this process took it’s form through the interventions of the fascist Turkish republic. The western imperialist brought Colani, as the one that promised the most profit for them, to Power. If you remember, the English imperialists stated, that they prepared Colani some years ago. One of the reasons why they brought Colani to power, is, that they don’t allow structures like the Rojava Revolution, where the people reached important democratic gains. The imperialists didn’t make a choice between the Kurdish national movement and HTS, they just don’t need the  Kurdish National Movement anymore. And it needs to be accepted, that the Turkish republic state could combine successfully their one politics and the interests of the imperialists.

It is no secret that the developments in Rojava are connected to the ongoing “process” between the Turkish state and the leader of the Kurdish national movement Abdullah Öcalan. On the one side, this process is calling as like “Peace and democratic solution process” by Kurdish National Movement and Abdullah Öcalan but, as we know, the fascist Turkish state is following other politics. On the council’s report it was clear, the enemy is still talking about “cleaning the country from terrorism”. We think, that this process is not done in an ethic way. Because on one hand Abdullah Öcalan is still imprisoned,under these circumstances every statement and every information that is send from the prison get questioned a lot. On the other hand, from the beginning on this process should be done openly in front of the people. But still a lot of points are keeping secret and hidden.

Our party shared before how we are evaluating this “process” as well as the call of Abdullah and the “paradigma. Because of this I think here it is not needed to go into detail again. Now they are mentioning some changes of the constitution in the month of April. They mention things like the law of regret and similars. This discussion shows clearly the politics of the fascist Turkish republic to “solidify the inner front”, whereas Peace is no topic. It shows clearly, that this preparation is leading to an increasing of the oppression against the People and the Masses.

In the end, do you want to add something?

In next July, there is a NATO summit in Türkiye. We are calling all the women, youth, LGBTI+ people, workers, peasants and all of the oppressed people to the resistance against that summit.

And as I said just before, the fascist Turkish state has no any goal as like peace or democracy. In contrary, they always say this process is about “solidify the inner front”. Not just the Turkish state, at the whole world there are preparations. There are serious attacks against the gained rights of the people. And our duty is to strengthen our preparations against these attacks. As our Party pointed out in the documents of the 2nd congress, we should build up and take place in the anti-fascist anti-imperialist unities. At the same time we have to fight with our weapon in the hand the just war against the unjust wars. The reactionary forces, as well as the imperialst-capitalist system are directing all their attacks to disarm us and our People, to break the trust of the people in the armed struggle, we need to stay against this.

Because of this, we call foremost the youth and the women, as well as all of our people of different ethnics and beliefs to organize yourself inside in the ranks of the People’s Army and to fight with the weapon in the hand against imperialism, comprador capitalism, patriarchy, feudalism, racism, chauvinism, and all kind of reaction.

We thank you for this possibility.

We also thank you.

source: TKP-ML

Yeni Demokrasi Reader Arrested for Possession of the Newspaper — Türkiye

In Samandağ, Hatay Province, a Yeni Demokrasi reader was arrested during a routine check and detained after 11 copies of the left-wing revolutionary newspaper were found in his possession. The case was referred to the political police and the public prosecutor, and the reader was questioned about the newspaper’s content, particularly regarding the mention of leaders of the TKP/ML (Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist). He was held for four hours before being released and will have to appear before the prosecutor. Similar incidents recently occurred in Sarıgazi, Istanbul, where readers and vendors distributing the newspaper were harassed and filmed by police, illustrating the pressure to restrict the newspaper’s distribution.

Yeni Demokrasi Reader Arrested for Possession of the Newspaper — Türkiye

In Samandağ, Hatay Province, a Yeni Demokrasi reader was arrested during a routine check and detained after 11 copies of the left-wing revolutionary newspaper were found in his possession. The case was referred to the political police and the public prosecutor, and the reader was questioned about the newspaper’s content, particularly regarding the mention of leaders of the TKP/ML (Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist). He was held for four hours before being released and will have to appear before the prosecutor. Similar incidents recently occurred in Sarıgazi, Istanbul, where readers and vendors distributing the newspaper were harassed and filmed by police, illustrating the pressure to restrict the newspaper’s distribution.

HTS Syrian Regime Seizes Vast Amount of Territory in Lighting Rojava Offensive

The HTS Syrian regime has announced a ceasefire has been agreed with the YPG-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) that will involve the withdrawal of YPG forces from substantial areas in the Rojava area.

Sunday’s deal will also see SDF forces integrate into the Syrian counter-revolutionary military.

There are ten key points in the agreement between the US-Zionist backed Syrian regime and the US-backed SDF.

10. Efforts to reach understandings facilitating the return of displaced persons to Afrin and Sheikh Maqsoud

The agreement comes after days of fighting between the Syrian government and the SDF in northeastern Syria. The army and the SDF had been clashing over strategic posts and oilfields along the Euphrates River for under 24 hours before they were severely routed in the conflict.

Territorial changes after approximately 24 hours of fighting.

Speaking in Damascus, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa said that the agreement will see Syrian state institutions move into three eastern and northern governorates – al-Hasakah, Deir Az Zor, and Raqqa – previously controlled by the SDF.

The agreement stipulates that the SDF administration in charge of ISIS detainees and camps, and the forces guarding the facilities, will be integrated into the country’s state structure, now giving the government full legal and security responsibility over their former comrades.

The vast al-Hol prison camp received considerable scrutiny since familes, children and other have been detained indefinitely in squalid conditions, with approval from the imperialist states.

Al-Sharaa made the announcement after he met United States Special Envoy to Syria Tom Barrack in Damascus. SDF chief Mazloum Abdi was supposed to be at the meeting, but al-Sharaa said that weather conditions meant that his trip would be postponed until Monday. The meeting indicates US approval of the operation and the fact that the YPG is now losing its value to imperialism.

The ceasefire can be largely be seen as a victory for Damascus and its ally Turkiye as the PKK is now sidelined in Turkiye, Iraq and now Syria as well. The organization disbanded and laid down its arms in Iraq and Turkiye without receiving any concessions, and now in Syria their forces were routed with little resistance, and no signficant international support.

Cities like Raqqa and Hasakah and Deir Az Zor were taken by YPG, PKK and allied communist forces with significant struggle, and maybe comrades had fallen martyr. Lorenzo Orsetti, Orhan Yoldaş, Ivana Hoffman, and Ulaş Bayraktaroğlu all fell fighting for these areas, and are now in the hands of a regime that is ideologically and practically similar to ISIS, and allied with imperialism.

New Syrian War Map

The success of the Syrian regime’s rapid advance was also driven largely by Arab tribes in SDF-controlled areas, whose loyalty to the SDF was clearly fragile, hinting that the promises of the revolution had not been kept, and Kurdish nationalism remained prevalent when it should have been curbed.

Syrian state media confirms that the agreement will see the military handover of the SDF-controlled governorates and the takeover of civilian institutions.

The Syrian government will also take over “all border crossings and oil and gas fields,” including the Omar oil field, Syria’s largest, and the Conoco gas field in the country’s east.

Both fields were under the control of the SDF/YPG and host US military bases and forces.

The Syrian Petroleum Company (SPC) confirmed that the Syrian Army had taken control of the fields, located on the east bank of the Euphrates. The SPC also said that the army took over the al-Tanak field, the al-Jafra field, the al-Izba field, and the Tayyana, Jido, Malih, and Azraq fields. The SDF controlled most of Syria’s oil and gas reserves, estimated at 2.5 billion barrels of oil and 240 billion cubic meters of gas, and generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue annually.

Meanwhile, the SDF-led Autonomous Administration called on the population to remain on full alert and to stand alongside their military forces, warning that the latest developments mark what it described as a “pivotal phase”.

In a statement, the administration said the aim of the attacks was “to strike the brotherhood built with the blood of our young men and women and to sow discord,” adding that the population now faces a stark choice: “either we resist and live with dignity, or we are subjected to all forms of oppression and humiliation.”

The statement urged young men and women to arm themselves and prepare to confront any potential attack in the Jazira region and Kobani and called on the public to respond to the general mobilization call and stand alongside the YPG and YPJ.

General Commander of the YPG Sipan Hamo, released an unfortunate statement proclaiming, “We do not seek separation, and our future lies within Syria. We have not received support from Iran or Russia, and we call on the US to provide guarantees to protect the Kurds amid the ongoing changes.” He further pleaded, “Israel is a powerful state in the region, and we hope that the stance it has taken to protect the Druze will also be extended to include the Kurds. ”

The General Commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) Mazloum Abdi made a statement about the situation in Northern and Eastern Syria and the latest developments.

Abdi said: “We have been at war since January 6. This war was imposed on us. We have many martyrs and wounded. We honor our martyrs. Before going to Damascus tomorrow, I wanted to make some statements to our people.”

Abdi added: “First of all, this war was imposed on us. To prevent this war from escalating into a civil war, which it was prepared to become, and to prevent a large-scale internal conflict, we decided to withdraw from Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor. We will protect our gains to the end. We will do everything we can; we have the strength for this.”

TKP-ML/TIKKO, the revolutionary Maoists who were based in Rojava and fought in most of the significant battles released a statement:

“The Rojava Revolution is facing a new military offensive by international and regional reactionaries. In the face of the war, occupation, and massacres perpetrated by imperialist and regional reactionary forces in the Middle East, the Autonomous Administration, a vital resistance stronghold that adopts a progressive, populist, and women’s liberation-oriented approach, is being targeted for liquidation and attempts to make it “acceptable” to imperialist and regional reactionary powers.

To this end, while the attacks of the HTS gangs, declared as the Syrian Interim Administration, are being facilitated, pressure is also being exerted on the Autonomous Administration through various diplomatic efforts. It is clear that imperialist powers and regional reactionary forces, primarily Turkey, are behind this attack on the Autonomous Administration…

Neighborhoods in Aleppo, home to hundreds of thousands of people, have been blockaded, and the attack was launched with the instigation of Turkey and the approval of the US and Israel…

The fact that these attacks are being carried out by HTS gangs clearly indicates that the aggression is backed by the approval of Western imperialists, primarily the US, and is directly coordinated and directed by regional reactionary forces, particularly the Turkish fascist regime…

The primary goal of the Turkish state, which directly coordinates these attacks, is the complete elimination of the Rojava Revolution and the Autonomous Administration. If this cannot be achieved, the aim is to prevent the people of the region, especially the Kurds, from achieving even the slightest gain.

Defending the Rojava Revolution and its achievements against the regional objectives of imperialists and the reactionary, anti-people attacks of Turkish fascism, Zionist Israel, and the Arab sheikhdoms is of historical importance. Taking to the streets and squares to defend the Rojava Revolution is an international duty.”

However, Deputy Head of the Ansarallah Media Authority in revolutionary Yemen described the reality of the situation best. He stated, “For reflection: Because the Kurds tied their entire fate to the United States, trusted it, and believed themselves safe from any danger, it has now sold them to al-Julani and abandoned them as easy prey, without even claws to defend themselves. This is a lesson for anyone who ties their destiny to the Americans and assumes they are protected.”

He concluded, “The same applies to what is happening with Europe over Danish Greenland: there is insistence on seizing a territory supposedly under US and NATO protection. Yet there is no real protection for anyone who mortgages themselves to the Americans, even if they are European and blond.”

This should, hopefully, be a lesson in the pitfalls of collusion with fascist American imperialism.

HTS Syrian Regime Seizes Vast Amount of Territory in Lighting Rojava Offensive

The HTS Syrian regime has announced a ceasefire has been agreed with the YPG-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) that will involve the withdrawal of YPG forces from substantial areas in the Rojava area.

Sunday’s deal will also see SDF forces integrate into the Syrian counter-revolutionary military.

There are ten key points in the agreement between the US-Zionist backed Syrian regime and the US-backed SDF.

10. Efforts to reach understandings facilitating the return of displaced persons to Afrin and Sheikh Maqsoud

The agreement comes after days of fighting between the Syrian government and the SDF in northeastern Syria. The army and the SDF had been clashing over strategic posts and oilfields along the Euphrates River for under 24 hours before they were severely routed in the conflict.

Territorial changes after approximately 24 hours of fighting.

Speaking in Damascus, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa said that the agreement will see Syrian state institutions move into three eastern and northern governorates – al-Hasakah, Deir Az Zor, and Raqqa – previously controlled by the SDF.

The agreement stipulates that the SDF administration in charge of ISIS detainees and camps, and the forces guarding the facilities, will be integrated into the country’s state structure, now giving the government full legal and security responsibility over their former comrades.

The vast al-Hol prison camp received considerable scrutiny since familes, children and other have been detained indefinitely in squalid conditions, with approval from the imperialist states.

Al-Sharaa made the announcement after he met United States Special Envoy to Syria Tom Barrack in Damascus. SDF chief Mazloum Abdi was supposed to be at the meeting, but al-Sharaa said that weather conditions meant that his trip would be postponed until Monday. The meeting indicates US approval of the operation and the fact that the YPG is now losing its value to imperialism.

The ceasefire can be largely be seen as a victory for Damascus and its ally Turkiye as the PKK is now sidelined in Turkiye, Iraq and now Syria as well. The organization disbanded and laid down its arms in Iraq and Turkiye without receiving any concessions, and now in Syria their forces were routed with little resistance, and no signficant international support.

Cities like Raqqa and Hasakah and Deir Az Zor were taken by YPG, PKK and allied communist forces with significant struggle, and maybe comrades had fallen martyr. Lorenzo Orsetti, Orhan Yoldaş, Ivana Hoffman, and Ulaş Bayraktaroğlu all fell fighting for these areas, and are now in the hands of a regime that is ideologically and practically similar to ISIS, and allied with imperialism.

New Syrian War Map

The success of the Syrian regime’s rapid advance was also driven largely by Arab tribes in SDF-controlled areas, whose loyalty to the SDF was clearly fragile, hinting that the promises of the revolution had not been kept, and Kurdish nationalism remained prevalent when it should have been curbed.

Syrian state media confirms that the agreement will see the military handover of the SDF-controlled governorates and the takeover of civilian institutions.

The Syrian government will also take over “all border crossings and oil and gas fields,” including the Omar oil field, Syria’s largest, and the Conoco gas field in the country’s east.

Both fields were under the control of the SDF/YPG and host US military bases and forces.

The Syrian Petroleum Company (SPC) confirmed that the Syrian Army had taken control of the fields, located on the east bank of the Euphrates. The SPC also said that the army took over the al-Tanak field, the al-Jafra field, the al-Izba field, and the Tayyana, Jido, Malih, and Azraq fields. The SDF controlled most of Syria’s oil and gas reserves, estimated at 2.5 billion barrels of oil and 240 billion cubic meters of gas, and generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue annually.

Meanwhile, the SDF-led Autonomous Administration called on the population to remain on full alert and to stand alongside their military forces, warning that the latest developments mark what it described as a “pivotal phase”.

In a statement, the administration said the aim of the attacks was “to strike the brotherhood built with the blood of our young men and women and to sow discord,” adding that the population now faces a stark choice: “either we resist and live with dignity, or we are subjected to all forms of oppression and humiliation.”

The statement urged young men and women to arm themselves and prepare to confront any potential attack in the Jazira region and Kobani and called on the public to respond to the general mobilization call and stand alongside the YPG and YPJ.

General Commander of the YPG Sipan Hamo, released an unfortunate statement proclaiming, “We do not seek separation, and our future lies within Syria. We have not received support from Iran or Russia, and we call on the US to provide guarantees to protect the Kurds amid the ongoing changes.” He further pleaded, “Israel is a powerful state in the region, and we hope that the stance it has taken to protect the Druze will also be extended to include the Kurds. ”

The General Commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) Mazloum Abdi made a statement about the situation in Northern and Eastern Syria and the latest developments.

Abdi said: “We have been at war since January 6. This war was imposed on us. We have many martyrs and wounded. We honor our martyrs. Before going to Damascus tomorrow, I wanted to make some statements to our people.”

Abdi added: “First of all, this war was imposed on us. To prevent this war from escalating into a civil war, which it was prepared to become, and to prevent a large-scale internal conflict, we decided to withdraw from Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor. We will protect our gains to the end. We will do everything we can; we have the strength for this.”

TKP-ML/TIKKO, the revolutionary Maoists who were based in Rojava and fought in most of the significant battles released a statement:

“The Rojava Revolution is facing a new military offensive by international and regional reactionaries. In the face of the war, occupation, and massacres perpetrated by imperialist and regional reactionary forces in the Middle East, the Autonomous Administration, a vital resistance stronghold that adopts a progressive, populist, and women’s liberation-oriented approach, is being targeted for liquidation and attempts to make it “acceptable” to imperialist and regional reactionary powers.

To this end, while the attacks of the HTS gangs, declared as the Syrian Interim Administration, are being facilitated, pressure is also being exerted on the Autonomous Administration through various diplomatic efforts. It is clear that imperialist powers and regional reactionary forces, primarily Turkey, are behind this attack on the Autonomous Administration…

Neighborhoods in Aleppo, home to hundreds of thousands of people, have been blockaded, and the attack was launched with the instigation of Turkey and the approval of the US and Israel…

The fact that these attacks are being carried out by HTS gangs clearly indicates that the aggression is backed by the approval of Western imperialists, primarily the US, and is directly coordinated and directed by regional reactionary forces, particularly the Turkish fascist regime…

The primary goal of the Turkish state, which directly coordinates these attacks, is the complete elimination of the Rojava Revolution and the Autonomous Administration. If this cannot be achieved, the aim is to prevent the people of the region, especially the Kurds, from achieving even the slightest gain.

Defending the Rojava Revolution and its achievements against the regional objectives of imperialists and the reactionary, anti-people attacks of Turkish fascism, Zionist Israel, and the Arab sheikhdoms is of historical importance. Taking to the streets and squares to defend the Rojava Revolution is an international duty.”

However, Deputy Head of the Ansarallah Media Authority in revolutionary Yemen described the reality of the situation best. He stated, “For reflection: Because the Kurds tied their entire fate to the United States, trusted it, and believed themselves safe from any danger, it has now sold them to al-Julani and abandoned them as easy prey, without even claws to defend themselves. This is a lesson for anyone who ties their destiny to the Americans and assumes they are protected.”

He concluded, “The same applies to what is happening with Europe over Danish Greenland: there is insistence on seizing a territory supposedly under US and NATO protection. Yet there is no real protection for anyone who mortgages themselves to the Americans, even if they are European and blond.”

This should, hopefully, be a lesson in the pitfalls of collusion with fascist American imperialism.

The Kurdish National Question: “Peace and Democratic Integration” The “New Paradigm” and the Denial of the Kurdish National Reality! — TKP-ML

Introduction

On 1 October 2024, when the fascist MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli approached the seats of the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM), shook hands with DEM deputies, and subsequently, in his speech at the MHP group meeting on 22 October, issued a call to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Öcalan, saying: “Let him go ahead and unilaterally declare that terrorism has ended, that the organization has been dissolved,” “If the isolation is lifted, let him come and speak at the DEM Group Meeting in the TBMM. Let him proclaim that terrorism has completely ended and that the organization has been abolished. If he shows this determination, let the way be fully cleared for a legal regulation regarding the exercise of his right to hope. Let the address extend from İmralı to DEM,” it became publicly apparent that a “process” had been initiated between the Turkish Republic and the PKK through Abdullah Öcalan.

Following these statements, the call made by PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan— who has been held under isolation for 26 years in İmralı Prison—in his declaration dated 27 February, in which he stated, “The PKK should dissolve itself and end the armed struggle,” found a response, and the PKK announced to the public that it had dissolved itself through its Extraordinary 12th Party Congress, convened between 5–7 May.

The “process,” which was referred to by different names by the parties involved and was not given a name, continued with the PKK dissolving itself and laying down its arms, while the new “road map” brought with it many debates.

The proletarian movement has also made its views on the Kurdish national question and the “process” and developments surrounding the PKK’s “paradigm  shift”  known  to  the  public  through  various  brochures  and statements published on various occasions. This article will evaluate the views expressed by PKK leader A. Öcalan in his “February 27 Call.” The article will evaluate, in general terms, the national question, the nationalization of the Kurds, the Kurdish uprisings, the PKK’s emergence on the scene of struggle, and the developments following the Extraordinary 12th Congress, at which the PKK dissolved itself.

All debates aside, the Kurds in Turkey are a nation, and like every nation, the Kurdish nation has the Right to Free Separation (the right to establish a separate state). This is a matter of principle for MLM and is not open to debate. At this stage, the PKK, which has shaped the current expression of the Kurdish national movement, and its leader A. Öcalan, let alone exercising the “right to secession,” define the demand for this right in their “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society” as defining the demand for this right as “excessive nationalist deviation” and, moreover, defining it as “separate nation-state, federation, administrative autonomy, and culturalist solutions cannot respond to historical social sociology,” thereby rejecting even bourgeois steps toward resolving the national question, compels us to restate our position on the matter. (For “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society,” see: A. Öcalan, “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society,” February 27, 2025, bianet.org)

Of course, how the “right to secession” is exercised is entirely subject to the will of the Kurdish nation. Our position on this matter is well known: “The Marxist-Leninist movement is also against the privilege of the right to form a state.   The right of nations to self-determination should never be confused with the necessity for a particular nation to secede. The Marxist-Leninist movement takes the question of secession concretely in every particular case, “evaluates and determines in the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat, for social development and socialism as a whole”.  The Marxist- Leninist movement takes the question of secession concretely in every particular case, “evaluates and determines in the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat, for social development and socialism as a whole”. The Marxist-Leninist movement absolutely refuses to use force, to cause obstacles and difficulties before a decision to secede that it does not approve. Boundaries should be determined by the will of the nation. This is necessary for mutual trust, solid friendship and voluntary unity of the working and toiling masses of various nationalities. (İbrahim Kaypakkaya, Selected Writings, English Edition, Nisan Publishing, 2025)

In concrete terms, however, A. Öcalan and the PKK speak not of separation but, on the contrary, of “democratic integration” with the oppressor nation. In his “new paradigm,” A. Öcalan calls on the Turkish state to become a “democratic society” and proposes that the Kurdish national movement integrate with this “democratic society”: “…we are preparing our program with this meeting under state supervision. We are working intensively on what kind of democratic society this will be. We want to cross this threshold. What is this, the transition from war and separatist conflict to peace and democratic integration, especially with the Republic of Turkey.“ (A. Öcalan, ”Perspective,” Serxwebûn Newspaper, issue 521)

I. The Complete and Correct Solution to the National Question

“It means that ‘self-determination of nations’ in the Marxists’ Programme cannot, from a historico-economic point of view, have any other meaning than political self-determination, state independence, and the formation of a national state.” (V.I. Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination)

“As far as the theory of Marxism in general is concerned, the question of the right to self-determination presents no difficulty.” (V.I. Lenin, ibid)

No other solution can be the real salvation of the oppressed and dependent nations. Reforms or the attainment of some democratic crumbs can only be a band-aid “solution.”

At this point, it would be useful to briefly define the historical development that gave rise to the national question, or the historical formation of nations.

Nation states, despite being historically formed by the union of various tribes and communities, do not constitute a nation, unlike, for example, the Mongols or Alexander’s great empires. These are not nations, but human communities that came together and dispersed for this or that reason. In other words, the state and the nation are not one and the same. The state is a class phenomenon that emerged immediately after the emergence of the ruling and ruled classes. Historically, even though slave-owning states and feudal states emerged after classes appeared, the human communities living within the borders of these states did not form nations. There is a very important distinction here: the nation is not only a historically formed category, it is also a historical category of the era of rising capitalism. In other words, the liquidation of feudalism and the development of capitalism also marked the time when human communities and tribes united in the form of nations. For example, in Western Europe, with the victory of capitalism over feudal fragmentation, the English, French, Italians, and Germans emerged as national states.

We emphasized above that not every stable community forms a nation. While a common language is essential for a nation, it is not a requirement for a state. A nation cannot emerge without a common language. However, not everyone who speaks a common language forms the same nation. For example, Americans and British people are two separate nations despite speaking a common language. Linguistic unity is one of the most distinctive characteristics of a nation.

However, linguistic unity alone is not sufficient to form a nation. Other characteristics are also involved. Another such characteristic is that they live on a common territory. A nation has emerged as a result of communities living together from generation to generation through long-term and regular interactions. Long-term coexistence is not possible without a territory. Therefore, territorial unity is one of the characteristic features of a nation.

However, these two characteristics are not sufficient for the formation of a nation. In addition to linguistic and territorial unity, an internal economic unity that brings together the individual parts of the nation into a whole is essential. This economic unity is an important element that brings together the whole nation around a common market. In other words, economic unity is one of the characteristic features of a nation.

Another feature must be added to all these characteristics we have mentioned. This is spiritual unity. Nations are not only inseparable in terms of language, land, and economy. They are also distinguished in terms of their spiritual formation, which is expressed in their cultural characteristics. In other words, spiritual formation unity, expressed in cultural unity, is one of the characteristic features of a nation.

As a result of all these statements, a nation is a stable community of people that has developed historically, sharing a language, territory, common market, cultural unity, and spiritual formation. To summarize: “A nation [or people] is a historically formed, stable community governed by a unity of language,

territory, economic life, and a unity of spiritual formation expressed in a common culture.” (Quoted from J. Stalin by İbrahim Kaypakkaya, Complete Works, Nisan Publishing, October 2016, p. 223)

The nation is not only a historical category, but a historical category of a specific era, the era of rising capitalism.

We see that there were two distinct periods in the process of nation-building alongside capitalism. The first was when single-nation states were established in the West, in Germany, England, and France, while multi-nation states were established in the East. Hungary and Russia were such states. This also brought the national question to the fore in multi-national states. Another development was that, alongside this unique form of state organization, it was possible for marginalized nationalities to organize themselves into nations, even though they had not yet had time to consolidate economically and were still under conditions of unresolved feudalism and underdeveloped capitalism.

Another point to note regarding the national question is that it has three stages of development. The first period of the national question corresponds to the period of the liquidation of feudalism and the triumph of capitalism in the West. This period corresponds to the period when people united as national communities… During this period, referred to as the first stage, states without national oppression emerged in Western Europe, while in Eastern Europe, multi-ethnic states were established where the economically and politically developed nation dominated and other nations were oppressed. These multi-ethnic states of the East became the homelands of national oppression, giving rise to national wars, national movements, and various methods of resolving the national question. (J. Stalin, Marxism and the National Question and the Colonial Question)

The second period, in which national oppression and methods of struggle against it were developed, was shaped by the emergence of imperialism. Capitalism has always needed markets, raw materials, energy, and cheap labor. It wants to control and secure land, sea, and air routes for the export of capital and goods. To this end, it tears down national fences and expands its national territories at the expense of its rivals. “In this second period, the old national states of the West—England, Italy, France—cease to be national states; that is, they acquire new territories and thus transform themselves into multinational states, creating a space for the same national and colonial oppression that previously existed in Eastern Europe. This period is defined by the awakening and consolidation of the subjugated nations (Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians) in Eastern Europe, leading to the collapse of the old multinational bourgeois states after the imperialist war and the establishment of new national states subjugated by the so-called great powers.” (J. Stalin)

The third period in the national question is the period of the October Revolution. It is the period when capitalism was overthrown and the national question was resolved with the October Revolution. It is the period when the problem of oppressed nations and colonies in Russia was consigned to the dustbin of history with the October Revolution. “But the October Revolution did not merely result in the removal of national oppression or the creation of a space conducive to the unification of peoples. In its development, the October Revolution also prepared the forms of this unification and outlined the basic lines along which the unification of peoples into a single federal state would be carried out according to their own terms. During the first period of the revolution, when the working masses of the nationalities first became aware of their independent national greatness, but when the threat of foreign intervention had not yet manifested itself as a real danger, the form of cooperation between the peoples had not yet been absolutely determined or strictly defined. During the period of civil war and intervention, when the military self-defense interests of the national republics came to the fore, but economic organization issues were not yet on the agenda, cooperation took the form of a military alliance. Finally, in the post-war period, when the problems of rebuilding the productive forces destroyed by the war came to the fore, the military alliance was complemented by an economic alliance. The unification of the national republics in the form of a Union of Soviet republics constituted the final stage in the development of forms of cooperation, this time taking on the character of a military, economic, and political union of the peoples within a single multinational Soviet state.

Thus, the proletariat found in the Soviet regime the key to the correct solution of the national question and discovered in this regime the path to the organization of a multinational, stable state based on national equality and free participation.(J. Stalin)

II. A Brief History of the Kurds

The Kurds trace their origins back to the Medes. The emergence of the Medes, also known as the ancestors of the Kurds, dates back 3,000 years. This corresponds to approximately 1000 BC. The Medes, one of the Mesopotamian peoples forced to live under the Assyrian Empire, had to endure the oppression of this slave-owning empire for many years. Starting in 700 BC, the Medes fought against the Assyrian Empire and, together with other peoples, overthrew this slave-owning empire, establishing the Median Empire in 612 BC.

After the fall of the Median Empire, the Kurds began to live under the rule of the Persian Empire. After Alexander the Great invaded the region, the Kurds first lived under Macedonian rule, then under the Eastern Roman Empire between 30 and 476 AD.

After the Middle Ages, following the spread of Islam in the Middle East, the Kurds came under the rule of the Iranian Safavids, Umayyads, and Abbasids. Throughout history, the Kurds have organized their lives by establishing independent regions many times. In this autonomous way of life, the balance of power among the empires under whose rule they lived has been decisive. As a result of this balance of power, the Kurds established many states. The Mervani and Shaddadi states they established in the 10th and 11th centuries are two examples of this.

After losing their self-governing authority, the Kurds came under the rule of various administrations. With the expansion of the Ottoman Empire’s sphere of influence, Kurdistan was also occupied. Throughout Ottoman history, the Kurds were subject to different practices. During the reigns of Yavuz and Kanuni, the Ottomans, well aware of the power of the Kurds, did not immediately dismiss them. They even granted them certain rights that could be described as autonomous. This ensured internal stability and also suited the administrations of the period, as the taxes paid to the Ottomans were collected directly through the Kurdish Beys and Mir.

By the 1830s, the Ottomans launched a new offensive against the Kurds. The sultan of the period, Mahmud II, took action to end the semi-autonomous administration in Kurdistan. His goal was to bring all territories under the control of the Ottoman Empire. After the Ottoman Empire put an end to the semi-autonomous Kurdish regions, Kurdish resistance against the Ottomans intensified. The Ottomans did not achieve what they hoped for after their attacks aimed at strengthening central administration. Although the Ottoman Empire strengthened its central government with its attacks during this period, it did not succeed in subduing the Kurds. The geography of Kurdistan also played a role in this. The Kurds continued their resistance in hard-to-reach areas. As a result of the Ottoman Empire’s attacks, the lands belonging to the Baban, Soran, Bahdinan, and Hakkari principalities came under the control of smaller tribes.

In the early 19th century, the Ottoman Empire entered a period of decline. Many peoples who rebelled against the Ottomans gained their independence. Only the Kurds remained without a state. The Ottoman Empire sought to consolidate its weakening authority by further centralizing power. To this end, it attempted to assert its authority by appointing administrators such as qadis and governors to govern the Kurdistan region. The 19th century was also the century in which nation-building was completed. The Kurds were unable to achieve nation-building due to the occupation of their lands, their fragmentation due to the feudal structure, and the tribes that held certain regions under their control.

The weakening of the Ottoman Empire and the rise to power of the Committee of Union and Progress led to a significant shift in the balance of power and the beginning of a new era. This also marked the beginning of the transition from Ottomanism to Turkish nationalism. In 1915, a large-scale genocide was carried out against Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, and Chaldeans. The genocide was not only aimed at seizing the property of these groups. It also aimed to add the lands where these groups lived to the shrinking territories, and to create a new homeland through this genocide. The Ottoman Empire, which used the Kurds in the genocide, killed and exiled the Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, and Chaldeans, and then turned to the Kurds. The Kurds were dispersed and exiled to prevent any possible uprising.

1. During the Imperialist War of Partition, the Ottoman Empire fought alongside German imperialism, and at the end of the war, the Ottoman Empire was divided under the Armistice of Mudros. The Kemalists emerged as the new leadership of the era and, after waging a short-lived war against the occupation, established the new Republic of Turkey by reaching an agreement with the imperialists in Lausanne. Although the Kemalists, who had included the Kurds in the war throughout the conflict, sat at the table on behalf of the Turks and Kurds in Lausanne, they subsequently denied the Kurds even the smallest national rights. Whenever the Kurds reminded them of this, they were suppressed with bloodshed, exiled, and ignored. The Kurds rose up against this disregard and oppression. These uprisings have continued uninterrupted to this day.

III. Kurdish Uprisings

Uprisings During the Ottoman Empire

Babanzade Abdurrahman Pasha uprising (1806-Mosul), Babanzade Ahmet Pasha uprising (1812-Mosul), Şerefhan uprising (1831-Bitlis), Bedirhan uprising (1835-Botan), Garzan Uprising (1839-Diyarbakır), Ubeydullah Uprising (1881- Hakkari), Bedirhan Osman Pasha and his brother Hüseyin Pasha Uprising (1872-Mardin-Cizre), Bedirhan Emin Ali Uprising (1889-Erzincan), Bedirhanis and Halil Rema uprising (1912-Mardin), Sheikh Selim Şebabettin and Ali uprising (1912-Bitlis), Koşgari uprising (1920-Koşgiri)

Uprisings After the Founding of the Republic of Turkey

The Kemalist government did not keep its promises to guarantee the political and cultural rights of the Kurds. The Kurds’ demands to determine their own destiny and govern themselves were not met with a positive response. Although the Kurds were promised equal rights during the “war of independence,” no steps were taken after the war, and the process evolved into a period marked by uprisings.

“The  Kurdish  national  movement  continued  within  Turkey’s  borders determined by the Treaty of Lausanne. There were a number of rebellions. The most important of these are the 1925 Sheikh Said Rebellion, the 1928 Ağrı Rebellion, the 1930 Zilan Rebellion and the 1938 Dersim Rebellion. In addition to their “national” character, these movements also had a feudal character: the feudal lords, who had ruled on their own until then, clashed with this authority when the central authority began to threaten this sovereignty. This is the main factor that pushed the feudal lords to revolt against the central authority..” (İbrahim Kaypakkaya, ibid)

The Koçgiri Uprising-Massacre

The Koçgiri Uprising, which began on March 6, 1921, and was violently suppressed on June 15, 1921, was the first Kurdish uprising in the history of the Turkish Republic. The uprising was initiated by the Koçgiri tribe, an Alevi- Kurdish community residing east of Sivas. The Dersim region did not participate in the uprising. For this reason, the uprising was limited to Sivas and Erzincan. The main reason for this uprising was the failure of the Kemalists to fulfill their promise of autonomy to the Kurds. Led by Alişer, the Koçgirililer resisted for about three months for their identity, culture, and national rights. The rebels’ demand in the Koçgiri Rebellion was an independent Kurdistan. Primarily, they demanded that the Ankara government not collect taxes in Koçgiri and Dersim, that freedom of the press be granted, that all rights be constitutionally guaranteed, and that autonomy be granted for the region covering Koçgiri and Dersim.

The Kemalist administration sent the 42nd and 47th Giresun Regiments, commanded by Topal Osman under the Central Army of Sakallı Nurettin Pasha, against the rebels. Topal Osman’s gang brutally suppressed the uprising. Those who survived the massacre took refuge in Dersim.

The Kemalists violently suppress the Koçgiri uprising, crushing the Kurdish nation’s efforts for independence and self-determination. By brutally suppressing this resistance, the Kemalists reveal their plan to integrate the Kurds into the Turkish ethnic identity even during the founding phase of the Republic.

Sheikh Said Uprising

Sheikh Said, a Naqshbandi sheikh, launched an uprising in 1925. Numerous tribes joined this uprising. The uprising quickly spread throughout Kurdistan. During the conflicts in Kurdistan, Varto, Malazgirt, Solhan, Çewlig, Sancak, Lice, Kulp, Kanireş, Piran, Maden, Kozluk, Siverek, Çemişgezek, Karakoçan, Ergani, Eğil, Bimil, Fargın, Çermik, Çınar, and many other settlements fell under the control of the rebels. The Kurds captured around 15,000 Turkish soldiers in Kurdistan.

On March 20-21, Kurdish forces surrounded the city of Amed with 10,000 fighters. Suffering heavy losses in fierce clashes, the Kurdish forces were forced to retreat. The Kemalists, with French support (via rail through French- controlled Syria), amassed troops in Kurdistan. After the defeat in Amed, the Kurdish forces, scattered and out of ammunition against the Kemalists, withdrew to the countryside/mountains from the places they had captured and continued their resistance.

Sheikh Said was captured on April 14, 1925. He was tried at the Independence Court in Amed and sentenced to death along with 41 of his comrades. He was executed on June 28. As a result of the uprising, many cities and hundreds of villages were burned and destroyed. Nearly 10,000 people were imprisoned. More than a thousand Kurds were executed for participating in the uprising. Most of the casualties in the clashes were civilians, with thousands of people losing their lives.

The Sheikh Said uprising, which took place immediately after the founding of the republic in Turkey, was not entirely separatist. Like the Sheikh Ubeydullah uprising during the Ottoman period, it was an uprising based on religious references. It regarded the sultan in Istanbul as the legitimate caliph. It was in favor of autonomy. The uprising had a pan-Islamic character. On the other hand, many Kurdish tribes participating in the uprising emphasized Kurdish discourse and their desire for independence, but the uprising was essentially marked by religious demands. However, this does not change the fact that it was a national uprising. Moreover, it is unthinkable that the Kemalist government could have supported the brutal suppression of this uprising on the grounds that “imperialists were involved. “Claiming that British imperialism had a hand in the Sheikh Said movement, the Turkish government violated the Kurdish nation’s right to self-determination, engaged in mass murders, etc. Those who try to show this as just and progressive are the incurable Turkish chauvinists, let’s repeat it once again… Moreover, the Turkish government itself was in cooperation with the British and French imperialists in that period.” (İbrahim Kaypakkaya, ibid)

Ağrı Uprisings

The Ağrı uprisings spanned a long period of conflict between 1926 and 1930. This rebellion involved the participation of Kurds living around Mount Ağrı as well as Kurds living in Iranian territory. The uprising spread over a wide area and continued for years. The uprising was initiated in May 1926 by the Soğanlı, Kızılbaşoğlu, Sori, Cilkanlı, Bilhanlı, and Cinganlı tribes. As soon as the clashes began,  Yusuf  Ağa  from  Iran  crossed  the  border  with  about  a  thousand horsemen to come to the aid of the tribes. The clashes spread over a wide area. The Kemalists’ armed forces were unable to hold their ground against the Kurdish rebels and retreated to Doğubeyazıt. In June, the Kemalists reorganized their army with reinforcements and launched an attack. The Kurdish rebels were forced to retreat to Iran.

Second Ağrı (Ararat) Rebellion

In 1928, a new Kurdish uprising was launched with the support of the Hoybun Society. The rebels captured most of the settlements around Bitlis, Van, and Lake Van.

Led by Ihsan Nuri and Zilan Bey, the uprising took the region, including Doğubeyazıt, from the army. With the support of the Hoybun Society, the rebels declared the independence of the Republic of Ağrı in the regions they had seized and brought under their control.

Some Armenian intellectuals and resistance fighters also joined this great resistance, providing military and logistical support to strengthen and expand the resistance. It is known as the first example of an Armenian-Kurdish alliance in history.

Tendürek Operation

The Kemalists’ armed forces prevented the forces under the command of Sheikh Abdullah, who were trying to come from Iran, from joining the uprising with the Tendürek Operation on September 14-27, 1929. And in June, they surrounded Mount Ağrı with ten thousand soldiers to suppress the uprising.

During this period, other Kurdish forces also came to the aid of the rebellion in 1930: Barzani with a force of 500 from Mosul, Haco Ağa from Syria, and Simko from Iran.

The Zilan Massacre

Between June and July 1930, the Zilan Operation was launched between Van and Ağrı. This operation suppressed the rebel forces coming from outside. In July 1930, just before the 3rd Ağrı Operation was launched by the 9th Corps of the Turkish Republic during the Ağrı Mountain uprisings, a massacre was carried out against Kurdish civilians who had taken refuge in the Zilan Valley in the Erciş district of Van province. “According to general opinion, the number of people killed in Zilan is ‘more than fifteen thousand’. In the sixth brochure published by Hoybun in the same year, while the massacre was still ongoing (published in September, according to estimates) stated that a total of 220 villages in the Zilan area had been burned and destroyed, around 4,500 women, children, and elderly people had been killed, and around 100 intellectuals, dignitaries, and prominent figures had been stuffed into sacks with their mouths sewn shut and thrown alive into Lake Van.” (Sedat Ulugana, Anatomy of a Massacre: 1930 Zilan, Bianet, July 25, 2024)

Third Ağrı Operation

For a major operation targeting Mount Ağrı, the Turkish state, in agreement with Iran, advances its military units to the back of Küçük Ağrı Dağı (Little Mount Ağrı) and surrounds Mount Ağrı.

The attack began on September 7, 1930. The Kurdish rebel forces suffered heavy losses. The leaders of the uprising were killed. Some of the survivors fled to Iran. Ihsan Nuri, one of the leaders of the uprising, also sought refuge in Iran. Many of those who surrendered were executed.

The Ağrı uprising, which began in 1926 and continued intermittently until September 1930, was suppressed with bloodshed and massacres.

The Dersim Massacre

The events that led to the Dersim massacre began due to the administration and control of the region. In particular, the Kızılbaş Alevi clans, who had never bowed to the Ottomans, demanded autonomy in the region with the establishment of the Turkish Republic. There had been numerous uprisings in the region during the Ottoman period. Dersim did not bow to either the Ottomans or the Turkish Republic. They did not pay taxes or provide soldiers to the authorities. Against the Russian invasion, the Dersim clans entered into an agreement with the Ottoman government and participated in the defensive war with the promise of autonomy. After the Russians withdrew, the Ottoman administration presented gifts and medals to the clans. Seyit Rıza was also rewarded.

Another reason for the Turkish Republic’s attack on Dersim was that around a thousand armed rebels who had fled the Koçgiri Uprising sought refuge with Seyit Rıza, who had previously had good relations with the state, causing a rift between him and the government. Another important reason was that more than 30,000 Armenians from neighboring provinces took refuge with the Alevi Kızılbaş clans in Dersim during the 1915 genocide.

The Dersim massacre occurred because the Dersim clans and their leaders had saved Armenians during the genocide, because of the autonomy promised to them in exchange for fighting the Russian invasion, and because of the effects of the Koçgiri uprising. It was also a move by the Turkish Republic to establish authority in the region and end the dominance of the clans—to effectively maintain law and order in Dersim. A law was passed in the Grand National Assembly to consolidate authority in the region.

On June 6, 1936, the Fourth General Inspectorate, covering the Dersim region and based in Elazığ, was established, and Lieutenant General Abdullah Alpdoğan was appointed as its commander. Lieutenant General A. Alpdoğan launched an attack with military units on the night of March 21, 1937, following a provocation. After failing in the first operation, A. Alpdoğan launched another attack with an army of 50,000 but was unable to cross the mountains. Therefore, the resistance positions were bombed from the air by a fleet of three aircraft (15 planes), including Sabiha Gökçen, the adopted daughter of M. Kemal.

On September 13, 1937, Seyit Rıza and his companions were summoned to an “agreement” and arrested. Seyit Rıza and the leading clan leaders were executed on November 18, 1937.

The Second Dersim Campaign was launched between January 20 and August 7, 1938. The Third Dersim Campaign took place between August 10 and 17, and a “cleansing campaign” began on September 6, resulting in 17 days of massacres. Villages were burned and destroyed.

Tens of thousands of people were massacred. Those who survived were exiled. Dersim was depopulated. Women and children who were exiled were forcibly Turkified.

Dersim was carried out not so much as a suppression of an uprising, but rather as a genocide of the Alevi Kurds to empty the region.

In conclusion; “The Kemalist dictatorship usurped all the rights of minority nationalities, especially the Kurdish nation. It aimed to forcibly Turkify them all. It forbade their language. In collaboration with some Kurdish feudals, it ruthlessly crushed the Kurdish national movement that emerged from time to time, engaged in mass murders, slaughtered thousands of people, men and women, children, young and old, and made life unbearable for the Kurdish people with declarations of ‘forbidden military zones’ and ‘special administration’ tyranny.” (İbrahim Kaypakkaya, ibid)

Above, we noted that the Kurds were unable to establish a nation-state due to their fragmentation during the feudal period and the oppression, massacres, and deportations they endured. We can explain why the Kurds, who failed to achieve this, are now considered a nation through Stalin’s historical determination. Stalin makes the following determination for nations that have not  been  able  to  establish  nation-states: “This  particular  form  of  state organization could only be seen in conditions of feudalism that had not yet been eliminated, in conditions of capitalism that had developed only vaguely, when nations that had been pushed into the background were about to be established  as  nations,  but  had  not  yet  had  time  to  consolidate economically.” (J. Stalin, ibid., p. 20)

Thus, J. Stalin clarifies that other nations that remained outside the nation- state, even if they could not establish their nation-states under capitalism, were still included in the category of nations.

On the other hand, J. Stalin summarizes why these nations could not establish their own nation states with the following statements: “But the oppressed nations, which have begun to become aware of their own distinct way of life, do not yet organize themselves into independent national states: on their path, they encounter the fierce resistance of the ruling nations, whose ruling classes have long since taken control of the state. – It is already too late!… (J. Stalin)

IV. The Historical Conditions Leading to the Emergence of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)

We will attempt to briefly summarize the historical conditions that gave rise to the PKK movement. In doing so, we will also include the Kurdish national movement’s (KUH) own assessments as much as possible. These assessments will also give us an idea of the changes taking place on the KUH front at this stage and the denial of the past.

First and foremost, we must state that when we refer to the Kurdish national question, we are talking about the struggle of an oppressed nation against the nation that oppresses it, on a just and legitimate basis. And this historical process encompasses a period of struggle spanning centuries.

The history of the republic, built on the basis of monism over the last century, is a history of struggle against minorities, primarily the Kurds. Even before the PKK era, there were Kurdish uprisings that developed at certain intervals, up to the 1938 Dersim Massacre, although they did not cover the entire Kurdish geography. After the Dersim massacre, it is possible to speak of a long period of silence in Turkish Kurdistan. However, due to the system’s policies of annihilation and denial against the Kurds, the contradiction between the oppressor and oppressed nations continued to exist objectively. And after the 1960s, influenced by the revolutionary wave sweeping the world, this contradiction once again became a concrete phenomenon in the arena of struggle. Because every contradiction involves struggle and conflict. The scale of the struggle is determined by factors such as the possibilities revealed by the objective conditions and the balance of power between the conflicting forces. What we are trying to emphasize here is the fact that nothing exists by itself. Everything rises on an objective ground. The Kurdish national question is also a product of the Turkish state’s policies of annihilation and denial. Therefore, this struggle is a question of liberation. And this contradiction and conflict will continue in one form or another until the Kurdish nation builds a free and equal life.

To better understand the issue, let us listen to some of the PKK’s own assessments of its historical process.

“Undoubtedly, there is a material environment that enabled the emergence of the PKK movement. This environment was created by the unrestrained, predatory capitalism of the Kemalist Turkish Republic. It is a medieval social structure that was ruthlessly, unrestrained form, some elements that burst forth in fragments from a medieval social structure, even if in the form of capitalism’s debris, have a close connection with revolutionary developments through their efforts to recognize themselves and through the youth movement of the 1970s, a period when the weaknesses of such capitalism were most evident, and through this enlightened movement that always attained progressive consciousness. When these two factors are cleverly combined, a period begins in which the spark of hope for the Kurdish people enters a new path to liberation. In the history of the PKK, the period 1970-75 is one in which such a discussion of a new path took place. During this period, questions were asked about what path to take and how liberation was possible, and answers were given. By 1975, the answer to the question had been determined: the path to national liberation, guided by socialism, was definitely , and it had found its owners. In the 1975-80 period, this question, which found its answer within a limited enlightenment, was imposed on a wider audience. The people were asked: ‘Are you willing to walk this path, which has been decided to be the right one, and will you take the first step for this?’ And both the official declaration of the PKK and the widespread period of action that followed, in the years 1976-77–78–79, were met with a response from our people in the form of ‘Yes, we intend to embark on this right path’. This response was not merely verbal but was brought to life through widespread activism. Therefore, in the history of our people, this deathly silence was the first stir, a revival, a coming to life, a turning towards one’s own self, a movement of intention, however small.” (A. Öcalan, Selected Writings, Volume III, Weşanên Serxwebûn, 1986, pp. 47-48)

Undoubtedly, the revolutionary wave that swept across the world in the late 1960s also affected Turkey and Turkey’s Kurdistan. Consequently, all movements organized and struggling along national lines in Turkey’s Kurdistan were influenced by the revolutionary wave developing both globally and within Turkey. In this sense, these movements were influenced primarily by the revolutionary movement in Turkey, rather than by Kurdish-feudal organizations that did not transcend the primitive tribal structures that existed in Iraqi Kurdistan at the time, and they turned to practices of struggle alongside them.

Moreover, despite the social chauvinist stance adopted by many circles, particularly the “Communist” Party of Turkey, in their approach to the Kurdish national question, the Kurdish movements did not adopt an indifferent attitude towards the revolutionary developments in the “west” by patriotic forces. On the contrary, there has always been a mutual influence and a struggle unity imposed by objective conditions. Alongside these positive developments, serious negative ones have also occurred. As a result of the division of Kurdistan into four parts, developments in each part inevitably affect the other parts. This objective fact also holds true to a certain extent for other developments in the region.

We see this reality reflected in the following assessments of the national movement: “It was during these years that the PKK movement entered the historical agenda. The PKK movement’s historical role emerged during this process, playing a historical role against a nation, a people, and the Turkish people, and increasingly against the peoples of the Middle East. And the PKK found itself in a painful, oppressive process, in the midst of a development rarely seen. Looking back at this recent history today, we see very clearly that the PKK movement’s tradition encompasses, on the one hand, the Kurdish people’s centuries-old, unrelenting resentment, anger, and pain, and on the other hand, the militant legacy of the Turkish people’s most recent uprising against the system of exploitation and oppression they have endured and resisted for centuries.” (A. Öcalan, Selected Writings, Volume III, Weşanên Serxwebûn, 1986, p. 46)

All these internal and external factors significantly hindered the national movement from establishing itself on a narrowly “national” basis during its founding process. In addition to the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal struggle that was emphasized at every opportunity, the fact that it built its fundamental theoretical views and practical line on “the independence of Kurdistan” and, in doing so, sought to benefit from the democratic and socialist revolutionary experiences of other countries, leads us to this conclusion.

V. The Role of Socialist Influence in Shaping the PKK’s Fundamental Theoretical Views

After the 1970s, the movements organized in Turkey’s Kurdistan region with the perspective of an “Independent Kurdistan” essentially defined themselves as socialist. Again, in the ongoing struggle and fundamental division between Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) and modern revisionism on the international stage, these movements, including the PKK, were positioned predominantly close to modern revisionism. Although the PKK’s leading cadres directed some criticism at the socialist-masked bureaucratic bourgeoisie that seized power in Russia, they still viewed the USSR as socialist. They assessed this country’s approach to the Kurdish national question at the regional level as the stance of socialists towards the Kurdish question on the international stage.

Indeed, after the socialist-masked bureaucratic bourgeois dictatorships collapsed, most of these movements, primarily influenced by modern revisionism, such as the PKK, instead of adopting a self-critical stance in the face of their misguided assessments, began to criticize scientific socialism based on the crimes committed by these socialist-masked bureaucratic bourgeoisie against the international proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the world for years. Today, all the definitions and concepts marketed in the bourgeois arsenal, such as “Stalinism,” “real socialism,” “democratic socialism,” etc., are based on this false and inadequate understanding.

Of course, in pointing out these facts, we are not claiming that there were or will be no mistakes in socialist practices. Our main objection here is to the counterattack launched against scientific socialism and communism as a whole, using weapons borrowed from the bourgeois arsenal, based on the bourgeoisie, now wearing socialist masks, seizing power in the ongoing class struggle within the socialist system. It is to the attempts to adapt socialism to their own narrow “national” horizons. It is the “socialist” understanding that envisions coexisting ‘peacefully’ with the capitalist-imperialist system. Moreover, it is the need to place a “democratic” concept before socialism, as if socialism were incompatible with true democracy and lacked the nature of a libertarian system for the oppressed, especially the working class. Moreover, all these attacks on the revolutionary legacy and socialism are being carried out at a time when capitalist-imperialist barbarism, which is devastating and impoverishing our planet to the point of making it uninhabitable, reigns supreme.

The following assessments in A. Öcalan’s latest call concretely reveal the ideological  influence  of  socialist-masked  bureaucratic  bourgeoisie  on  the PKK: “Has the freedom solution been achieved? No. The Kurdish existence has been proven, it has attained ideological and organizational consciousness, but there has been a blockage in the step towards liberation. Behind this blockage lies real socialist ideology and its effects. Socialism seized state power in many parts of the world in the 20th century and came to dominate one-third of the world. But it could not survive; it collapsed. This was reflected in a crisis for us as well. Real socialism collapsed, we remained standing, but we experienced a major crisis. Real socialism collapsed because it could not overcome its theoretical impasses and did not develop its libertarian socialism; it is difficult to emerge from an ideological crisis. The ideological argumentation we relied on has collapsed. What conceptual framework, what sociological analysis will you rely on? Real socialism had collapsed, little remained, and while maintaining my belief in socialism by trial and error, I had made an assessment that ‘insisting on socialism is insisting on being human’. I preserved my belief in socialism, my commitment to it, and entered into a struggle to transform this into consciousness. Those were difficult, turbulent years…“ (A. Öcalan, ”Perspective,” Serxwebûn, issue 521)

Of course, it was not socialism that collapsed, but socialist-masked bureaucratic bourgeois dictatorships. MLM is a science. It is the worldview of the proletariat. Linking it to modern revisionism, reconciling it with the anti- communist bourgeois ideology of the revisionists, is unacceptable.

Returning to our main topic, the PKK is a movement influenced by socialism in its founding process. And its fundamental theoretical views have been shaped along a national revolutionary line. All of its practices, such as the struggle it waged against certain Kurdish feudalists during its founding process and its determination to pursue its stated aims and objectives, point to the truth of this reality. But despite all this, it is not the socialist perspective that has left its mark on the main line of the Kurdish national movement, but the nationalism of the oppressed Kurdish nation. As we stated at the outset, the PKK has attempted to adapt socialism to the Kurdish national struggle. In doing so, it has not ignored the experiences of democratic and socialist revolutions around the world. We see all these realities in the following assessments made by the PKK during its founding process:

“The national oppression that has continuously developed and strengthened throughout history, and which today has materialized in the form of capitalist Turkish colonialism, reveals that the first stage of the Kurdistan revolution will develop in a national direction. Without resolving national oppression, none of the country’s problems can be solved. The main contradiction in our country is national in nature, and the resolution of all other contradictions depends on the resolution of this contradiction… A contradiction that will be resolved in conjunction   with   and   dependent   on   the   national  contradiction   is  the contradiction between the people and the feudal-comprador class… Due to the concrete historical conditions of Kurdistan, national and feudal oppression are so intertwined that it is impossible to separate them and put distance between them… Therefore, it is wrong to distance the national and democratic aspects of the Kurdistan Revolution from each other, to separate the resolution of the national and democratic aspects into different periods. The intertwining of national and class oppression in the revolution leads us to see the struggle against national and class oppression as a whole… With these characteristics, the Kurdistan Revolution is a national democratic revolution… After the national democratic revolution, the transition to the socialist revolution is seamless… The Kurdistan Revolution primarily targets Turkish colonialism… The only correct path in the struggle against imperialism and fascism is the struggle against Turkish colonialism, which draws strength from both and combines the interests of both. The tasks of the Kurdistan Revolution, stemming from its characteristics and objectives, envisage the creation of an Independent and Democratic Kurdistan. Creating an independent Kurdistan… is possible by eliminating cultural and political colonialism and military occupation… Creating a democratic Kurdistan, on the other hand, depends on the elimination of the heavy feudal comprador pressures on the social structure of Kurdistan. Fulfilling our duties against the oppression and exploitation in these two interconnected areas is only possible through the organization of a national liberation front guided by scientific socialism and a strong people’s army  fighting  under  this  front. Within  the  context  of  the  content  and development of the party, front, and army organizations, mass organizations of workers, peasants, artisans, youth, and women must be created.” (Quoted by İbrahim Cihan, The Path of the Kurdistan Revolution-Manifesto, pp. 234-238.)

As can be easily seen from the above assessments, the PKK’s fundamental theoretical views were shaped by learning from and being influenced by the practical experiences of the Chinese revolution. Anyone familiar with the general history of the Chinese Revolution, particularly Chairman Mao’s analysis of the relationship between the National and Democratic Revolutions, the transition from democratic revolution to socialism, revolutionary violence, the building of the party, army, and front, etc., will readily see the extent of this influence. This is quite understandable. Because Mao’s general theses on China, which had a semi-colonial, semi-feudal economic structure, also have a universal  character.  Therefore,  it  is  only  natural  for  revolutionary  and communist forces in countries with this economic and political structure, or with similar characteristics, to learn from these historical experiences in the social and national liberation struggles carried out in those countries. The real issue here is to transform this learning process into creative practice without falling into dogmatism.

Undoubtedly, the limitation of national-national revolutionary movements, which lack an international proletarian character, in this learning process is confined to a national perspective. We can also describe this situation as an attempt to adapt the proletarian internationalist perspective to a narrow “nationalist” bourgeois nationalist understanding.

While making these general assessments, without ignoring the influence of external conditions, we must also clearly highlight the following distinctive and revolutionary approaches of the PKK movement.

First, the PKK movement has adopted revolutionary force as a principle from the outset in its war against the fascist Turkish state. The guerrilla war it launched in 1984 is also a result of this understanding. The PKK’s determined stance, creatively applying guerrilla warfare to the Kurdish geography, has led to the development of national consciousness not only in Turkish Kurdistan but throughout the Kurdish geography as a whole.

Secondly, the PKK’s determined struggle has also paved the way for the liberation of Kurdish women. In a region like the Middle East, where bourgeois- feudal ideas permeate every aspect of life, the role of this revolutionary transformation  cannot  be  underestimated.  Again,  the  role  of  socialist influence in all these revolutionary transformations must also be recognized.

Thirdly, since its inception, the PKK has relied primarily on the poor Kurdish peasantry and youth, that is, the poorest and most working-class segments of the Kurdish nation. This stance has led the national movement into fierce struggle with feudal forces in many areas. As the struggle developed and the movement gained mass dimensions, the Kurdish bourgeoisie and middle classes began to become more visible and influential in the practical arena. It is not surprising that such changes occur in a movement that is ideologically and politically positioned along national rather than class lines. Another unsurprising reality is the deviations these changes will create in the aims and objectives of national movements.

VI. The Program Declared by the PKK at Its Founding Is a National Revolutionary Program

The PKK was founded as a small-bourgeois nationalist revolutionary organization by Kurdish students, intellectuals, semi-proletarians, and peasants, who were to some extent influenced by the rapid spread and development of revolutionary, Marxist ideas in Turkey at the time.

Following its founding in 1978, the PKK adopted a national revolutionary line, articulating its views in its “The Path of the Kurdistan Revolution” strategy. It is useful to look at what the PKK said in 1978 to see the difference between its views in the early years of struggle and the views expressed by Abdullah Öcalan in his “Democratic Society” call on February 27, 2025.

In 1978, the PKK stated: “Another important phenomenon that emerged during the period of free market capitalism was the development of the working class movement and its acquisition of a scientific doctrine. Scientific socialism, which was systematized into a worldview by K. Marx and F. Engels, is the highest synthesis of the positive aspects of human culture developed up to that point… This doctrine, which proves the inevitability of socialism, is a powerful guide for action on the path to liberation for the working class and the peoples of the world…” (A. Öcalan, The Path of Revolution in Kurdistan-Manifesto, Weşanen Serxwebun 24, Fifth Edition; June 1993, pp. 44 and 45)

In the Manifesto, A. Öcalan conveys the international significance of the October Revolution and the characteristics of our era from Comrade Stalin, stating his agreement with him as follows: “In these developments, which are the main characteristics of our era, the impact of the October Revolution will continue until the world revolution is completed.”(PKK Program, pp. 4 and 5, quoted by A. Öcalan, ibid., p. 47)

Again, in the Manifesto, A. Öcalan makes the following assessment: “The international significance of the October Revolution can be summarized as follows: First, it opened a new era, the era of proletarian revolutions,” and makes a “determination of the era.” (ibid., pp. 46-47)

Later in the Manifesto, he uses the phrase “scientific socialism, the only consistent revolutionary current of our era.” (ibid., p. 59)

A.Öcalan’s approach to “democratic politics,” which he has declared as the ‘solution’ to the Kurdish national question at this stage, and his assessment of it from the perspective of Turkish Kurdistan are explained in the following statements: “All of this is a hundred times more true for Kurdistan. Despite these realities, under and within the political colonialism of the Turkish bourgeoisie, which pits our people against each other, constantly increases feudal comprador oppression, and wants to pass off its bloody despotism as ‘democracy,’ those who can call the struggle to send ‘national’ candidates to parliament   a   ‘democratic   struggle’   and   who   present   themselves   as ‘democratic,’ ‘patriotic,‘ and even ‘socialist’ are worthy of these sacred titles. national’   candidates   to   parliament,   and   those   who   call   themselves ‘democratic’, ‘patriotic’ or even ‘socialist’ can hardly be worthy of these sacred titles – we repeat – they can only be lackeys of Turkish colonialism. Unless they are directed against political colonialism and aim to eliminate colonialism in all its forms, none of these types of struggles are democratic, whether at the association or party level in Kurdistan, whether conducted secretly or openly. Democratic struggle is impossible within the machinery of a government developed on the basis of destroying a people, even in professional organizations. Of course, if we do not call the entry of the biggest feudal compradors into the Grand National Assembly democratic; of course, if we do not call the Republic of Turkey, which does not carry a shred of bourgeois democracy in its essence, democratic; this is how it is.” (ibid, p. 113)

And  again, “…  This  colonialism  is supported by imperialists externally  and feudal compradors internally. This power, which is bound together by very tight economic ties, constitutes the targets of the Kurdistan revolution. A movement that does not develop against Turkish colonialism, along with its internal and external supporters, cannot claim to be revolutionary in Kurdistan…” (ibid., p. 121)

A.Öcalan states that the basis for democratic politics is that “creating a democratic Kurdistan depends on the elimination of the heavy feudal comprador oppression on the social structure of Kurdistan…” (ibid., p. 121).

It is noteworthy that the PKK’s founding manifesto refers to the idea of “living together in peace”: “…But not the revisionists and reformists. They claim that they can create a new world by agreeing with the bourgeoisie’s reactionary force, a new path of ‘social progress in peace’. They may claim this, but the world they will create is the corrupt world of the bourgeoisie, which has long since passed its prime. Again, they say that they can take power from the bourgeoisie   by   increasing   the   number   of   parliamentarians,   ministers, undersecretaries, general managers, and generals piece by piece, without fighting against monopolies and without waging a tooth-and-nail struggle against colonialism. They can, but on one condition: that they themselves become servants of the bourgeoisie, that they serve the bourgeoisie…“ (ibid, p. 124)

The Manifesto’s approach to reforms is assessed with the following statements: ”The distinctive feature of reforms in the imperialist era is that they play a role as a tool in preventing peoples from achieving full independence. As national liberation movements move towards full independence, it is a fact proven hundreds of times in practice that imperialism and colonialists can secretly mobilize their collaborators, trying to pacify the masses by introducing certain reforms through collusion. This is the case in Palestine and Rhodesia, for example. But it is also true that revolutionaries reject reforms outright. In the national liberation movement, all tendencies other than independence are reformist. Every reformist tendency is essentially the tendency of those who are materially tied to imperialism, colonialism, and local reactionaries.(ibid, pp. 61-62)

The  Manifesto  evaluates  the  Turkish  Republic  with  the  following statements: “The current political formation of Turkish capitalism, which has developed in dependence on imperialism from its inception to the present day, is an oligarchic state that uses ‘liberal’ fascist hybrid governments as a mask for bourgeois parliamentarianism, formed by an alliance of the most powerful industrial and financial elements of the collaborationist monopoly bourgeoisie, the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, and the large landowners, in proportion to their power.” (ibid., p. 61-62) -in proportion to their power- forming a bourgeois parliamentary system that serves as a mask for ‘liberal’ fascist hybrid governments.” (ibid., p. 81)

Finally, A. Öcalan’s statements regarding the “solution” to the Kurdish national question today, which he rejects, and his views on the path to a real solution are   as   follows: “On   this   issue,   the   solutions   proposed   by   both   the ‘revolutionaries’  of  the  oppressor  nation  and  the  ‘revolutionaries’  of  the oppressed   nation,   who   differ   in   nuance   but   are   of   the   same   mind ‘revolutionaries’ of the oppressed nation, who are on the same wavelength but with   different   nuances,   are   reactionary   and   contradict   the   thesis   of ‘independent state’, which is the only correct interpretation of the Right of Nations to Self-Determination today. An independent state is the only correct thesis under current conditions, and because it is correct, it is a revolutionary thesis. Other theses and solutions are reformist because they do not touch on state borders, and because they are reformist, they are reactionary theses.”(ibid, p. 128)

VII. The Transformations Achieved by the PKK in the Kurdish Nation

A) Transformation in National Consciousness

It must be acknowledged that the PKK enabled a people who had been ignored, whose existence had been denied, who had been subjected to annihilation attacks at every opportunity, who were unorganized and whose will had been broken, to rise again.

It overturned a reality in which, as a result of massacres, genocide, deportation, and intense Turkification attacks, not only was the existence of the Kurds as a nation denied, but even their very existence was attempted to be erased. To put it bluntly, it expressed the national awakening and rise of a people who said, “I am Kurdish, but I am Turkish.”

Let alone the Kurds proudly and enthusiastically proclaiming their identity, a reality was created in which even some non-Kurds claimed to be Kurdish. The Kurds gained a significant degree of organized national identity. They gained representation, will, and a voice in every area of life and struggle. They created a visible, vibrant, resilient color of life and struggle in every field, emerging from invisibility. They introduced the Kurdish language and culture, art and literature, cinema and theater to the world. They created countless important values and works, drawing the interest and attention of all segments of society.

They opened countless academies, education, and cultural centers, not only in Turkish Kurdistan but especially in Rojava. They became pioneers of cultural transformation. They created opportunities for the Kurdish community, as well as the Arab, Circassian, Turkmen, Syriac, Armenian, Assyrian, and Yazidi peoples, to live, work, and study together freely. The revolutionary democratic system created by the Kurds in all areas set an example for all segments of society living in Rojava.

Other peoples living in Rojava besides the Kurds experienced significant revolutionary changes. Organizations were created in Rojava with a sense of common defense and protection. Thanks to the Kurdish movement, Arabs, Syriacs, Armenians, and Assyrians organized their own military organizations and councils. They created their social organizations.

The gains and changes created in Rojava had a significant revolutionary impact not only on the people of the region but also on Western European youth and women in particular. It restored international solidarity, ownership, and the consciousness and tendency to struggle to a material force. Opportunities were offered not only to the Kurdish people but also to the peoples of the region, Turkish and international revolutionaries.

B) Women’s Participation in the National Struggle

Kurdish women, confined to their homes, denied their rights and freedoms, without identity, voice, or action, invisible, shattered this reality through the Kurdish national struggle and created a free, conscious Kurdish female identity. By creating various women’s organizations in all areas, a reality of Kurdish women seeking their rights and fighting emerged. A respectable, accepted, and exemplary female identity and organizations were created not only for Kurdish women but for all oppressed women. Kurdish women’s organizations were created in the military, social, political, and cultural spheres, and women leaders with high representational power emerged in all areas.

The PKK’s approach had an impact not only on the peoples of the Middle East but also on women seeking freedom internationally. Many internationalist women’s organizations were influenced by the Kurdish women’s movement. They took steps to create their own organizations in their respective fields.

Kurdish women awakened on the basis of national revolutionary consciousness as never before in their history. Kurdish women, who had been asleep, whose identity had been ignored, who had no place, voice, or will in society and the family, who had difficulty breathing under all kinds of feudal, religious, and male oppression, became the owners and subjects of an awakening alongside the Kurdish national liberation movement.

Kurdish women, who initially organized in the guerrilla field and began to participate in military activities, were heavily oppressed under male- dominated ideology and were kept behind and assigned to rear positions. Kurdish women were organized within the guerrilla, but their place, voice, and will were weak and in the background.

However, women began to become active subjects by waging a great struggle against both their comrades with whom they fought shoulder to shoulder in the guerrilla and against traditional-feudal-reactionary ideology and mentality, putting up countless acts of resistance and creating their own women’s defense military organization.

The initial organization, development, and subjectification of Kurdish women into commanders took place within military work. As a result of the development and success achieved in the military sphere, a similar line of development was developed and expanded in the social sphere, in the administrative, cultural, and press fields. The slogan “Jin Jiyan Azadi” became the dynamic force behind the development of the Kurdish women’s reality. The development of Kurdish women in a fedai style has made them undisputed pioneers and leaders in the military, political, social, cultural, artistic, press, publishing, and administrative fields. As we emphasized above, this development was certainly not easy.

VIII. The PKK’s Gains and Losses in the “Ceasefire Processes”

The Kurdish national liberation struggle has been deficient and inadequate in organizing its own development alongside the working class and people of Turkey. If it had been able to combine and organize its fundamental rights and freedoms more strongly with Turkey’s democratic struggle, and if its just and legitimate struggle had found a response in the “West,” it would not have resorted to deadlock and “ceasefire-peace” negotiations so frequently and would have achieved the results it sought more quickly.

A second reason for the Kurdish national liberation movement’s deadlock is the repetition it has fallen into in the guerrilla war and its failure to carry this war to the “West.” Each repetition must be read as a step toward stagnation and regression in the process.

The Turkish army’s emphasis on technology and its use, and the superiority it has achieved, albeit temporarily, should be seen as a result of gaining territorial control, narrowing the guerrillas’ freedom of movement, and causing them to begin to lose their initiative and superiority in striking blows against the enemy. In recent years, the guerrilla’s losses due to the effective use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) over a wide area must be seen as a serious cause of stagnation. The guerrilla did not surrender control of the area to the enemy by using the Media Defense Zones in depth and breadth. However, it could not achieve the same success in Turkish Kurdistan.

The erosion of the PKK’s guerrilla initiative and superiority in the T.Kurdistan region and the gradual loss of its moral superiority and mass support as a result of the blows it received from the enemy should be seen as another reason for the deadlock. The enemy gained moral superiority by increasing its control over the area and terrain and striking blows against the guerrillas. During the years and periods when the PKK declared a ceasefire and withdrew its forces, the Turkish state began to gain more control over the battlefields.

The failure of the revolutionary movement in Turkey to correctly assess the national question or to apply its correct assessments in the field, along with the effects of chauvinism, the weakness and fragmentation of the movement, and its failure to provide sufficient and necessary support to the Kurdish national liberation movement, particularly the inability of the revolutionary war to take hold in the Central and Western Black Sea regions, and, overall, its failure to carry the war to the “West” to a certain extent, should be listed among the reasons for this impasse.

a) The First Fracture in the PKK

In the early 1990s, the collapse of modern revisionist rule and the fall of the USSR led to a wave of internal purges around the world, accompanied by cries of “farewell proletariat.” A counter-wind began to blow, proclaiming that the era of revolutions was over and that a process of so-called “democracy” had begun. Propaganda proclaimed that “the class struggle is over” and “the end of history has come.” The reversal from socialism and the successive collapse of countries that had long used socialism as a mask led to a fracture and distrust in the belief in socialism and hope for revolution, causing serious turmoil. This wind of liberalism blowing within the existing order pushed many guerrilla organizations in Latin America away from the ground of armed struggle and onto the ground of parliamentary politics within the existing order.

The Kurdish national liberation movement was also affected by this wind of anti-socialism and anti-revolution. It took steps away not only from the revolutionary theory of MLM, which it called “real socialism,” but also from the symbols of MLM. For example, it removed the sickle and hammer from the PKK flag and began to use the Kurdish national colors symbolized by a yellow star. In this way, the PKK put not only a theoretical but also a formal distance between itself and Marxism-Leninism. In line with these steps and in search of a political solution, the PKK made efforts to “find a counterpart.” And from 1993 to the present, it has not taken a step back from this line. The PKK, which evolved from the idea of armed liberation to the idea of a political solution, has carried this line to the present day. In this regard, it has followed a “consistent line” within itself.

The Turkish state, as expected, approached all ceasefires and peace processes with deceit. Developments in the Middle East and around the world played a decisive role in determining the tactical and strategic orientation of the Turkish state’s approach to the Kurdish national question.

b) The 1993 Ceasefire

The Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq, acting under the guidance and protection of the Turkish state, has repeatedly attacked PKK forces. In these attacks — often described as a fratricidal conflict — the PKK suffered heavy losses. In 1992, the Turkish state, through the Turgut Özal government, persuaded the KDP and YNK, which were dominant in Iraqi Kurdistan, to launch attacks against the PKK. The attacks lasted for about a month and a half, resulting in mutual losses. However, the Turkish state did not get what it wanted from the KDP and YNK. It was rendered ineffective in the face of the guerrillas’ resistance. The PKK tactically withdrew its forces towards Zelé and the Turkey border.

The Turgut Özal government, having failed in this war, put another policy on the agenda. It brought YNK President Jalal Talabani into the picture and asked him to convince Abdullah Öcalan to declare a ceasefire. These talks bore fruit, and finally, on March 19, 1993, A. Öcalan announced the first ceasefire in PKK history to the Turkish and international public at a press conference in Bekaa, attended by YNK leader Jalal Talabani.

Although Turgut Özal stated that “the Kurds would be granted certain rights, but first the guns must fall silent,” he took no action. In response, the PKK once again demonstrated its “goodwill” by announcing at a press conference in Bekaa on April 15, 1993, that it was extending the unilateral ceasefire for another month. The process did not progress, and shortly thereafter, the ceasefire ended on its own.

The claim that T. Özal was killed because he made a ceasefire with the PKK and “reconciled with terrorism” is still debated by the PKK and, to some extent, the Turkish public. T. Özal’s death partially changed the balance of power in Turkey. Tansu Çiller and her team became figures in a process that would lead to much darker years.

The PKK did not only sit at the table with the Turkish state. It also sat at the table with regional powers from time to time, and mutual ceasefires were declared. The Turkish state never accepted the PKK’s position in Iraqi Kurdistan. Iraqi Kurdistan was seen by the Turkish state as a place where actions were planned, where the PKK grew stronger, and where it took root among the Kurds. For this reason, while preparing to launch a new attack through the KDP and YNK by convincing the US and the UK, the PKK thwarted the Turkish state’s attack preparations on August 26, 1995. The PKK, which was at war with the KDP, ended the ongoing war with a ceasefire. The PKK’s efforts, which also declared a ceasefire against the Turkish state, were in vain. On May 6, 1996, the unilateral ceasefire also ended with the assassination attempt on A.Öcalan in Syria by counter forces under the command of Tansu Çiller.

In 1998, Necmettin Erbakan was prime minister. N. Erbakan also made efforts to get the PKK to declare a unilateral ceasefire. He knew that the path to the “stability” of his own government lay in the Kurds giving up the war and being brought into the fold. To this end, “Turkey indirectly conveyed to the PKK the proposal that a mechanism should be created to develop the ceasefire process and that the Kurdish and Turkish public should be prepared for peace.” The PKK declared a unilateral ceasefire on September 1, 1998, adhering to the roadmap conveyed by N. Erbakan’s government. However, the fate of this ceasefire was no different from the others.

c) The Second Fracture in the PKK

The presence of PKK leader A. Öcalan in Syria constantly disturbed and alarmed the Turkish state. Claiming that PKK actions were planned from Syria, the Turkish state threatened to wage war on Syria, taking advantage of the changing balances in the Middle East and the opportunity that arose in its favor. Under pressure from the US and other Western imperialist powers, they demanded that A. Öcalan be expelled from Syria. A. Öcalan was forced to leave Syria on October 9, 1998. Turning his face not to the mountains but to Western Europe for “diplomatic talks,” A. Öcalan was taken to Kenya on the grounds that there were no conditions for him to stay in Italy and Greece, and on February 15, 1999, he was abducted from Kenya and handed over to Turkey. It was alleged that the US intelligence agency CIA and the Israeli intelligence agency MOSSAD played a role in A. Öcalan’s handover to Turkey as a result of a conspiracy.

After A. Öcalan’s extradition to Turkey, the PKK held its 6th Congress, announced the end of its unilateral ceasefire, and declared an all-out war against the Turkish state. Following this congress, the PKK made significant progress in its armed struggle. It dealt major blows to the Turkish state through mass actions and guerrilla attacks both inside and outside the country.

During the period when A. Öcalan was captured, a coalition government consisting of the DSP, ANAP, and MHP was in power in Turkey. The decisive role played by US imperialism in A. Öcalan’s extradition to Turkey can be seen in the words of then Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit: “We do not understand why the US handed Apo over to us.” Later, the US announced to the public that it had handed Öcalan over to the Turkish state on the condition that he would not be executed.

On September 1, 1999, while imprisoned in Imralı Prison, Öcalan declared a fourth ceasefire in the hope of “establishing peace.” Along with his call for a ceasefire, A. Öcalan also called for the guerrillas to leave the country’s borders. The PKK expanded the scope of this slightly, ensuring that a group of 20 guerrillas came to Turkey, laid down their arms, and surrendered. The coalition government announced that it would “not attack as long as this remained the case,” creating public opinion and making plans to strategically finish off the PKK.

These unilateral ceasefires led to the PKK’s decision to disband on April 10, 2002, which we will discuss in detail below, the cancellation of the ceasefire in 2004, the “Kurdish opening” process in 2010, and the situation today.

d) The Call for a “Democratic Society” Is Not New

The views expressed by A. Öcalan in his “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society” written on February 27, 2025, are not views he is expressing for the first time. It can be said that all the views expressed by A. Öcalan in his call on February 27, 2025, are a summary of the views he has systematically defended and synthesized from 1999 to 2025, with some nuances.

Indeed, at its 7th Extraordinary Congress, the PKK also made a call for peace with the Turkish state through an approach it called the “Democratic Peace Project” and continued its search for dialogue with Turkey. The following statements regarding the PKK’s pursuit of peace and its line of reconciliation are  sufficient: “Indeed,  in  accordance  with  the  ‘Democratic  Peace  Project’ adopted at the PKK’s 7th Extraordinary Congress, it continued its calls for peace and its search for dialogue on various dates and presented projects. These projects include: the Peace Project on January 20, 2000; the Emergency Action Plan for Democracy and Peace on November 4, 2000; a statement of urgent demands on June 19, 2001, to prevent a new war from becoming an agenda item and to advance the resolution process; the Urgent Solution Declaration on November 22, 2002, and letters sent twice, at the beginning of 2000 and the end of 2002, to the President, the Speaker of Parliament, the Prime Minister, the Chief of General Staff, and all political parties, setting out their thoughts on the  solution  to  the  Kurdish  issue. (Amed  Dicle,  PKK’s  Dialectic  of  Peace, Democratic Modernity, June 10, 2013, demokratikmodernite.org )

Therefore, this is not the first time the PKK has called for peace and reconciliation. What is different is that the Turkish state, particularly due to developments in the Middle East, responded to Öcalan’s call and initiated a process in line with its own interests.

On the other hand, just as with its efforts for peace and reconciliation, the PKK is not dissolving itself for the first time. It should be noted that the PKK has dissolved itself before and moved on to other organizations.

e) The PKK’s Self-Dissolution Processes

In the early general election held in Turkey on November 3, 2002, the AKP won a significant portion of the votes—including Kurdish votes—due to the public’s reaction to the economic crisis, bans, and corruption of the 57th Ecevit Government, thereby gaining the right to form a government. By winning 34.3% of the votes and securing 363 seats in parliament, it gained the right to form a government on its own. As part of the propaganda known as ‘3Y’ – AKP’s election promise to end bans, corruption, and poverty– the impression was  also  created  that  the  Kurdish  issue  would  be  resolved  throug ‘democratic means.’  With this perception, the AKP won at least three general elections by also securing Kurdish votes.

Shortly before the AKP came to power, following A. Öcalan’s call in 2002, the PKK dissolved itself at its 8th Congress on April 4-10, 2002, and replaced it with the Kongreya Azadî û Demokrasiya Kurdistanê-Kurdistan Democratic Freedom Congress (Kurdistan Democratic Freedom Congress) on April 2, 2003. Congress on April 4-10, 2002, and announced that it had dissolved itself and replaced it with the Kongreya Azadî û Demokrasiya Kurdistanê-Kurdistan Democratic Freedom Congress (KADEK) on April 2, 2003. (Cihan Bilgin, “45 years of struggle that     changed     the     course     of     history,”     ANHA,     November     27, 2023, hawarnews.com)

KADEK adopted a program that sought to resolve the Kurdish national question through more peaceful means. KADEK defined this peaceful path, which it adopted in 2003, as a “three-stage roadmap.” The first stage of this roadmap was to transform the unilateral ceasefire into a bilateral ceasefire; the second stage was the official recognition of the Kurds; and the third stage was the release of A. Öcalan. This three-stage “peace” plan announced by KADEK was not implemented.

The PKK’s dissolution at its 8th Congress and the establishment of KADEK were justified with the following assessments: “The formation of KADEK represents the creation of a new identity and renaming in the history of the development of the Apocu movement. This was not just a name change; it truly represented a reorganization at the international and regional levels based on the major developments that emerged from the struggle waged in Kurdistan under the name PKK. KADEK became a new organization that differed from the PKK in every respect. Of course, not everything changed; in many ways, the essence of the movement was preserved, developed, and deepened, but in many respects, new approaches emerged that could not be compared to the PKK.

(…)

KADEK abandoned many outdated ideas and developed a new system of thought, thereby bringing about a significant ideological renewal. KADEK represents a new program. The PKK had a program developed for Northern Kurdistan. It viewed Turkey and the other parts of Kurdistan as strategic allies; KADEK, however, envisions a democratic revolution and transformation in the Middle East. It is based on democratic change and freedom-oriented development in the Middle East. In this sense, it envisaged the democratic change and democratic unity of the Middle East as the path to change, development, and a democratic solution to the Kurdish question in Kurdistan. It arrived at a political program to achieve this. It developed strategic change, creating changes in the balance of power, relations, leadership, and alliances. It envisions change in the fundamental form of struggle. While the PKK is an organization formed on the line of armed struggle, KADEK is a struggle formed on the basis of democratic uprising, shaped by democratic political struggle. It changed the fundamental form of struggle in this respect. The organizational structure is also changing. Many organizations are organizing in different areas, according to the conditions of those areas, in order to implement the new strategy.” (PKK 8th Congress, December 2022, Serxwebun, p. 4)

While the PKK put in place the tools appropriate to the “peace” strategy it developed after 1999, one of the tactics it resorted to was to continue the process by establishing various organizations. However, the problem here is not to dissolve the organization and establish a new one, but to look for the problem in the state’s approach to the issue and its unwillingness to “solve” the Kurdish problem.

The Turkish state viewed the PKK’s call for “peace” as a sign of weakness and intensified its attacks. KADEK therefore added the warning “if the Turkish state does not accept this roadmap, war will ensue” to its roadmap. The PKK’s prediction came true, and the Turkish state accelerated its attacks. Finally, “the People’s Defense Forces (HPG) announced on 1 June 2004 that they were ending the unilateral ceasefire and would begin exercising their right to retaliation. This phase led to the conclusion that any meaningful ceasefire had to be reciprocal. As a result, the guerrilla forces adopted a position based on legitimate self-defense and declared their right to respond to attacks. This marked the effective end of the ceasefire that had been in place since 1 September 1999.” (Gülistan Cihan, Ceasefire Processes and Their Outcomes- VIII, Behdinan, April 3, 2025, anf-news.com)

When the PKK failed to make much progress after the establishment of KADEK, it must have seen the problem in the names of the organizations, because this time, as a new “peace” initiative, it brought Koma Komalên Kurdistan (KKK) into  the  picture: “Recognizing  Turkey’s  deepening  political  impasse,  the Kurdistan Communities Union (Koma Komalên Kurdistan, KKK) introduced a new peace proposal composed of ten points. the KKK also presented six of these points—those it described as the most reasonable and closest to a resolution— as the basis for its decision to declare a ceasefire.” (Gülistan Cihan, Ceasefire Processes and Their Outcomes-VIII, Behdinan, April 3, 2025, anf-news.com)

The KKK’s main demands included a mutual ceasefire, the removal of obstacles to organization, and the lifting of isolation on A. Öcalan. KADEK announced that it had changed its name to the Kurdistan People’s Congress (KONGRA-GEL) in 2004. Consequently, in 2005, it established the Koma Civakên Kurdistanê (KCK: Kurdistan Communities Union). The PKK describes this process as follows in its Second Extraordinary Congress: “Following a comprehensive preparatory discussion based on President Apo’s instructions and perspectives, the Second Extraordinary KONGRA-GEL General Assembly Meeting was held between May 16 and 26, with the participation of 278 delegates and nearly 200 listeners, in the form of parallel meetings held in Europe and the Media Defense Zone. (…) With the reflection of these problems, which caused serious concern and debate among the people and in our cadre structure, the Leadership intervened in the problem; it called for unity among comrades who were on the side it defined as right-wing surrender and left-wing suicide, and tasked the newly formed PKK Reconstruction Committee with intervening in the process and ensuring recovery. (…) The basic tactic of our new strategy was defined as democratic uprising. Although decisions were made in many meetings and conferences regarding the development of the uprising, its practical implementation remained very weak, and it failed to create organization.

The non-state democracy envisioned by the new paradigm is an expression of the people’s organized and active stance. Democratization is the people’s awareness of their rights, their organization for this purpose, and their action. Despite the role of such actions, no organization has been created. Inadequate and narrow approaches to the uprising have deprived the organization and the people of their fundamental tactics and struggle. Apart from actions limited to certain days and nighttime actions developed by young people, no serious action has been developed; some of the actions that were developed could not be sustained, and a wealth of action could not be achieved. The fundamental reason for this is that, in addition to the people’s national democratic demands, there has been no work on education, organization, and the search for solutions to their social and economic problems, and the struggle has been limited to the masses won over by the war, resulting in actions that are weak in both quantity and quality. Thus, although mass action campaigns have been developed in recent years, creating a certain liveliness and mass mobilization, they have been insufficient in creating a democratic solution.” (II. Extraordinary KONGRA-GEL Congress, June 4, 2004, Serxwebun, pp. 6-7)

From the 2nd Extraordinary Kongra-Gel Congress until it declared a ceasefire on April 13, 2009, the PKK carried out over 100 armed actions, dealing major blows to the Turkish state. While the Turkish state had been propagating that “we have finished them off, only a few activists remain,” the PKK carried out action after action, turning this propaganda on its head. In the national struggle, which enjoyed massive popular support, the wave of guerrilla and popular actions was once again broken by A. Öcalan’s call for a ceasefire.

The breaking point of this ceasefire process was A. Öcalan’s insistence on the ceasefire despite the state taking no action. A. Öcalan ensured that the “three peace groups” came and surrendered with their weapons as a guarantee to the state. The “peace group” coming from Western Europe was blocked by the Turkish state. Lawsuits were filed against the 34-member “peace group” coming from Kandil and Maxmûr, and some were arrested. Some members of the group, seeing that they could not stay in Turkey, returned to Kandil and Maxmûr.

A.Öcalan never abandoned his ceasefire strategy. He was persistent and reiterated this at every opportunity. Although the organization’s stance on these ceasefires and whether the general approach of the people was taken into account were occasionally debated, the decisions made by A. Öcalan were accepted as “the will of the leadership” and implemented.

A.Öcalan must have seen the state’s stalling tactics, because on May 31, 2010, he announced that he was “stepping down.” Claiming that “the AKP was stalling them and not responding to all their initiatives,” he announced that he would no longer take “responsibility.” ” The KCK declared on 1 June 2010 that both their leadership and Öcalan’s efforts toward peace and a democratic solution had been deliberately obstructed by the AKP. As a result, the KCK announced the end of the unilateral non-engagement decision declared on 13 April 2009 and stated that their forces would now adopt a position of active self-defense.” (Gülistan Cihan, Ceasefire Processes and Their Outcomes-VIII, Behdinan, April 3, 2025, anf-news.com)

With the end of the ceasefire, the guerrillas resumed their attacks. Major clashes ensued. The Turkish state, seemingly bewildered, attempted to continue the war. Its assessment of the ceasefire processes based on the thesis of the PKK’s weakness and exhaustion was the weak link of fascism. The PKK viewed the periods when it declared ceasefires as opportunities to regroup and establish a stronger position in various areas. The PKK’s tactical mistake, however, was placing too much trust in the state. It did not attach much importance to the meaninglessness of the warring power repeatedly declaring a unilateral “ceasefire.” As is the case today, it tried to explain this mistake by saying “we are ready for both war and peace,” but it became clear many times that this was not the case.

This misconception was repeated during the eighth ceasefire declared in 2010. While the Turkish state was reeling from the blows dealt by the guerrillas, PKK announced a 40-day ceasefire at the request of some NGOs, BDP, and DTK. It is known that A. Öcalan decided on the ceasefire. The KCK explained this ceasefire as follows: “Öcalan has made clear that his stance remains aligned with the path of peace, and that he would be ready to intervene and play his role if a sincere and serious approach toward a resolution were to emerge. As a result of a renewed environment of dialogue, Öcalan has once again called on all sides to avoid allowing the conflict to reach an irreversible stage. For this purpose, he sent a message to the executive body of our movement.” (Gülistan Cihan, Ceasefire Processes and Their Outcomes -VIII, Behdinan, April 3, 2025, anf-news.com)

Responding to this call, the KCK declared a unilateral ceasefire but did not receive the response it expected.

In 2010, the AKP held a referendum on amending certain articles of the constitution and won with the support of those who said “not enough, but yes.” Then, in 2011, it consolidated its power with its success in the local elections and increased its attacks. The government began negotiations with A. Öcalan to sideline the Kurdish national struggle. The negotiations between the state and A. Öcalan yielded results, and A. Öcalan sent a message on Newroz 2013 calling for another ceasefire, initiating a process that would last until 2015.

During this process, talks between the PKK and the Turkish state continued in Oslo, Norway, without being disclosed to the public. The Turkish state showed that it was not sincere in these talks and was only continuing them to gain time by overturning the “peace table” set up in Dolmabahçe.

At its National Security Council meeting on October 30, 2014, the AKP decided to implement a “total destruction plan.” The revolution in Rojava had a major impact on this decision. The AKP government, which planned to crush the Rojava revolution in collaboration with ISIS, thus ended the “peace and ceasefire” process and launched its attack. “After the 2015 Newroz celebrations, President Erdoğan made his intentions clear, declaring: ‘There is no Dolmabahçe Agreement, no Imralı meetings—nothing at all,’ effectively signaling the return to war. Leading up to the 7 June general elections, attacks were launched against the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) rallies, buildings, and supporters in Çukurova, Diyarbakır (Amed), and the Black Sea region. On 20 July, the Suruç Massacre took place. These acts of violence were directly attributed to the AKP government. The gains made by the Kurdish movement in the June elections in Northern (Bakur) Kurdistan and the defeat of ISIS in Rojava prompted the Turkish state to act. On 24 July 2015, the AKP government officially ended the dialogue process and launched a full-scale war.

Later, on 10 October 2015, the PKK declared a unilateral ceasefire in an effort to ensure that the snap elections of 1 November could take place in a peaceful and secure atmosphere. However, the Turkish state responded to this ceasefire with further attacks.” (Gülistan Cihan, Ceasefire Processes and Their Outcomes-VIII, Behdinan, 3 April 2025, anf-news.com)

None of the “peace” initiatives put forward by the PKK since 1993 have been successful. As the Kurdish national movement’s guerrilla struggle, mass movements, uprisings, and civil disobedience actions developed, the ceasefire processes always served as a wave breaker.

The Turkish state has used all ceasefire periods as a means to cover its own shortcomings and inadequacies. The AKP government, which has resorted to various maneuvers to win over the Kurds in every period, has made attacking the Kurds its first move after winning elections. It has also removed elected mayors from office, carried out operations in the democratic sphere, and detained and arrested thousands of people.

f) The Next Step in the Fracture: The Imralı Trial

The world watched with great interest as the trial of A. Öcalan began on May 31, 1999, in Imralı, which was promoted as “the trial of the century.” It is true that this trial was one of the biggest political trials of the last century. The Imralı trial had even greater significance for the Kurdish nation. This is because it would reveal clues as to how the “29th Kurdish Uprising” would unfold alongside this trial.

A.Öcalan’s attitude and statements during the trial would coincide with his later defense, his statements to the public at various times, and even his call on February 27, 2025. In this respect, A. Öcalan has followed a consistent line from his own side, pushing for “negotiation” and ‘peace’ conditions with the Turkish state. In his defense, A. Öcalan argued that the Turkish state would become the leading country in the region by “solving” the Kurdish issue. To this end, he proposed that internal peace be established in Turkey. The following statements appear in A. Öcalan’s defense in the Imrali Trial: “When this most difficult problem in the history of the Republic is solved, it is certain that Turkey will gain the power to act as a leading country in the region with the strength it gains from its internal peace. The era of leadership in the Middle East will mean being influential from Central Asia to the Balkans and the Caucasus. The power of the democratic system to find solutions will also lead to the provision and demand for justified intervention and support in these regions, which are rife with many contradictions and problems, primarily peace. This will also lead to enrichment through the transfer of economic and cultural development. Turkey is entering the 2000s with this perspective. The Kurdish issue was  a  hindrance.“ (Abdullah  Öcalan,  quoted  from  his  1999 Defense  by  Sibel  Özbudun-Temel  Demirer,  ”Questions  of  the  (Un)New Paradigm”)

The Imralı trials were significant not only for Kurds and the revolutionary public, but also for the fascist Turkish state. Above all, the Turkish state had seized a moment it had been waiting for years and had captured what it considered to be the “leader of the rebellion.” Just as in the Kurdish uprisings led by Sheikh Sait and Seyit Rıza, the aim was to put an end to a Kurdish uprising in the person of A. Öcalan.

The Turkish state did not want to stop there. As a country that had been in the news for years with its torture, massacres, and disappearances, it planned to clean up its image with the Imrali trial. With the impression that the trial would be  quite  “democratic,”  the  TRC  sought  to  deceive  the  world  public  with propaganda that “all of A. Öcalan’s requests were met, he underwent daily medical examinations,” and even that “attention was paid to his meals.” However, it never succeeded in doing so.

With the Imrali trial, the Turkish state essentially wanted to convey to the masses the message that it was “powerful,” that “it was impossible to deal with it,” and that “it could not be destroyed.” To this end, it staged a show of force at Imrali.

A.Öcalan Chooses the Path of “Reconciliation”

During the trials, A. Öcalan did not adopt the political stance expected by the Kurdish patriotic public and revolutionary and democratic circles. Instead, he took a conciliatory stance toward the Turkish state in the Imralı trial, reiterating the views he had expressed in the 1990s. He dismissed criticism of his conciliatory stance toward the Turkish state as “crude resistance.” In the text “Defending a People,” which was compiled from the defense statement he submitted to the Imrali court, he defined his stance with the following words: “As much as crude resistance, cowardly submission was itself a stance I resisted.” (A. Öcalan, Defending a People, Çetin Publications, 2004, p. 7) With these words, A. Öcalan condemns the attitude of resistance against fascism, which he defines as “crude resistance,” argues that the rationale for this stance is that such an approach (crude resistance) would result in death, which would not  contribute  to  “Turkish-Kurdish  relations”: “At  this  very  point,  it  was expected that my surrender and subsequent death based on crude resistance would lead to a total collapse in Turkish-Kurdish relations. All the strings of the Kurdish movement would have been gathered in one hand.” (A. Öcalan, ibid, p. 495)

The problem was no longer just Abdullah Öcalan’s stance; it had become the PKK problem in general. From the outset, the PKK supported and elaborated on what A. Öcalan said. If A. Öcalan’s stance had not been supported, it would have been correct to evaluate the development and the stance presented as solely A. Öcalan’s stance. However, the issue had gone beyond this framework and had become the PKK’s stance.

Indeed,  in  its  statement  on  June  11,  1999,  the  PKK  Presidential  Council said: “Comrade A. Öcalan, the General President, presented a comprehensive Democratic Republic project for Turkey at the Imrali court, showing the right path for the liberation of the Kurdish society and the solution to the Kurdish issue on this basis. The Democratic Republic and the resolution of the Kurdish issue on the basis of peace and brotherhood is the only way that will meet the developments Turkey is experiencing, create social peace and brotherhood among peoples, and enable Turkey and the Kurds to enter the 21st century in a strong union. This solution is in the interest of both the Turkish and Kurdish peoples, as well as everyone in the region and the world, except those who profit from the war…” (Özgür Politika, June 11, 1999)

A.Öcalan’s “Apology” Was a Mistake

The first position that shocked the revolutionary public was A. Öcalan’s apology to the “families of the martyrs.” This was also the most important step towards political reconciliation. While it was the state that should have apologized, A. Öcalan’s apology to the families of soldiers implied that the PKK’s actions were “wrong.” Many groups and the PKK said that “this stance was a political tactic,” but it became clear in the subsequent ceasefire periods that this was not the case.

The Turkish state, which has done everything for 100 years, oppressing and killing Kurds even for the smallest demand for rights, sending them into exile, and seeking to annihilate the Kurdish nation with unprecedented brutality over the last 50 years, killing thousands of Kurds in the mountains, in the streets, and in their homes, and compiling death lists from businesspeople to intellectuals, should be held accountable for its actions, and the Turkish Republic should apologize to the Kurdish nation. However, A. Öcalan’s apology to the “families of the martyrs” gave the Turkish Republic a sigh of relief. This stance paved the way for the incitement of Turkish nationalism in fascist and reactionary circles and for the expansion of the sphere of action of fascist MHP members.

Another stance that gave the Turkish state a break during the Imrali trials was A. Öcalan’s statement that he had not been tortured. However, the fact that A. Öcalan, who was brought to Turkey through a conspiracy, had his eyes blindfolded, was knocked unconscious with a needle, and was isolated were all methods of torture.

A.Öcalan Sought the “Solution” from Imperialists

It has long been known that the PKK wanted Western powers, especially US imperialism, to intervene in the Kurdish issue. In the period before A. Öcalan’s extradition to Turkey, in letters he wrote to various heads of state before and after the 1993 ceasefire, he expressed his view that these countries should exert pressure on Turkey to find a “solution.” Indeed, he once again made these views public, stating in court that imperialists should play a role in the “solution.” His failure to mention the US or Western imperialism while discussing the conspiracy against him at his first hearing on Imrali carried a political message. However, it was now common knowledge that the US was behind the plot. Despite this, A. Öcalan sought a “solution” from Western imperialists, primarily the US, for the “reconciliation” proposal to be implemented.

A.Öcalan’s stance was approved by the PKK Presidential Council and became the official position of the PKK. In its statement, the PKK Presidential Council called on imperialist powers, stating, “We call on all powers that can influence Turkey, especially the US, to use their influence in this critical process,” urging imperialists to play their “role.” (Özgür Politika, June 11, 1999)

A.Öcalan Sanctified Kemalism

During the trials, A. Öcalan did not take a confrontational stance toward Kemalism, the founding ideology of fascism, as a result of his efforts to reconcile with the Turkish state. In fact, in his defenses, he used the phrase “I believe in Atatürk’s nationalism,” thereby undermining the PKK’s long-standing argument that the Turkish revolutionary movement was influenced by Kemalism and that opposition to Kemalism was important and decisive.

In A. Öcalan’s speeches on TV and even in his Imrali defenses, the views he formulated essentially affirmed the “National Struggle” period, the “Misak-ı Milli” (National Pact), and the Kemalist process, carefully avoiding any negative criticism.

A.Öcalan’s acceptance of “Atatürk nationalism” in the Imrali trial was the ultimate expression of political compromise.

A.Öcalan Rejected the Nation-State

A.Öcalan stated in the Imrali hearings that he had “given up on establishing a nation-state” and that Turkey would instead gain much from “freedom of language and freedom of culture.” In his work titled “Defending a People,” he advanced the line of democratic confederalism, which he defined as “a political paradigm based on a stateless society.” In this book, he formulated this line with the following statements: “Therefore, a realistic ‘democratic and peaceful method’ of resolution that is not state-centered, but also never accepts blind chaos as a long-term way of life, is vital…. I believe it is correct to evaluate the Imrali trial process as a search for and call for democratic peace, even under very unfavorable conditions. This phase had a qualitative transformative value. It was a process in which the need to abandon hierarchical and statist societal pursuits in principle became concentrated in both consciousness and effort.“

At the stage reached, it is understood that in the views he declared to the public on February 27, 2025, he also abandoned the ”freedom of language, freedom of culture” he defended in court. As can be seen in his February 27 statement, “culturalist solutions cannot respond to historical social sociology,” another concession has been made in line with ‘reconciliation’ and “peace” with the Turkish Republic.

IX. The “New Process” in the Kurdish National Question

When we refer to the “new process,” the framework we are trying to highlight is the period that began with the initiative of the fascist MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli, continued with A. Öcalan’s call on February 27, and included the PKK’s dissolution and the end of armed struggle.

Undoubtedly, we cannot address this period in isolation from previous processes or from a theoretical perspective—historical experience—that genuinely encompasses the resolution of national issues. On the contrary, we will attempt to address all current developments through a scientific method in light of a historical perspective.

When we refer to the Kurdish issue in the current context, we are talking about a comprehensive problem that encompasses the Middle East as a whole and finds its place in the policies of imperialists regarding the Middle East. The creators of this comprehensive problem are the imperialists and certain reactionary-fascist states in the region. These fascist states, which divide the geography of Kurdistan into four parts and continue their policies of annihilation and denial against the Kurdish nation, not only fail to respect the Kurdish nation’s “Right to Free Separation,” but also view and propagate the Kurds’ most ‘ordinary’ democratic demands and the struggle waged for this cause as “divisive -destructive” activity and propagate it as such. Their immediate resort to the weapon of monism against any demand of the Kurdish nation arising from its status as a nation (independence, administrative autonomy, cultural autonomy, decentralization, mother tongue, etc.) is a product of this racist-chauvinist mindset.

At this stage, the fascist Turkish state is engaged in fascist aggression not only within the borders of Turkish Kurdistan, but throughout the entire Kurdistan geography in the Middle East, against any gains made by the Kurdish nation or any status it may achieve to any degree. The threats directed at the Autonomous Regional Administration of North-East Syria, primarily in the form of military intervention, are a concrete expression of this reality. Therefore, when we talk about the Kurdish national question, it is correct to refer to a problem that extends not only to Turkish Kurdistan but to the entire Middle East and Kurdistan geography.

However, in evaluating the so-called “new process” in the Kurdish national question here, we will focus more on the policies of the Turkish state. In doing so, we will focus on certain aspects of the Kurdish national movement’s views formulated under the name of “solution” and the perspectives put forward by MLM forces.

First of all, it should be emphasized that the “new process,” which began with the call of PKK leader A. Öcalan, is not independent of A. Öcalan’s previous statements. A. Öcalan expressed his line of “democratic reconciliation” on February 27, 2025, at a very early date, during the Imralı trials, proposing “democratic integration with the state” and mentioning that “the PKK’s means of warfare will be at the service of Turkey”: “The PKK ceasing to be a military problem will pave the way for a political solution to the Kurdish problem and will also mean that it ceases to be a political problem. The process of forcing the unity of the state will give way to a process of empowering it. As the path to democratic integration with the state opens up, the position of opposition to the state will be overcome.”

(….)

“Turkey will have the opportunity not only to protect itself from great dangers, but also to transform them into a source of strength. Both internally and externally, the PKK’s military capabilities will be at Turkey’s service with the solution…”(Abdullah Öcalan, Defense on the Merits, Interview with Garbis Altınoğlu, Yakın Doğu Yazıları, yakindoguyazilari.com)

A.Öcalan’s proposal for a “Turkish-Kurdish alliance,” as stated in his call dated February 27, 2025, is not a new proposal. Indeed, in his article titled “Democratic Alliance for a Free Union,” published after the Imrali trial, A. Öcalan clearly explains how he understands “Turkish-Kurdish unity”: “Kurds and Turks have made history together in this country. They are co-owners of all the empires that have been established. The current state was also built together. Looking at history, one thing must be seen: Kurds have sought freedom together with Turks. Why is this so? Let’s look at the settlement in the geography: Turks are closest to Kurds. However, there is no such relationship with Arabs, Armenians, and other neighboring peoples. Kurds and Turks have lived together. There  are  striking  examples  of  this. This  was  the  case  at Malazgirt. Alparslan’s army included 10,000 Kurdish warriors. The same is true of the founding of the Republic; M. Kemal received the support of the Kurds during this process.

Again, in his call on February 27, 2025, A. Öcalan expresses his demand for a “democratic society” as a ‘solution’ at a very early date and proposes a “democratic solution” to the Turkish state: “I call my own model the ‘Great Democratic Solution’. I call it a model of rising above the US and the EU. I would like to make the following call to Turkish intellectuals: Just as Alparslan regulated relations with the Kurds in Silvan in 1071, just as Yavuz regulated relations with the Kurds in 1516 (albeit on a dominant basis), just as Mustafa Kemal regulated relations with the Kurds in the 1920s, Turkish intellectuals today should think about relations with the Kurds in the same way. I also call upon the Prime Minister… If you are devoted to your God and your prophet, I say approach your Kurdish brothers correctly. I also call upon the General Staff. During the investigation, one of their representatives said, ‘Let’s not leave the solution of the problem to the US and Europe, let’s resolve it among ourselves’. That is correct. I also say let’s resolve it among ourselves. I call on the General Staff to do the same.” (ibid)

In summary, it should be stated that in this new “process” brought to the agenda by A. Öcalan’s call, there is continuity, except for some nuances that include certain steps backward in line with A. Öcalan’s approach. What is expressed in the “process” brought to the agenda by A. Öcalan’s call is, in fact, at least consistent with his past process.

A-) February 27 Call

We would like to quote some sections from A. Öcalan’s call: “Right now, the APO reality has left its mark on history both as a period and as a moment, and it continues to do so. And we have come to the impasse in the PKK and to finding a solution to it; that is, this issue of dissolution. This is still the situation I live in every moment… Yes, there is a repetition of a moment here, with little creative value; a leap is needed. A threshold must be crossed. Strangely, it is not on our side, but a Turk who is relentless against me and who does everything for my execution at any moment, Devlet Bahçeli, the most authoritative voice and hand of the Turkish sensibility of the period, even the proto-party state, has opened this new era. So Bahçeli, as the relentless war leader against us, is saying this directly to the DEM delegation. ‘I have devoted my entire life to this, but now I want to start a new era.’ In my opinion, this is a clear call for a peaceful and democratic solution. It is a call for peace that is both consistent and contains a democratic solution. Developments show this to some extent. And the only conclusion we can draw from this is that only those who fight can make peace. In other words, not secondary or third powers, not mediating powers or allies, but only those who bear the responsibility for the war can take on the responsibility for peace… Therefore, realistically, it is the state that is waging this war. I feel the need for the state to transform this war into a new beginning, as an attempt at peace. This has been voiced over the last six months…“ (A. Öcalan, ”Perspective,” Serxwebûn Newspaper, issue 521)

“…What is this war and separatist conflict process of peace and democratic integration, especially with the Republic of Turkey? Similar processes will also come into play for other states, namely Iraq, Iran, and Syria. In my opinion, Turkey taking the initiative is both a requirement of reason and an expression of reality.” (ibid.)

First and foremost, the bloody hand extended by Devlet Bahçeli, leader of the fascist MHP and partner in power in the Turkish state, to DEM deputies in parliament is not a hand extended to build “peace” among “warring parties.” At this stage, it has become clearer that this bloody hand is the hand of the state, unleashed with its dark plans for a “Turkey without terrorism.”

Because the just and legitimate struggle of the Kurdish nation is still seen as a “terrorist” activity. Those who truly want peace must first abandon this language of denial and show respect for the existence of the Kurdish nation and its national democratic rights. Likewise, the “peace” demand of a racist- chauvinist mindset that does not respect the Right of Nations to Self- Determination is devoid of any sincerity and is a new trap set up for the sake of the security of the ruling classes’ power.

Again, it is understood from A. Öcalan’s statements that the hand extended in Parliament is the result of negotiations that the parties have been conducting among themselves for a long time. It is also seen that there is a consensus between the parties in these negotiations. Another thing that is apparent is the reality that this project, the contents of which are not yet fully known to the public, is being implemented step by step. With the PKK’s decision to disband, a group of guerrillas burning their weapons, the acceleration of talks with Imrali, and the establishment of a commission in Parliament, this process is intended to be concluded with the involvement of other sections of the bourgeois opposition.

What Kind of Peace?

Firstly, following a 50-year struggle in which the Kurdish national movement paid a heavy price, a “process” is being carried out without any demands being made. The goals and scope of what A. Öcalan called for in his February 27, 2025, call to “dissolve the PKK” and in his July 9, 2025, video message to “lay down arms” are one and the same. The first question that must be asked here is: In the struggle that has been ongoing since 1984, where are the grounds, aims, and objectives that forced the Kurdish national movement into conflict, and what has changed?

In response, the February 27 call states: “The resolution of identity denial in the country and the progress made in freedom of expression have led to the PKK’s loss of meaning and excessive repetition. Therefore, it has completed its life like its counterparts and necessitated its dissolution.” (A. Öcalan, “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society,” February 27, 2025) In other words, A. Öcalan considers the “resolution of identity denial” and “progress made in freedom of expression in the country” sufficient grounds for the dissolution of the PKK. Of course, it is clear that this sufficiency does not mean the resolution of the Kurdish national question. Moreover, the level of progress in the aforementioned issues is also evident!

The second question is “peace with whom and how?” Where there is peace, there is struggle and war between two sides, two opposing forces, two fronts, two poles. At this stage, based on certain facts that have emerged, either one side must submit to the other, or there must be “peace” based on an agreement, but neither of these is found in A. Öcalan’s calls.

D. Bahçeli, leader of the party organized by Western imperialism, primarily US imperialism, in Turkey, positioned against the “threat of communism” and managed by the MIT/counter-guerrilla, said in his speech on February 9, 2025: “After imperialism’s horrific Gaza project, which is the bloody and dark command center of global colonialism, where it will stop, which countries it will spread to, and to what extent and in what ways Turkey will be targeted in this barbaric architecture is a very troubling and problematic myster (….) Even if these are the birth pangs of a Turkey free of terrorism, given the magnitude of the threat we face, everyone, every segment of society, every political faction must unite behind the ideal of a great and powerful Turkey. It is not an unlikely possibility that the global immorality that first bombed Gaza and then occupied it will attempt to stage the same game in Turkey tomorrow.” (Duygu Yener, Betül Bilsel, “MHP Chairman Bahçeli’s statement on the 56th anniversary of his party’s founding,” Anadolu Agency, February 9, 2025, https://www.aa.com.tr)

The leader of the fascist MHP is clearly attempting to “preempt” the reality that imperialists’ new orientations in the Middle East could also affect the Turkish state. This approach is based on the Turkish state’s “survival issue” in the face of possible dangers, rather than the recognition of the rights of the “brotherly Kurdish nation.” The reason for this is, of course, that the fascist MHP, as a party directly serving Western imperialism, primarily the US, is playing its role as one of the parties that best understands the “reality of imperialism.”

Abdullah Öcalan’s calls on February 27 and July 9 clearly did not come about by chance, but rather as a result of long-standing negotiations with the state and after the parties reached a mutual agreement. Ultimately, the decisive factor is whose line who has come to or approached! And again, the important question is whether, after all this experience, the Turkish state will take a step “without any bargaining”!

What was the starting point of the Kurdish national question? It was the Kurdish nation’s uprising, its struggle to achieve national liberation and national independence, in response to the dominant nation’s refusal to recognize the Kurds as a nation, its denial of their national existence, its refusal to recognize the nation’s rights and freedoms, its ruthless national oppression, persecution, genocide, and systematic assimilation policies.

Even regarding the massacres of Kurds from the past to the present, the Turkish state has not apologized to the Kurdish nation, even with statements such as “it was a mistake,” “it was wrong,” “it should not have happened,” “we must learn from it,” etc.

It still refuses to disclose the burial sites of those killed in mass massacres and the leaders of the national movement. It has not relinquished its racist rhetoric, such as “one language, one nation, one state, one homeland, one flag,” in the slightest. It has not retreated one iota from racist rhetoric such as “Everyone living in Turkey is Turkish,” “Turkey belongs to the Turks,” “One Turk is worth the whole world,” “How happy is the one who says I am Turkish,” and “Wherever there is a Turk, that is where the border is drawn.”

Following A. Öcalan’s “call,” on March 1, 2025, at the Dolmabahçe Office, during his speech at the “Iftar program with military families and veterans,” R.T. Erdoğan said: “If the hand we extend is left hanging in the air or bitten, we always keep our iron fist ready,” and “If the promises made are not kept, if there is constant procrastination, deception, and attempts to change names and read what one knows, like Middle Eastern cunning, then the sin is not ours. We will continue our ongoing operations, if necessary, without leaving a stone unturned    or    a    head    on    a    shoulder,    until    the    last    terrorist    is eliminated.“ (”Öcalan’s call to the PKK | President Erdoğan: If promises are not kept, the sin is not ours,” March 1, 2025, https://www.ntv.com.tr)

Immediately  following  R.T.  Erdoğan’s  threats,  Turkish  warplanes  bombed Kandil multiple times. Attacks involving chemical weapons against guerrilla areas have continued. Nearly 30 people have lost their lives in recent attacks. It is clear that there is not even the slightest sign of a solution to the problem, nor is there any data on what concessions have been agreed upon. What has happened is a unilateral abandonment of all arguments regarding the national problem to date, the elimination of the PKK, and the laying down of arms.

We may see it as right or wrong, but an organization may abandon armed struggle for one reason or another. Instead, it may defend democratic forms of struggle within legal boundaries. This change in strategy is understandable. However, accompanying the “Turkey without terrorism” understanding with the task of “integration with the state and society” and declaring that armed struggle against the “state” is wrong points to an important and historic break.

Since its founding, the Turkish Republic has been tied to imperialism and, under the rule of the big capitalist class, has been an anti-democratic, fascist dictatorship from top to bottom, imposing national oppression on the Kurdish nation. As long as this state is not destroyed, this fundamental nature will not change. Throughout this process, partial rights and freedoms can only be gained as a result of the struggle of the social popular opposition of the working class and laborers of various nationalities and beliefs from the Turkish and Kurdish nations. In a situation where even these rights cannot be protected by organized power, it is unrealistic to expect democracy from the Turkish Republic on its own.

A.Öcalan’s “Call” does not even mention the Kurdish nation and its fundamental rights. Nowhere in the “Call” is there any mention of the recognition of the national rights of the Kurdish nation, i.e., the right of nations to freely determine their own future, nor is there any emphasis on the fact that the Kurds are a nation and should be recognized as such.

“Kurdish-Turkish Relations”

With the beginning of the Kurdish national awakening, the Turkish Republic began to increasingly assert that “there is no such thing as a Kurdish nation.” “The Turks who live in the mountains are called Kurds because they make sounds like ‘kart-kurt’ when walking in the snow in winter. But we are all Turks!” etc.

The Turkish ruling classes promoted the “thousand-year brotherhood” narrative for this purpose. The aim was to deny the existence of the Kurdish nation as a nation. It was about protecting the privileges of the oppressor nation, primarily “statehood,” and denying and rejecting the collective rights of the oppressed nation, including its very existence as a nation.

In his February 27 call, A. Öcalan states, “Kurdish-Turkish relations; throughout a history spanning more than 1000 years… in order to survive and stand up to hegemonic powers, they have always seen it as necessary to remain in an alliance, with voluntarism being the dominant factor.” (ibid)

First, the reference to “a history spanning over 1000 years” fails to recognize the differences between various social structures and processes, lumping them all together. Second, the relationships between nations after the process of nation-building are confused with the relationships between oppressor and oppressed classes and peoples in the pre-capitalist era, when nations had not yet emerged. Third, framing the issue in terms of nations and communities rather than class phenomena and concepts leads to confusion. An approach that stems from viewing issues as “beyond classes” or “above classes” fails to properly address class-based approaches and solutions. Fourth, the process referred to as “Kurdish-Turkish relations” refers to the relationship between the two nations over the past century. However, what is overlooked here is that in this relationship, one is the dominant and oppressing nation, while the other is the oppressed nation. Therefore, they are not in the same situation. The ruling classes of the oppressor nation systematically apply national oppression, massacres, genocide, and systematic assimilation to all segments of the oppressed nation; the national rights of the oppressed nation have been usurped, and it is subjected to ruthless oppression under systematic and multifaceted national pressure.

Under the current conditions, rights and freedoms have never been equal. There is no voluntary alliance; there is subjugation through deprivation of rights by force and oppression. Furthermore, although the Kurdish nation as a whole suffers national oppression, the heaviest burden of this oppression is borne by the working class and laboring people of the Kurdish nation. Class oppression is added to national oppression. Fifth, in his February 27 call, A. Öcalan states, “Kurdish-Turkish relations: Throughout their history spanning over 1000 years, Turks and Kurds have found it necessary to remain in an alliance, with voluntarism prevailing, in order to survive and stand up to hegemonic powers.” (ibid)

This is not an accurate assessment. Here, A. Öcalan refers to what he calls “hegemonic powers,” such as the Ottoman-Eastern Roman, Ottoman-Safavid, Ottoman-Russian relations, etc., and historically, the Ottoman Empire’s expansionist, occupying, plundering, and annexation wars towards Balkan and European countries and North Africa, as well as its wars entered into for the same purpose, and the Ottoman Empire’s historical expansionist, occupying, plundering, and annexation wars towards Balkan and European countries and North Africa, as well as its wars entered into for the same purpose. -Russian relations, etc., and historically, the Ottoman Empire’s expansionist, occupying, plundering, and annexation wars towards Balkan and European countries and North Africa, as well as the First Imperialist War of Partition, which it entered into for the same purpose and in which it was defeated. These wars were generally not defensive but expansionist and aggressive. They were unjust wars. Therefore, these alliance relations were not for the Turkish and Kurdish peoples to “survive,” but rather for the military-feudal-imperial interests of the sultans and caliphs, for plunder, looting, and spoils, forcing people to the battlefronts, and making the lives of the poor unbearable with extremely heavy and varied taxes. For this reason, it is not possible to speak of an alliance in which “voluntarism prevails.”

Moreover, as we stated above, nation-building came about with the development of capitalism. To speak of Kurdish and Turkish nations “over a history spanning more than 1000 years” is incorrect in terms of the emergence of the concept of nation. British, and later French, capitalism developed relations with the Ottoman Empire in the late 1700s and especially in the mid-1800s, entering its markets. By the late 1800s, German imperialism had become a dominant power, making the Ottoman Empire dependent on it. The Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of German imperialism and was defeated and destroyed. Faced with the danger of the Ottoman Empire’s disintegration and becoming a full colony, representatives of the Turkish ruling class, led by the remaining cadres of the Committee of Union and Progress, seized power by agreeing with the imperialists under semi-colonial conditions and established a Kemalist, racist, chauvinist, fascist dictatorship.

Therefore, Turks and Kurds did not “voluntarily choose to remain in an alliance in order to survive and stand up to hegemonic powers,” but rather the Turkish Republic established a national state based on the oppressive Turkish nation, turned the Kurdish nation into an oppressed and dependent nation, and maintained its bloody dictatorship by suppressing them with force, coercion, and bloodshed, and by spreading reactionary, fascist terror. The imperialists of the period, referred to as “hegemonic,” had no problem with the Ottoman and Turkish Republic states in this sense, so why would external powers make it their “main task” to break up this alliance? This approach is unrealistic and fails to grasp the nature of imperialism. It can even be said, and indeed must be said, that the imperialist powers of the time did not experience any “problem” in this regard with the regional reactionary forces, primarily the Turkish state. In other words, because they were in complete agreement with these reactionary forces and their interests were guaranteed, they accepted the division of Kurdistan into four parts, as they did at Lausanne.

In his February 27 call, A. Öcalan states, “The last 200 years of capitalist modernity have made it their primary goal to break up this alliance. The affected powers have made it their primary mission to serve this goal, along with their class foundations.” (ibid)

Let us focus on the first meaning of this understanding: With this approach, A. Öcalan is essentially saying that, in general, “there was no oppression, persecution, genocide, or assimilation of nations, national minorities, and the people.” He says this because, according to A. Öcalan, Kurds and Turks have the understanding that “the aspect of voluntarism prevailed, and they always saw it as necessary to remain in an alliance,” as he stated above. Although this approach may be perceived as “there was no problem between Kurds and Turks,” the statement is contradictory in itself. “Alliances” can be tactical or strategic; they can be short, medium, or long-term; they occur between forces, classes, segments, organizations, parties, or states that are different from each other, that recognize each other’s existence and independent will, and that come together around certain demands, certain aims, and certain goals. Alliances are conscious, voluntary, independent unions with their own will, which end when the demands or goals agreed upon by both sides are achieved or succeed. Furthermore, if “the aspect of voluntarism prevailed, and they always saw it as necessary to remain in an alliance,” how should we evaluate the fact that dozens of Kurdish national uprisings have taken place?

A.Öcalan continues his sentence by saying, “they have seen it as necessary to remain in the alliance.” This statement suggests that either their will was broken and they were subjected to pressure, or they “saw it as necessary” to submit due to class interests. Perhaps A. Öcalan uses both terms together because he is caught between ‘voluntariness’ and “necessity.”

“External Forces”

A.Öcalan’s call on February 27 does not emphasize the nation. In order to avoid evoking the nation and the national question, he uses the concept of “Turks and Kurds,” which is a class-neutral/class-transcending expression that places all classes on the same level. The reason for this is the rejection of the reality of the nation in A. Öcalan’s “new paradigm.” If we refer to A. Öcalan’s use of the term, which obscures class differences and national contradictions, there is a “voluntary” ‘alliance’ between “Turks and Kurds,” but “capitalist modernity … has made it its primary goal to break this alliance over the last 200 years,“ meaning that there is ‘incitement’ by ”external forces,” which is a state discourse, and they have been tricked!

The first meaning of this discourse is that there was no problem between “Turks and Kurds”; the problem was created and incited by “external forces.” With this discourse, A. Öcalan denies the existence of the Kurdish nation and, moreover, denies the national oppression policy of the Turkish ruling classes. The problem is not the ruling classes of the oppressor nation imposing national oppression, cruelty, genocide, assimilation, and fascist terror to subjugate and destroy, but is formulated as “capitalist modernity,” defined as “external forces.”

Of course, capitalism and imperialism, referred to as “external forces,” are also accomplices because they are backed by the Turkish ruling classes. With the emergence of imperialism, bourgeois democracy has been cast aside and replaced by political reaction both internally and externally. Imperialism will not, of course, bring democracy and democratic rights and freedoms to the countries it enters. It will bring economic and political dependence, exploitation, plunder, and a kind of enslavement. This is the external influence. On the other hand, it is the Turkish ruling classes, who hold political power, that actually impose national oppression on the Kurdish nation. It is the racist, chauvinist, fascist state policy of the state. It is a grave situation that this is forgotten and distorted.

“With a loose interpretation, Öcalan is essentially saying: ‘We have no problem with the Republic of Turkey; the issue stems from those who promote and rely on a monolithic, one-dimensional interpretation of the Republic.’” This breeds antipathy and becomes provocative. It breeds distrust. It ‘undermines Kurdish- Turkish relations’ and ‘historical relations,’ and ‘those whose main goal is to break this alliance’ take advantage of this.” To state the truth fully, A. Öcalan proposes that the oppressed, dependent Kurdish nation in Turkey should submit to the domination of the oppressor nation and the control of the oppressor nation’s state and integrate with it as its “main task”! On the other hand,  the  phrase  “their  beliefs  too” stands  out  in  A.  Öcalan’s  call.  This expression can be thought of as having the purpose of creating infrastructure and awareness, even if it is not explicitly stated at this stage. When he says “without disregarding their beliefs,” he is referring to segments with different “beliefs,” and this is not a random/casual statement.

In his February 27 call, A. Öcalan states, “…the PKK’s ability to find power and a base stems from the closure of democratic political channels.” (ibid.) Thus, A. Öcalan is making a commitment that “if the ‘democratic political channels’ are opened by the Turkish state, we will henceforth act within those boundaries with all our strength.” In other words, he says that “the PKK … gained power and a base” because it had no legal means of expressing itself. Of course, this has had consequences. However, this is not the essence of the problem. The phenomenon or ground that gave rise to the PKK is the unresolved Kurdish national question. The failure to recognize the Kurds as a nation, the usurpation of the Kurdish nation’s Right to Free Separation, i.e., the right to secede and establish a separate state, and the refusal to recognize these rights and freedoms as a requirement of “democracy.” It is the systematic subjection of the oppressed nation to national oppression, violence, massacres, genocide, and assimilation by the dominant nation. The ruthless national oppression of the dominant nation as a whole has drawn the workers of the oppressed nation into the Kurdish national liberation struggle.

“The Right To Secede Freely”

In his February 27 call, A. Öcalan does not argue that the Kurds are a nation, that this reality is denied, that their rights are not recognized, that imperialists as well as the Turkish state are responsible for this, and that a national liberation struggle has emerged in response. He does not argue that the Kurds are a nation, that national oppression must end, or that the Kurdish nation has the right to secede and establish a separate state. This is precisely where the problem lies.

Moreover, it states that the PKK was influenced by the conditions of the time, that it emerged as a reaction to the Turkish state’s “uniform interpretation of the Republic,” that it entered into an “excessive nationalist drift,” and that as a result, it waged a national liberation struggle. In fact, by calling it an “excessive nationalist drift,” it condemns the Kurdish national liberation struggle it led. To justify this rejection, it states that “separate nation-states, federations, administrative autonomy, and cultural solutions, which are the inevitable result of excessive nationalist drift, do not respond to historical social sociology.” (ibid)

In other words, he explicitly defines the will and practice of exercising the Right of Secession (“RFS”) as an “excessive nationalist drift.” Condemning the demand and practice of the RFS by oppressed or colonized nations as an “excessive nationalist drift,” failing to defend this right unconditionally, and abandoning it means viewing the national question from the perspective of the dominant nation’s nationalist, racist, and chauvinist front of the dominant nations and imperialist powers. However, this serves to make oppressed nations accept their situation by pressuring them with the accusation of “excessive nationalism,” oppressing them politically and psychologically with the arrogance and cunning of the dominant nation, and is unacceptable.

Communists generally do not act from a nationalist (chauvinist) perspective. They act from the perspective of the proletarian class. In a world dominated by capitalism and imperialism, they oppose national oppression. They defend the right of oppressed nations to determine their own future. They do not view defending the right of nations in this situation to determine their own future as “extreme nationalism” and oppose it. They defend the independence of oppressed and colonized nations and the right to establish national states as one of the most natural rights of nations. As is generally the case, they oppose nationalist/nationalist approaches under socialism and wage a determined ideological struggle.

In today’s world, dominated by the capitalist, imperialist system, defending and supporting the right to freely secede, which is denied to nations under the pressure of dominant nations and imperialist powers, is not “nationalism” or “chauvinism.” On the contrary, opposing this right, which is a requirement of consistent democracy, on the grounds that it constitutes “excessive nationalism,” etc., is to view it from the perspective of the dominant nation; it is to view it from the perspective of its interests, to see the national oppression of the dominant nations over the oppressed nations deprived of their national rights as normal, to defend it, and to become a kind of accomplice.

In his February 27 call, A. Öcalan states that neither a “separate nation-state” nor a ‘federation’ nor autonomy nor “administrative autonomy” will work; all these   “cultural   solutions”   etc. “do   not   respond   to   historical   social sociology.”(ibid) Aside from the fact that it is wrong for a person, regardless of their position, to make such definitive statements about the future of a nation and to reject any solution, there is, of course, a wealth of practical experience regarding how national issues should be resolved in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions.

The PKK emerged based on the Kurdish national struggle. Its program aimed to establish a national state by achieving Kurdish national liberation. It did not advocate federation or autonomy. These could have been possible in pre- imperialist capitalist countries where the bourgeois state system was progressive and under historical conditions where bourgeois democracy existed. With the emergence of imperialism, bourgeois democracy became a thing of the past. Imperialism, on the other hand, is political reaction and cannot tolerate even bourgeois democracy.

Oppressed nations in multinational countries can only be liberated through a democratic people’s revolution and a socialist revolution led by the proletarian class movement. After the revolution, oppressed and colonized nations exercise their Right to Free Separation. They can exercise this right either to secede or to remain together. Nations that do not wish to secede and establish separate states can remain together with equal rights and freedoms in the form of regional autonomy/federation, as was the case in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. These are possible under conditions of democratic popular power and socialism, where there is no national oppression and where rights and freedoms exist by common will.

In some countries before imperialism, federation or autonomous coexistence was a right that had been won. After the era of imperialism, oppressed nations, colonies, and national minorities cannot tolerate federation or autonomy without the overthrow of bourgeois dictatorships. However, where it suits their interests, they can create places that are under their control and have no will of their own.

In our era, capitalism and imperialism cannot fundamentally resolve the national question. Multi-ethnic countries such as India, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, etc. are evident. After the reversal of socialism in the USSR, the collapse of modern revisionist regimes, and especially their overt transition to classical capitalism, it is well known how the national question evolved, how nations that had coexisted for a period became enemies and fought each other.

After the October Revolution of 1917, the national question in Russia, consisting of 64 nationalities, 33 of which were nations and the rest national minorities, was resolved without conflict or problems. The imperialists tried very hard to prevent the Russians and other nations and ethnic groups from living together. However, they never managed to break this unity. Likewise, in Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and other Eastern European countries, as well as in the autonomous regions of China, etc., the resolution of the problem and the experiences of brotherly coexistence throughout socialism and people’s democracies stand as a point on which we can build today. After all countries openly transitioned to classical capitalism, examples of how they were pitted against each other in many places as a result of direct imperialist intervention and incitement are also evident.

A.Öcalan also commits historical distortion by placing these different historical processes and the fundamentally different lines, understandings, and approaches of different ideological and political systems into the same basket. Both in general and specifically, he instills political blindness and hopelessness in the Kurdish nation and people, drawing them into the perspective of the ruling classes. However, imperialism in general, and specifically the perspective of the rulers of the Turkish dominant nation, is the source of this problem. Because they are the source, they have been and continue to be an obstacle to the solution of the problem. This is because, with the advent of the imperialist era, the bourgeoisie has lost its historical progressive role. Characterized by political reaction and militarism, the bourgeoisie will not resolve national issues democratically. However, this problem can only be fundamentally resolved through a social and political revolution led by the proletariat.

Which Democracy?

The Kurdish national movement was revolutionary at its foundation. Its emergence was a national revolutionary line. The changes of the 1990s also affected the PKK. From 1993 onwards, the line entered a process of strategic change. After A. Öcalan was captured, he outlined his current line in the “Imrali Defense.” This line has been further developed over the years to arrive at the present. In his February 27 call, A. Öcalan stated: “Respect for identities, their ability to freely express themselves and organize democratically, and the socio- economic and political structures that all segments base themselves on are only possible with the existence of a democratic society and political arena.” (ibid)

Öcalan’s assessment, like his other assessments, is not “new.” It is the concrete product of his line of “reconciliation” and “peace” with the Turkish state. ‘Democracy’ and “democratic society” are not class-neutral concepts. The bourgeoisie and liberals use these concepts as if they were class-neutral. The ruling classes and those under their influence conceal the class nature of these concepts. Wherever these concepts appear, a Marxist/socialist revolutionary, every class-conscious worker, asks, “Democracy for which class and for whom?” In socialism and the DHD, democracy exists for workers, nations, and minorities of different nationalities and faiths. “Democracy for everyone” has never existed and never will. This is bourgeois rhetoric. It aims to deceive the working class and laboring people, to dull their minds, to numb them, to stupefy them, to lull them with empty dreams.

A “democratic society” for the working class and the people is realized after the Democratic People’s Revolution and the transition to socialism. The experience in socialist countries is clear. In the era of free competition under capitalism, bourgeois democracy existed in Western Europe and America. As Lenin said, with the advent of the era of imperialism, the bourgeoisie lost all its progressive role and became completely reactionary. Imperialism is rotten capitalism, political reaction that has lost all its progressive role. It brings political reaction, not democracy, to the countries it enters. Therefore, imperialist centers, countries dependent on imperialism, colonies, and semi- colonies are not “democratic societies,” despite certain differences between them and the existence of crumbs of democratic rights and freedoms in some countries. They are ruled by bourgeois dictatorship, political reaction, and fascist dictatorship.

In his February 27 call, A. Öcalan instructed the party of which he was the founding leader: “As every contemporary society and party whose existence has not been forcibly ended would do voluntarily, convene your congress and take a decision to integrate with the state and society; all groups must lay down their arms and the PKK must dissolve itself.”(ibid.)

He must be implying that the PKK cannot be forcibly eliminated by the state, given that the phrase “its existence has not been forcibly ended” has been used. This is correct! But his logic, his starting point, and the conclusion he wants to reach/has reached are completely wrong.

Öcalan’s proposal for “integration with society” is not realistic. It is not realistic because what is being called for is not “democratic.”

Has the Problem Been Solved?

Given the conditions in Turkey, the assumption of a “democratic society” is unrealistic when considering the reality of a class-based society, the foundation upon which the Turkish Republic was built, and the reality of fascism. Abdullah Öcalan’s assessment in his video message released on July 9, stating that “The PKK movement, based on the denial of existence and aiming for a separate state, and the national liberation war strategy on which it was based, has been ended. Existence has been recognized, and therefore the main goal has been achieved,” does not reflect the reality either.

The Kurdish national question has not been resolved and the problem continues. In this sense, the following realities must be emphasized once again: As a historical reality of Turkey, no power can deny the fact that the national and religious oppression of oppressed nations and oppressed faiths, particularly the Kurdish national question, can only be resolved under the conditions of democratic popular power and socialism.

Yes, the struggle for national democratic demands is undeniable. Because it is never, ever a revolutionary stance for a nation not to defend its national democratic demands. While defending and embracing these demands, it is also wrong to view the Kurdish national struggle as limited only to the PKK, which has declared that it has dissolved itself and ended its armed struggle. It must also be anticipated that the Kurdish national movement’s cessation of armed struggle will have negative effects on the masses and the revolutionary public. The distrust of armed struggle among the masses may manifest itself, at least for a time, in the Kurdish national movement. This will negatively affect some revolutionary movements and lead to setbacks.

Peaceful coexistence with the bourgeoisie is impossible. The 100-year history of the Turkish Republic bears ample witness to this. “Let us also note this: There have been three brief periods in Turkey when the crumbs of bourgeois democracy, albeit limited, were tasted. The first was the short period immediately after the War of Independence, when the TKP was still free. The second was the brief period at the end of World War II when the TSEKP and similar parties and trade union organizations were permitted. The third was the brief period following the May 27 coup.” (İbrahim Kaypakkaya, ibid., p. 401)

The reason all these fragments occurred in the Turkish context is the struggle of the masses. The ruling classes, forced by circumstances, made some democratic openings, albeit partial, but at the first opportunity, they moved to take back these fragments.

At this stage, the state of “democracy” in Turkey during the AKP’s rule is clear. Moreover, the AKP government’s stance towards the PKK’s self-liquidation and the end of armed struggle is not to take “democratic steps,” but rather to increase fascist repression and attacks. In his speech at the 32nd AKP Consultation and Evaluation Meeting, he did not say a single word about what legal changes would be made in exchange for the laying down of arms, whether prisoners would be released, whether those who had been exiled would return to their homes, whether those who had suffered damage would be compensated, or what “democratic practices” would be implemented. Furthermore, in his speech, in which he spoke extensively about the “Islamic state” of the future, referring to “unity of the ummah” for the “solution,” he did not refrain from threatening the Kurds. By saying, “Either you comply with the process as we say, or we will crush you,” he showed what kind of democracy he was promising.

Abdullah Öcalan also explains that this process has not been transparent and clear, and that the state has not provided any guarantees, stating: “Overall, the voluntary surrender of weapons and the work of the comprehensive commission to be established by law and authorized by the Grand National Assembly are important. It is essential to show caution and sensitivity in taking steps without falling into a zero-sum game mentality. I know that the steps taken will not be in vain. I see sincerity and I trust it.“ (Öcalan’s call to advance the process and lay down arms: ”I believe in the power of politics and social peace, not weapons,“ July 9, 2025,https://www.numedya24.com)

It seems that A. Öcalan has only ”trust in sincerity” at his disposal!

B-) “New Perspective”

Denial of History

A.Öcalan expresses the main idea of his “Perspective,” written on April 25, 2025, regarding the national question as follows: “I would like to give our work the following title: ‘The end of an era in the Kurdish existence and problem, on the threshold of a new era.’” (A. Öcalan, “Perspective,” Serxwebûn Newspaper, issue 52)

A.Öcalan’s letter was evaluated and accepted at the PKK’s 12th Extraordinary Congress. The dissolution of the PKK was carried out accordingly. A. Öcalan’s “new path” roadmap deserves a multifaceted evaluation. As a main idea, A. Öcalan evaluates the PKK as “a movement to prove the existence of the Kurds and open the door to freedom…” (ibid), but the PKK did not emerge on the historical stage solely as a movement to “prove the existence of the Kurds.” Indeed, 50 years of struggle have proven that the PKK is not such a movement. A. Öcalan himself knows this best. The PKK, as a national movement founded with the goal of an “independent Kurdistan,” has made significant progress, organizing Kurdish peasants and workers by bringing about a national awakening.

Therefore, A. Öcalan’s assessment contains incorrect information about the emergence of the PKK and, moreover, misrepresents the rationale behind the PKK’s half-century struggle. The reason for the emergence of the PKK is the denial, annihilation, and assimilation of the Kurdish nation. For years, the PKK has fought not to “prove the existence of the Kurds” but to gain the most fundamental democratic rights of the oppressed nation, primarily the Right To Secede Freely.

In his “Perspective,” A. Öcalan states: “The PKK was organized according to a real socialist struggle perspective. Its program, strategy, tactics, etc. were shaped by real socialist principles.” (ibid.)

The PKK, which emerged as a Kurdish national movement, was not organized with this perspective. Although the PKK’s rhetoric in its early days referred to Marxism-Leninism and socialism, and it was influenced by socialism in this sense, it did not exist as a socialist movement. It emerged not as a class movement but as a national movement, with the perspective of the Kurdish nation seceding and establishing its own state. Although A. Öcalan dismissed this resistance as meaningless, setting aside all history, he still stated: “The PKK thwarted this denial with great resistance; it revealed the reality of Kurdish identity in historical and social terms and made it accepted by friends and enemies alike.”(ibid)

It is also significant that A. Öcalan has emphasized socialism since February 2025, using statements such as: “The PKK was organized according to a real socialist struggle perspective. Its program, strategy, tactics, etc. were shaped by real socialist principles,” and “This is why we focused on socialist ideology and attempted to democratize it.” (ibid.)

While A. Öcalan’s frequent references to socialism are important, there are significant differences between his understanding of socialism and his experiences with “scientific socialism.” First and foremost, A. Öcalan proposes “ commune” rather than socialism.

Secondly, A. Öcalan ideologically views socialism, the values it created, and the solution socialism brought to the national question as wrong. He expressed this as follows: “I find it more correct to review Marxism, to realize it instead of this concept. That is, history is not a history of class struggle, but a conflict between the state and the commune. Marxism’s theory of conflict based on class division is the main reason for the collapse of real socialism.“ (…) ”Marx calls this a scientific discovery, but these are just stories. The formation of the working class, the development of the working class, created such wonders; science and all that is a simple thing.” (ibid.

A.Öcalan’s assessments are not “new theses.” However, at a time when those who proclaimed “the end of history, farewell proletariat” in the 1990s have come to see their own theses as wrong, it is noteworthy that A. Öcalan is rehashing these theses. A. Öcalan states, “Replacing the concept of class with the commune is much more striking, much more scientific”

(…)

“We call this the most fundamental revision of Marxism. We are replacing the concept of class in Marxism with the commune.” (ibid)

A.Öcalan claims to have discovered something “new” with these statements, yet he deliberately ignores something. Every ideology bears the stamp of a class. History is the history of class struggles. The commune, as a specific form of the proletarian dictatorship aimed for by the working class that emerged with the Paris Uprising, bears the ideological stamp of the working class. A. Öcalan is having a hard time proving his theory. Where he struggles, he tries to get out of it by assigning new meanings to concepts that have become part of history. This can be seen throughout the text. For example, when describing the Commune, he says: “The clan is actually a union of communes. The tribe is a commune.” A. Öcalan, who goes so far as to equate the “clan” organization, a product of feudal society, with the commune, apparently does not find this sufficient, stating that “We  can  also  learn  the  connection  between  the commune and the word ‘kom’ (a simple, low house made of stone or mud, but housing one or two people –Author’s note) in our Kurdish language from our own language.” (ibid)

Of course, such theses have no connection to scientific socialism, let alone science.

Defense of Anarchism

A.Öcalan’s views on the national question, socialism, and the achievements of socialism are a new version of anarchism blended with his own ideas. Indeed, A. Öcalan explains it as follows: “We replace Marxism’s concept of class with the commune. Kropotkin’s criticism of Lenin is correct. Bakunin’s criticism of Marx is correct. It is incomplete, but it is correct. Marxism must be critically examined in this regard. If Marx had understood Bakunin, and if Lenin had understood Kropotkin, the fate of socialism would certainly have developed differently.”( ibid )

To understand the ideological origins of A. Öcalan’s views, it is useful to briefly explain the emergence and development of anarchism.

Since its emergence, anarchism has been debated as a bourgeois movement in conflict with Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism, and its supporters continue to present it as a fresh idea. Leaving others aside, anarchism, which emerged as an ideological movement with Max Stirner, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, and Mikhail Bakunin, is known for rejecting class organization and, in the name of “freedom,” rejecting all forms of discipline and authority. Leaving mass movements aside, this movement, which took its place on the historical stage as a caricature of the labor movement, still has its defenders, even if it is not decisive.

The first ideas of anarchism took shape with Stirner. Proudhon followed him. And it can be said that the ideas of anarchism took shape with Proudhon. Proudhon’s greatest follower was Bakunin. One of the fundamental principles of anarchism is that the freedom of the individual is the everything. Since any kind of state is against the freedom of the individual, the state is more of a product of a certain stage in the development of society; this is an admission that society has become divided into irreconcilable opposites that it is unable to resolve, thus entering into an insoluble contradiction with itself. However, in order to prevent the antagonists, the classes with opposing economic interests, from consuming themselves and society in a futile war, a power becomes necessary to mitigate the conflict that appears to exist within society and keep it within the bounds of “order”; this power, which arises from society but stands above it and increasingly alienates itself from it, is the state.

The ultimate goal of the Communist Party is not to seize the state, elevate it, or preserve its existence. When the proletariat seizes power, it dismantles the bourgeois state apparatus and establishes the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the proletarian state, which means the dictatorship of the vast majority of society over the exploitative minority. It expropriates the means of production and all material values produced by social production from the monopoly of the bourgeoisie and nationalizes them. With the proletarian revolution, the state does not lose its function as an instrument of oppression of one class over others. However, this time the state becomes a completely renewed instrument of power, established to ensure the rule of the entire people, under the leadership of the proletariat, over the exploiting classes, rather than that of the exploiting minority.

This state under the rule of the proletariat is not an instrument of oppression established for the exploitation of one class by another, as in slave, feudal, or capitalist state systems, but rather an instrument that aims to eliminate existing social classes and will fade away to the extent that it achieves this goal.

To emphasize once more: the ultimate goal of proletarian power is to completely abolish the state.

Undoubtedly, this will be a long process, and the preconditions for achieving this goal will be prepared under the power of the proletariat, the gravedigger of the bourgeoisie, under the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this process, which involves a violent revolution, it is the socialist state, the highest form of democracy, that will bring about the withering away and disappearance of the state.

At this point, F. Engels’ remarks on the historical preconditions for the withering away of the state are instructive: “The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out.” (Marx-Engels, “Utopian Socialism and Scientific Socialism,” Selected Works, vol. 3)

Marx, Lenin, and other masters constructed the fundamental theoretical views of scientific socialism in the multifaceted and comprehensive struggle they waged against these bourgeois ideologues. In other words, because they understood and knew these bourgeois thinkers well, they buried them in the dustbin of history on the ideological front. All the gains of the international proletariat in the twentieth century, starting with the October Revolution, are the product of this victory won on the ideological front. The collapse of “real socialism,” on the other hand, is the product of the betrayal of socialist- masked bureaucratic bourgeoisie who did not follow the path opened by the communists. The real issue here is not whether the problem is understood or not, but the struggle between the proletarian way of thinking and the bourgeois way of thinking, in which the bourgeoisie regains power.

F.Engels also uses the following statements regarding “how and under what conditions the state can be abolished”: “The state (…) becomes superfluous when it becomes the representative of the whole community. (…) The first act in which the state truly appears as the representative of the whole community—the seizure of the means of production in the name of the community—is also its last act as a state. (…) The government of persons gives way to the administration of things and the management of production processes. The state cannot be ‘abolished’; it withers away.” (F. Engels, Anti- Dühring)

Proudhon shapes his thesis, which combines the contradictions of class struggle with peaceful arguments that reject the state, around equality and justice. Stirner calls this anarchism. The fundamental thesis of every defender of anarchism is the claim that the state will never facilitate individual freedom.

Stirner’s foundation of individual freedom, by taking on extreme individualism, turns into Stirnerian anarchism. In Proudhon’s anarchism, the thesis of eliminating the state, rather than the antagonism between capitalists and wage earners formed in the process of social evolution and capital, occupies an important place. The doctrine based on equality and justice excludes violence as its fundamental basis; it prioritizes reforms. Anarchism, which reached its extreme point with Bakunin, the greatest representative of this movement, does not consider reforms sufficient, as Proudhon did. The state, government, and property must all be destroyed, razed to the ground.

Saint Simon’s thesis, on the other hand, develops around the abolition of inheritance rights and atheism.

The foundation for the liberation of the working class and the masses from oppression, exploitation, and slavery is the liberation of the individual. Individualism is the philosophical basis of anarchism. As a bourgeois ideology, anarchism sees social liberation in the liberation of the individual.

Proudhon, who sought to reconcile the contradictions within society by idealizing the existing society, did not propose to destroy the foundation upon which these contradictions arose, namely the bourgeois order. Instead, he believed that the negative aspects of the capitalist system should be eliminated through reform, while the positive aspects should be preserved and the system continued.

The class struggle of the proletariat, as the creative force behind the realization of socialism, completely excludes any kind of political movement. Any kind of revolutionary action or social movement is looked down upon. The ultimate goal of the working class’s political struggle is to seize political power. The way to do this is through revolution. In anarchism, since the state is the root of all evil, one must completely withdraw from everything that protects and safeguards the state, from all forms of politics, and from participating in any

election. The working class should not establish its own political party, should not carry out political action, and should not strike; to do so would be to recognize the state and to fight the state through these means. This is contrary to the “immortal first principles.”

So what should be done?

The answer to this question is that we must wait for the day of “social liquidation.” Until that day comes, the state must be vilified and discredited. When all workers are on your side, all administrative apparatus will be shut down, the state will be abolished, and in its place will be the alliance of Bakuninist socialist democracy.

So  what  does  A.  Öcalan  say  in  his  “Perspective”: “The  nation-state  is characteristically power-oriented. Whether power is in the hands of the proletariat or the bourgeoisie may make a difference politically, but not in terms of the culture of domination it produces. Furthermore, class struggle against class is also wrong. It only deepens the social division based on class. We have replaced the class struggle against class with the dilemma of the commune against the state. The nation-state is contrary to socialism; it corrupts it. For these reasons, we have turned the idea of the nation-state and its goal upside down. Instead, we say democratic nation.“ And ”The democratic society is the political program of this era. It does not target the state.“ (ibid.) Thus, A. Öcalan clearly states that he does not consider ”class struggle against class“ to be correct, that he ”targets the state,“ and emerges as a ”new” version of anarchism.

Class Struggle

However, just as it was yesterday, today human history is the history of class struggle. This is an objective fact. And as long as classes exist, this struggle will continue. Therefore, A. Öcalan’s assessments are incompatible with scientific thinking. The class struggle—class warfare—has objective laws. To disregard these laws and attempt to explain historical changes and conflicts with subjective interpretations is to substitute intentions for facts. The assessments in question are of a similar nature.

First of all, without falling into conceptual confusion, we must emphasize the following facts. Neither classes nor class struggle are created by willful effort.

In other words, the MLMs did not create these classes through willful effort. Classes are objective facts that have existed since slave society. And “The entire history of society to date* is the history of class struggles.” (K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, [*More precisely, the written history that exists. The social prehistory that preceded all written history was virtually unknown in 1847. Engels’ note to the 1888 English and 1890 German editions.]

Again, according to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the state is “an organ of class rule, an organ of oppression of one class over another.” (V.I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, Eriş Yayınları, Fourth Edition, p. 15)

A.Öcalan rejects all these facts. Let’s first look at what he says: “Historical materialism should replace ‘class struggle’ with ‘commune’. … Instead of historical materialism and socialism based on class conflict, I believe that historical materialism and socialism based on the dilemma of state and commune is more accurate. I find it more accurate to revise Marxism and implement this concept instead. In other words, history is not a history of class struggle, but rather a history of conflict between the state and the commune. Marxism’s theory of conflict based on class division is the main reason for the collapse of real socialism.”(ibid.)

There are classes in socialism too. The collapse of “real socialism” is also the re-establishment of power by the bourgeoisie in the struggle between the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, masked as socialists, and the communists. In other words, the outcome is a product of the ongoing class struggle. Denying classes, defending class cooperation instead of class struggle, means the continuation of the existing bourgeois hegemonic system.

Where classes and class struggle are denied, neither socialism nor the struggle for socialism can exist. The collapse of the Democratic People’s Republics and socialist governments won under proletarian leadership in the 20th century are temporary setbacks in the historical march of the international proletariat. And what collapsed was not scientific socialism. What collapsed were socialist- masked bureaucratic bourgeois dictatorships. Likewise, despite all the changes that have taken place, our era is still the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions. And the working class is still the most revolutionary class of our era. The struggle that began -which is the struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors- continues today in a different form.

A.Öcalan rejects the concept of class and, consequently, class struggle. He therefore redefines the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions accordingly, creating his own definition of a new era. “… the name of the new era is modernity,”he says. In justifying this, he states: “We define modernity through the Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse: capitalism, the nation-state, and industrialism. Modernity expresses the reality of this era. It should not be equated with capitalism. Modernity consists of the triad of capitalism, the nation-state, and industrialism. This is a structure that emerged in the 16th century. Real socialism is also a product of this modernity,” he states. (ibid.)

When considering the theory and practice of scientific socialism, these theses lack consistency and scientific merit.

State and Nation

A.Öcalan claims that K. Marx, F. Engels, and V. I. Lenin did not develop sufficient theses on the state and national question. He explains this claim as follows: “Marx sensed this danger and put up his counterargument. But he couldn’t develop it. He was going to write six books. He wrote the first volume of one, but it was incomplete. He remained limited to an analysis based on infrastructure, superstructure, and class. In terms of the leading role, he even fell behind Hegel. Engels tried to complete it a little. He focused on ‘The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State’, ‘The Dialectics of Nature’, and ‘The Role of Force in History’, but it was not enough. Lenin tried to complete it in the fields of politics and state analysis, but he did not quite succeed either. Mao attempted to adapt this theory to the liberation struggles of the colonies, but remained limited. He could have developed a comprehensive system analysis and alternative solutions, but fell short. (ibid)

In short, A. Öcalan argues that the communist masters were “inadequate” in matters of state and nation, and that he himself has completed this inadequacy.

The state emerged as a product of class-based societies. Discussions about the state have always been a focus of interest. Marxism’s understanding of the state occupies a special place in these discussions. As a direct result of class- based societies, the state has always been an instrument of coercion for the ruling classes and has always carried the color of a class. The slave state, the feudal  state, and  the  capitalist  state,  although differing in their  forms of government, have always been essentially the same in their essence as a means for one class to oppress and dominate other classes. The socialist state is also a state of a class. The state, which is the proletariat’s necessary stop on the way to communism, bears the color of the class in socialism.

The MLMs faced constant attacks against their understanding of the bourgeois state and the socialist state. During the February Revolution of 1917, Lenin’s ideological debates against the anti-Marxist state theory of the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries are well known.

In these debates, Lenin argued that the state emerged as a result of irreconcilable class antagonisms and the struggle between these classes, while the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries defended the approach that the state was a product of class compromise; a neutral apparatus above all conflict and irreconcilability.

In the debates on the state and proletarian dictatorship, Kautsky, who took the arguments inherited from the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries even further, acknowledges that the state is an instrument of class rule, but ignores the fact that, according to Marx, the task of dismantling the entire apparatus of the bourgeois state rests on the shoulders of the proletariat.

Another assessment by A. Öcalan is “Again, Marx does not have a substantial analysis of the nation-state. In this respect, a serious ideological gap has been left.  Let’s  give  credit  where  credit  is  due. Marx  later  realized  this  lack  of analysis. While writing Capital, the third book was to be about the state, but he did not live long enough. Even if he had written it, it would have been difficult to write correctly because Marx lacked a perspective for analyzing the nation-state.” ( ibid )

K.Marx and F. Engels viewed the national movements that emerged in some Eastern European countries during this period, when democratic and socialist movements did not present themselves in a way that would embrace the masses, in European terms. For example, V.I. Lenin, affirming the views in an article by    Engels    published    by    Ryazanov,    makes    the    following assessment: “Engels states that the proletariat must recognize the political independence of the major nations of Europe and their ‘right to self- determination’ (‘right to self-government’), and points out the absurdity of the ‘principle of nationalism’ (especially in the sense of its Bonapartist application), that is, of treating any small nation on the same level as large nations. ‘And as for Russia,’ says Engels, ‘it can only be described as the custodian of a vast stolen property [i.e., the oppressed nations] that could only be taken away by force on Judgment Day.’ Both Bonapartism and the tsarist regime use the movements of small nations against European democracy for their own interests.” (V.I. Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination)

As a result of this perspective, both the movement in Poland and the uprising in Hungary for national liberation and democracy were supported. And this was considered a duty of European social democracy.

K.Marx, who was in principle opposed to the federation, defended this split despite the possibility that it would lead to the formation of a federation. Given that the working class in England was dormant and had become a reserve force of liberalism, i.e., he had lost “hope” in the working class at this particular stage, he advised that the Irish national movement should be supported by the English working class (in terms of liberating Ireland). Moreover, K. Marx thought of accelerating this movement in a revolutionary direction and bringing it to a conclusion consistent with their freedoms. In other words, the desire of nations to determine their own destiny can only be supported conditionally and in certain periods, not always and under all circumstances. These historically established views provide sufficient evidence of the inaccuracy of A. Öcalan’s theses on this subject. Even today, it is impossible to offer correct solutions to the national question without relying on the theses of K. Marx, F. Engels, V. I. Lenin, and J. Stalin.

X. Conclusion

Following the “process” between the Turkish state and A. Öcalan, the “National Solidarity, Brotherhood, and Democracy Commission” was established in the Turkish Grand National Assembly. The main task of this commission is to give the project agreed upon between the Turkish Republic and A. Öcalan an air of legitimacy under the guise of democracy. Therefore, all discussions on the commission’s mode of operation, the will of the parliament, etc., are essentially a waste of time. Moreover, referring the matter to the commission is just another form of delaying tactics.

We have briefly highlighted the events that took place during this process. So what is invisible? What is invisible is the failure of the spokespeople for the ruling class to make any statement regarding the national democratic demands of the Kurdish nation. As we have always stated, the Kurdish national struggle is a result. So, at this stage, is there any “positive” statement from the Turkish state aimed at eliminating the causes that have led to this outcome, which has become a regional ‘problem’? No! Their “wishes and hopes,” which have no counterpart in social practice, are meaningless.

In this sense, it is impossible to agree with the assessment that A. Öcalan’s “endorsement” of the fascist MHP leader D. Bahçeli in his ‘Perspective’ text and the step he took; “In my opinion, this is a clear call for peace and a democratic society solution. It is both a call for peace and a consistent and democratic solution. Developments show this to some extent” . (ibid)

It is clear that the comment made by A. Öcalan is highly subjective. The real aim of the spokespeople for the fascist state, primarily D. Bahçeli, is not to make peace with the Kurdish nation. Their aim is to eliminate the Kurdish national gains, which they see as a “threat” due to regional developments in the Middle East, to disarm the Kurdish national movement, and to bring it into line and tame it.

Of course, as A. Öcalan said, “Those who fight can make peace. Only those who bear the responsibility for war can take on the responsibility for peace.” (ibid.) This statement is generally true. However, the reality of a geography where fascist terror rages unchecked stands before us in all its grandeur. Led by D. Bahçeli, who extended his bloody hand, the spokespeople of the ruling classes, who hold power in their hands, continue to insist on using the poisonous language of unjust war, not peace, and on policies of controlling all forms of social opposition, including bourgeois opposition, through state terror.

All of these are objective facts that have occurred and are before us during a process where “peace” rhetoric is flying around. Given this situation, the Kurdish people will have to wait at least a little longer to see what the practical outcome will be of the ambitious statement made in Imralı: “We have expanded the scope of this method a little and are preparing our program under state supervision with this meeting” (ibid.). It seems that, despite all the mistrust and concerns, this is how the process will unfold.

Many parties involved in the process believe that the government’s “new process” does not have the primary goal of finding a solution to the “Kurdish issue” during this period. What is intended is to extend the life of the AKP-MHP government with the support of the Kurds internally; and at the regional level, to liquidate the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria in particular, and to prevent the Kurds from gaining any status. In the context of the impending Third Imperialist World War, they are, in a sense, compelled to do this out of a need to level the playing field for themselves.

In this sense, it is necessary to seriously consider A. Öcalan’s assessment that “peace and democratic integration, especially with the Republic of Turkey.” (ibid)

First of all, when we consider these kinds of “peace” and “solution” proposals together with the assessments and statements made by some spokespeople of the Kurdish national movement, primarily A. Öcalan, we can say that we are faced with approaches that are both contradictory and contain serious problems within themselves.

What A. Öcalan means by “democratic integration, especially with the Republic of Turkey” is integration into the existing system. This debate is currently being played out in concrete terms in the form of the Autonomous Administration in Northeast Syria. Above all, the answers given by the parties to the question of how this “integration” will take place contain serious differences.

Once again, it is clear that the Turkish state, the US, and other imperialist powers are pursuing a coercive and oppressive policy demanding that the autonomous administration submit to the Salafi jihadist gang organization they have installed in power in Syria. This coercion also aims to dismantle the autonomous structure of many institutions, primarily the military forces. In other words, they want to disarm the Kurdish people and leave them at the mercy of these gangster forces that behead people. All these policies coincide with a period of massacres and attempted massacres against the Alevis and the Druze people.

Is history repeating itself? We don’t know. But we do know this fact: the liberation of oppressed nations and peoples can only be achieved through their own strength and through independent policies based on that strength. The priorities of the imperialists and the reactionary states in the region are their own regional interests. They approach the struggle of oppressed nations and peoples from this perspective.

In the current context, the approach of US imperialism and its accomplices to the  Kurdish  national  question  at  the  regional  level  is  also  within  this framework. Therefore, Kurdish forces that do not aim to confront imperialism and regional reactionaries and to integrate with the people and oppressed religious groups in a united struggle perspective will not achieve any real gains. This is because it is inconceivable that fascist and reactionary regimes would democratize themselves and enter into a “democratic integration” with the oppressed nations and religious groups they have controlled for decades through policies of denial and annihilation. This would mean a denial of the historical class struggle and the contradiction between oppressor and oppressed nations.

On the other hand, A. Öcalan does not only talk about “democratic integration” with the Turkish Republic, but also argues that similar processes will be initiated in other states on Turkey’s initiative: “Similar processes will also be initiated with other states, namely Iraq, Iran, and Syria. In my opinion, Turkey taking the initiative is both a matter of common sense and a reflection of reality.“ (A. Öcalan, ”Perspective,” Serxwebûn Newspaper, issue 521)

The expectation that “under Turkey’s initiative” there could be serious developments on a positive basis in favor of the Kurds at the regional level in the name of democracy and freedom is a fantasy. How can a state that attacks and continues to attack the Kurdish people and their fighters with its artillery, tanks, warplanes, UAVs, and SİHA drones in the territories of Turkey, Iraq, and Syria take a new initiative in favor of the Kurds? Based on the current concrete data, it is not possible to answer this question positively. Of course, we have no knowledge of what is discussed behind closed doors. Therefore, at this point, we are looking at what is happening on the ground rather than rhetoric. What we see here in the name of “initiative” is the Turkish state’s reckless calculations regarding Kurdish gains in Syria.

Some spokespeople for the Turkish ruling class and hired pens are shouting slogans such as “the US, Israel, and other states are trying to exclude us from the region” and “we must intervene against this.” In fact, at this moment, the Turkish state has already taken the “initiative” in terms of occupation and aggression. As the Turkish state’s “initiative” in Kurdish territory increases, the ideology of monism will resurface even more.

Consequently, all the views put forward by A. Öcalan and the PKK from 1993 to February 27, 2025 stem from its class character. In Turkey, the Kurdish nation has been oppressed by the state for 100 years, subjected to denial and assimilation. In Turkey, the Kurdish nation is an oppressed and dependent nation in every respect. The PKK has naturally been quite successful in mobilizing the oppressed Kurds, whom it organized based on the national question. The armed resistance, initiated by combining rhetoric and practice, has been decisive in strengthening the PKK, organizing Kurds around it, and giving the Kurdish question an international dimension.

However, the PKK, which emerged as a national revolutionary organization, has not been able to maintain this line consistently. The revolutionary line, which began to break down in the 1990s, turned itself into a position that clearly drew itself into the system in 1999. Although the state’s attacks and the pressure and isolation imposed on A. Öcalan enabled the PKK to return to a national revolutionary line from 2017 until February 27, 2025, it has adopted a new line since February 27. This is linked to the class stance that the PKK carries within itself as a national movement.

In summary, the current situation regarding the Kurdish national question can be described as follows.

Firstly, the claim that the Kurdish national question has been resolved is incorrect.

Secondly, the claim that “armed struggle has run its course” is incorrect.

Thirdly, criticisms of the historical experience of socialism under the name of “real socialism” should be evaluated in light of the theoretical and practical experiences of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The concept of “democratic socialism” is fundamentally flawed ideologically. This concept is based on the fundamental argument that socialism is not democratic. And it contains an approach that separates democracy from its class basis. However, the issue of democracy cannot be separated from its class basis. Any attempts to do so would mean the continuation of bourgeois rule. Socialism or, during the transition to communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat/democratic people’s dictatorship, means democracy for the working class and broad masses of people and dictatorship against class enemies. Democracy for “everyone” in socialism implies class collaboration and is also impossible. Any other approach points to a “within-the-system” and reformist line within the reality of class society.

Fourth; under Turkish conditions, the desire for a “Democratic Society” is unrealistic when considering the reality of class society, the ground on which the Turkish Republic state is built, and the reality of fascism. Moreover, as we mentioned above, concepts created by “ignoring” the reality of class society have no meaning beyond serving the counter-revolution.

Fifthly; the struggle for democracy under fascist conditions must be embraced, and the aim must be to subordinate reforms to the Democratic People’s Revolution.

Sixth: As was the case yesterday, today we must defend the unity of our people, including Kurds, Turks, and various ethnic minorities. We must not integrate with the system for the sake of limited national demands, but rather fight for people’s democracy, independence, and socialism under the leadership of the proletariat.

Seventh: It must be based on the reality that national and religious oppression of oppressed nationalities and oppressed religions, especially the Kurdish national question, can only be resolved under the conditions of Democratic People’s Power and socialism.

Eighth: The struggle for national democratic demands must not be denied.

It is never, ever a revolutionary stance for a nation not to defend its national democratic demands.

Ninth: The Kurdish national struggle is not limited to the PKK, which has declared itself dissolved.

Tenth: With its Extraordinary 12th Congress, the PKK, which has dissolved itself, has taken a strong step from being a national revolutionary movement towards a national reformist line. How the process will end depends entirely on developments.

Eleventh; Communists must defend the fact that the Kurdish national question is a political issue, as they did yesterday, and must unconditionally defend the Right of Free Separation of the oppressed nation (the right of the Kurdish nation to establish a separate state).

Twelfth: In an environment where a nation’s “right to freely secede” is not openly and freely discussed, and moreover, in a process where negotiations for a “solution” are being conducted, if the Kurdish national question is not correctly defined and referred to by name, there should be no hesitation in pointing  out  that  there  is  a  blatantly  deceptive  approach.  Constructive criticism and concerns in this regard, particularly regarding the Kurdish national movement, should not be held back.

Thirteenth: In a political reality where the fascist dictatorship lacks even bourgeois democracy, and where attacks against the bourgeois opposition, let alone progressive-revolutionary forces, are increasing day by day, a clear stance must be taken that it cannot develop a liberal and democratic attitude on a political issue such as the Kurdish national question, and it must be argued that the key to resolving the concerns felt by a significant section of the revolutionary democratic public lies in the Democratic People’s Revolution and the struggle for socialism.

Fourteenth; the fascist character of the Turkish ruling classes and their state has not changed. Moreover, it is known that under the conditions of Turkey and Turkish Kurdistan, fascism is not only a form of state but also a “form of politics,” and that these forces, which feed on chaos and blood and are enemies of democracy and freedom, will insist on fascist state terror and continue to do so as long as the balance of power does not change significantly; they will continue to pursue their fascist policies.

Fifteenth and last; the final solution to the Kurdish national question rests on the shoulders of the proletariat.

The way to escape the regime of oppression in Turkey, to put an end to all the suffering, repression, and massacres, to establish an order of equality and freedom from exploitation for all nations and workers, is through the overthrow of the fascist dictatorship, which is the common enemy of the Turks, Kurds, and other minorities. The only guarantee for Kurds to exercise their Right to Free Separation alongside the DHD is the joint struggle of the Kurdish and Turkish peoples, along with people of various nationalities and faiths. Only a revolutionary, militant struggle, not a conciliatory one, can lead the oppressed to liberation.

source: TKP-ML

The Kurdish National Question: “Peace and Democratic Integration” The “New Paradigm” and the Denial of the Kurdish National Reality! — TKP-ML

Introduction

On 1 October 2024, when the fascist MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli approached the seats of the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM), shook hands with DEM deputies, and subsequently, in his speech at the MHP group meeting on 22 October, issued a call to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Öcalan, saying: “Let him go ahead and unilaterally declare that terrorism has ended, that the organization has been dissolved,” “If the isolation is lifted, let him come and speak at the DEM Group Meeting in the TBMM. Let him proclaim that terrorism has completely ended and that the organization has been abolished. If he shows this determination, let the way be fully cleared for a legal regulation regarding the exercise of his right to hope. Let the address extend from İmralı to DEM,” it became publicly apparent that a “process” had been initiated between the Turkish Republic and the PKK through Abdullah Öcalan.

Following these statements, the call made by PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan— who has been held under isolation for 26 years in İmralı Prison—in his declaration dated 27 February, in which he stated, “The PKK should dissolve itself and end the armed struggle,” found a response, and the PKK announced to the public that it had dissolved itself through its Extraordinary 12th Party Congress, convened between 5–7 May.

The “process,” which was referred to by different names by the parties involved and was not given a name, continued with the PKK dissolving itself and laying down its arms, while the new “road map” brought with it many debates.

The proletarian movement has also made its views on the Kurdish national question and the “process” and developments surrounding the PKK’s “paradigm  shift”  known  to  the  public  through  various  brochures  and statements published on various occasions. This article will evaluate the views expressed by PKK leader A. Öcalan in his “February 27 Call.” The article will evaluate, in general terms, the national question, the nationalization of the Kurds, the Kurdish uprisings, the PKK’s emergence on the scene of struggle, and the developments following the Extraordinary 12th Congress, at which the PKK dissolved itself.

All debates aside, the Kurds in Turkey are a nation, and like every nation, the Kurdish nation has the Right to Free Separation (the right to establish a separate state). This is a matter of principle for MLM and is not open to debate. At this stage, the PKK, which has shaped the current expression of the Kurdish national movement, and its leader A. Öcalan, let alone exercising the “right to secession,” define the demand for this right in their “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society” as defining the demand for this right as “excessive nationalist deviation” and, moreover, defining it as “separate nation-state, federation, administrative autonomy, and culturalist solutions cannot respond to historical social sociology,” thereby rejecting even bourgeois steps toward resolving the national question, compels us to restate our position on the matter. (For “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society,” see: A. Öcalan, “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society,” February 27, 2025, bianet.org)

Of course, how the “right to secession” is exercised is entirely subject to the will of the Kurdish nation. Our position on this matter is well known: “The Marxist-Leninist movement is also against the privilege of the right to form a state.   The right of nations to self-determination should never be confused with the necessity for a particular nation to secede. The Marxist-Leninist movement takes the question of secession concretely in every particular case, “evaluates and determines in the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat, for social development and socialism as a whole”.  The Marxist- Leninist movement takes the question of secession concretely in every particular case, “evaluates and determines in the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat, for social development and socialism as a whole”. The Marxist-Leninist movement absolutely refuses to use force, to cause obstacles and difficulties before a decision to secede that it does not approve. Boundaries should be determined by the will of the nation. This is necessary for mutual trust, solid friendship and voluntary unity of the working and toiling masses of various nationalities. (İbrahim Kaypakkaya, Selected Writings, English Edition, Nisan Publishing, 2025)

In concrete terms, however, A. Öcalan and the PKK speak not of separation but, on the contrary, of “democratic integration” with the oppressor nation. In his “new paradigm,” A. Öcalan calls on the Turkish state to become a “democratic society” and proposes that the Kurdish national movement integrate with this “democratic society”: “…we are preparing our program with this meeting under state supervision. We are working intensively on what kind of democratic society this will be. We want to cross this threshold. What is this, the transition from war and separatist conflict to peace and democratic integration, especially with the Republic of Turkey.“ (A. Öcalan, ”Perspective,” Serxwebûn Newspaper, issue 521)

I. The Complete and Correct Solution to the National Question

“It means that ‘self-determination of nations’ in the Marxists’ Programme cannot, from a historico-economic point of view, have any other meaning than political self-determination, state independence, and the formation of a national state.” (V.I. Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination)

“As far as the theory of Marxism in general is concerned, the question of the right to self-determination presents no difficulty.” (V.I. Lenin, ibid)

No other solution can be the real salvation of the oppressed and dependent nations. Reforms or the attainment of some democratic crumbs can only be a band-aid “solution.”

At this point, it would be useful to briefly define the historical development that gave rise to the national question, or the historical formation of nations.

Nation states, despite being historically formed by the union of various tribes and communities, do not constitute a nation, unlike, for example, the Mongols or Alexander’s great empires. These are not nations, but human communities that came together and dispersed for this or that reason. In other words, the state and the nation are not one and the same. The state is a class phenomenon that emerged immediately after the emergence of the ruling and ruled classes. Historically, even though slave-owning states and feudal states emerged after classes appeared, the human communities living within the borders of these states did not form nations. There is a very important distinction here: the nation is not only a historically formed category, it is also a historical category of the era of rising capitalism. In other words, the liquidation of feudalism and the development of capitalism also marked the time when human communities and tribes united in the form of nations. For example, in Western Europe, with the victory of capitalism over feudal fragmentation, the English, French, Italians, and Germans emerged as national states.

We emphasized above that not every stable community forms a nation. While a common language is essential for a nation, it is not a requirement for a state. A nation cannot emerge without a common language. However, not everyone who speaks a common language forms the same nation. For example, Americans and British people are two separate nations despite speaking a common language. Linguistic unity is one of the most distinctive characteristics of a nation.

However, linguistic unity alone is not sufficient to form a nation. Other characteristics are also involved. Another such characteristic is that they live on a common territory. A nation has emerged as a result of communities living together from generation to generation through long-term and regular interactions. Long-term coexistence is not possible without a territory. Therefore, territorial unity is one of the characteristic features of a nation.

However, these two characteristics are not sufficient for the formation of a nation. In addition to linguistic and territorial unity, an internal economic unity that brings together the individual parts of the nation into a whole is essential. This economic unity is an important element that brings together the whole nation around a common market. In other words, economic unity is one of the characteristic features of a nation.

Another feature must be added to all these characteristics we have mentioned. This is spiritual unity. Nations are not only inseparable in terms of language, land, and economy. They are also distinguished in terms of their spiritual formation, which is expressed in their cultural characteristics. In other words, spiritual formation unity, expressed in cultural unity, is one of the characteristic features of a nation.

As a result of all these statements, a nation is a stable community of people that has developed historically, sharing a language, territory, common market, cultural unity, and spiritual formation. To summarize: “A nation [or people] is a historically formed, stable community governed by a unity of language,

territory, economic life, and a unity of spiritual formation expressed in a common culture.” (Quoted from J. Stalin by İbrahim Kaypakkaya, Complete Works, Nisan Publishing, October 2016, p. 223)

The nation is not only a historical category, but a historical category of a specific era, the era of rising capitalism.

We see that there were two distinct periods in the process of nation-building alongside capitalism. The first was when single-nation states were established in the West, in Germany, England, and France, while multi-nation states were established in the East. Hungary and Russia were such states. This also brought the national question to the fore in multi-national states. Another development was that, alongside this unique form of state organization, it was possible for marginalized nationalities to organize themselves into nations, even though they had not yet had time to consolidate economically and were still under conditions of unresolved feudalism and underdeveloped capitalism.

Another point to note regarding the national question is that it has three stages of development. The first period of the national question corresponds to the period of the liquidation of feudalism and the triumph of capitalism in the West. This period corresponds to the period when people united as national communities… During this period, referred to as the first stage, states without national oppression emerged in Western Europe, while in Eastern Europe, multi-ethnic states were established where the economically and politically developed nation dominated and other nations were oppressed. These multi-ethnic states of the East became the homelands of national oppression, giving rise to national wars, national movements, and various methods of resolving the national question. (J. Stalin, Marxism and the National Question and the Colonial Question)

The second period, in which national oppression and methods of struggle against it were developed, was shaped by the emergence of imperialism. Capitalism has always needed markets, raw materials, energy, and cheap labor. It wants to control and secure land, sea, and air routes for the export of capital and goods. To this end, it tears down national fences and expands its national territories at the expense of its rivals. “In this second period, the old national states of the West—England, Italy, France—cease to be national states; that is, they acquire new territories and thus transform themselves into multinational states, creating a space for the same national and colonial oppression that previously existed in Eastern Europe. This period is defined by the awakening and consolidation of the subjugated nations (Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians) in Eastern Europe, leading to the collapse of the old multinational bourgeois states after the imperialist war and the establishment of new national states subjugated by the so-called great powers.” (J. Stalin)

The third period in the national question is the period of the October Revolution. It is the period when capitalism was overthrown and the national question was resolved with the October Revolution. It is the period when the problem of oppressed nations and colonies in Russia was consigned to the dustbin of history with the October Revolution. “But the October Revolution did not merely result in the removal of national oppression or the creation of a space conducive to the unification of peoples. In its development, the October Revolution also prepared the forms of this unification and outlined the basic lines along which the unification of peoples into a single federal state would be carried out according to their own terms. During the first period of the revolution, when the working masses of the nationalities first became aware of their independent national greatness, but when the threat of foreign intervention had not yet manifested itself as a real danger, the form of cooperation between the peoples had not yet been absolutely determined or strictly defined. During the period of civil war and intervention, when the military self-defense interests of the national republics came to the fore, but economic organization issues were not yet on the agenda, cooperation took the form of a military alliance. Finally, in the post-war period, when the problems of rebuilding the productive forces destroyed by the war came to the fore, the military alliance was complemented by an economic alliance. The unification of the national republics in the form of a Union of Soviet republics constituted the final stage in the development of forms of cooperation, this time taking on the character of a military, economic, and political union of the peoples within a single multinational Soviet state.

Thus, the proletariat found in the Soviet regime the key to the correct solution of the national question and discovered in this regime the path to the organization of a multinational, stable state based on national equality and free participation.(J. Stalin)

II. A Brief History of the Kurds

The Kurds trace their origins back to the Medes. The emergence of the Medes, also known as the ancestors of the Kurds, dates back 3,000 years. This corresponds to approximately 1000 BC. The Medes, one of the Mesopotamian peoples forced to live under the Assyrian Empire, had to endure the oppression of this slave-owning empire for many years. Starting in 700 BC, the Medes fought against the Assyrian Empire and, together with other peoples, overthrew this slave-owning empire, establishing the Median Empire in 612 BC.

After the fall of the Median Empire, the Kurds began to live under the rule of the Persian Empire. After Alexander the Great invaded the region, the Kurds first lived under Macedonian rule, then under the Eastern Roman Empire between 30 and 476 AD.

After the Middle Ages, following the spread of Islam in the Middle East, the Kurds came under the rule of the Iranian Safavids, Umayyads, and Abbasids. Throughout history, the Kurds have organized their lives by establishing independent regions many times. In this autonomous way of life, the balance of power among the empires under whose rule they lived has been decisive. As a result of this balance of power, the Kurds established many states. The Mervani and Shaddadi states they established in the 10th and 11th centuries are two examples of this.

After losing their self-governing authority, the Kurds came under the rule of various administrations. With the expansion of the Ottoman Empire’s sphere of influence, Kurdistan was also occupied. Throughout Ottoman history, the Kurds were subject to different practices. During the reigns of Yavuz and Kanuni, the Ottomans, well aware of the power of the Kurds, did not immediately dismiss them. They even granted them certain rights that could be described as autonomous. This ensured internal stability and also suited the administrations of the period, as the taxes paid to the Ottomans were collected directly through the Kurdish Beys and Mir.

By the 1830s, the Ottomans launched a new offensive against the Kurds. The sultan of the period, Mahmud II, took action to end the semi-autonomous administration in Kurdistan. His goal was to bring all territories under the control of the Ottoman Empire. After the Ottoman Empire put an end to the semi-autonomous Kurdish regions, Kurdish resistance against the Ottomans intensified. The Ottomans did not achieve what they hoped for after their attacks aimed at strengthening central administration. Although the Ottoman Empire strengthened its central government with its attacks during this period, it did not succeed in subduing the Kurds. The geography of Kurdistan also played a role in this. The Kurds continued their resistance in hard-to-reach areas. As a result of the Ottoman Empire’s attacks, the lands belonging to the Baban, Soran, Bahdinan, and Hakkari principalities came under the control of smaller tribes.

In the early 19th century, the Ottoman Empire entered a period of decline. Many peoples who rebelled against the Ottomans gained their independence. Only the Kurds remained without a state. The Ottoman Empire sought to consolidate its weakening authority by further centralizing power. To this end, it attempted to assert its authority by appointing administrators such as qadis and governors to govern the Kurdistan region. The 19th century was also the century in which nation-building was completed. The Kurds were unable to achieve nation-building due to the occupation of their lands, their fragmentation due to the feudal structure, and the tribes that held certain regions under their control.

The weakening of the Ottoman Empire and the rise to power of the Committee of Union and Progress led to a significant shift in the balance of power and the beginning of a new era. This also marked the beginning of the transition from Ottomanism to Turkish nationalism. In 1915, a large-scale genocide was carried out against Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, and Chaldeans. The genocide was not only aimed at seizing the property of these groups. It also aimed to add the lands where these groups lived to the shrinking territories, and to create a new homeland through this genocide. The Ottoman Empire, which used the Kurds in the genocide, killed and exiled the Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, and Chaldeans, and then turned to the Kurds. The Kurds were dispersed and exiled to prevent any possible uprising.

1. During the Imperialist War of Partition, the Ottoman Empire fought alongside German imperialism, and at the end of the war, the Ottoman Empire was divided under the Armistice of Mudros. The Kemalists emerged as the new leadership of the era and, after waging a short-lived war against the occupation, established the new Republic of Turkey by reaching an agreement with the imperialists in Lausanne. Although the Kemalists, who had included the Kurds in the war throughout the conflict, sat at the table on behalf of the Turks and Kurds in Lausanne, they subsequently denied the Kurds even the smallest national rights. Whenever the Kurds reminded them of this, they were suppressed with bloodshed, exiled, and ignored. The Kurds rose up against this disregard and oppression. These uprisings have continued uninterrupted to this day.

III. Kurdish Uprisings

Uprisings During the Ottoman Empire

Babanzade Abdurrahman Pasha uprising (1806-Mosul), Babanzade Ahmet Pasha uprising (1812-Mosul), Şerefhan uprising (1831-Bitlis), Bedirhan uprising (1835-Botan), Garzan Uprising (1839-Diyarbakır), Ubeydullah Uprising (1881- Hakkari), Bedirhan Osman Pasha and his brother Hüseyin Pasha Uprising (1872-Mardin-Cizre), Bedirhan Emin Ali Uprising (1889-Erzincan), Bedirhanis and Halil Rema uprising (1912-Mardin), Sheikh Selim Şebabettin and Ali uprising (1912-Bitlis), Koşgari uprising (1920-Koşgiri)

Uprisings After the Founding of the Republic of Turkey

The Kemalist government did not keep its promises to guarantee the political and cultural rights of the Kurds. The Kurds’ demands to determine their own destiny and govern themselves were not met with a positive response. Although the Kurds were promised equal rights during the “war of independence,” no steps were taken after the war, and the process evolved into a period marked by uprisings.

“The  Kurdish  national  movement  continued  within  Turkey’s  borders determined by the Treaty of Lausanne. There were a number of rebellions. The most important of these are the 1925 Sheikh Said Rebellion, the 1928 Ağrı Rebellion, the 1930 Zilan Rebellion and the 1938 Dersim Rebellion. In addition to their “national” character, these movements also had a feudal character: the feudal lords, who had ruled on their own until then, clashed with this authority when the central authority began to threaten this sovereignty. This is the main factor that pushed the feudal lords to revolt against the central authority..” (İbrahim Kaypakkaya, ibid)

The Koçgiri Uprising-Massacre

The Koçgiri Uprising, which began on March 6, 1921, and was violently suppressed on June 15, 1921, was the first Kurdish uprising in the history of the Turkish Republic. The uprising was initiated by the Koçgiri tribe, an Alevi- Kurdish community residing east of Sivas. The Dersim region did not participate in the uprising. For this reason, the uprising was limited to Sivas and Erzincan. The main reason for this uprising was the failure of the Kemalists to fulfill their promise of autonomy to the Kurds. Led by Alişer, the Koçgirililer resisted for about three months for their identity, culture, and national rights. The rebels’ demand in the Koçgiri Rebellion was an independent Kurdistan. Primarily, they demanded that the Ankara government not collect taxes in Koçgiri and Dersim, that freedom of the press be granted, that all rights be constitutionally guaranteed, and that autonomy be granted for the region covering Koçgiri and Dersim.

The Kemalist administration sent the 42nd and 47th Giresun Regiments, commanded by Topal Osman under the Central Army of Sakallı Nurettin Pasha, against the rebels. Topal Osman’s gang brutally suppressed the uprising. Those who survived the massacre took refuge in Dersim.

The Kemalists violently suppress the Koçgiri uprising, crushing the Kurdish nation’s efforts for independence and self-determination. By brutally suppressing this resistance, the Kemalists reveal their plan to integrate the Kurds into the Turkish ethnic identity even during the founding phase of the Republic.

Sheikh Said Uprising

Sheikh Said, a Naqshbandi sheikh, launched an uprising in 1925. Numerous tribes joined this uprising. The uprising quickly spread throughout Kurdistan. During the conflicts in Kurdistan, Varto, Malazgirt, Solhan, Çewlig, Sancak, Lice, Kulp, Kanireş, Piran, Maden, Kozluk, Siverek, Çemişgezek, Karakoçan, Ergani, Eğil, Bimil, Fargın, Çermik, Çınar, and many other settlements fell under the control of the rebels. The Kurds captured around 15,000 Turkish soldiers in Kurdistan.

On March 20-21, Kurdish forces surrounded the city of Amed with 10,000 fighters. Suffering heavy losses in fierce clashes, the Kurdish forces were forced to retreat. The Kemalists, with French support (via rail through French- controlled Syria), amassed troops in Kurdistan. After the defeat in Amed, the Kurdish forces, scattered and out of ammunition against the Kemalists, withdrew to the countryside/mountains from the places they had captured and continued their resistance.

Sheikh Said was captured on April 14, 1925. He was tried at the Independence Court in Amed and sentenced to death along with 41 of his comrades. He was executed on June 28. As a result of the uprising, many cities and hundreds of villages were burned and destroyed. Nearly 10,000 people were imprisoned. More than a thousand Kurds were executed for participating in the uprising. Most of the casualties in the clashes were civilians, with thousands of people losing their lives.

The Sheikh Said uprising, which took place immediately after the founding of the republic in Turkey, was not entirely separatist. Like the Sheikh Ubeydullah uprising during the Ottoman period, it was an uprising based on religious references. It regarded the sultan in Istanbul as the legitimate caliph. It was in favor of autonomy. The uprising had a pan-Islamic character. On the other hand, many Kurdish tribes participating in the uprising emphasized Kurdish discourse and their desire for independence, but the uprising was essentially marked by religious demands. However, this does not change the fact that it was a national uprising. Moreover, it is unthinkable that the Kemalist government could have supported the brutal suppression of this uprising on the grounds that “imperialists were involved. “Claiming that British imperialism had a hand in the Sheikh Said movement, the Turkish government violated the Kurdish nation’s right to self-determination, engaged in mass murders, etc. Those who try to show this as just and progressive are the incurable Turkish chauvinists, let’s repeat it once again… Moreover, the Turkish government itself was in cooperation with the British and French imperialists in that period.” (İbrahim Kaypakkaya, ibid)

Ağrı Uprisings

The Ağrı uprisings spanned a long period of conflict between 1926 and 1930. This rebellion involved the participation of Kurds living around Mount Ağrı as well as Kurds living in Iranian territory. The uprising spread over a wide area and continued for years. The uprising was initiated in May 1926 by the Soğanlı, Kızılbaşoğlu, Sori, Cilkanlı, Bilhanlı, and Cinganlı tribes. As soon as the clashes began,  Yusuf  Ağa  from  Iran  crossed  the  border  with  about  a  thousand horsemen to come to the aid of the tribes. The clashes spread over a wide area. The Kemalists’ armed forces were unable to hold their ground against the Kurdish rebels and retreated to Doğubeyazıt. In June, the Kemalists reorganized their army with reinforcements and launched an attack. The Kurdish rebels were forced to retreat to Iran.

Second Ağrı (Ararat) Rebellion

In 1928, a new Kurdish uprising was launched with the support of the Hoybun Society. The rebels captured most of the settlements around Bitlis, Van, and Lake Van.

Led by Ihsan Nuri and Zilan Bey, the uprising took the region, including Doğubeyazıt, from the army. With the support of the Hoybun Society, the rebels declared the independence of the Republic of Ağrı in the regions they had seized and brought under their control.

Some Armenian intellectuals and resistance fighters also joined this great resistance, providing military and logistical support to strengthen and expand the resistance. It is known as the first example of an Armenian-Kurdish alliance in history.

Tendürek Operation

The Kemalists’ armed forces prevented the forces under the command of Sheikh Abdullah, who were trying to come from Iran, from joining the uprising with the Tendürek Operation on September 14-27, 1929. And in June, they surrounded Mount Ağrı with ten thousand soldiers to suppress the uprising.

During this period, other Kurdish forces also came to the aid of the rebellion in 1930: Barzani with a force of 500 from Mosul, Haco Ağa from Syria, and Simko from Iran.

The Zilan Massacre

Between June and July 1930, the Zilan Operation was launched between Van and Ağrı. This operation suppressed the rebel forces coming from outside. In July 1930, just before the 3rd Ağrı Operation was launched by the 9th Corps of the Turkish Republic during the Ağrı Mountain uprisings, a massacre was carried out against Kurdish civilians who had taken refuge in the Zilan Valley in the Erciş district of Van province. “According to general opinion, the number of people killed in Zilan is ‘more than fifteen thousand’. In the sixth brochure published by Hoybun in the same year, while the massacre was still ongoing (published in September, according to estimates) stated that a total of 220 villages in the Zilan area had been burned and destroyed, around 4,500 women, children, and elderly people had been killed, and around 100 intellectuals, dignitaries, and prominent figures had been stuffed into sacks with their mouths sewn shut and thrown alive into Lake Van.” (Sedat Ulugana, Anatomy of a Massacre: 1930 Zilan, Bianet, July 25, 2024)

Third Ağrı Operation

For a major operation targeting Mount Ağrı, the Turkish state, in agreement with Iran, advances its military units to the back of Küçük Ağrı Dağı (Little Mount Ağrı) and surrounds Mount Ağrı.

The attack began on September 7, 1930. The Kurdish rebel forces suffered heavy losses. The leaders of the uprising were killed. Some of the survivors fled to Iran. Ihsan Nuri, one of the leaders of the uprising, also sought refuge in Iran. Many of those who surrendered were executed.

The Ağrı uprising, which began in 1926 and continued intermittently until September 1930, was suppressed with bloodshed and massacres.

The Dersim Massacre

The events that led to the Dersim massacre began due to the administration and control of the region. In particular, the Kızılbaş Alevi clans, who had never bowed to the Ottomans, demanded autonomy in the region with the establishment of the Turkish Republic. There had been numerous uprisings in the region during the Ottoman period. Dersim did not bow to either the Ottomans or the Turkish Republic. They did not pay taxes or provide soldiers to the authorities. Against the Russian invasion, the Dersim clans entered into an agreement with the Ottoman government and participated in the defensive war with the promise of autonomy. After the Russians withdrew, the Ottoman administration presented gifts and medals to the clans. Seyit Rıza was also rewarded.

Another reason for the Turkish Republic’s attack on Dersim was that around a thousand armed rebels who had fled the Koçgiri Uprising sought refuge with Seyit Rıza, who had previously had good relations with the state, causing a rift between him and the government. Another important reason was that more than 30,000 Armenians from neighboring provinces took refuge with the Alevi Kızılbaş clans in Dersim during the 1915 genocide.

The Dersim massacre occurred because the Dersim clans and their leaders had saved Armenians during the genocide, because of the autonomy promised to them in exchange for fighting the Russian invasion, and because of the effects of the Koçgiri uprising. It was also a move by the Turkish Republic to establish authority in the region and end the dominance of the clans—to effectively maintain law and order in Dersim. A law was passed in the Grand National Assembly to consolidate authority in the region.

On June 6, 1936, the Fourth General Inspectorate, covering the Dersim region and based in Elazığ, was established, and Lieutenant General Abdullah Alpdoğan was appointed as its commander. Lieutenant General A. Alpdoğan launched an attack with military units on the night of March 21, 1937, following a provocation. After failing in the first operation, A. Alpdoğan launched another attack with an army of 50,000 but was unable to cross the mountains. Therefore, the resistance positions were bombed from the air by a fleet of three aircraft (15 planes), including Sabiha Gökçen, the adopted daughter of M. Kemal.

On September 13, 1937, Seyit Rıza and his companions were summoned to an “agreement” and arrested. Seyit Rıza and the leading clan leaders were executed on November 18, 1937.

The Second Dersim Campaign was launched between January 20 and August 7, 1938. The Third Dersim Campaign took place between August 10 and 17, and a “cleansing campaign” began on September 6, resulting in 17 days of massacres. Villages were burned and destroyed.

Tens of thousands of people were massacred. Those who survived were exiled. Dersim was depopulated. Women and children who were exiled were forcibly Turkified.

Dersim was carried out not so much as a suppression of an uprising, but rather as a genocide of the Alevi Kurds to empty the region.

In conclusion; “The Kemalist dictatorship usurped all the rights of minority nationalities, especially the Kurdish nation. It aimed to forcibly Turkify them all. It forbade their language. In collaboration with some Kurdish feudals, it ruthlessly crushed the Kurdish national movement that emerged from time to time, engaged in mass murders, slaughtered thousands of people, men and women, children, young and old, and made life unbearable for the Kurdish people with declarations of ‘forbidden military zones’ and ‘special administration’ tyranny.” (İbrahim Kaypakkaya, ibid)

Above, we noted that the Kurds were unable to establish a nation-state due to their fragmentation during the feudal period and the oppression, massacres, and deportations they endured. We can explain why the Kurds, who failed to achieve this, are now considered a nation through Stalin’s historical determination. Stalin makes the following determination for nations that have not  been  able  to  establish  nation-states: “This  particular  form  of  state organization could only be seen in conditions of feudalism that had not yet been eliminated, in conditions of capitalism that had developed only vaguely, when nations that had been pushed into the background were about to be established  as  nations,  but  had  not  yet  had  time  to  consolidate economically.” (J. Stalin, ibid., p. 20)

Thus, J. Stalin clarifies that other nations that remained outside the nation- state, even if they could not establish their nation-states under capitalism, were still included in the category of nations.

On the other hand, J. Stalin summarizes why these nations could not establish their own nation states with the following statements: “But the oppressed nations, which have begun to become aware of their own distinct way of life, do not yet organize themselves into independent national states: on their path, they encounter the fierce resistance of the ruling nations, whose ruling classes have long since taken control of the state. – It is already too late!… (J. Stalin)

IV. The Historical Conditions Leading to the Emergence of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)

We will attempt to briefly summarize the historical conditions that gave rise to the PKK movement. In doing so, we will also include the Kurdish national movement’s (KUH) own assessments as much as possible. These assessments will also give us an idea of the changes taking place on the KUH front at this stage and the denial of the past.

First and foremost, we must state that when we refer to the Kurdish national question, we are talking about the struggle of an oppressed nation against the nation that oppresses it, on a just and legitimate basis. And this historical process encompasses a period of struggle spanning centuries.

The history of the republic, built on the basis of monism over the last century, is a history of struggle against minorities, primarily the Kurds. Even before the PKK era, there were Kurdish uprisings that developed at certain intervals, up to the 1938 Dersim Massacre, although they did not cover the entire Kurdish geography. After the Dersim massacre, it is possible to speak of a long period of silence in Turkish Kurdistan. However, due to the system’s policies of annihilation and denial against the Kurds, the contradiction between the oppressor and oppressed nations continued to exist objectively. And after the 1960s, influenced by the revolutionary wave sweeping the world, this contradiction once again became a concrete phenomenon in the arena of struggle. Because every contradiction involves struggle and conflict. The scale of the struggle is determined by factors such as the possibilities revealed by the objective conditions and the balance of power between the conflicting forces. What we are trying to emphasize here is the fact that nothing exists by itself. Everything rises on an objective ground. The Kurdish national question is also a product of the Turkish state’s policies of annihilation and denial. Therefore, this struggle is a question of liberation. And this contradiction and conflict will continue in one form or another until the Kurdish nation builds a free and equal life.

To better understand the issue, let us listen to some of the PKK’s own assessments of its historical process.

“Undoubtedly, there is a material environment that enabled the emergence of the PKK movement. This environment was created by the unrestrained, predatory capitalism of the Kemalist Turkish Republic. It is a medieval social structure that was ruthlessly, unrestrained form, some elements that burst forth in fragments from a medieval social structure, even if in the form of capitalism’s debris, have a close connection with revolutionary developments through their efforts to recognize themselves and through the youth movement of the 1970s, a period when the weaknesses of such capitalism were most evident, and through this enlightened movement that always attained progressive consciousness. When these two factors are cleverly combined, a period begins in which the spark of hope for the Kurdish people enters a new path to liberation. In the history of the PKK, the period 1970-75 is one in which such a discussion of a new path took place. During this period, questions were asked about what path to take and how liberation was possible, and answers were given. By 1975, the answer to the question had been determined: the path to national liberation, guided by socialism, was definitely , and it had found its owners. In the 1975-80 period, this question, which found its answer within a limited enlightenment, was imposed on a wider audience. The people were asked: ‘Are you willing to walk this path, which has been decided to be the right one, and will you take the first step for this?’ And both the official declaration of the PKK and the widespread period of action that followed, in the years 1976-77–78–79, were met with a response from our people in the form of ‘Yes, we intend to embark on this right path’. This response was not merely verbal but was brought to life through widespread activism. Therefore, in the history of our people, this deathly silence was the first stir, a revival, a coming to life, a turning towards one’s own self, a movement of intention, however small.” (A. Öcalan, Selected Writings, Volume III, Weşanên Serxwebûn, 1986, pp. 47-48)

Undoubtedly, the revolutionary wave that swept across the world in the late 1960s also affected Turkey and Turkey’s Kurdistan. Consequently, all movements organized and struggling along national lines in Turkey’s Kurdistan were influenced by the revolutionary wave developing both globally and within Turkey. In this sense, these movements were influenced primarily by the revolutionary movement in Turkey, rather than by Kurdish-feudal organizations that did not transcend the primitive tribal structures that existed in Iraqi Kurdistan at the time, and they turned to practices of struggle alongside them.

Moreover, despite the social chauvinist stance adopted by many circles, particularly the “Communist” Party of Turkey, in their approach to the Kurdish national question, the Kurdish movements did not adopt an indifferent attitude towards the revolutionary developments in the “west” by patriotic forces. On the contrary, there has always been a mutual influence and a struggle unity imposed by objective conditions. Alongside these positive developments, serious negative ones have also occurred. As a result of the division of Kurdistan into four parts, developments in each part inevitably affect the other parts. This objective fact also holds true to a certain extent for other developments in the region.

We see this reality reflected in the following assessments of the national movement: “It was during these years that the PKK movement entered the historical agenda. The PKK movement’s historical role emerged during this process, playing a historical role against a nation, a people, and the Turkish people, and increasingly against the peoples of the Middle East. And the PKK found itself in a painful, oppressive process, in the midst of a development rarely seen. Looking back at this recent history today, we see very clearly that the PKK movement’s tradition encompasses, on the one hand, the Kurdish people’s centuries-old, unrelenting resentment, anger, and pain, and on the other hand, the militant legacy of the Turkish people’s most recent uprising against the system of exploitation and oppression they have endured and resisted for centuries.” (A. Öcalan, Selected Writings, Volume III, Weşanên Serxwebûn, 1986, p. 46)

All these internal and external factors significantly hindered the national movement from establishing itself on a narrowly “national” basis during its founding process. In addition to the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal struggle that was emphasized at every opportunity, the fact that it built its fundamental theoretical views and practical line on “the independence of Kurdistan” and, in doing so, sought to benefit from the democratic and socialist revolutionary experiences of other countries, leads us to this conclusion.

V. The Role of Socialist Influence in Shaping the PKK’s Fundamental Theoretical Views

After the 1970s, the movements organized in Turkey’s Kurdistan region with the perspective of an “Independent Kurdistan” essentially defined themselves as socialist. Again, in the ongoing struggle and fundamental division between Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) and modern revisionism on the international stage, these movements, including the PKK, were positioned predominantly close to modern revisionism. Although the PKK’s leading cadres directed some criticism at the socialist-masked bureaucratic bourgeoisie that seized power in Russia, they still viewed the USSR as socialist. They assessed this country’s approach to the Kurdish national question at the regional level as the stance of socialists towards the Kurdish question on the international stage.

Indeed, after the socialist-masked bureaucratic bourgeois dictatorships collapsed, most of these movements, primarily influenced by modern revisionism, such as the PKK, instead of adopting a self-critical stance in the face of their misguided assessments, began to criticize scientific socialism based on the crimes committed by these socialist-masked bureaucratic bourgeoisie against the international proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the world for years. Today, all the definitions and concepts marketed in the bourgeois arsenal, such as “Stalinism,” “real socialism,” “democratic socialism,” etc., are based on this false and inadequate understanding.

Of course, in pointing out these facts, we are not claiming that there were or will be no mistakes in socialist practices. Our main objection here is to the counterattack launched against scientific socialism and communism as a whole, using weapons borrowed from the bourgeois arsenal, based on the bourgeoisie, now wearing socialist masks, seizing power in the ongoing class struggle within the socialist system. It is to the attempts to adapt socialism to their own narrow “national” horizons. It is the “socialist” understanding that envisions coexisting ‘peacefully’ with the capitalist-imperialist system. Moreover, it is the need to place a “democratic” concept before socialism, as if socialism were incompatible with true democracy and lacked the nature of a libertarian system for the oppressed, especially the working class. Moreover, all these attacks on the revolutionary legacy and socialism are being carried out at a time when capitalist-imperialist barbarism, which is devastating and impoverishing our planet to the point of making it uninhabitable, reigns supreme.

The following assessments in A. Öcalan’s latest call concretely reveal the ideological  influence  of  socialist-masked  bureaucratic  bourgeoisie  on  the PKK: “Has the freedom solution been achieved? No. The Kurdish existence has been proven, it has attained ideological and organizational consciousness, but there has been a blockage in the step towards liberation. Behind this blockage lies real socialist ideology and its effects. Socialism seized state power in many parts of the world in the 20th century and came to dominate one-third of the world. But it could not survive; it collapsed. This was reflected in a crisis for us as well. Real socialism collapsed, we remained standing, but we experienced a major crisis. Real socialism collapsed because it could not overcome its theoretical impasses and did not develop its libertarian socialism; it is difficult to emerge from an ideological crisis. The ideological argumentation we relied on has collapsed. What conceptual framework, what sociological analysis will you rely on? Real socialism had collapsed, little remained, and while maintaining my belief in socialism by trial and error, I had made an assessment that ‘insisting on socialism is insisting on being human’. I preserved my belief in socialism, my commitment to it, and entered into a struggle to transform this into consciousness. Those were difficult, turbulent years…“ (A. Öcalan, ”Perspective,” Serxwebûn, issue 521)

Of course, it was not socialism that collapsed, but socialist-masked bureaucratic bourgeois dictatorships. MLM is a science. It is the worldview of the proletariat. Linking it to modern revisionism, reconciling it with the anti- communist bourgeois ideology of the revisionists, is unacceptable.

Returning to our main topic, the PKK is a movement influenced by socialism in its founding process. And its fundamental theoretical views have been shaped along a national revolutionary line. All of its practices, such as the struggle it waged against certain Kurdish feudalists during its founding process and its determination to pursue its stated aims and objectives, point to the truth of this reality. But despite all this, it is not the socialist perspective that has left its mark on the main line of the Kurdish national movement, but the nationalism of the oppressed Kurdish nation. As we stated at the outset, the PKK has attempted to adapt socialism to the Kurdish national struggle. In doing so, it has not ignored the experiences of democratic and socialist revolutions around the world. We see all these realities in the following assessments made by the PKK during its founding process:

“The national oppression that has continuously developed and strengthened throughout history, and which today has materialized in the form of capitalist Turkish colonialism, reveals that the first stage of the Kurdistan revolution will develop in a national direction. Without resolving national oppression, none of the country’s problems can be solved. The main contradiction in our country is national in nature, and the resolution of all other contradictions depends on the resolution of this contradiction… A contradiction that will be resolved in conjunction   with   and   dependent   on   the   national  contradiction   is  the contradiction between the people and the feudal-comprador class… Due to the concrete historical conditions of Kurdistan, national and feudal oppression are so intertwined that it is impossible to separate them and put distance between them… Therefore, it is wrong to distance the national and democratic aspects of the Kurdistan Revolution from each other, to separate the resolution of the national and democratic aspects into different periods. The intertwining of national and class oppression in the revolution leads us to see the struggle against national and class oppression as a whole… With these characteristics, the Kurdistan Revolution is a national democratic revolution… After the national democratic revolution, the transition to the socialist revolution is seamless… The Kurdistan Revolution primarily targets Turkish colonialism… The only correct path in the struggle against imperialism and fascism is the struggle against Turkish colonialism, which draws strength from both and combines the interests of both. The tasks of the Kurdistan Revolution, stemming from its characteristics and objectives, envisage the creation of an Independent and Democratic Kurdistan. Creating an independent Kurdistan… is possible by eliminating cultural and political colonialism and military occupation… Creating a democratic Kurdistan, on the other hand, depends on the elimination of the heavy feudal comprador pressures on the social structure of Kurdistan. Fulfilling our duties against the oppression and exploitation in these two interconnected areas is only possible through the organization of a national liberation front guided by scientific socialism and a strong people’s army  fighting  under  this  front. Within  the  context  of  the  content  and development of the party, front, and army organizations, mass organizations of workers, peasants, artisans, youth, and women must be created.” (Quoted by İbrahim Cihan, The Path of the Kurdistan Revolution-Manifesto, pp. 234-238.)

As can be easily seen from the above assessments, the PKK’s fundamental theoretical views were shaped by learning from and being influenced by the practical experiences of the Chinese revolution. Anyone familiar with the general history of the Chinese Revolution, particularly Chairman Mao’s analysis of the relationship between the National and Democratic Revolutions, the transition from democratic revolution to socialism, revolutionary violence, the building of the party, army, and front, etc., will readily see the extent of this influence. This is quite understandable. Because Mao’s general theses on China, which had a semi-colonial, semi-feudal economic structure, also have a universal  character.  Therefore,  it  is  only  natural  for  revolutionary  and communist forces in countries with this economic and political structure, or with similar characteristics, to learn from these historical experiences in the social and national liberation struggles carried out in those countries. The real issue here is to transform this learning process into creative practice without falling into dogmatism.

Undoubtedly, the limitation of national-national revolutionary movements, which lack an international proletarian character, in this learning process is confined to a national perspective. We can also describe this situation as an attempt to adapt the proletarian internationalist perspective to a narrow “nationalist” bourgeois nationalist understanding.

While making these general assessments, without ignoring the influence of external conditions, we must also clearly highlight the following distinctive and revolutionary approaches of the PKK movement.

First, the PKK movement has adopted revolutionary force as a principle from the outset in its war against the fascist Turkish state. The guerrilla war it launched in 1984 is also a result of this understanding. The PKK’s determined stance, creatively applying guerrilla warfare to the Kurdish geography, has led to the development of national consciousness not only in Turkish Kurdistan but throughout the Kurdish geography as a whole.

Secondly, the PKK’s determined struggle has also paved the way for the liberation of Kurdish women. In a region like the Middle East, where bourgeois- feudal ideas permeate every aspect of life, the role of this revolutionary transformation  cannot  be  underestimated.  Again,  the  role  of  socialist influence in all these revolutionary transformations must also be recognized.

Thirdly, since its inception, the PKK has relied primarily on the poor Kurdish peasantry and youth, that is, the poorest and most working-class segments of the Kurdish nation. This stance has led the national movement into fierce struggle with feudal forces in many areas. As the struggle developed and the movement gained mass dimensions, the Kurdish bourgeoisie and middle classes began to become more visible and influential in the practical arena. It is not surprising that such changes occur in a movement that is ideologically and politically positioned along national rather than class lines. Another unsurprising reality is the deviations these changes will create in the aims and objectives of national movements.

VI. The Program Declared by the PKK at Its Founding Is a National Revolutionary Program

The PKK was founded as a small-bourgeois nationalist revolutionary organization by Kurdish students, intellectuals, semi-proletarians, and peasants, who were to some extent influenced by the rapid spread and development of revolutionary, Marxist ideas in Turkey at the time.

Following its founding in 1978, the PKK adopted a national revolutionary line, articulating its views in its “The Path of the Kurdistan Revolution” strategy. It is useful to look at what the PKK said in 1978 to see the difference between its views in the early years of struggle and the views expressed by Abdullah Öcalan in his “Democratic Society” call on February 27, 2025.

In 1978, the PKK stated: “Another important phenomenon that emerged during the period of free market capitalism was the development of the working class movement and its acquisition of a scientific doctrine. Scientific socialism, which was systematized into a worldview by K. Marx and F. Engels, is the highest synthesis of the positive aspects of human culture developed up to that point… This doctrine, which proves the inevitability of socialism, is a powerful guide for action on the path to liberation for the working class and the peoples of the world…” (A. Öcalan, The Path of Revolution in Kurdistan-Manifesto, Weşanen Serxwebun 24, Fifth Edition; June 1993, pp. 44 and 45)

In the Manifesto, A. Öcalan conveys the international significance of the October Revolution and the characteristics of our era from Comrade Stalin, stating his agreement with him as follows: “In these developments, which are the main characteristics of our era, the impact of the October Revolution will continue until the world revolution is completed.”(PKK Program, pp. 4 and 5, quoted by A. Öcalan, ibid., p. 47)

Again, in the Manifesto, A. Öcalan makes the following assessment: “The international significance of the October Revolution can be summarized as follows: First, it opened a new era, the era of proletarian revolutions,” and makes a “determination of the era.” (ibid., pp. 46-47)

Later in the Manifesto, he uses the phrase “scientific socialism, the only consistent revolutionary current of our era.” (ibid., p. 59)

A.Öcalan’s approach to “democratic politics,” which he has declared as the ‘solution’ to the Kurdish national question at this stage, and his assessment of it from the perspective of Turkish Kurdistan are explained in the following statements: “All of this is a hundred times more true for Kurdistan. Despite these realities, under and within the political colonialism of the Turkish bourgeoisie, which pits our people against each other, constantly increases feudal comprador oppression, and wants to pass off its bloody despotism as ‘democracy,’ those who can call the struggle to send ‘national’ candidates to parliament   a   ‘democratic   struggle’   and   who   present   themselves   as ‘democratic,’ ‘patriotic,‘ and even ‘socialist’ are worthy of these sacred titles. national’   candidates   to   parliament,   and   those   who   call   themselves ‘democratic’, ‘patriotic’ or even ‘socialist’ can hardly be worthy of these sacred titles – we repeat – they can only be lackeys of Turkish colonialism. Unless they are directed against political colonialism and aim to eliminate colonialism in all its forms, none of these types of struggles are democratic, whether at the association or party level in Kurdistan, whether conducted secretly or openly. Democratic struggle is impossible within the machinery of a government developed on the basis of destroying a people, even in professional organizations. Of course, if we do not call the entry of the biggest feudal compradors into the Grand National Assembly democratic; of course, if we do not call the Republic of Turkey, which does not carry a shred of bourgeois democracy in its essence, democratic; this is how it is.” (ibid, p. 113)

And  again, “…  This  colonialism  is supported by imperialists externally  and feudal compradors internally. This power, which is bound together by very tight economic ties, constitutes the targets of the Kurdistan revolution. A movement that does not develop against Turkish colonialism, along with its internal and external supporters, cannot claim to be revolutionary in Kurdistan…” (ibid., p. 121)

A.Öcalan states that the basis for democratic politics is that “creating a democratic Kurdistan depends on the elimination of the heavy feudal comprador oppression on the social structure of Kurdistan…” (ibid., p. 121).

It is noteworthy that the PKK’s founding manifesto refers to the idea of “living together in peace”: “…But not the revisionists and reformists. They claim that they can create a new world by agreeing with the bourgeoisie’s reactionary force, a new path of ‘social progress in peace’. They may claim this, but the world they will create is the corrupt world of the bourgeoisie, which has long since passed its prime. Again, they say that they can take power from the bourgeoisie   by   increasing   the   number   of   parliamentarians,   ministers, undersecretaries, general managers, and generals piece by piece, without fighting against monopolies and without waging a tooth-and-nail struggle against colonialism. They can, but on one condition: that they themselves become servants of the bourgeoisie, that they serve the bourgeoisie…“ (ibid, p. 124)

The Manifesto’s approach to reforms is assessed with the following statements: ”The distinctive feature of reforms in the imperialist era is that they play a role as a tool in preventing peoples from achieving full independence. As national liberation movements move towards full independence, it is a fact proven hundreds of times in practice that imperialism and colonialists can secretly mobilize their collaborators, trying to pacify the masses by introducing certain reforms through collusion. This is the case in Palestine and Rhodesia, for example. But it is also true that revolutionaries reject reforms outright. In the national liberation movement, all tendencies other than independence are reformist. Every reformist tendency is essentially the tendency of those who are materially tied to imperialism, colonialism, and local reactionaries.(ibid, pp. 61-62)

The  Manifesto  evaluates  the  Turkish  Republic  with  the  following statements: “The current political formation of Turkish capitalism, which has developed in dependence on imperialism from its inception to the present day, is an oligarchic state that uses ‘liberal’ fascist hybrid governments as a mask for bourgeois parliamentarianism, formed by an alliance of the most powerful industrial and financial elements of the collaborationist monopoly bourgeoisie, the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, and the large landowners, in proportion to their power.” (ibid., p. 61-62) -in proportion to their power- forming a bourgeois parliamentary system that serves as a mask for ‘liberal’ fascist hybrid governments.” (ibid., p. 81)

Finally, A. Öcalan’s statements regarding the “solution” to the Kurdish national question today, which he rejects, and his views on the path to a real solution are   as   follows: “On   this   issue,   the   solutions   proposed   by   both   the ‘revolutionaries’  of  the  oppressor  nation  and  the  ‘revolutionaries’  of  the oppressed   nation,   who   differ   in   nuance   but   are   of   the   same   mind ‘revolutionaries’ of the oppressed nation, who are on the same wavelength but with   different   nuances,   are   reactionary   and   contradict   the   thesis   of ‘independent state’, which is the only correct interpretation of the Right of Nations to Self-Determination today. An independent state is the only correct thesis under current conditions, and because it is correct, it is a revolutionary thesis. Other theses and solutions are reformist because they do not touch on state borders, and because they are reformist, they are reactionary theses.”(ibid, p. 128)

VII. The Transformations Achieved by the PKK in the Kurdish Nation

A) Transformation in National Consciousness

It must be acknowledged that the PKK enabled a people who had been ignored, whose existence had been denied, who had been subjected to annihilation attacks at every opportunity, who were unorganized and whose will had been broken, to rise again.

It overturned a reality in which, as a result of massacres, genocide, deportation, and intense Turkification attacks, not only was the existence of the Kurds as a nation denied, but even their very existence was attempted to be erased. To put it bluntly, it expressed the national awakening and rise of a people who said, “I am Kurdish, but I am Turkish.”

Let alone the Kurds proudly and enthusiastically proclaiming their identity, a reality was created in which even some non-Kurds claimed to be Kurdish. The Kurds gained a significant degree of organized national identity. They gained representation, will, and a voice in every area of life and struggle. They created a visible, vibrant, resilient color of life and struggle in every field, emerging from invisibility. They introduced the Kurdish language and culture, art and literature, cinema and theater to the world. They created countless important values and works, drawing the interest and attention of all segments of society.

They opened countless academies, education, and cultural centers, not only in Turkish Kurdistan but especially in Rojava. They became pioneers of cultural transformation. They created opportunities for the Kurdish community, as well as the Arab, Circassian, Turkmen, Syriac, Armenian, Assyrian, and Yazidi peoples, to live, work, and study together freely. The revolutionary democratic system created by the Kurds in all areas set an example for all segments of society living in Rojava.

Other peoples living in Rojava besides the Kurds experienced significant revolutionary changes. Organizations were created in Rojava with a sense of common defense and protection. Thanks to the Kurdish movement, Arabs, Syriacs, Armenians, and Assyrians organized their own military organizations and councils. They created their social organizations.

The gains and changes created in Rojava had a significant revolutionary impact not only on the people of the region but also on Western European youth and women in particular. It restored international solidarity, ownership, and the consciousness and tendency to struggle to a material force. Opportunities were offered not only to the Kurdish people but also to the peoples of the region, Turkish and international revolutionaries.

B) Women’s Participation in the National Struggle

Kurdish women, confined to their homes, denied their rights and freedoms, without identity, voice, or action, invisible, shattered this reality through the Kurdish national struggle and created a free, conscious Kurdish female identity. By creating various women’s organizations in all areas, a reality of Kurdish women seeking their rights and fighting emerged. A respectable, accepted, and exemplary female identity and organizations were created not only for Kurdish women but for all oppressed women. Kurdish women’s organizations were created in the military, social, political, and cultural spheres, and women leaders with high representational power emerged in all areas.

The PKK’s approach had an impact not only on the peoples of the Middle East but also on women seeking freedom internationally. Many internationalist women’s organizations were influenced by the Kurdish women’s movement. They took steps to create their own organizations in their respective fields.

Kurdish women awakened on the basis of national revolutionary consciousness as never before in their history. Kurdish women, who had been asleep, whose identity had been ignored, who had no place, voice, or will in society and the family, who had difficulty breathing under all kinds of feudal, religious, and male oppression, became the owners and subjects of an awakening alongside the Kurdish national liberation movement.

Kurdish women, who initially organized in the guerrilla field and began to participate in military activities, were heavily oppressed under male- dominated ideology and were kept behind and assigned to rear positions. Kurdish women were organized within the guerrilla, but their place, voice, and will were weak and in the background.

However, women began to become active subjects by waging a great struggle against both their comrades with whom they fought shoulder to shoulder in the guerrilla and against traditional-feudal-reactionary ideology and mentality, putting up countless acts of resistance and creating their own women’s defense military organization.

The initial organization, development, and subjectification of Kurdish women into commanders took place within military work. As a result of the development and success achieved in the military sphere, a similar line of development was developed and expanded in the social sphere, in the administrative, cultural, and press fields. The slogan “Jin Jiyan Azadi” became the dynamic force behind the development of the Kurdish women’s reality. The development of Kurdish women in a fedai style has made them undisputed pioneers and leaders in the military, political, social, cultural, artistic, press, publishing, and administrative fields. As we emphasized above, this development was certainly not easy.

VIII. The PKK’s Gains and Losses in the “Ceasefire Processes”

The Kurdish national liberation struggle has been deficient and inadequate in organizing its own development alongside the working class and people of Turkey. If it had been able to combine and organize its fundamental rights and freedoms more strongly with Turkey’s democratic struggle, and if its just and legitimate struggle had found a response in the “West,” it would not have resorted to deadlock and “ceasefire-peace” negotiations so frequently and would have achieved the results it sought more quickly.

A second reason for the Kurdish national liberation movement’s deadlock is the repetition it has fallen into in the guerrilla war and its failure to carry this war to the “West.” Each repetition must be read as a step toward stagnation and regression in the process.

The Turkish army’s emphasis on technology and its use, and the superiority it has achieved, albeit temporarily, should be seen as a result of gaining territorial control, narrowing the guerrillas’ freedom of movement, and causing them to begin to lose their initiative and superiority in striking blows against the enemy. In recent years, the guerrilla’s losses due to the effective use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) over a wide area must be seen as a serious cause of stagnation. The guerrilla did not surrender control of the area to the enemy by using the Media Defense Zones in depth and breadth. However, it could not achieve the same success in Turkish Kurdistan.

The erosion of the PKK’s guerrilla initiative and superiority in the T.Kurdistan region and the gradual loss of its moral superiority and mass support as a result of the blows it received from the enemy should be seen as another reason for the deadlock. The enemy gained moral superiority by increasing its control over the area and terrain and striking blows against the guerrillas. During the years and periods when the PKK declared a ceasefire and withdrew its forces, the Turkish state began to gain more control over the battlefields.

The failure of the revolutionary movement in Turkey to correctly assess the national question or to apply its correct assessments in the field, along with the effects of chauvinism, the weakness and fragmentation of the movement, and its failure to provide sufficient and necessary support to the Kurdish national liberation movement, particularly the inability of the revolutionary war to take hold in the Central and Western Black Sea regions, and, overall, its failure to carry the war to the “West” to a certain extent, should be listed among the reasons for this impasse.

a) The First Fracture in the PKK

In the early 1990s, the collapse of modern revisionist rule and the fall of the USSR led to a wave of internal purges around the world, accompanied by cries of “farewell proletariat.” A counter-wind began to blow, proclaiming that the era of revolutions was over and that a process of so-called “democracy” had begun. Propaganda proclaimed that “the class struggle is over” and “the end of history has come.” The reversal from socialism and the successive collapse of countries that had long used socialism as a mask led to a fracture and distrust in the belief in socialism and hope for revolution, causing serious turmoil. This wind of liberalism blowing within the existing order pushed many guerrilla organizations in Latin America away from the ground of armed struggle and onto the ground of parliamentary politics within the existing order.

The Kurdish national liberation movement was also affected by this wind of anti-socialism and anti-revolution. It took steps away not only from the revolutionary theory of MLM, which it called “real socialism,” but also from the symbols of MLM. For example, it removed the sickle and hammer from the PKK flag and began to use the Kurdish national colors symbolized by a yellow star. In this way, the PKK put not only a theoretical but also a formal distance between itself and Marxism-Leninism. In line with these steps and in search of a political solution, the PKK made efforts to “find a counterpart.” And from 1993 to the present, it has not taken a step back from this line. The PKK, which evolved from the idea of armed liberation to the idea of a political solution, has carried this line to the present day. In this regard, it has followed a “consistent line” within itself.

The Turkish state, as expected, approached all ceasefires and peace processes with deceit. Developments in the Middle East and around the world played a decisive role in determining the tactical and strategic orientation of the Turkish state’s approach to the Kurdish national question.

b) The 1993 Ceasefire

The Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq, acting under the guidance and protection of the Turkish state, has repeatedly attacked PKK forces. In these attacks — often described as a fratricidal conflict — the PKK suffered heavy losses. In 1992, the Turkish state, through the Turgut Özal government, persuaded the KDP and YNK, which were dominant in Iraqi Kurdistan, to launch attacks against the PKK. The attacks lasted for about a month and a half, resulting in mutual losses. However, the Turkish state did not get what it wanted from the KDP and YNK. It was rendered ineffective in the face of the guerrillas’ resistance. The PKK tactically withdrew its forces towards Zelé and the Turkey border.

The Turgut Özal government, having failed in this war, put another policy on the agenda. It brought YNK President Jalal Talabani into the picture and asked him to convince Abdullah Öcalan to declare a ceasefire. These talks bore fruit, and finally, on March 19, 1993, A. Öcalan announced the first ceasefire in PKK history to the Turkish and international public at a press conference in Bekaa, attended by YNK leader Jalal Talabani.

Although Turgut Özal stated that “the Kurds would be granted certain rights, but first the guns must fall silent,” he took no action. In response, the PKK once again demonstrated its “goodwill” by announcing at a press conference in Bekaa on April 15, 1993, that it was extending the unilateral ceasefire for another month. The process did not progress, and shortly thereafter, the ceasefire ended on its own.

The claim that T. Özal was killed because he made a ceasefire with the PKK and “reconciled with terrorism” is still debated by the PKK and, to some extent, the Turkish public. T. Özal’s death partially changed the balance of power in Turkey. Tansu Çiller and her team became figures in a process that would lead to much darker years.

The PKK did not only sit at the table with the Turkish state. It also sat at the table with regional powers from time to time, and mutual ceasefires were declared. The Turkish state never accepted the PKK’s position in Iraqi Kurdistan. Iraqi Kurdistan was seen by the Turkish state as a place where actions were planned, where the PKK grew stronger, and where it took root among the Kurds. For this reason, while preparing to launch a new attack through the KDP and YNK by convincing the US and the UK, the PKK thwarted the Turkish state’s attack preparations on August 26, 1995. The PKK, which was at war with the KDP, ended the ongoing war with a ceasefire. The PKK’s efforts, which also declared a ceasefire against the Turkish state, were in vain. On May 6, 1996, the unilateral ceasefire also ended with the assassination attempt on A.Öcalan in Syria by counter forces under the command of Tansu Çiller.

In 1998, Necmettin Erbakan was prime minister. N. Erbakan also made efforts to get the PKK to declare a unilateral ceasefire. He knew that the path to the “stability” of his own government lay in the Kurds giving up the war and being brought into the fold. To this end, “Turkey indirectly conveyed to the PKK the proposal that a mechanism should be created to develop the ceasefire process and that the Kurdish and Turkish public should be prepared for peace.” The PKK declared a unilateral ceasefire on September 1, 1998, adhering to the roadmap conveyed by N. Erbakan’s government. However, the fate of this ceasefire was no different from the others.

c) The Second Fracture in the PKK

The presence of PKK leader A. Öcalan in Syria constantly disturbed and alarmed the Turkish state. Claiming that PKK actions were planned from Syria, the Turkish state threatened to wage war on Syria, taking advantage of the changing balances in the Middle East and the opportunity that arose in its favor. Under pressure from the US and other Western imperialist powers, they demanded that A. Öcalan be expelled from Syria. A. Öcalan was forced to leave Syria on October 9, 1998. Turning his face not to the mountains but to Western Europe for “diplomatic talks,” A. Öcalan was taken to Kenya on the grounds that there were no conditions for him to stay in Italy and Greece, and on February 15, 1999, he was abducted from Kenya and handed over to Turkey. It was alleged that the US intelligence agency CIA and the Israeli intelligence agency MOSSAD played a role in A. Öcalan’s handover to Turkey as a result of a conspiracy.

After A. Öcalan’s extradition to Turkey, the PKK held its 6th Congress, announced the end of its unilateral ceasefire, and declared an all-out war against the Turkish state. Following this congress, the PKK made significant progress in its armed struggle. It dealt major blows to the Turkish state through mass actions and guerrilla attacks both inside and outside the country.

During the period when A. Öcalan was captured, a coalition government consisting of the DSP, ANAP, and MHP was in power in Turkey. The decisive role played by US imperialism in A. Öcalan’s extradition to Turkey can be seen in the words of then Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit: “We do not understand why the US handed Apo over to us.” Later, the US announced to the public that it had handed Öcalan over to the Turkish state on the condition that he would not be executed.

On September 1, 1999, while imprisoned in Imralı Prison, Öcalan declared a fourth ceasefire in the hope of “establishing peace.” Along with his call for a ceasefire, A. Öcalan also called for the guerrillas to leave the country’s borders. The PKK expanded the scope of this slightly, ensuring that a group of 20 guerrillas came to Turkey, laid down their arms, and surrendered. The coalition government announced that it would “not attack as long as this remained the case,” creating public opinion and making plans to strategically finish off the PKK.

These unilateral ceasefires led to the PKK’s decision to disband on April 10, 2002, which we will discuss in detail below, the cancellation of the ceasefire in 2004, the “Kurdish opening” process in 2010, and the situation today.

d) The Call for a “Democratic Society” Is Not New

The views expressed by A. Öcalan in his “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society” written on February 27, 2025, are not views he is expressing for the first time. It can be said that all the views expressed by A. Öcalan in his call on February 27, 2025, are a summary of the views he has systematically defended and synthesized from 1999 to 2025, with some nuances.

Indeed, at its 7th Extraordinary Congress, the PKK also made a call for peace with the Turkish state through an approach it called the “Democratic Peace Project” and continued its search for dialogue with Turkey. The following statements regarding the PKK’s pursuit of peace and its line of reconciliation are  sufficient: “Indeed,  in  accordance  with  the  ‘Democratic  Peace  Project’ adopted at the PKK’s 7th Extraordinary Congress, it continued its calls for peace and its search for dialogue on various dates and presented projects. These projects include: the Peace Project on January 20, 2000; the Emergency Action Plan for Democracy and Peace on November 4, 2000; a statement of urgent demands on June 19, 2001, to prevent a new war from becoming an agenda item and to advance the resolution process; the Urgent Solution Declaration on November 22, 2002, and letters sent twice, at the beginning of 2000 and the end of 2002, to the President, the Speaker of Parliament, the Prime Minister, the Chief of General Staff, and all political parties, setting out their thoughts on the  solution  to  the  Kurdish  issue. (Amed  Dicle,  PKK’s  Dialectic  of  Peace, Democratic Modernity, June 10, 2013, demokratikmodernite.org )

Therefore, this is not the first time the PKK has called for peace and reconciliation. What is different is that the Turkish state, particularly due to developments in the Middle East, responded to Öcalan’s call and initiated a process in line with its own interests.

On the other hand, just as with its efforts for peace and reconciliation, the PKK is not dissolving itself for the first time. It should be noted that the PKK has dissolved itself before and moved on to other organizations.

e) The PKK’s Self-Dissolution Processes

In the early general election held in Turkey on November 3, 2002, the AKP won a significant portion of the votes—including Kurdish votes—due to the public’s reaction to the economic crisis, bans, and corruption of the 57th Ecevit Government, thereby gaining the right to form a government. By winning 34.3% of the votes and securing 363 seats in parliament, it gained the right to form a government on its own. As part of the propaganda known as ‘3Y’ – AKP’s election promise to end bans, corruption, and poverty– the impression was  also  created  that  the  Kurdish  issue  would  be  resolved  throug ‘democratic means.’  With this perception, the AKP won at least three general elections by also securing Kurdish votes.

Shortly before the AKP came to power, following A. Öcalan’s call in 2002, the PKK dissolved itself at its 8th Congress on April 4-10, 2002, and replaced it with the Kongreya Azadî û Demokrasiya Kurdistanê-Kurdistan Democratic Freedom Congress (Kurdistan Democratic Freedom Congress) on April 2, 2003. Congress on April 4-10, 2002, and announced that it had dissolved itself and replaced it with the Kongreya Azadî û Demokrasiya Kurdistanê-Kurdistan Democratic Freedom Congress (KADEK) on April 2, 2003. (Cihan Bilgin, “45 years of struggle that     changed     the     course     of     history,”     ANHA,     November     27, 2023, hawarnews.com)

KADEK adopted a program that sought to resolve the Kurdish national question through more peaceful means. KADEK defined this peaceful path, which it adopted in 2003, as a “three-stage roadmap.” The first stage of this roadmap was to transform the unilateral ceasefire into a bilateral ceasefire; the second stage was the official recognition of the Kurds; and the third stage was the release of A. Öcalan. This three-stage “peace” plan announced by KADEK was not implemented.

The PKK’s dissolution at its 8th Congress and the establishment of KADEK were justified with the following assessments: “The formation of KADEK represents the creation of a new identity and renaming in the history of the development of the Apocu movement. This was not just a name change; it truly represented a reorganization at the international and regional levels based on the major developments that emerged from the struggle waged in Kurdistan under the name PKK. KADEK became a new organization that differed from the PKK in every respect. Of course, not everything changed; in many ways, the essence of the movement was preserved, developed, and deepened, but in many respects, new approaches emerged that could not be compared to the PKK.

(…)

KADEK abandoned many outdated ideas and developed a new system of thought, thereby bringing about a significant ideological renewal. KADEK represents a new program. The PKK had a program developed for Northern Kurdistan. It viewed Turkey and the other parts of Kurdistan as strategic allies; KADEK, however, envisions a democratic revolution and transformation in the Middle East. It is based on democratic change and freedom-oriented development in the Middle East. In this sense, it envisaged the democratic change and democratic unity of the Middle East as the path to change, development, and a democratic solution to the Kurdish question in Kurdistan. It arrived at a political program to achieve this. It developed strategic change, creating changes in the balance of power, relations, leadership, and alliances. It envisions change in the fundamental form of struggle. While the PKK is an organization formed on the line of armed struggle, KADEK is a struggle formed on the basis of democratic uprising, shaped by democratic political struggle. It changed the fundamental form of struggle in this respect. The organizational structure is also changing. Many organizations are organizing in different areas, according to the conditions of those areas, in order to implement the new strategy.” (PKK 8th Congress, December 2022, Serxwebun, p. 4)

While the PKK put in place the tools appropriate to the “peace” strategy it developed after 1999, one of the tactics it resorted to was to continue the process by establishing various organizations. However, the problem here is not to dissolve the organization and establish a new one, but to look for the problem in the state’s approach to the issue and its unwillingness to “solve” the Kurdish problem.

The Turkish state viewed the PKK’s call for “peace” as a sign of weakness and intensified its attacks. KADEK therefore added the warning “if the Turkish state does not accept this roadmap, war will ensue” to its roadmap. The PKK’s prediction came true, and the Turkish state accelerated its attacks. Finally, “the People’s Defense Forces (HPG) announced on 1 June 2004 that they were ending the unilateral ceasefire and would begin exercising their right to retaliation. This phase led to the conclusion that any meaningful ceasefire had to be reciprocal. As a result, the guerrilla forces adopted a position based on legitimate self-defense and declared their right to respond to attacks. This marked the effective end of the ceasefire that had been in place since 1 September 1999.” (Gülistan Cihan, Ceasefire Processes and Their Outcomes- VIII, Behdinan, April 3, 2025, anf-news.com)

When the PKK failed to make much progress after the establishment of KADEK, it must have seen the problem in the names of the organizations, because this time, as a new “peace” initiative, it brought Koma Komalên Kurdistan (KKK) into  the  picture: “Recognizing  Turkey’s  deepening  political  impasse,  the Kurdistan Communities Union (Koma Komalên Kurdistan, KKK) introduced a new peace proposal composed of ten points. the KKK also presented six of these points—those it described as the most reasonable and closest to a resolution— as the basis for its decision to declare a ceasefire.” (Gülistan Cihan, Ceasefire Processes and Their Outcomes-VIII, Behdinan, April 3, 2025, anf-news.com)

The KKK’s main demands included a mutual ceasefire, the removal of obstacles to organization, and the lifting of isolation on A. Öcalan. KADEK announced that it had changed its name to the Kurdistan People’s Congress (KONGRA-GEL) in 2004. Consequently, in 2005, it established the Koma Civakên Kurdistanê (KCK: Kurdistan Communities Union). The PKK describes this process as follows in its Second Extraordinary Congress: “Following a comprehensive preparatory discussion based on President Apo’s instructions and perspectives, the Second Extraordinary KONGRA-GEL General Assembly Meeting was held between May 16 and 26, with the participation of 278 delegates and nearly 200 listeners, in the form of parallel meetings held in Europe and the Media Defense Zone. (…) With the reflection of these problems, which caused serious concern and debate among the people and in our cadre structure, the Leadership intervened in the problem; it called for unity among comrades who were on the side it defined as right-wing surrender and left-wing suicide, and tasked the newly formed PKK Reconstruction Committee with intervening in the process and ensuring recovery. (…) The basic tactic of our new strategy was defined as democratic uprising. Although decisions were made in many meetings and conferences regarding the development of the uprising, its practical implementation remained very weak, and it failed to create organization.

The non-state democracy envisioned by the new paradigm is an expression of the people’s organized and active stance. Democratization is the people’s awareness of their rights, their organization for this purpose, and their action. Despite the role of such actions, no organization has been created. Inadequate and narrow approaches to the uprising have deprived the organization and the people of their fundamental tactics and struggle. Apart from actions limited to certain days and nighttime actions developed by young people, no serious action has been developed; some of the actions that were developed could not be sustained, and a wealth of action could not be achieved. The fundamental reason for this is that, in addition to the people’s national democratic demands, there has been no work on education, organization, and the search for solutions to their social and economic problems, and the struggle has been limited to the masses won over by the war, resulting in actions that are weak in both quantity and quality. Thus, although mass action campaigns have been developed in recent years, creating a certain liveliness and mass mobilization, they have been insufficient in creating a democratic solution.” (II. Extraordinary KONGRA-GEL Congress, June 4, 2004, Serxwebun, pp. 6-7)

From the 2nd Extraordinary Kongra-Gel Congress until it declared a ceasefire on April 13, 2009, the PKK carried out over 100 armed actions, dealing major blows to the Turkish state. While the Turkish state had been propagating that “we have finished them off, only a few activists remain,” the PKK carried out action after action, turning this propaganda on its head. In the national struggle, which enjoyed massive popular support, the wave of guerrilla and popular actions was once again broken by A. Öcalan’s call for a ceasefire.

The breaking point of this ceasefire process was A. Öcalan’s insistence on the ceasefire despite the state taking no action. A. Öcalan ensured that the “three peace groups” came and surrendered with their weapons as a guarantee to the state. The “peace group” coming from Western Europe was blocked by the Turkish state. Lawsuits were filed against the 34-member “peace group” coming from Kandil and Maxmûr, and some were arrested. Some members of the group, seeing that they could not stay in Turkey, returned to Kandil and Maxmûr.

A.Öcalan never abandoned his ceasefire strategy. He was persistent and reiterated this at every opportunity. Although the organization’s stance on these ceasefires and whether the general approach of the people was taken into account were occasionally debated, the decisions made by A. Öcalan were accepted as “the will of the leadership” and implemented.

A.Öcalan must have seen the state’s stalling tactics, because on May 31, 2010, he announced that he was “stepping down.” Claiming that “the AKP was stalling them and not responding to all their initiatives,” he announced that he would no longer take “responsibility.” ” The KCK declared on 1 June 2010 that both their leadership and Öcalan’s efforts toward peace and a democratic solution had been deliberately obstructed by the AKP. As a result, the KCK announced the end of the unilateral non-engagement decision declared on 13 April 2009 and stated that their forces would now adopt a position of active self-defense.” (Gülistan Cihan, Ceasefire Processes and Their Outcomes-VIII, Behdinan, April 3, 2025, anf-news.com)

With the end of the ceasefire, the guerrillas resumed their attacks. Major clashes ensued. The Turkish state, seemingly bewildered, attempted to continue the war. Its assessment of the ceasefire processes based on the thesis of the PKK’s weakness and exhaustion was the weak link of fascism. The PKK viewed the periods when it declared ceasefires as opportunities to regroup and establish a stronger position in various areas. The PKK’s tactical mistake, however, was placing too much trust in the state. It did not attach much importance to the meaninglessness of the warring power repeatedly declaring a unilateral “ceasefire.” As is the case today, it tried to explain this mistake by saying “we are ready for both war and peace,” but it became clear many times that this was not the case.

This misconception was repeated during the eighth ceasefire declared in 2010. While the Turkish state was reeling from the blows dealt by the guerrillas, PKK announced a 40-day ceasefire at the request of some NGOs, BDP, and DTK. It is known that A. Öcalan decided on the ceasefire. The KCK explained this ceasefire as follows: “Öcalan has made clear that his stance remains aligned with the path of peace, and that he would be ready to intervene and play his role if a sincere and serious approach toward a resolution were to emerge. As a result of a renewed environment of dialogue, Öcalan has once again called on all sides to avoid allowing the conflict to reach an irreversible stage. For this purpose, he sent a message to the executive body of our movement.” (Gülistan Cihan, Ceasefire Processes and Their Outcomes -VIII, Behdinan, April 3, 2025, anf-news.com)

Responding to this call, the KCK declared a unilateral ceasefire but did not receive the response it expected.

In 2010, the AKP held a referendum on amending certain articles of the constitution and won with the support of those who said “not enough, but yes.” Then, in 2011, it consolidated its power with its success in the local elections and increased its attacks. The government began negotiations with A. Öcalan to sideline the Kurdish national struggle. The negotiations between the state and A. Öcalan yielded results, and A. Öcalan sent a message on Newroz 2013 calling for another ceasefire, initiating a process that would last until 2015.

During this process, talks between the PKK and the Turkish state continued in Oslo, Norway, without being disclosed to the public. The Turkish state showed that it was not sincere in these talks and was only continuing them to gain time by overturning the “peace table” set up in Dolmabahçe.

At its National Security Council meeting on October 30, 2014, the AKP decided to implement a “total destruction plan.” The revolution in Rojava had a major impact on this decision. The AKP government, which planned to crush the Rojava revolution in collaboration with ISIS, thus ended the “peace and ceasefire” process and launched its attack. “After the 2015 Newroz celebrations, President Erdoğan made his intentions clear, declaring: ‘There is no Dolmabahçe Agreement, no Imralı meetings—nothing at all,’ effectively signaling the return to war. Leading up to the 7 June general elections, attacks were launched against the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) rallies, buildings, and supporters in Çukurova, Diyarbakır (Amed), and the Black Sea region. On 20 July, the Suruç Massacre took place. These acts of violence were directly attributed to the AKP government. The gains made by the Kurdish movement in the June elections in Northern (Bakur) Kurdistan and the defeat of ISIS in Rojava prompted the Turkish state to act. On 24 July 2015, the AKP government officially ended the dialogue process and launched a full-scale war.

Later, on 10 October 2015, the PKK declared a unilateral ceasefire in an effort to ensure that the snap elections of 1 November could take place in a peaceful and secure atmosphere. However, the Turkish state responded to this ceasefire with further attacks.” (Gülistan Cihan, Ceasefire Processes and Their Outcomes-VIII, Behdinan, 3 April 2025, anf-news.com)

None of the “peace” initiatives put forward by the PKK since 1993 have been successful. As the Kurdish national movement’s guerrilla struggle, mass movements, uprisings, and civil disobedience actions developed, the ceasefire processes always served as a wave breaker.

The Turkish state has used all ceasefire periods as a means to cover its own shortcomings and inadequacies. The AKP government, which has resorted to various maneuvers to win over the Kurds in every period, has made attacking the Kurds its first move after winning elections. It has also removed elected mayors from office, carried out operations in the democratic sphere, and detained and arrested thousands of people.

f) The Next Step in the Fracture: The Imralı Trial

The world watched with great interest as the trial of A. Öcalan began on May 31, 1999, in Imralı, which was promoted as “the trial of the century.” It is true that this trial was one of the biggest political trials of the last century. The Imralı trial had even greater significance for the Kurdish nation. This is because it would reveal clues as to how the “29th Kurdish Uprising” would unfold alongside this trial.

A.Öcalan’s attitude and statements during the trial would coincide with his later defense, his statements to the public at various times, and even his call on February 27, 2025. In this respect, A. Öcalan has followed a consistent line from his own side, pushing for “negotiation” and ‘peace’ conditions with the Turkish state. In his defense, A. Öcalan argued that the Turkish state would become the leading country in the region by “solving” the Kurdish issue. To this end, he proposed that internal peace be established in Turkey. The following statements appear in A. Öcalan’s defense in the Imrali Trial: “When this most difficult problem in the history of the Republic is solved, it is certain that Turkey will gain the power to act as a leading country in the region with the strength it gains from its internal peace. The era of leadership in the Middle East will mean being influential from Central Asia to the Balkans and the Caucasus. The power of the democratic system to find solutions will also lead to the provision and demand for justified intervention and support in these regions, which are rife with many contradictions and problems, primarily peace. This will also lead to enrichment through the transfer of economic and cultural development. Turkey is entering the 2000s with this perspective. The Kurdish issue was  a  hindrance.“ (Abdullah  Öcalan,  quoted  from  his  1999 Defense  by  Sibel  Özbudun-Temel  Demirer,  ”Questions  of  the  (Un)New Paradigm”)

The Imralı trials were significant not only for Kurds and the revolutionary public, but also for the fascist Turkish state. Above all, the Turkish state had seized a moment it had been waiting for years and had captured what it considered to be the “leader of the rebellion.” Just as in the Kurdish uprisings led by Sheikh Sait and Seyit Rıza, the aim was to put an end to a Kurdish uprising in the person of A. Öcalan.

The Turkish state did not want to stop there. As a country that had been in the news for years with its torture, massacres, and disappearances, it planned to clean up its image with the Imrali trial. With the impression that the trial would be  quite  “democratic,”  the  TRC  sought  to  deceive  the  world  public  with propaganda that “all of A. Öcalan’s requests were met, he underwent daily medical examinations,” and even that “attention was paid to his meals.” However, it never succeeded in doing so.

With the Imrali trial, the Turkish state essentially wanted to convey to the masses the message that it was “powerful,” that “it was impossible to deal with it,” and that “it could not be destroyed.” To this end, it staged a show of force at Imrali.

A.Öcalan Chooses the Path of “Reconciliation”

During the trials, A. Öcalan did not adopt the political stance expected by the Kurdish patriotic public and revolutionary and democratic circles. Instead, he took a conciliatory stance toward the Turkish state in the Imralı trial, reiterating the views he had expressed in the 1990s. He dismissed criticism of his conciliatory stance toward the Turkish state as “crude resistance.” In the text “Defending a People,” which was compiled from the defense statement he submitted to the Imrali court, he defined his stance with the following words: “As much as crude resistance, cowardly submission was itself a stance I resisted.” (A. Öcalan, Defending a People, Çetin Publications, 2004, p. 7) With these words, A. Öcalan condemns the attitude of resistance against fascism, which he defines as “crude resistance,” argues that the rationale for this stance is that such an approach (crude resistance) would result in death, which would not  contribute  to  “Turkish-Kurdish  relations”: “At  this  very  point,  it  was expected that my surrender and subsequent death based on crude resistance would lead to a total collapse in Turkish-Kurdish relations. All the strings of the Kurdish movement would have been gathered in one hand.” (A. Öcalan, ibid, p. 495)

The problem was no longer just Abdullah Öcalan’s stance; it had become the PKK problem in general. From the outset, the PKK supported and elaborated on what A. Öcalan said. If A. Öcalan’s stance had not been supported, it would have been correct to evaluate the development and the stance presented as solely A. Öcalan’s stance. However, the issue had gone beyond this framework and had become the PKK’s stance.

Indeed,  in  its  statement  on  June  11,  1999,  the  PKK  Presidential  Council said: “Comrade A. Öcalan, the General President, presented a comprehensive Democratic Republic project for Turkey at the Imrali court, showing the right path for the liberation of the Kurdish society and the solution to the Kurdish issue on this basis. The Democratic Republic and the resolution of the Kurdish issue on the basis of peace and brotherhood is the only way that will meet the developments Turkey is experiencing, create social peace and brotherhood among peoples, and enable Turkey and the Kurds to enter the 21st century in a strong union. This solution is in the interest of both the Turkish and Kurdish peoples, as well as everyone in the region and the world, except those who profit from the war…” (Özgür Politika, June 11, 1999)

A.Öcalan’s “Apology” Was a Mistake

The first position that shocked the revolutionary public was A. Öcalan’s apology to the “families of the martyrs.” This was also the most important step towards political reconciliation. While it was the state that should have apologized, A. Öcalan’s apology to the families of soldiers implied that the PKK’s actions were “wrong.” Many groups and the PKK said that “this stance was a political tactic,” but it became clear in the subsequent ceasefire periods that this was not the case.

The Turkish state, which has done everything for 100 years, oppressing and killing Kurds even for the smallest demand for rights, sending them into exile, and seeking to annihilate the Kurdish nation with unprecedented brutality over the last 50 years, killing thousands of Kurds in the mountains, in the streets, and in their homes, and compiling death lists from businesspeople to intellectuals, should be held accountable for its actions, and the Turkish Republic should apologize to the Kurdish nation. However, A. Öcalan’s apology to the “families of the martyrs” gave the Turkish Republic a sigh of relief. This stance paved the way for the incitement of Turkish nationalism in fascist and reactionary circles and for the expansion of the sphere of action of fascist MHP members.

Another stance that gave the Turkish state a break during the Imrali trials was A. Öcalan’s statement that he had not been tortured. However, the fact that A. Öcalan, who was brought to Turkey through a conspiracy, had his eyes blindfolded, was knocked unconscious with a needle, and was isolated were all methods of torture.

A.Öcalan Sought the “Solution” from Imperialists

It has long been known that the PKK wanted Western powers, especially US imperialism, to intervene in the Kurdish issue. In the period before A. Öcalan’s extradition to Turkey, in letters he wrote to various heads of state before and after the 1993 ceasefire, he expressed his view that these countries should exert pressure on Turkey to find a “solution.” Indeed, he once again made these views public, stating in court that imperialists should play a role in the “solution.” His failure to mention the US or Western imperialism while discussing the conspiracy against him at his first hearing on Imrali carried a political message. However, it was now common knowledge that the US was behind the plot. Despite this, A. Öcalan sought a “solution” from Western imperialists, primarily the US, for the “reconciliation” proposal to be implemented.

A.Öcalan’s stance was approved by the PKK Presidential Council and became the official position of the PKK. In its statement, the PKK Presidential Council called on imperialist powers, stating, “We call on all powers that can influence Turkey, especially the US, to use their influence in this critical process,” urging imperialists to play their “role.” (Özgür Politika, June 11, 1999)

A.Öcalan Sanctified Kemalism

During the trials, A. Öcalan did not take a confrontational stance toward Kemalism, the founding ideology of fascism, as a result of his efforts to reconcile with the Turkish state. In fact, in his defenses, he used the phrase “I believe in Atatürk’s nationalism,” thereby undermining the PKK’s long-standing argument that the Turkish revolutionary movement was influenced by Kemalism and that opposition to Kemalism was important and decisive.

In A. Öcalan’s speeches on TV and even in his Imrali defenses, the views he formulated essentially affirmed the “National Struggle” period, the “Misak-ı Milli” (National Pact), and the Kemalist process, carefully avoiding any negative criticism.

A.Öcalan’s acceptance of “Atatürk nationalism” in the Imrali trial was the ultimate expression of political compromise.

A.Öcalan Rejected the Nation-State

A.Öcalan stated in the Imrali hearings that he had “given up on establishing a nation-state” and that Turkey would instead gain much from “freedom of language and freedom of culture.” In his work titled “Defending a People,” he advanced the line of democratic confederalism, which he defined as “a political paradigm based on a stateless society.” In this book, he formulated this line with the following statements: “Therefore, a realistic ‘democratic and peaceful method’ of resolution that is not state-centered, but also never accepts blind chaos as a long-term way of life, is vital…. I believe it is correct to evaluate the Imrali trial process as a search for and call for democratic peace, even under very unfavorable conditions. This phase had a qualitative transformative value. It was a process in which the need to abandon hierarchical and statist societal pursuits in principle became concentrated in both consciousness and effort.“

At the stage reached, it is understood that in the views he declared to the public on February 27, 2025, he also abandoned the ”freedom of language, freedom of culture” he defended in court. As can be seen in his February 27 statement, “culturalist solutions cannot respond to historical social sociology,” another concession has been made in line with ‘reconciliation’ and “peace” with the Turkish Republic.

IX. The “New Process” in the Kurdish National Question

When we refer to the “new process,” the framework we are trying to highlight is the period that began with the initiative of the fascist MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli, continued with A. Öcalan’s call on February 27, and included the PKK’s dissolution and the end of armed struggle.

Undoubtedly, we cannot address this period in isolation from previous processes or from a theoretical perspective—historical experience—that genuinely encompasses the resolution of national issues. On the contrary, we will attempt to address all current developments through a scientific method in light of a historical perspective.

When we refer to the Kurdish issue in the current context, we are talking about a comprehensive problem that encompasses the Middle East as a whole and finds its place in the policies of imperialists regarding the Middle East. The creators of this comprehensive problem are the imperialists and certain reactionary-fascist states in the region. These fascist states, which divide the geography of Kurdistan into four parts and continue their policies of annihilation and denial against the Kurdish nation, not only fail to respect the Kurdish nation’s “Right to Free Separation,” but also view and propagate the Kurds’ most ‘ordinary’ democratic demands and the struggle waged for this cause as “divisive -destructive” activity and propagate it as such. Their immediate resort to the weapon of monism against any demand of the Kurdish nation arising from its status as a nation (independence, administrative autonomy, cultural autonomy, decentralization, mother tongue, etc.) is a product of this racist-chauvinist mindset.

At this stage, the fascist Turkish state is engaged in fascist aggression not only within the borders of Turkish Kurdistan, but throughout the entire Kurdistan geography in the Middle East, against any gains made by the Kurdish nation or any status it may achieve to any degree. The threats directed at the Autonomous Regional Administration of North-East Syria, primarily in the form of military intervention, are a concrete expression of this reality. Therefore, when we talk about the Kurdish national question, it is correct to refer to a problem that extends not only to Turkish Kurdistan but to the entire Middle East and Kurdistan geography.

However, in evaluating the so-called “new process” in the Kurdish national question here, we will focus more on the policies of the Turkish state. In doing so, we will focus on certain aspects of the Kurdish national movement’s views formulated under the name of “solution” and the perspectives put forward by MLM forces.

First of all, it should be emphasized that the “new process,” which began with the call of PKK leader A. Öcalan, is not independent of A. Öcalan’s previous statements. A. Öcalan expressed his line of “democratic reconciliation” on February 27, 2025, at a very early date, during the Imralı trials, proposing “democratic integration with the state” and mentioning that “the PKK’s means of warfare will be at the service of Turkey”: “The PKK ceasing to be a military problem will pave the way for a political solution to the Kurdish problem and will also mean that it ceases to be a political problem. The process of forcing the unity of the state will give way to a process of empowering it. As the path to democratic integration with the state opens up, the position of opposition to the state will be overcome.”

(….)

“Turkey will have the opportunity not only to protect itself from great dangers, but also to transform them into a source of strength. Both internally and externally, the PKK’s military capabilities will be at Turkey’s service with the solution…”(Abdullah Öcalan, Defense on the Merits, Interview with Garbis Altınoğlu, Yakın Doğu Yazıları, yakindoguyazilari.com)

A.Öcalan’s proposal for a “Turkish-Kurdish alliance,” as stated in his call dated February 27, 2025, is not a new proposal. Indeed, in his article titled “Democratic Alliance for a Free Union,” published after the Imrali trial, A. Öcalan clearly explains how he understands “Turkish-Kurdish unity”: “Kurds and Turks have made history together in this country. They are co-owners of all the empires that have been established. The current state was also built together. Looking at history, one thing must be seen: Kurds have sought freedom together with Turks. Why is this so? Let’s look at the settlement in the geography: Turks are closest to Kurds. However, there is no such relationship with Arabs, Armenians, and other neighboring peoples. Kurds and Turks have lived together. There  are  striking  examples  of  this. This  was  the  case  at Malazgirt. Alparslan’s army included 10,000 Kurdish warriors. The same is true of the founding of the Republic; M. Kemal received the support of the Kurds during this process.

Again, in his call on February 27, 2025, A. Öcalan expresses his demand for a “democratic society” as a ‘solution’ at a very early date and proposes a “democratic solution” to the Turkish state: “I call my own model the ‘Great Democratic Solution’. I call it a model of rising above the US and the EU. I would like to make the following call to Turkish intellectuals: Just as Alparslan regulated relations with the Kurds in Silvan in 1071, just as Yavuz regulated relations with the Kurds in 1516 (albeit on a dominant basis), just as Mustafa Kemal regulated relations with the Kurds in the 1920s, Turkish intellectuals today should think about relations with the Kurds in the same way. I also call upon the Prime Minister… If you are devoted to your God and your prophet, I say approach your Kurdish brothers correctly. I also call upon the General Staff. During the investigation, one of their representatives said, ‘Let’s not leave the solution of the problem to the US and Europe, let’s resolve it among ourselves’. That is correct. I also say let’s resolve it among ourselves. I call on the General Staff to do the same.” (ibid)

In summary, it should be stated that in this new “process” brought to the agenda by A. Öcalan’s call, there is continuity, except for some nuances that include certain steps backward in line with A. Öcalan’s approach. What is expressed in the “process” brought to the agenda by A. Öcalan’s call is, in fact, at least consistent with his past process.

A-) February 27 Call

We would like to quote some sections from A. Öcalan’s call: “Right now, the APO reality has left its mark on history both as a period and as a moment, and it continues to do so. And we have come to the impasse in the PKK and to finding a solution to it; that is, this issue of dissolution. This is still the situation I live in every moment… Yes, there is a repetition of a moment here, with little creative value; a leap is needed. A threshold must be crossed. Strangely, it is not on our side, but a Turk who is relentless against me and who does everything for my execution at any moment, Devlet Bahçeli, the most authoritative voice and hand of the Turkish sensibility of the period, even the proto-party state, has opened this new era. So Bahçeli, as the relentless war leader against us, is saying this directly to the DEM delegation. ‘I have devoted my entire life to this, but now I want to start a new era.’ In my opinion, this is a clear call for a peaceful and democratic solution. It is a call for peace that is both consistent and contains a democratic solution. Developments show this to some extent. And the only conclusion we can draw from this is that only those who fight can make peace. In other words, not secondary or third powers, not mediating powers or allies, but only those who bear the responsibility for the war can take on the responsibility for peace… Therefore, realistically, it is the state that is waging this war. I feel the need for the state to transform this war into a new beginning, as an attempt at peace. This has been voiced over the last six months…“ (A. Öcalan, ”Perspective,” Serxwebûn Newspaper, issue 521)

“…What is this war and separatist conflict process of peace and democratic integration, especially with the Republic of Turkey? Similar processes will also come into play for other states, namely Iraq, Iran, and Syria. In my opinion, Turkey taking the initiative is both a requirement of reason and an expression of reality.” (ibid.)

First and foremost, the bloody hand extended by Devlet Bahçeli, leader of the fascist MHP and partner in power in the Turkish state, to DEM deputies in parliament is not a hand extended to build “peace” among “warring parties.” At this stage, it has become clearer that this bloody hand is the hand of the state, unleashed with its dark plans for a “Turkey without terrorism.”

Because the just and legitimate struggle of the Kurdish nation is still seen as a “terrorist” activity. Those who truly want peace must first abandon this language of denial and show respect for the existence of the Kurdish nation and its national democratic rights. Likewise, the “peace” demand of a racist- chauvinist mindset that does not respect the Right of Nations to Self- Determination is devoid of any sincerity and is a new trap set up for the sake of the security of the ruling classes’ power.

Again, it is understood from A. Öcalan’s statements that the hand extended in Parliament is the result of negotiations that the parties have been conducting among themselves for a long time. It is also seen that there is a consensus between the parties in these negotiations. Another thing that is apparent is the reality that this project, the contents of which are not yet fully known to the public, is being implemented step by step. With the PKK’s decision to disband, a group of guerrillas burning their weapons, the acceleration of talks with Imrali, and the establishment of a commission in Parliament, this process is intended to be concluded with the involvement of other sections of the bourgeois opposition.

What Kind of Peace?

Firstly, following a 50-year struggle in which the Kurdish national movement paid a heavy price, a “process” is being carried out without any demands being made. The goals and scope of what A. Öcalan called for in his February 27, 2025, call to “dissolve the PKK” and in his July 9, 2025, video message to “lay down arms” are one and the same. The first question that must be asked here is: In the struggle that has been ongoing since 1984, where are the grounds, aims, and objectives that forced the Kurdish national movement into conflict, and what has changed?

In response, the February 27 call states: “The resolution of identity denial in the country and the progress made in freedom of expression have led to the PKK’s loss of meaning and excessive repetition. Therefore, it has completed its life like its counterparts and necessitated its dissolution.” (A. Öcalan, “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society,” February 27, 2025) In other words, A. Öcalan considers the “resolution of identity denial” and “progress made in freedom of expression in the country” sufficient grounds for the dissolution of the PKK. Of course, it is clear that this sufficiency does not mean the resolution of the Kurdish national question. Moreover, the level of progress in the aforementioned issues is also evident!

The second question is “peace with whom and how?” Where there is peace, there is struggle and war between two sides, two opposing forces, two fronts, two poles. At this stage, based on certain facts that have emerged, either one side must submit to the other, or there must be “peace” based on an agreement, but neither of these is found in A. Öcalan’s calls.

D. Bahçeli, leader of the party organized by Western imperialism, primarily US imperialism, in Turkey, positioned against the “threat of communism” and managed by the MIT/counter-guerrilla, said in his speech on February 9, 2025: “After imperialism’s horrific Gaza project, which is the bloody and dark command center of global colonialism, where it will stop, which countries it will spread to, and to what extent and in what ways Turkey will be targeted in this barbaric architecture is a very troubling and problematic myster (….) Even if these are the birth pangs of a Turkey free of terrorism, given the magnitude of the threat we face, everyone, every segment of society, every political faction must unite behind the ideal of a great and powerful Turkey. It is not an unlikely possibility that the global immorality that first bombed Gaza and then occupied it will attempt to stage the same game in Turkey tomorrow.” (Duygu Yener, Betül Bilsel, “MHP Chairman Bahçeli’s statement on the 56th anniversary of his party’s founding,” Anadolu Agency, February 9, 2025, https://www.aa.com.tr)

The leader of the fascist MHP is clearly attempting to “preempt” the reality that imperialists’ new orientations in the Middle East could also affect the Turkish state. This approach is based on the Turkish state’s “survival issue” in the face of possible dangers, rather than the recognition of the rights of the “brotherly Kurdish nation.” The reason for this is, of course, that the fascist MHP, as a party directly serving Western imperialism, primarily the US, is playing its role as one of the parties that best understands the “reality of imperialism.”

Abdullah Öcalan’s calls on February 27 and July 9 clearly did not come about by chance, but rather as a result of long-standing negotiations with the state and after the parties reached a mutual agreement. Ultimately, the decisive factor is whose line who has come to or approached! And again, the important question is whether, after all this experience, the Turkish state will take a step “without any bargaining”!

What was the starting point of the Kurdish national question? It was the Kurdish nation’s uprising, its struggle to achieve national liberation and national independence, in response to the dominant nation’s refusal to recognize the Kurds as a nation, its denial of their national existence, its refusal to recognize the nation’s rights and freedoms, its ruthless national oppression, persecution, genocide, and systematic assimilation policies.

Even regarding the massacres of Kurds from the past to the present, the Turkish state has not apologized to the Kurdish nation, even with statements such as “it was a mistake,” “it was wrong,” “it should not have happened,” “we must learn from it,” etc.

It still refuses to disclose the burial sites of those killed in mass massacres and the leaders of the national movement. It has not relinquished its racist rhetoric, such as “one language, one nation, one state, one homeland, one flag,” in the slightest. It has not retreated one iota from racist rhetoric such as “Everyone living in Turkey is Turkish,” “Turkey belongs to the Turks,” “One Turk is worth the whole world,” “How happy is the one who says I am Turkish,” and “Wherever there is a Turk, that is where the border is drawn.”

Following A. Öcalan’s “call,” on March 1, 2025, at the Dolmabahçe Office, during his speech at the “Iftar program with military families and veterans,” R.T. Erdoğan said: “If the hand we extend is left hanging in the air or bitten, we always keep our iron fist ready,” and “If the promises made are not kept, if there is constant procrastination, deception, and attempts to change names and read what one knows, like Middle Eastern cunning, then the sin is not ours. We will continue our ongoing operations, if necessary, without leaving a stone unturned    or    a    head    on    a    shoulder,    until    the    last    terrorist    is eliminated.“ (”Öcalan’s call to the PKK | President Erdoğan: If promises are not kept, the sin is not ours,” March 1, 2025, https://www.ntv.com.tr)

Immediately  following  R.T.  Erdoğan’s  threats,  Turkish  warplanes  bombed Kandil multiple times. Attacks involving chemical weapons against guerrilla areas have continued. Nearly 30 people have lost their lives in recent attacks. It is clear that there is not even the slightest sign of a solution to the problem, nor is there any data on what concessions have been agreed upon. What has happened is a unilateral abandonment of all arguments regarding the national problem to date, the elimination of the PKK, and the laying down of arms.

We may see it as right or wrong, but an organization may abandon armed struggle for one reason or another. Instead, it may defend democratic forms of struggle within legal boundaries. This change in strategy is understandable. However, accompanying the “Turkey without terrorism” understanding with the task of “integration with the state and society” and declaring that armed struggle against the “state” is wrong points to an important and historic break.

Since its founding, the Turkish Republic has been tied to imperialism and, under the rule of the big capitalist class, has been an anti-democratic, fascist dictatorship from top to bottom, imposing national oppression on the Kurdish nation. As long as this state is not destroyed, this fundamental nature will not change. Throughout this process, partial rights and freedoms can only be gained as a result of the struggle of the social popular opposition of the working class and laborers of various nationalities and beliefs from the Turkish and Kurdish nations. In a situation where even these rights cannot be protected by organized power, it is unrealistic to expect democracy from the Turkish Republic on its own.

A.Öcalan’s “Call” does not even mention the Kurdish nation and its fundamental rights. Nowhere in the “Call” is there any mention of the recognition of the national rights of the Kurdish nation, i.e., the right of nations to freely determine their own future, nor is there any emphasis on the fact that the Kurds are a nation and should be recognized as such.

“Kurdish-Turkish Relations”

With the beginning of the Kurdish national awakening, the Turkish Republic began to increasingly assert that “there is no such thing as a Kurdish nation.” “The Turks who live in the mountains are called Kurds because they make sounds like ‘kart-kurt’ when walking in the snow in winter. But we are all Turks!” etc.

The Turkish ruling classes promoted the “thousand-year brotherhood” narrative for this purpose. The aim was to deny the existence of the Kurdish nation as a nation. It was about protecting the privileges of the oppressor nation, primarily “statehood,” and denying and rejecting the collective rights of the oppressed nation, including its very existence as a nation.

In his February 27 call, A. Öcalan states, “Kurdish-Turkish relations; throughout a history spanning more than 1000 years… in order to survive and stand up to hegemonic powers, they have always seen it as necessary to remain in an alliance, with voluntarism being the dominant factor.” (ibid)

First, the reference to “a history spanning over 1000 years” fails to recognize the differences between various social structures and processes, lumping them all together. Second, the relationships between nations after the process of nation-building are confused with the relationships between oppressor and oppressed classes and peoples in the pre-capitalist era, when nations had not yet emerged. Third, framing the issue in terms of nations and communities rather than class phenomena and concepts leads to confusion. An approach that stems from viewing issues as “beyond classes” or “above classes” fails to properly address class-based approaches and solutions. Fourth, the process referred to as “Kurdish-Turkish relations” refers to the relationship between the two nations over the past century. However, what is overlooked here is that in this relationship, one is the dominant and oppressing nation, while the other is the oppressed nation. Therefore, they are not in the same situation. The ruling classes of the oppressor nation systematically apply national oppression, massacres, genocide, and systematic assimilation to all segments of the oppressed nation; the national rights of the oppressed nation have been usurped, and it is subjected to ruthless oppression under systematic and multifaceted national pressure.

Under the current conditions, rights and freedoms have never been equal. There is no voluntary alliance; there is subjugation through deprivation of rights by force and oppression. Furthermore, although the Kurdish nation as a whole suffers national oppression, the heaviest burden of this oppression is borne by the working class and laboring people of the Kurdish nation. Class oppression is added to national oppression. Fifth, in his February 27 call, A. Öcalan states, “Kurdish-Turkish relations: Throughout their history spanning over 1000 years, Turks and Kurds have found it necessary to remain in an alliance, with voluntarism prevailing, in order to survive and stand up to hegemonic powers.” (ibid)

This is not an accurate assessment. Here, A. Öcalan refers to what he calls “hegemonic powers,” such as the Ottoman-Eastern Roman, Ottoman-Safavid, Ottoman-Russian relations, etc., and historically, the Ottoman Empire’s expansionist, occupying, plundering, and annexation wars towards Balkan and European countries and North Africa, as well as its wars entered into for the same purpose, and the Ottoman Empire’s historical expansionist, occupying, plundering, and annexation wars towards Balkan and European countries and North Africa, as well as its wars entered into for the same purpose. -Russian relations, etc., and historically, the Ottoman Empire’s expansionist, occupying, plundering, and annexation wars towards Balkan and European countries and North Africa, as well as the First Imperialist War of Partition, which it entered into for the same purpose and in which it was defeated. These wars were generally not defensive but expansionist and aggressive. They were unjust wars. Therefore, these alliance relations were not for the Turkish and Kurdish peoples to “survive,” but rather for the military-feudal-imperial interests of the sultans and caliphs, for plunder, looting, and spoils, forcing people to the battlefronts, and making the lives of the poor unbearable with extremely heavy and varied taxes. For this reason, it is not possible to speak of an alliance in which “voluntarism prevails.”

Moreover, as we stated above, nation-building came about with the development of capitalism. To speak of Kurdish and Turkish nations “over a history spanning more than 1000 years” is incorrect in terms of the emergence of the concept of nation. British, and later French, capitalism developed relations with the Ottoman Empire in the late 1700s and especially in the mid-1800s, entering its markets. By the late 1800s, German imperialism had become a dominant power, making the Ottoman Empire dependent on it. The Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of German imperialism and was defeated and destroyed. Faced with the danger of the Ottoman Empire’s disintegration and becoming a full colony, representatives of the Turkish ruling class, led by the remaining cadres of the Committee of Union and Progress, seized power by agreeing with the imperialists under semi-colonial conditions and established a Kemalist, racist, chauvinist, fascist dictatorship.

Therefore, Turks and Kurds did not “voluntarily choose to remain in an alliance in order to survive and stand up to hegemonic powers,” but rather the Turkish Republic established a national state based on the oppressive Turkish nation, turned the Kurdish nation into an oppressed and dependent nation, and maintained its bloody dictatorship by suppressing them with force, coercion, and bloodshed, and by spreading reactionary, fascist terror. The imperialists of the period, referred to as “hegemonic,” had no problem with the Ottoman and Turkish Republic states in this sense, so why would external powers make it their “main task” to break up this alliance? This approach is unrealistic and fails to grasp the nature of imperialism. It can even be said, and indeed must be said, that the imperialist powers of the time did not experience any “problem” in this regard with the regional reactionary forces, primarily the Turkish state. In other words, because they were in complete agreement with these reactionary forces and their interests were guaranteed, they accepted the division of Kurdistan into four parts, as they did at Lausanne.

In his February 27 call, A. Öcalan states, “The last 200 years of capitalist modernity have made it their primary goal to break up this alliance. The affected powers have made it their primary mission to serve this goal, along with their class foundations.” (ibid)

Let us focus on the first meaning of this understanding: With this approach, A. Öcalan is essentially saying that, in general, “there was no oppression, persecution, genocide, or assimilation of nations, national minorities, and the people.” He says this because, according to A. Öcalan, Kurds and Turks have the understanding that “the aspect of voluntarism prevailed, and they always saw it as necessary to remain in an alliance,” as he stated above. Although this approach may be perceived as “there was no problem between Kurds and Turks,” the statement is contradictory in itself. “Alliances” can be tactical or strategic; they can be short, medium, or long-term; they occur between forces, classes, segments, organizations, parties, or states that are different from each other, that recognize each other’s existence and independent will, and that come together around certain demands, certain aims, and certain goals. Alliances are conscious, voluntary, independent unions with their own will, which end when the demands or goals agreed upon by both sides are achieved or succeed. Furthermore, if “the aspect of voluntarism prevailed, and they always saw it as necessary to remain in an alliance,” how should we evaluate the fact that dozens of Kurdish national uprisings have taken place?

A.Öcalan continues his sentence by saying, “they have seen it as necessary to remain in the alliance.” This statement suggests that either their will was broken and they were subjected to pressure, or they “saw it as necessary” to submit due to class interests. Perhaps A. Öcalan uses both terms together because he is caught between ‘voluntariness’ and “necessity.”

“External Forces”

A.Öcalan’s call on February 27 does not emphasize the nation. In order to avoid evoking the nation and the national question, he uses the concept of “Turks and Kurds,” which is a class-neutral/class-transcending expression that places all classes on the same level. The reason for this is the rejection of the reality of the nation in A. Öcalan’s “new paradigm.” If we refer to A. Öcalan’s use of the term, which obscures class differences and national contradictions, there is a “voluntary” ‘alliance’ between “Turks and Kurds,” but “capitalist modernity … has made it its primary goal to break this alliance over the last 200 years,“ meaning that there is ‘incitement’ by ”external forces,” which is a state discourse, and they have been tricked!

The first meaning of this discourse is that there was no problem between “Turks and Kurds”; the problem was created and incited by “external forces.” With this discourse, A. Öcalan denies the existence of the Kurdish nation and, moreover, denies the national oppression policy of the Turkish ruling classes. The problem is not the ruling classes of the oppressor nation imposing national oppression, cruelty, genocide, assimilation, and fascist terror to subjugate and destroy, but is formulated as “capitalist modernity,” defined as “external forces.”

Of course, capitalism and imperialism, referred to as “external forces,” are also accomplices because they are backed by the Turkish ruling classes. With the emergence of imperialism, bourgeois democracy has been cast aside and replaced by political reaction both internally and externally. Imperialism will not, of course, bring democracy and democratic rights and freedoms to the countries it enters. It will bring economic and political dependence, exploitation, plunder, and a kind of enslavement. This is the external influence. On the other hand, it is the Turkish ruling classes, who hold political power, that actually impose national oppression on the Kurdish nation. It is the racist, chauvinist, fascist state policy of the state. It is a grave situation that this is forgotten and distorted.

“With a loose interpretation, Öcalan is essentially saying: ‘We have no problem with the Republic of Turkey; the issue stems from those who promote and rely on a monolithic, one-dimensional interpretation of the Republic.’” This breeds antipathy and becomes provocative. It breeds distrust. It ‘undermines Kurdish- Turkish relations’ and ‘historical relations,’ and ‘those whose main goal is to break this alliance’ take advantage of this.” To state the truth fully, A. Öcalan proposes that the oppressed, dependent Kurdish nation in Turkey should submit to the domination of the oppressor nation and the control of the oppressor nation’s state and integrate with it as its “main task”! On the other hand,  the  phrase  “their  beliefs  too” stands  out  in  A.  Öcalan’s  call.  This expression can be thought of as having the purpose of creating infrastructure and awareness, even if it is not explicitly stated at this stage. When he says “without disregarding their beliefs,” he is referring to segments with different “beliefs,” and this is not a random/casual statement.

In his February 27 call, A. Öcalan states, “…the PKK’s ability to find power and a base stems from the closure of democratic political channels.” (ibid.) Thus, A. Öcalan is making a commitment that “if the ‘democratic political channels’ are opened by the Turkish state, we will henceforth act within those boundaries with all our strength.” In other words, he says that “the PKK … gained power and a base” because it had no legal means of expressing itself. Of course, this has had consequences. However, this is not the essence of the problem. The phenomenon or ground that gave rise to the PKK is the unresolved Kurdish national question. The failure to recognize the Kurds as a nation, the usurpation of the Kurdish nation’s Right to Free Separation, i.e., the right to secede and establish a separate state, and the refusal to recognize these rights and freedoms as a requirement of “democracy.” It is the systematic subjection of the oppressed nation to national oppression, violence, massacres, genocide, and assimilation by the dominant nation. The ruthless national oppression of the dominant nation as a whole has drawn the workers of the oppressed nation into the Kurdish national liberation struggle.

“The Right To Secede Freely”

In his February 27 call, A. Öcalan does not argue that the Kurds are a nation, that this reality is denied, that their rights are not recognized, that imperialists as well as the Turkish state are responsible for this, and that a national liberation struggle has emerged in response. He does not argue that the Kurds are a nation, that national oppression must end, or that the Kurdish nation has the right to secede and establish a separate state. This is precisely where the problem lies.

Moreover, it states that the PKK was influenced by the conditions of the time, that it emerged as a reaction to the Turkish state’s “uniform interpretation of the Republic,” that it entered into an “excessive nationalist drift,” and that as a result, it waged a national liberation struggle. In fact, by calling it an “excessive nationalist drift,” it condemns the Kurdish national liberation struggle it led. To justify this rejection, it states that “separate nation-states, federations, administrative autonomy, and cultural solutions, which are the inevitable result of excessive nationalist drift, do not respond to historical social sociology.” (ibid)

In other words, he explicitly defines the will and practice of exercising the Right of Secession (“RFS”) as an “excessive nationalist drift.” Condemning the demand and practice of the RFS by oppressed or colonized nations as an “excessive nationalist drift,” failing to defend this right unconditionally, and abandoning it means viewing the national question from the perspective of the dominant nation’s nationalist, racist, and chauvinist front of the dominant nations and imperialist powers. However, this serves to make oppressed nations accept their situation by pressuring them with the accusation of “excessive nationalism,” oppressing them politically and psychologically with the arrogance and cunning of the dominant nation, and is unacceptable.

Communists generally do not act from a nationalist (chauvinist) perspective. They act from the perspective of the proletarian class. In a world dominated by capitalism and imperialism, they oppose national oppression. They defend the right of oppressed nations to determine their own future. They do not view defending the right of nations in this situation to determine their own future as “extreme nationalism” and oppose it. They defend the independence of oppressed and colonized nations and the right to establish national states as one of the most natural rights of nations. As is generally the case, they oppose nationalist/nationalist approaches under socialism and wage a determined ideological struggle.

In today’s world, dominated by the capitalist, imperialist system, defending and supporting the right to freely secede, which is denied to nations under the pressure of dominant nations and imperialist powers, is not “nationalism” or “chauvinism.” On the contrary, opposing this right, which is a requirement of consistent democracy, on the grounds that it constitutes “excessive nationalism,” etc., is to view it from the perspective of the dominant nation; it is to view it from the perspective of its interests, to see the national oppression of the dominant nations over the oppressed nations deprived of their national rights as normal, to defend it, and to become a kind of accomplice.

In his February 27 call, A. Öcalan states that neither a “separate nation-state” nor a ‘federation’ nor autonomy nor “administrative autonomy” will work; all these   “cultural   solutions”   etc. “do   not   respond   to   historical   social sociology.”(ibid) Aside from the fact that it is wrong for a person, regardless of their position, to make such definitive statements about the future of a nation and to reject any solution, there is, of course, a wealth of practical experience regarding how national issues should be resolved in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions.

The PKK emerged based on the Kurdish national struggle. Its program aimed to establish a national state by achieving Kurdish national liberation. It did not advocate federation or autonomy. These could have been possible in pre- imperialist capitalist countries where the bourgeois state system was progressive and under historical conditions where bourgeois democracy existed. With the emergence of imperialism, bourgeois democracy became a thing of the past. Imperialism, on the other hand, is political reaction and cannot tolerate even bourgeois democracy.

Oppressed nations in multinational countries can only be liberated through a democratic people’s revolution and a socialist revolution led by the proletarian class movement. After the revolution, oppressed and colonized nations exercise their Right to Free Separation. They can exercise this right either to secede or to remain together. Nations that do not wish to secede and establish separate states can remain together with equal rights and freedoms in the form of regional autonomy/federation, as was the case in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. These are possible under conditions of democratic popular power and socialism, where there is no national oppression and where rights and freedoms exist by common will.

In some countries before imperialism, federation or autonomous coexistence was a right that had been won. After the era of imperialism, oppressed nations, colonies, and national minorities cannot tolerate federation or autonomy without the overthrow of bourgeois dictatorships. However, where it suits their interests, they can create places that are under their control and have no will of their own.

In our era, capitalism and imperialism cannot fundamentally resolve the national question. Multi-ethnic countries such as India, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, etc. are evident. After the reversal of socialism in the USSR, the collapse of modern revisionist regimes, and especially their overt transition to classical capitalism, it is well known how the national question evolved, how nations that had coexisted for a period became enemies and fought each other.

After the October Revolution of 1917, the national question in Russia, consisting of 64 nationalities, 33 of which were nations and the rest national minorities, was resolved without conflict or problems. The imperialists tried very hard to prevent the Russians and other nations and ethnic groups from living together. However, they never managed to break this unity. Likewise, in Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and other Eastern European countries, as well as in the autonomous regions of China, etc., the resolution of the problem and the experiences of brotherly coexistence throughout socialism and people’s democracies stand as a point on which we can build today. After all countries openly transitioned to classical capitalism, examples of how they were pitted against each other in many places as a result of direct imperialist intervention and incitement are also evident.

A.Öcalan also commits historical distortion by placing these different historical processes and the fundamentally different lines, understandings, and approaches of different ideological and political systems into the same basket. Both in general and specifically, he instills political blindness and hopelessness in the Kurdish nation and people, drawing them into the perspective of the ruling classes. However, imperialism in general, and specifically the perspective of the rulers of the Turkish dominant nation, is the source of this problem. Because they are the source, they have been and continue to be an obstacle to the solution of the problem. This is because, with the advent of the imperialist era, the bourgeoisie has lost its historical progressive role. Characterized by political reaction and militarism, the bourgeoisie will not resolve national issues democratically. However, this problem can only be fundamentally resolved through a social and political revolution led by the proletariat.

Which Democracy?

The Kurdish national movement was revolutionary at its foundation. Its emergence was a national revolutionary line. The changes of the 1990s also affected the PKK. From 1993 onwards, the line entered a process of strategic change. After A. Öcalan was captured, he outlined his current line in the “Imrali Defense.” This line has been further developed over the years to arrive at the present. In his February 27 call, A. Öcalan stated: “Respect for identities, their ability to freely express themselves and organize democratically, and the socio- economic and political structures that all segments base themselves on are only possible with the existence of a democratic society and political arena.” (ibid)

Öcalan’s assessment, like his other assessments, is not “new.” It is the concrete product of his line of “reconciliation” and “peace” with the Turkish state. ‘Democracy’ and “democratic society” are not class-neutral concepts. The bourgeoisie and liberals use these concepts as if they were class-neutral. The ruling classes and those under their influence conceal the class nature of these concepts. Wherever these concepts appear, a Marxist/socialist revolutionary, every class-conscious worker, asks, “Democracy for which class and for whom?” In socialism and the DHD, democracy exists for workers, nations, and minorities of different nationalities and faiths. “Democracy for everyone” has never existed and never will. This is bourgeois rhetoric. It aims to deceive the working class and laboring people, to dull their minds, to numb them, to stupefy them, to lull them with empty dreams.

A “democratic society” for the working class and the people is realized after the Democratic People’s Revolution and the transition to socialism. The experience in socialist countries is clear. In the era of free competition under capitalism, bourgeois democracy existed in Western Europe and America. As Lenin said, with the advent of the era of imperialism, the bourgeoisie lost all its progressive role and became completely reactionary. Imperialism is rotten capitalism, political reaction that has lost all its progressive role. It brings political reaction, not democracy, to the countries it enters. Therefore, imperialist centers, countries dependent on imperialism, colonies, and semi- colonies are not “democratic societies,” despite certain differences between them and the existence of crumbs of democratic rights and freedoms in some countries. They are ruled by bourgeois dictatorship, political reaction, and fascist dictatorship.

In his February 27 call, A. Öcalan instructed the party of which he was the founding leader: “As every contemporary society and party whose existence has not been forcibly ended would do voluntarily, convene your congress and take a decision to integrate with the state and society; all groups must lay down their arms and the PKK must dissolve itself.”(ibid.)

He must be implying that the PKK cannot be forcibly eliminated by the state, given that the phrase “its existence has not been forcibly ended” has been used. This is correct! But his logic, his starting point, and the conclusion he wants to reach/has reached are completely wrong.

Öcalan’s proposal for “integration with society” is not realistic. It is not realistic because what is being called for is not “democratic.”

Has the Problem Been Solved?

Given the conditions in Turkey, the assumption of a “democratic society” is unrealistic when considering the reality of a class-based society, the foundation upon which the Turkish Republic was built, and the reality of fascism. Abdullah Öcalan’s assessment in his video message released on July 9, stating that “The PKK movement, based on the denial of existence and aiming for a separate state, and the national liberation war strategy on which it was based, has been ended. Existence has been recognized, and therefore the main goal has been achieved,” does not reflect the reality either.

The Kurdish national question has not been resolved and the problem continues. In this sense, the following realities must be emphasized once again: As a historical reality of Turkey, no power can deny the fact that the national and religious oppression of oppressed nations and oppressed faiths, particularly the Kurdish national question, can only be resolved under the conditions of democratic popular power and socialism.

Yes, the struggle for national democratic demands is undeniable. Because it is never, ever a revolutionary stance for a nation not to defend its national democratic demands. While defending and embracing these demands, it is also wrong to view the Kurdish national struggle as limited only to the PKK, which has declared that it has dissolved itself and ended its armed struggle. It must also be anticipated that the Kurdish national movement’s cessation of armed struggle will have negative effects on the masses and the revolutionary public. The distrust of armed struggle among the masses may manifest itself, at least for a time, in the Kurdish national movement. This will negatively affect some revolutionary movements and lead to setbacks.

Peaceful coexistence with the bourgeoisie is impossible. The 100-year history of the Turkish Republic bears ample witness to this. “Let us also note this: There have been three brief periods in Turkey when the crumbs of bourgeois democracy, albeit limited, were tasted. The first was the short period immediately after the War of Independence, when the TKP was still free. The second was the brief period at the end of World War II when the TSEKP and similar parties and trade union organizations were permitted. The third was the brief period following the May 27 coup.” (İbrahim Kaypakkaya, ibid., p. 401)

The reason all these fragments occurred in the Turkish context is the struggle of the masses. The ruling classes, forced by circumstances, made some democratic openings, albeit partial, but at the first opportunity, they moved to take back these fragments.

At this stage, the state of “democracy” in Turkey during the AKP’s rule is clear. Moreover, the AKP government’s stance towards the PKK’s self-liquidation and the end of armed struggle is not to take “democratic steps,” but rather to increase fascist repression and attacks. In his speech at the 32nd AKP Consultation and Evaluation Meeting, he did not say a single word about what legal changes would be made in exchange for the laying down of arms, whether prisoners would be released, whether those who had been exiled would return to their homes, whether those who had suffered damage would be compensated, or what “democratic practices” would be implemented. Furthermore, in his speech, in which he spoke extensively about the “Islamic state” of the future, referring to “unity of the ummah” for the “solution,” he did not refrain from threatening the Kurds. By saying, “Either you comply with the process as we say, or we will crush you,” he showed what kind of democracy he was promising.

Abdullah Öcalan also explains that this process has not been transparent and clear, and that the state has not provided any guarantees, stating: “Overall, the voluntary surrender of weapons and the work of the comprehensive commission to be established by law and authorized by the Grand National Assembly are important. It is essential to show caution and sensitivity in taking steps without falling into a zero-sum game mentality. I know that the steps taken will not be in vain. I see sincerity and I trust it.“ (Öcalan’s call to advance the process and lay down arms: ”I believe in the power of politics and social peace, not weapons,“ July 9, 2025,https://www.numedya24.com)

It seems that A. Öcalan has only ”trust in sincerity” at his disposal!

B-) “New Perspective”

Denial of History

A.Öcalan expresses the main idea of his “Perspective,” written on April 25, 2025, regarding the national question as follows: “I would like to give our work the following title: ‘The end of an era in the Kurdish existence and problem, on the threshold of a new era.’” (A. Öcalan, “Perspective,” Serxwebûn Newspaper, issue 52)

A.Öcalan’s letter was evaluated and accepted at the PKK’s 12th Extraordinary Congress. The dissolution of the PKK was carried out accordingly. A. Öcalan’s “new path” roadmap deserves a multifaceted evaluation. As a main idea, A. Öcalan evaluates the PKK as “a movement to prove the existence of the Kurds and open the door to freedom…” (ibid), but the PKK did not emerge on the historical stage solely as a movement to “prove the existence of the Kurds.” Indeed, 50 years of struggle have proven that the PKK is not such a movement. A. Öcalan himself knows this best. The PKK, as a national movement founded with the goal of an “independent Kurdistan,” has made significant progress, organizing Kurdish peasants and workers by bringing about a national awakening.

Therefore, A. Öcalan’s assessment contains incorrect information about the emergence of the PKK and, moreover, misrepresents the rationale behind the PKK’s half-century struggle. The reason for the emergence of the PKK is the denial, annihilation, and assimilation of the Kurdish nation. For years, the PKK has fought not to “prove the existence of the Kurds” but to gain the most fundamental democratic rights of the oppressed nation, primarily the Right To Secede Freely.

In his “Perspective,” A. Öcalan states: “The PKK was organized according to a real socialist struggle perspective. Its program, strategy, tactics, etc. were shaped by real socialist principles.” (ibid.)

The PKK, which emerged as a Kurdish national movement, was not organized with this perspective. Although the PKK’s rhetoric in its early days referred to Marxism-Leninism and socialism, and it was influenced by socialism in this sense, it did not exist as a socialist movement. It emerged not as a class movement but as a national movement, with the perspective of the Kurdish nation seceding and establishing its own state. Although A. Öcalan dismissed this resistance as meaningless, setting aside all history, he still stated: “The PKK thwarted this denial with great resistance; it revealed the reality of Kurdish identity in historical and social terms and made it accepted by friends and enemies alike.”(ibid)

It is also significant that A. Öcalan has emphasized socialism since February 2025, using statements such as: “The PKK was organized according to a real socialist struggle perspective. Its program, strategy, tactics, etc. were shaped by real socialist principles,” and “This is why we focused on socialist ideology and attempted to democratize it.” (ibid.)

While A. Öcalan’s frequent references to socialism are important, there are significant differences between his understanding of socialism and his experiences with “scientific socialism.” First and foremost, A. Öcalan proposes “ commune” rather than socialism.

Secondly, A. Öcalan ideologically views socialism, the values it created, and the solution socialism brought to the national question as wrong. He expressed this as follows: “I find it more correct to review Marxism, to realize it instead of this concept. That is, history is not a history of class struggle, but a conflict between the state and the commune. Marxism’s theory of conflict based on class division is the main reason for the collapse of real socialism.“ (…) ”Marx calls this a scientific discovery, but these are just stories. The formation of the working class, the development of the working class, created such wonders; science and all that is a simple thing.” (ibid.

A.Öcalan’s assessments are not “new theses.” However, at a time when those who proclaimed “the end of history, farewell proletariat” in the 1990s have come to see their own theses as wrong, it is noteworthy that A. Öcalan is rehashing these theses. A. Öcalan states, “Replacing the concept of class with the commune is much more striking, much more scientific”

(…)

“We call this the most fundamental revision of Marxism. We are replacing the concept of class in Marxism with the commune.” (ibid)

A.Öcalan claims to have discovered something “new” with these statements, yet he deliberately ignores something. Every ideology bears the stamp of a class. History is the history of class struggles. The commune, as a specific form of the proletarian dictatorship aimed for by the working class that emerged with the Paris Uprising, bears the ideological stamp of the working class. A. Öcalan is having a hard time proving his theory. Where he struggles, he tries to get out of it by assigning new meanings to concepts that have become part of history. This can be seen throughout the text. For example, when describing the Commune, he says: “The clan is actually a union of communes. The tribe is a commune.” A. Öcalan, who goes so far as to equate the “clan” organization, a product of feudal society, with the commune, apparently does not find this sufficient, stating that “We  can  also  learn  the  connection  between  the commune and the word ‘kom’ (a simple, low house made of stone or mud, but housing one or two people –Author’s note) in our Kurdish language from our own language.” (ibid)

Of course, such theses have no connection to scientific socialism, let alone science.

Defense of Anarchism

A.Öcalan’s views on the national question, socialism, and the achievements of socialism are a new version of anarchism blended with his own ideas. Indeed, A. Öcalan explains it as follows: “We replace Marxism’s concept of class with the commune. Kropotkin’s criticism of Lenin is correct. Bakunin’s criticism of Marx is correct. It is incomplete, but it is correct. Marxism must be critically examined in this regard. If Marx had understood Bakunin, and if Lenin had understood Kropotkin, the fate of socialism would certainly have developed differently.”( ibid )

To understand the ideological origins of A. Öcalan’s views, it is useful to briefly explain the emergence and development of anarchism.

Since its emergence, anarchism has been debated as a bourgeois movement in conflict with Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism, and its supporters continue to present it as a fresh idea. Leaving others aside, anarchism, which emerged as an ideological movement with Max Stirner, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, and Mikhail Bakunin, is known for rejecting class organization and, in the name of “freedom,” rejecting all forms of discipline and authority. Leaving mass movements aside, this movement, which took its place on the historical stage as a caricature of the labor movement, still has its defenders, even if it is not decisive.

The first ideas of anarchism took shape with Stirner. Proudhon followed him. And it can be said that the ideas of anarchism took shape with Proudhon. Proudhon’s greatest follower was Bakunin. One of the fundamental principles of anarchism is that the freedom of the individual is the everything. Since any kind of state is against the freedom of the individual, the state is more of a product of a certain stage in the development of society; this is an admission that society has become divided into irreconcilable opposites that it is unable to resolve, thus entering into an insoluble contradiction with itself. However, in order to prevent the antagonists, the classes with opposing economic interests, from consuming themselves and society in a futile war, a power becomes necessary to mitigate the conflict that appears to exist within society and keep it within the bounds of “order”; this power, which arises from society but stands above it and increasingly alienates itself from it, is the state.

The ultimate goal of the Communist Party is not to seize the state, elevate it, or preserve its existence. When the proletariat seizes power, it dismantles the bourgeois state apparatus and establishes the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the proletarian state, which means the dictatorship of the vast majority of society over the exploitative minority. It expropriates the means of production and all material values produced by social production from the monopoly of the bourgeoisie and nationalizes them. With the proletarian revolution, the state does not lose its function as an instrument of oppression of one class over others. However, this time the state becomes a completely renewed instrument of power, established to ensure the rule of the entire people, under the leadership of the proletariat, over the exploiting classes, rather than that of the exploiting minority.

This state under the rule of the proletariat is not an instrument of oppression established for the exploitation of one class by another, as in slave, feudal, or capitalist state systems, but rather an instrument that aims to eliminate existing social classes and will fade away to the extent that it achieves this goal.

To emphasize once more: the ultimate goal of proletarian power is to completely abolish the state.

Undoubtedly, this will be a long process, and the preconditions for achieving this goal will be prepared under the power of the proletariat, the gravedigger of the bourgeoisie, under the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this process, which involves a violent revolution, it is the socialist state, the highest form of democracy, that will bring about the withering away and disappearance of the state.

At this point, F. Engels’ remarks on the historical preconditions for the withering away of the state are instructive: “The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out.” (Marx-Engels, “Utopian Socialism and Scientific Socialism,” Selected Works, vol. 3)

Marx, Lenin, and other masters constructed the fundamental theoretical views of scientific socialism in the multifaceted and comprehensive struggle they waged against these bourgeois ideologues. In other words, because they understood and knew these bourgeois thinkers well, they buried them in the dustbin of history on the ideological front. All the gains of the international proletariat in the twentieth century, starting with the October Revolution, are the product of this victory won on the ideological front. The collapse of “real socialism,” on the other hand, is the product of the betrayal of socialist- masked bureaucratic bourgeoisie who did not follow the path opened by the communists. The real issue here is not whether the problem is understood or not, but the struggle between the proletarian way of thinking and the bourgeois way of thinking, in which the bourgeoisie regains power.

F.Engels also uses the following statements regarding “how and under what conditions the state can be abolished”: “The state (…) becomes superfluous when it becomes the representative of the whole community. (…) The first act in which the state truly appears as the representative of the whole community—the seizure of the means of production in the name of the community—is also its last act as a state. (…) The government of persons gives way to the administration of things and the management of production processes. The state cannot be ‘abolished’; it withers away.” (F. Engels, Anti- Dühring)

Proudhon shapes his thesis, which combines the contradictions of class struggle with peaceful arguments that reject the state, around equality and justice. Stirner calls this anarchism. The fundamental thesis of every defender of anarchism is the claim that the state will never facilitate individual freedom.

Stirner’s foundation of individual freedom, by taking on extreme individualism, turns into Stirnerian anarchism. In Proudhon’s anarchism, the thesis of eliminating the state, rather than the antagonism between capitalists and wage earners formed in the process of social evolution and capital, occupies an important place. The doctrine based on equality and justice excludes violence as its fundamental basis; it prioritizes reforms. Anarchism, which reached its extreme point with Bakunin, the greatest representative of this movement, does not consider reforms sufficient, as Proudhon did. The state, government, and property must all be destroyed, razed to the ground.

Saint Simon’s thesis, on the other hand, develops around the abolition of inheritance rights and atheism.

The foundation for the liberation of the working class and the masses from oppression, exploitation, and slavery is the liberation of the individual. Individualism is the philosophical basis of anarchism. As a bourgeois ideology, anarchism sees social liberation in the liberation of the individual.

Proudhon, who sought to reconcile the contradictions within society by idealizing the existing society, did not propose to destroy the foundation upon which these contradictions arose, namely the bourgeois order. Instead, he believed that the negative aspects of the capitalist system should be eliminated through reform, while the positive aspects should be preserved and the system continued.

The class struggle of the proletariat, as the creative force behind the realization of socialism, completely excludes any kind of political movement. Any kind of revolutionary action or social movement is looked down upon. The ultimate goal of the working class’s political struggle is to seize political power. The way to do this is through revolution. In anarchism, since the state is the root of all evil, one must completely withdraw from everything that protects and safeguards the state, from all forms of politics, and from participating in any

election. The working class should not establish its own political party, should not carry out political action, and should not strike; to do so would be to recognize the state and to fight the state through these means. This is contrary to the “immortal first principles.”

So what should be done?

The answer to this question is that we must wait for the day of “social liquidation.” Until that day comes, the state must be vilified and discredited. When all workers are on your side, all administrative apparatus will be shut down, the state will be abolished, and in its place will be the alliance of Bakuninist socialist democracy.

So  what  does  A.  Öcalan  say  in  his  “Perspective”: “The  nation-state  is characteristically power-oriented. Whether power is in the hands of the proletariat or the bourgeoisie may make a difference politically, but not in terms of the culture of domination it produces. Furthermore, class struggle against class is also wrong. It only deepens the social division based on class. We have replaced the class struggle against class with the dilemma of the commune against the state. The nation-state is contrary to socialism; it corrupts it. For these reasons, we have turned the idea of the nation-state and its goal upside down. Instead, we say democratic nation.“ And ”The democratic society is the political program of this era. It does not target the state.“ (ibid.) Thus, A. Öcalan clearly states that he does not consider ”class struggle against class“ to be correct, that he ”targets the state,“ and emerges as a ”new” version of anarchism.

Class Struggle

However, just as it was yesterday, today human history is the history of class struggle. This is an objective fact. And as long as classes exist, this struggle will continue. Therefore, A. Öcalan’s assessments are incompatible with scientific thinking. The class struggle—class warfare—has objective laws. To disregard these laws and attempt to explain historical changes and conflicts with subjective interpretations is to substitute intentions for facts. The assessments in question are of a similar nature.

First of all, without falling into conceptual confusion, we must emphasize the following facts. Neither classes nor class struggle are created by willful effort.

In other words, the MLMs did not create these classes through willful effort. Classes are objective facts that have existed since slave society. And “The entire history of society to date* is the history of class struggles.” (K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, [*More precisely, the written history that exists. The social prehistory that preceded all written history was virtually unknown in 1847. Engels’ note to the 1888 English and 1890 German editions.]

Again, according to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the state is “an organ of class rule, an organ of oppression of one class over another.” (V.I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, Eriş Yayınları, Fourth Edition, p. 15)

A.Öcalan rejects all these facts. Let’s first look at what he says: “Historical materialism should replace ‘class struggle’ with ‘commune’. … Instead of historical materialism and socialism based on class conflict, I believe that historical materialism and socialism based on the dilemma of state and commune is more accurate. I find it more accurate to revise Marxism and implement this concept instead. In other words, history is not a history of class struggle, but rather a history of conflict between the state and the commune. Marxism’s theory of conflict based on class division is the main reason for the collapse of real socialism.”(ibid.)

There are classes in socialism too. The collapse of “real socialism” is also the re-establishment of power by the bourgeoisie in the struggle between the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, masked as socialists, and the communists. In other words, the outcome is a product of the ongoing class struggle. Denying classes, defending class cooperation instead of class struggle, means the continuation of the existing bourgeois hegemonic system.

Where classes and class struggle are denied, neither socialism nor the struggle for socialism can exist. The collapse of the Democratic People’s Republics and socialist governments won under proletarian leadership in the 20th century are temporary setbacks in the historical march of the international proletariat. And what collapsed was not scientific socialism. What collapsed were socialist- masked bureaucratic bourgeois dictatorships. Likewise, despite all the changes that have taken place, our era is still the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions. And the working class is still the most revolutionary class of our era. The struggle that began -which is the struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors- continues today in a different form.

A.Öcalan rejects the concept of class and, consequently, class struggle. He therefore redefines the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions accordingly, creating his own definition of a new era. “… the name of the new era is modernity,”he says. In justifying this, he states: “We define modernity through the Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse: capitalism, the nation-state, and industrialism. Modernity expresses the reality of this era. It should not be equated with capitalism. Modernity consists of the triad of capitalism, the nation-state, and industrialism. This is a structure that emerged in the 16th century. Real socialism is also a product of this modernity,” he states. (ibid.)

When considering the theory and practice of scientific socialism, these theses lack consistency and scientific merit.

State and Nation

A.Öcalan claims that K. Marx, F. Engels, and V. I. Lenin did not develop sufficient theses on the state and national question. He explains this claim as follows: “Marx sensed this danger and put up his counterargument. But he couldn’t develop it. He was going to write six books. He wrote the first volume of one, but it was incomplete. He remained limited to an analysis based on infrastructure, superstructure, and class. In terms of the leading role, he even fell behind Hegel. Engels tried to complete it a little. He focused on ‘The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State’, ‘The Dialectics of Nature’, and ‘The Role of Force in History’, but it was not enough. Lenin tried to complete it in the fields of politics and state analysis, but he did not quite succeed either. Mao attempted to adapt this theory to the liberation struggles of the colonies, but remained limited. He could have developed a comprehensive system analysis and alternative solutions, but fell short. (ibid)

In short, A. Öcalan argues that the communist masters were “inadequate” in matters of state and nation, and that he himself has completed this inadequacy.

The state emerged as a product of class-based societies. Discussions about the state have always been a focus of interest. Marxism’s understanding of the state occupies a special place in these discussions. As a direct result of class- based societies, the state has always been an instrument of coercion for the ruling classes and has always carried the color of a class. The slave state, the feudal  state, and  the  capitalist  state,  although differing in their  forms of government, have always been essentially the same in their essence as a means for one class to oppress and dominate other classes. The socialist state is also a state of a class. The state, which is the proletariat’s necessary stop on the way to communism, bears the color of the class in socialism.

The MLMs faced constant attacks against their understanding of the bourgeois state and the socialist state. During the February Revolution of 1917, Lenin’s ideological debates against the anti-Marxist state theory of the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries are well known.

In these debates, Lenin argued that the state emerged as a result of irreconcilable class antagonisms and the struggle between these classes, while the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries defended the approach that the state was a product of class compromise; a neutral apparatus above all conflict and irreconcilability.

In the debates on the state and proletarian dictatorship, Kautsky, who took the arguments inherited from the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries even further, acknowledges that the state is an instrument of class rule, but ignores the fact that, according to Marx, the task of dismantling the entire apparatus of the bourgeois state rests on the shoulders of the proletariat.

Another assessment by A. Öcalan is “Again, Marx does not have a substantial analysis of the nation-state. In this respect, a serious ideological gap has been left.  Let’s  give  credit  where  credit  is  due. Marx  later  realized  this  lack  of analysis. While writing Capital, the third book was to be about the state, but he did not live long enough. Even if he had written it, it would have been difficult to write correctly because Marx lacked a perspective for analyzing the nation-state.” ( ibid )

K.Marx and F. Engels viewed the national movements that emerged in some Eastern European countries during this period, when democratic and socialist movements did not present themselves in a way that would embrace the masses, in European terms. For example, V.I. Lenin, affirming the views in an article by    Engels    published    by    Ryazanov,    makes    the    following assessment: “Engels states that the proletariat must recognize the political independence of the major nations of Europe and their ‘right to self- determination’ (‘right to self-government’), and points out the absurdity of the ‘principle of nationalism’ (especially in the sense of its Bonapartist application), that is, of treating any small nation on the same level as large nations. ‘And as for Russia,’ says Engels, ‘it can only be described as the custodian of a vast stolen property [i.e., the oppressed nations] that could only be taken away by force on Judgment Day.’ Both Bonapartism and the tsarist regime use the movements of small nations against European democracy for their own interests.” (V.I. Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination)

As a result of this perspective, both the movement in Poland and the uprising in Hungary for national liberation and democracy were supported. And this was considered a duty of European social democracy.

K.Marx, who was in principle opposed to the federation, defended this split despite the possibility that it would lead to the formation of a federation. Given that the working class in England was dormant and had become a reserve force of liberalism, i.e., he had lost “hope” in the working class at this particular stage, he advised that the Irish national movement should be supported by the English working class (in terms of liberating Ireland). Moreover, K. Marx thought of accelerating this movement in a revolutionary direction and bringing it to a conclusion consistent with their freedoms. In other words, the desire of nations to determine their own destiny can only be supported conditionally and in certain periods, not always and under all circumstances. These historically established views provide sufficient evidence of the inaccuracy of A. Öcalan’s theses on this subject. Even today, it is impossible to offer correct solutions to the national question without relying on the theses of K. Marx, F. Engels, V. I. Lenin, and J. Stalin.

X. Conclusion

Following the “process” between the Turkish state and A. Öcalan, the “National Solidarity, Brotherhood, and Democracy Commission” was established in the Turkish Grand National Assembly. The main task of this commission is to give the project agreed upon between the Turkish Republic and A. Öcalan an air of legitimacy under the guise of democracy. Therefore, all discussions on the commission’s mode of operation, the will of the parliament, etc., are essentially a waste of time. Moreover, referring the matter to the commission is just another form of delaying tactics.

We have briefly highlighted the events that took place during this process. So what is invisible? What is invisible is the failure of the spokespeople for the ruling class to make any statement regarding the national democratic demands of the Kurdish nation. As we have always stated, the Kurdish national struggle is a result. So, at this stage, is there any “positive” statement from the Turkish state aimed at eliminating the causes that have led to this outcome, which has become a regional ‘problem’? No! Their “wishes and hopes,” which have no counterpart in social practice, are meaningless.

In this sense, it is impossible to agree with the assessment that A. Öcalan’s “endorsement” of the fascist MHP leader D. Bahçeli in his ‘Perspective’ text and the step he took; “In my opinion, this is a clear call for peace and a democratic society solution. It is both a call for peace and a consistent and democratic solution. Developments show this to some extent” . (ibid)

It is clear that the comment made by A. Öcalan is highly subjective. The real aim of the spokespeople for the fascist state, primarily D. Bahçeli, is not to make peace with the Kurdish nation. Their aim is to eliminate the Kurdish national gains, which they see as a “threat” due to regional developments in the Middle East, to disarm the Kurdish national movement, and to bring it into line and tame it.

Of course, as A. Öcalan said, “Those who fight can make peace. Only those who bear the responsibility for war can take on the responsibility for peace.” (ibid.) This statement is generally true. However, the reality of a geography where fascist terror rages unchecked stands before us in all its grandeur. Led by D. Bahçeli, who extended his bloody hand, the spokespeople of the ruling classes, who hold power in their hands, continue to insist on using the poisonous language of unjust war, not peace, and on policies of controlling all forms of social opposition, including bourgeois opposition, through state terror.

All of these are objective facts that have occurred and are before us during a process where “peace” rhetoric is flying around. Given this situation, the Kurdish people will have to wait at least a little longer to see what the practical outcome will be of the ambitious statement made in Imralı: “We have expanded the scope of this method a little and are preparing our program under state supervision with this meeting” (ibid.). It seems that, despite all the mistrust and concerns, this is how the process will unfold.

Many parties involved in the process believe that the government’s “new process” does not have the primary goal of finding a solution to the “Kurdish issue” during this period. What is intended is to extend the life of the AKP-MHP government with the support of the Kurds internally; and at the regional level, to liquidate the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria in particular, and to prevent the Kurds from gaining any status. In the context of the impending Third Imperialist World War, they are, in a sense, compelled to do this out of a need to level the playing field for themselves.

In this sense, it is necessary to seriously consider A. Öcalan’s assessment that “peace and democratic integration, especially with the Republic of Turkey.” (ibid)

First of all, when we consider these kinds of “peace” and “solution” proposals together with the assessments and statements made by some spokespeople of the Kurdish national movement, primarily A. Öcalan, we can say that we are faced with approaches that are both contradictory and contain serious problems within themselves.

What A. Öcalan means by “democratic integration, especially with the Republic of Turkey” is integration into the existing system. This debate is currently being played out in concrete terms in the form of the Autonomous Administration in Northeast Syria. Above all, the answers given by the parties to the question of how this “integration” will take place contain serious differences.

Once again, it is clear that the Turkish state, the US, and other imperialist powers are pursuing a coercive and oppressive policy demanding that the autonomous administration submit to the Salafi jihadist gang organization they have installed in power in Syria. This coercion also aims to dismantle the autonomous structure of many institutions, primarily the military forces. In other words, they want to disarm the Kurdish people and leave them at the mercy of these gangster forces that behead people. All these policies coincide with a period of massacres and attempted massacres against the Alevis and the Druze people.

Is history repeating itself? We don’t know. But we do know this fact: the liberation of oppressed nations and peoples can only be achieved through their own strength and through independent policies based on that strength. The priorities of the imperialists and the reactionary states in the region are their own regional interests. They approach the struggle of oppressed nations and peoples from this perspective.

In the current context, the approach of US imperialism and its accomplices to the  Kurdish  national  question  at  the  regional  level  is  also  within  this framework. Therefore, Kurdish forces that do not aim to confront imperialism and regional reactionaries and to integrate with the people and oppressed religious groups in a united struggle perspective will not achieve any real gains. This is because it is inconceivable that fascist and reactionary regimes would democratize themselves and enter into a “democratic integration” with the oppressed nations and religious groups they have controlled for decades through policies of denial and annihilation. This would mean a denial of the historical class struggle and the contradiction between oppressor and oppressed nations.

On the other hand, A. Öcalan does not only talk about “democratic integration” with the Turkish Republic, but also argues that similar processes will be initiated in other states on Turkey’s initiative: “Similar processes will also be initiated with other states, namely Iraq, Iran, and Syria. In my opinion, Turkey taking the initiative is both a matter of common sense and a reflection of reality.“ (A. Öcalan, ”Perspective,” Serxwebûn Newspaper, issue 521)

The expectation that “under Turkey’s initiative” there could be serious developments on a positive basis in favor of the Kurds at the regional level in the name of democracy and freedom is a fantasy. How can a state that attacks and continues to attack the Kurdish people and their fighters with its artillery, tanks, warplanes, UAVs, and SİHA drones in the territories of Turkey, Iraq, and Syria take a new initiative in favor of the Kurds? Based on the current concrete data, it is not possible to answer this question positively. Of course, we have no knowledge of what is discussed behind closed doors. Therefore, at this point, we are looking at what is happening on the ground rather than rhetoric. What we see here in the name of “initiative” is the Turkish state’s reckless calculations regarding Kurdish gains in Syria.

Some spokespeople for the Turkish ruling class and hired pens are shouting slogans such as “the US, Israel, and other states are trying to exclude us from the region” and “we must intervene against this.” In fact, at this moment, the Turkish state has already taken the “initiative” in terms of occupation and aggression. As the Turkish state’s “initiative” in Kurdish territory increases, the ideology of monism will resurface even more.

Consequently, all the views put forward by A. Öcalan and the PKK from 1993 to February 27, 2025 stem from its class character. In Turkey, the Kurdish nation has been oppressed by the state for 100 years, subjected to denial and assimilation. In Turkey, the Kurdish nation is an oppressed and dependent nation in every respect. The PKK has naturally been quite successful in mobilizing the oppressed Kurds, whom it organized based on the national question. The armed resistance, initiated by combining rhetoric and practice, has been decisive in strengthening the PKK, organizing Kurds around it, and giving the Kurdish question an international dimension.

However, the PKK, which emerged as a national revolutionary organization, has not been able to maintain this line consistently. The revolutionary line, which began to break down in the 1990s, turned itself into a position that clearly drew itself into the system in 1999. Although the state’s attacks and the pressure and isolation imposed on A. Öcalan enabled the PKK to return to a national revolutionary line from 2017 until February 27, 2025, it has adopted a new line since February 27. This is linked to the class stance that the PKK carries within itself as a national movement.

In summary, the current situation regarding the Kurdish national question can be described as follows.

Firstly, the claim that the Kurdish national question has been resolved is incorrect.

Secondly, the claim that “armed struggle has run its course” is incorrect.

Thirdly, criticisms of the historical experience of socialism under the name of “real socialism” should be evaluated in light of the theoretical and practical experiences of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The concept of “democratic socialism” is fundamentally flawed ideologically. This concept is based on the fundamental argument that socialism is not democratic. And it contains an approach that separates democracy from its class basis. However, the issue of democracy cannot be separated from its class basis. Any attempts to do so would mean the continuation of bourgeois rule. Socialism or, during the transition to communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat/democratic people’s dictatorship, means democracy for the working class and broad masses of people and dictatorship against class enemies. Democracy for “everyone” in socialism implies class collaboration and is also impossible. Any other approach points to a “within-the-system” and reformist line within the reality of class society.

Fourth; under Turkish conditions, the desire for a “Democratic Society” is unrealistic when considering the reality of class society, the ground on which the Turkish Republic state is built, and the reality of fascism. Moreover, as we mentioned above, concepts created by “ignoring” the reality of class society have no meaning beyond serving the counter-revolution.

Fifthly; the struggle for democracy under fascist conditions must be embraced, and the aim must be to subordinate reforms to the Democratic People’s Revolution.

Sixth: As was the case yesterday, today we must defend the unity of our people, including Kurds, Turks, and various ethnic minorities. We must not integrate with the system for the sake of limited national demands, but rather fight for people’s democracy, independence, and socialism under the leadership of the proletariat.

Seventh: It must be based on the reality that national and religious oppression of oppressed nationalities and oppressed religions, especially the Kurdish national question, can only be resolved under the conditions of Democratic People’s Power and socialism.

Eighth: The struggle for national democratic demands must not be denied.

It is never, ever a revolutionary stance for a nation not to defend its national democratic demands.

Ninth: The Kurdish national struggle is not limited to the PKK, which has declared itself dissolved.

Tenth: With its Extraordinary 12th Congress, the PKK, which has dissolved itself, has taken a strong step from being a national revolutionary movement towards a national reformist line. How the process will end depends entirely on developments.

Eleventh; Communists must defend the fact that the Kurdish national question is a political issue, as they did yesterday, and must unconditionally defend the Right of Free Separation of the oppressed nation (the right of the Kurdish nation to establish a separate state).

Twelfth: In an environment where a nation’s “right to freely secede” is not openly and freely discussed, and moreover, in a process where negotiations for a “solution” are being conducted, if the Kurdish national question is not correctly defined and referred to by name, there should be no hesitation in pointing  out  that  there  is  a  blatantly  deceptive  approach.  Constructive criticism and concerns in this regard, particularly regarding the Kurdish national movement, should not be held back.

Thirteenth: In a political reality where the fascist dictatorship lacks even bourgeois democracy, and where attacks against the bourgeois opposition, let alone progressive-revolutionary forces, are increasing day by day, a clear stance must be taken that it cannot develop a liberal and democratic attitude on a political issue such as the Kurdish national question, and it must be argued that the key to resolving the concerns felt by a significant section of the revolutionary democratic public lies in the Democratic People’s Revolution and the struggle for socialism.

Fourteenth; the fascist character of the Turkish ruling classes and their state has not changed. Moreover, it is known that under the conditions of Turkey and Turkish Kurdistan, fascism is not only a form of state but also a “form of politics,” and that these forces, which feed on chaos and blood and are enemies of democracy and freedom, will insist on fascist state terror and continue to do so as long as the balance of power does not change significantly; they will continue to pursue their fascist policies.

Fifteenth and last; the final solution to the Kurdish national question rests on the shoulders of the proletariat.

The way to escape the regime of oppression in Turkey, to put an end to all the suffering, repression, and massacres, to establish an order of equality and freedom from exploitation for all nations and workers, is through the overthrow of the fascist dictatorship, which is the common enemy of the Turks, Kurds, and other minorities. The only guarantee for Kurds to exercise their Right to Free Separation alongside the DHD is the joint struggle of the Kurdish and Turkish peoples, along with people of various nationalities and faiths. Only a revolutionary, militant struggle, not a conciliatory one, can lead the oppressed to liberation.

source: TKP-ML

TKP-ML: Notes On Abdullah Öcalan’s “Perspective” Document

Following PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan’s “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society,” the PKK decided to end its armed struggle by dissolving itself at its Extraordinary 12th Congress held between 5 and 7 May. A. Öcalan prepared two separate documents sent to the PKK’s 12th Congress. Serxwebûn newspaper published the 21-page document written by A. Öcalan on 25 April in its 521st issue.

1. General Introduction

Following PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan’s “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society,” the PKK decided to end its armed struggle by passing a resolution to dissolve itself at its 12th Extraordinary Congress held on May 5-7. A. Öcalan prepared two separate documents sent to the PKK’s 12th Congress. Serxwebûn newspaper published the 21-page document written by A. Öcalan on April 25 in its 521st issue.

In this “Perspective” document, consisting of an introduction and seven main sections, A. Öcalan addresses the theoretical, political, historical, and programmatic foundations of the new era from his and his organization’s perspective.

This article evaluates the “Perspective” letter sent by A. Öcalan to the PKK’s Extraordinary 12th Congress.

Idealism, as a Historical Perspective

Human history is filled with various variations of materialist and idealist ideas. Through a detailed examination of human history and by addressing the ideas of philosophers who came before him and his contemporaries, Karl Marx rescued materialism from its dead and soulless form and pulled dialectics out of the quagmire of idealism, putting dialectical materialism at the service of the proletariat. With the emergence of classes, idealism was imposed on the oppressed by the oppressors, and reality was always manipulated to produce a kind of consent.

For example, in ancient Greece, while citizens (slaves and women were not citizens) had various rights, and forms of government changed many times, with various laws being made and broken, what remained constant was slavery itself. Slavery was accepted as natural. Slaves themselves were made to accept it as natural.

We are now encountering a “new” definition of socialism by A. Öcalan. For example, we are faced with a ‘defense’ of socialism that rejects the dictatorship of the proletariat because it is not “democratic.” A. Öcalan says the following in his Perspective text: “This is why we are focusing on socialist ideology and attempting to democratize it. In fact, calling socialism democratic is not entirely accurate. Because socialism should already be democratic. However, real socialism is oriented towards seizing state power and proletarianizing the state, i.e., proletarian dictatorship, so its democratic essence is weak. That is why we felt the need to use the term democratic socialism.”

Much can be said about these expressions. We are talking about an approach that disregards for whom the dictatorship of the proletariat is democracy and for whom it is dictatorship, based on the claim of “democratizing socialism.” In fact, A. Öcalan’s way of thinking, regardless of his intentions, resembles that of the Bauer brothers.

In The Holy Family, the first joint work by K. Marx and F. Engels, an example of historical/social materialism is presented against the Bauer brothers, who put Christianity in their target sights as they were struggling to change the social mindset. According to this, although religion influences people in the ideological sphere, it did not descend from heaven as expressed in the holy book, but is rooted in social life and relationships. Theoretical criticism and ideological subjugation are not sufficient to eliminate religion; it can only be eliminated through practical criticism, that is, by changing the material relationships that create and nurture it. The Bauer brothers also seek the root of social problems in mentality, that is, in religion, and therefore base their struggle on opposition to religion. “Ideas can never lead beyond an old world order but only beyond the ideas of the old world order. Ideas cannot carry out anything at all. In order to carry out ideas men are needed who can exert practical force.” (Karl Marx-Friedrich Engels, The Holy Family)

From  Spartacus  to  Sheikh  Bedrettin,  from  Thomas  Münzer  to  the  Paris Commune, from the Celali Rebellions to the Kurdish Serhildans, from June 15-16 to the Gezi Uprising, there have been many practical criticisms, whether targeting power or not, armed or unarmed. Undoubtedly, these cannot all be considered in exactly the same way. Even the Kurdish uprisings are each a separate subject of analysis. What makes them the same is certainly not that they were defeated. Indeed, some even managed to seize power in certain time periods and regions. When these uprisings, some economically based, some democratically based, and some based on identity and religion, are examined, it will be seen that, regardless of their intentions, the thick scent of idealism permeated them due to reasons such as their historical processes and the failure to properly construct the foundations on which they rose.

From a certain point in history, we see idealism being imposed on the masses in a more conscious and organized manner. This process began with the successive national liberation struggles and revolutions in Bulgaria, Albania, Vietnam, Romania, Cuba, Laos, Chile, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, and many other places, particularly after the Soviet and Chinese revolutions and the defeat of Hitler’s fascism.

Reversals from Socialism and the End of History

National movements have different contents. We will discuss these again later. However, as if to confirm Lenin’s statement about “the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions,” the past century was marked by the victories of the national liberation struggles led by the proletariat against imperialism. However, a process of reversals from socialism, a process of revision and improvement, began through modern revisionist powers, primarily the Soviets and China, giving rise to a new contradiction. Although attempts were made to resolve this contradiction with the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) in China, in the long run, imperialism succeeded in creating a world in its own image.

However, this was not enough to quell the justified anger of the masses. Therefore, a more comprehensive wave of ideological attacks began with the rhetoric of “the end of history” and the manipulations of ‘democratization’ and “the end of classes.” Especially with the collapse of social imperialism and the dissolution of the remnants of the Soviet revolution, a great wave of pessimism began to engulf the world. The campaign against communism, led by US imperialism and with the cooperation of Western imperialists, began to include ideological subjugation along with physical attacks.

The First and Second Imperialist World Wars were a product of the capitalist mode  of  production,  imperialist  relations,  and  contradictions.  However, Khrushchev’s modern revisionism distorted this reality and rejected revolutions and wars in practice. It eliminated the distinction between just and unjust wars. He argued that the objective laws and the whole set of relationships that caused wars and revolutions had now disappeared. According to Khrushchev, imperialism had lost its aggressive nature and it was now possible to speak of “permanent peace” and the resolution of international problems through “mutual understanding.” (Which question is central? Revolution and war, or peace and coexistence? – People’s Fedayeen Organization of Iran, translated by Leman Meral Ünal, Sendika.Org)

This deviation, which captivated the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and many other communist parties at the time, caused the communist and revolutionary movement to take serious steps backward under the guise of “reducing tension.” These parties rejected the truth clearly stated by Lenin in The Military Program of the Proletarian Revolution: “Only if we overthrow, defeat, and dispossess the bourgeoisie not only in one country but throughout the world will wars become impossible.” We can interpret Lenin’s approach as follows: “Social peace is only possible through the elimination of classes and the full equality of rights for all strata of society.”

Again, Lenin states: “As long as capitalism and socialism coexist, they cannot live in peace; one or the other will eventually triumph, and either a funeral will be held for the Soviet Republic or for world capitalism.” (V.I. Lenin, “Speech Delivered at a Meeting of Activists of the Moscow Organization of the R.C.P.(B.)-December 6, 1920”)

Despite Lenin’s quite clear and explicit warnings, Khrushchev’s modern revisionism had emerged with its thesis of “permanent peace” and its claim that international problems could be solved through “mutual understanding.” Such an approach was significant in showing how modern revisionism revised MLM science, as well as being one of the concrete steps backward in socialism. (Of course, the origins of this regression must be sought deeper and earlier.)

In summary, while revolutionaries and communists generally approached the issue of “peace” in this manner, today A. Öcalan, as if he had discovered something new, expresses surprise in his letter, stating: “Strangely, it was not our side, but a Turk who was relentless against me and did everything to have me executed at any moment, Devlet Bahçeli, who opened this new era as the most authoritative voice and hand of the Turkish sensibility of the time, which had become a party and even a proto-party state. In other words, Bahçeli, as the relentless leader of the war against us, is saying this directly to the DEM delegation. ‘I have devoted my entire life to this, but now I want to start a new era.’ In my opinion, this is a clear call for peace and a democratic solution. It is both a call for peace and a consistent call for peace with democratic content. Developments seem to indicate this.”

The “peace” mentioned by A. Öcalan in this statement has been expressed in different ways at different times, as seen in the example of Khrushchev. Despite all their differences, the only place this type of peace rhetoric serves is the interests of the bourgeoisie.

Lenin, however, advanced the thesis of coexistence in peace as a revolutionary policy serving the goal of strengthening revolutionary movements worldwide. According to Lenin, this theory should be used to accelerate the proletarian revolutions of the world’s peoples, not as the foundation and essential element of a socialist country’s foreign policy.

An Organized Wave of Attacks: Neo-Liberalism and Postmodernism Hand in Hand

The betrayal initiated from within by people like Kautsky and Khrushchev, combined with the attacks of petty-bourgeois socialism and the imperialist- capitalist system, naturally resulted in a horribly distorted understanding of “democracy and socialism.” Figures, such as Bookchin and Negri, overturned the entire historical consciousness, even attacking from outside, as revealed by MLM science. Of course, we must not forget that ideological diseases such as patriarchy, hetero-sexism, and chauvinism had a major impact on accelerating this process. Because of these diseases, the masses were organizing against the revolutions they had created with their own hands in the name of “democracy.”

Imperialist-capitalists turned the sectarian policies implemented under the name of “socialism” into material for their own politics. Similar attacks, of course, existed from the very beginning. The personal slanders against K. Marx, F. Engels, and V. I. Lenin remained as rumors that no one took seriously because they were baseless.

However, in this process, which we now define as social imperialism, a series of policies implemented in the name of “socialism” had led to disastrous consequences for the masses. The participation of the masses in the revolution was being prevented, and the progress of the revolution was being halted. Under these conditions, figures like Khrushchev easily seized power. The bourgeoisie, which had been severely weakened by the working class’s seizure of power, was being restored.

Indeed, due to the manipulation of the imperialist-capitalists, these events were sold to the world’s working class and oppressed peoples under the guise of “democracy and freedoms.” Those who wanted to criticize these events lacked the clear information and ideological-theoretical background necessary to analyze the concrete conditions in a concrete way, resulting in a “criticism of real socialism” that lacked a real foundation.

The NGO approach was introduced under the guise of “humanitarian aid” to the colonies and semi-colonies where Soviet imperialism and Western imperialists were waging power struggles. The masses were bombarded with the idea that problems could be solved within the system. Crumbs of freedom, band-aids, painkillers… Just like the capitalist system’s understanding of health, an understanding that would never heal and would always keep people dependent on it was normalized. The slogan “either an honorable peace or a glorious resistance” gave way to the understanding that “there are no winners in war, no losers in peace.” However, even considering that the number of UN Peacekeeping Forces, which was 13 during the “Cold War” period, began operating in 20 regions between 1988 and 1993 and in 63 regions in 2008, it is clear that conflicts around the world have increased in parallel with neo-liberalism and how possible “peace” is in this system.

In his letter to the PKK, A. Öcalan wrote: “And the only conclusion we can draw from this is that only those who fight can make peace. In other words, not secondary or third powers, not allies, but those who bear the responsibility for the war itself can take on the responsibility for peace. Because peace is as serious an event as war. And the responsibility for such a serious event can only be assumed by its primary bearers. Therefore, realistically, the state is waging this war. I feel the need for the state to transform this war into a new beginning as an attempt at peace. This has been voiced over the last six months. We, too, were convinced that this hand should not be left hanging in the air, that indifference should not be shown to this voice, and we responded immediately. As the primary responsible party and executor of this struggle, we felt a sense of responsibility and responded without delay. This has also been shared with the public. The expression is as follows: only those who fight can achieve peace. Other parties do not have the power to achieve peace. They are secondary or auxiliary. The main initiative lies with those who spearhead this work. We have embarked on such a path, which I believe is a sound approach. Based on this approach, we have expanded the scope of the beginning somewhat and are preparing  our  program  with  this  meeting  under  state  supervision.” While saying this, he both glosses over the reasons why the war started and ignores the inevitability of wars in the imperialist capitalist system.

The greatest trap of postmodernism is that it blurs the distinction between the super ordinate identity and subordinate identities. Indeed, in his recent writings, A. Öcalan, who has not mentioned “imperialism” in the slightest, has, as seen in the above quote, glossed over the “causes” of the war and spoken of an imaginary spring.

The main point of living together in peace is democracy. So what does this mean? The denial of revolution and class struggle! If living together in peace means democracy, and if “the most important arena of struggle is the democratic arena,” that is, if the ultimate resolution of existing contradictions is possible through democracy, then there is no longer any need to talk about proletarian revolution, class struggle, or the role of revolutionary struggle. Where there is no revolutionary struggle, weapons are not needed. In this sense, the issue of the PKK laying down its arms is not such an urgent matter. The path outlined by A. Öcalan is clear.

Neo-liberalism, the ideology of globalization, and postmodernism, the cultural structure of globalization, found their field of application during the period known as the “Cold War,” which was waged between Western imperialists and social imperialists. Political and social life, the role of the state, and the existence of the nation-state are being reinterpreted.

“In the second half of the 20th century, faced with labor movements and socialist struggles that interrupted liberalism, liberalism began to establish its epistemological basis in order to redefine itself. Frederich August Von Hayek, who defended liberalism against the rising socialist movements, is an economist and political scientist who won the Nobel Prize in 1974 for his views defending the free market economy. Neo-liberalism can be defined as a capital project, an aggressive class domination project, designed to reorganize the role of the capitalist state in relation to class power, and thus the power relations and forms of power it represents.” (Güler Kalay, Neo-Liberalism and Identity Politics)

Neo-liberalism, whose epistemological foundation is based on postmodern theory, emphasizes diversity and differences, highlighting multiculturalism by addressing identities in terms of differences rather than similarities, criticizing modernism’s nation-state model, and opposing nation-state nationalism with micro-nationalisms. Micro-nationalism, created by emphasizing cultural differences based on ethnicity and belief, has become the determinant of neo-liberalism’s identity politics.

Postmodernism creates the illusion of multiculturalism by reducing all cultures and traditions to a single sphere. According to Terry Eagleton, postmodernism, “Despite boasting about being open to the Other, it can be just as exclusionary and censorious as the orthodoxies it opposes. For example, human culture is generally discussed, but class is not; the body is addressed, but biology is not; jouissance (pleasure) is mentioned, but justice is not; post-colonialism is discussed, but the petty bourgeoisie is not. This is a completely orthodox heterodoxy, like any imaginary form of identity, which needs bogeymen and false targets to do its job.“(The Illusions of Postmodernism)

Indeed, A. Öcalan also states: ”A society based on war, that is, on plunder, is a male-dominated society. Its business is surplus value. Marx links this to class division, but there is no need for that. If a surplus value opportunity begins to emerge, a plant society forms around the woman, and if there is an increase in food, the man sets his sights on it. He hunts animals, but he also seizes the food gathered by the woman. He seizes both the food and the woman; that’s how the story begins. He kills two birds with one stone.”

In this way, A. Öcalan obscures the concept of “class” while once again defending his famous thesis that “classes have ended”! It is precisely the production of surplus value and the appropriation of this production—which he himself admits—that turns women and men into two separate identities, oppressor and oppressed classes, bourgeoisie and proletariat…

1. Understanding of Materialism

Historical Materialism and the Problem of Social Nature

While A. Öcalan claims that the bourgeoisie is a class with which compromise is possible, he also overturns the terms, definitions, and analyses that are closely linked to MLM science. One of the most important of these is historical materialism.

A. Öcalan states: “The act of sanctification kills even a woman’s lover. Why? Because she knows what will happen to her. She has to kill him to prevent this disaster from befalling her. That is the essence. That is historical materialism. This is the most useful idea we can take from Marxism. Dialectical materialism explains it this way. But men also put an end to this female rule in Sumerian society.”

In this way, A. Öcalan reduces historical materialism to a single point. While doing so, he addresses the emergence of classes but also continues with a terrible class denial. His aim in doing so is, of course, an effort to “transform” the irreconcilable fundamental class antagonisms in society through a peace policy based on humanist discourse. This post-modern policy is one of the foremost forms of liquidation in history.

This form of liquidation, which purges the ideological and political sphere of revolutionary elements, has achieved significant successes today. The fact that a thought that has lost its revolutionary essence by reconciling with the bourgeoisie still maintains its mass base does not mean that it has not undergone ideological liquidation. In today’s revolutionary society, where the level of political consciousness has declined, taking pride in the continued existence of an organization is not a sign that things are going well. Unlike those who have succumbed to the idealistic illusion of “social peace,” MLMs know that the revolutionary and the counter-revolutionary cannot coexist in harmony. Concrete experiences in the history of class struggles clearly show that a parallel sphere of social consensus cannot be established in spite of the state.

F.Engels said that nature is the testing ground of dialectics. Similarly, the history of societies is the testing ground of historical materialism.

“Just as, according to the Pauli exclusion principle, two electrons cannot coexist in an atom at the same time and at the same energy level, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie cannot coexist without conflict in social history. Rejecting the necessities of matter and the social sphere is a bourgeois illusion of freedom. Even recent experiences show us that the bourgeois utopian understanding of freedom is actually a shackle that binds the feet of slaves. In Latin America, Mexico, and Nepal, class and national liberation organizations that joined the order through bourgeois social contracts after exhausting their revolutionary powder were eventually crushed by the wheels of the capitalist system. Thus, it became clear that the normal cultural, legal, and political flow of bourgeois society served as a mill for revolutionary organizations. These political movements, which resisted firearms for more than half a century, could not escape melting away like a candle within the normal flow of bourgeois social life. Some of the bureaucrats of these revolutionary organizations, later found privileged political opportunities for themselves within the system. But the poor workers and peasant children who were once guerrillas were mostly thrown out of the process of social realization, suffering from the high cost of living, poor living conditions, murders by drug cartels, and existential annihilation. Their final attempt to rebel was resolved without a single shot being fired, under the siege of civil society, the voluntary ideological executor of bourgeois civilization… Historical Materialism has shown us that a neutral sphere of thought, isolated from the economic infrastructure, is impossible throughout the history of class society. This includes the period of primitive animistic thought. Traces of economic activity can even be found at the origin of the first totem  cults.  The  fact  that  plant  and  animal  species  beneficial  to  the continuation of species existence were sacralized and tabooized tells us that the fundamental element determining consciousness in the transition from animal to human was human self-activity. All these historical materialist findings inform us that the democratic transformation of society cannot be achieved through bourgeois compromise.” (Anton Ekmekçi, The Story of the Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing in Aesop’s Fables)

In this sense, “democratic socialism” seeks the codes for creating a new life not in the transformation of areas that are the subject of political economy, but rather in thought. Yet correct thought is based on changing reality through practice. It is not possible to acquire knowledge of objectivity through “mental transformation” alone. This amounts to reshaping objective reality with ghosts summoned from beneath the ground. However, knowledge of reality is obtained, precisely as Marxism predicts, by changing its own object through praxis.

1. The National Question

Why Does It Exist?

“It is an indisputable fact that the Kurds in Turkey constitute a nation and that anyone who has not been blinded by raging Turkish chauvinism will accept it. Kurdish workers, poor and moderately well-to-do peasants, semi-proletarians, urban petty-bourgeoisie, the entire Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords are included in the Kurdish nation.

National oppression is applied not only to the Kurdish people, but to the entire Kurdish nation, except for a handful of feudal lords and three or five big bourgeoisie, who are fused with the Turkish ruling classes in every way. Kurdish workers, peasants, urban petty-bourgeoisie, small landlords suffer from this oppression.

In fact, the main target of national oppression is the bourgeoisie of the oppressed, dependent and subordinate nation. Because the capitalists and landlords belonging to the dominant nation want to be the unrivaled owners of all the riches and markets of the country. They want to retain the privileges of  forming  a  state.  By  banning  other  languages,  they  want  to  achieve “language unity”, which is extremely necessary for the market. The bourgeoisie and landlords belonging to the oppressed nationality stand in front of these ambitions as an important obstacle. Because they [the bourgeoisie and landlords of the oppressed nationality], too, have the ambition to own their own market, to control this market as they wish, to exploit the material wealth and the workforce of the people themselves.

These are the powerful economic factors that set the bourgeois and landlords of the two nations against each other; this is where the bourgeois and landlords of the dominant nation engage in uninterrupted national oppression; This is why national oppressions is aimed also to the bourgeois and landlords of the oppressed nation.” (Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, Selected Writings, Nisan Publishing)

Nationalism, is a class ideology adopted by the Turkish, Arab, and Persian bourgeoisie, defined by A. Öcalan as the “Turkish, Arab, and Persian ruling elites,” to secure their economic and political dominance in their own regions and protect their class interests. In order to ensure the stable preservation of these interests, they regularly attempt to impose this ideology on the oppressed classes and strata. The fact that the working class and poor peasantry have been influenced by “nationalist poison” or have become its advocates does not change the fact that nationalism is not an “external poison” but a bourgeois class view.

The rationale for viewing nationalism not as a class ideology and policy but as a poison injected into the “elites” from outside and a pathological disease of the people is that the ruling classes of Western European countries increasingly embracing multiculturalism and European citizenship, at least officially, in the 1990s (which coincided with the most concrete manifestations of the retreat from socialism and the collapse of social imperialism) and their criticism of nationalism can be cited. The German and French monopoly bourgeoisie defended multiculturalism as a necessity of the European Union project, which they undertook to consolidate their dominance in Europe and create a powerful imperialist center against imperialists, primarily the US.

A. Öcalan and the national movement, starting from this point, view nationalism not as a bourgeois ideology, but as a poison that is either chosen or injected. The German bourgeoisie, relying on the anger and hatred of the people against fascism, as well as the internationalist instincts of the working class and laborers, has not abandoned its “national” and “imperialist” interests and is trying to shape the European Union in line with these interests. Today, as seen in the form of the “rising far right,” it also begins to defend nationalism again when its interests require it. Undoubtedly, not only A. Öcalan but also a much broader segment that argues that the national question can be solved within the system has been affected by these erroneous assessments.

The national question belongs to the capitalist system by its very nature and cannot be resolved without the destruction of this system. A reformist approach to the national question does not end all the privileges of the oppressor nation, nor does it eliminate all forms of fascist tyranny over the oppressed nation. Ultimately, it alleviates the pain but does not and cannot eliminate it. The fact that the Western European bourgeoisie and other imperialists defend a multicultural ideological line to one degree or another does not mean that nationalism can be reduced to a mentality independent of classes, poisoning the “elites,” or to a matter of free choice.

Nationalism is not a poison injected from outside, but a bourgeois “mindset” that must be fought against on an internationalist front based on the unity of the working class and peoples. The fact and necessity that it must be fought with an internationalist “mentality” (i.e., that it is a question of mentality), demanding full equality of rights, cannot justify ignoring the social and class foundations of nationalism.

The Reality of the PKK

“The PKK is a movement to prove the existence of the Kurds and open the door to freedom,” says A. Öcalan. Although the PKK has been defined differently in each period, this is where it has ultimately arrived. The historical denial of the Kurdish nation coincides with the continuation of the First Imperialist War of Partition. The Kurds, who are mentioned in many places throughout history, from Ancient Greece to the Persian Empire, were subjected to denial and annihilation in the four parts of Kurdistan, primarily by the fascist Turkish Republic, as a result of agreements made with the imperialists after the First Imperialist  War  of  Partition.  The  situation  is  slightly  different  for  Soviet Kurdistan, also known as the fifth part of Kurdistan, or Kûrdîstana Sor (Red Kurdistan).

After the emergence of national consciousness among the Kurds, many different Kurdish national organizations were established. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, none of the promises made by the imperialists and the reactionaries of the region were fulfilled, and a policy of denial and annihilation began. A. Öcalan describes this situation in his letter with a quote: “…Sheikh Sait’s words: ‘Prosecutor, you promised we would have a feast together. What  happened to  the  lambs  and goats?’”  He  quotes  this  as  a question. In fact, massacres against Kurds had already begun long before Sheikh Sait. In particular, Alevi Kurds were targeted in the early stages in the Turkish Republic. The most important reason for this was that the Alevis had historically been a thorn in the side of the Ottoman Empire. “Infidelity” was an important propaganda issue in the massacre of Alevi Kurds. Muslim-Shafi Kurdish tribes were prevented from speaking out against these massacres and, beyond that, took part in them. This influence continues in subsequent years and even today. For this reason, the Turkish state can easily cite the example of Idris-i Bitlisi, who collaborated in an Alevi massacre in the historical process. They are aware that these religiously reactionary sentiments are still alive among the Shafi Kurds. They harbor the hope that they can rebuild their divide- and-rule policy from here. However, the PKK’s organization among Alevi Kurds has prevented this effort from yielding the results desired by the Turkish state at this time.

A. Öcalan, in the continuation of the paragraph where he mentions the examples of Sheikh Sait and Seyid Rıza, states, “And these leaders actually express this; it is very important that they are on the gallows. A dead reality, not sick, not wounded, but dead. A transitional period associated with this, experienced in the persons of Qadi Muhammad, Mustafa Barzani, Qasimlo, Jalal Talabani… What we know as traditional feudalism, we call transition, personalities who are half-bourgeois, half-aristocratic, who have come down to us from there. What we mean by bourgeois is a period that began after World War II and continues to this day, that is, the capitalistization and bourgeoisification of Islam… Did such a period occur, could it occur? But it exists. There is such a capitalism, a nationalist entity, and a fundamental consciousness of nationalism. This is evident from the representatives. After all, Qadi Muhammad has a tradition of statehood. Barzani is still experiencing an attempt at statehood. Talabani is also a partner in this. But there is no Kurdish nation-state that has yet left its mark on the era, or it is questionable no matter how hard one tries,” he continues.

He does not consider other Kurdish organizations that have fought or are still fighting to be significant. He does not see them as equals or rivals. The PKK was founded precisely within this Kurdish reality. Throughout its nearly fifty years of existence, it has constantly fought to be the sole ruling power in all four parts of Kurdistan. Although it has collaborated with other Kurdish or revolutionary organizations from time to time, like all organizations engaged in power struggles, its main goal was to consolidate its own power. It is a fact that it did not always use revolutionary methods to achieve this.

Along with all this, the PKK followed an ideological development path from the demand for a Free Kurdistan to the demand for democratic socialism and populist municipalism. It created a charismatic leadership model around A. Öcalan. While cultivating this leadership model into a cult, it also applied various methods to silence dissenting voices within its own ranks. During the same period, it advanced itself in developing military-political maneuvers in line with its own goals, establishing organizations quickly when necessary and dissolving others, and making B and C plans. With the dissolution of the remnants of the Soviet Union, it strengthened its relations with Western imperialists. This same period is also when the Palestinian resistance was forced into the Oslo talks…

The basis of these relations developed with Western imperialists, primarily US imperialism, was the discourse of “democracy.” In this period, when the EU was established and post-modern attacks on revolutionaries intensified, guerrilla warfare was elevated to a higher level, while at the same time a conciliatory ideology matured.

The intense participation of Kurdish workers and laborers plays a significant role in the continuation of guerrilla warfare. The epic images of the war further increase the PKK’s influence within the Kurdish nation. The charismatic leadership approach develops a will to fight among militants, who sacrifice themselves for their leader. Organized around this reality, the PKK requires that any steps taken when A. Öcalan and the rest of the organization disagree must be in line with A. Öcalan’s wishes and ideas. Even when A. Öcalan declared that his relationship with the PKK was over, the reality of the “leadership” that had been created pushed the organization to continue to shape itself according to A. Öcalan’s wishes.

Even when the PKK used rhetoric such as socialism, Stalin, the Turkish bourgeoisie, and the Kurdish poor until the 1990s, it was not actually talking about the liberation of the Kurdish proletariat. In the letter mentioned above, A. Öcalan states: “This is an interim period… that is, Kurdish nationalism, Kurdish capital, we call it primitive comprador bourgeoisie, some may be more developed, centered in Diyarbakır, Erbil, Sulaymaniyah, even Mahabat. But in my opinion, these are extremely temporary, artificial counter-revolutionary elements, imposed as instruments of liquidation. Both their ideological content and their practical implementation are like this.“ Although he tries to show that he still retains his ”revolutionary content,” throughout its history, the PKK has produced policies aimed at winning over its own feudal lords rather than fighting against the feudal system, which has had a significant impact in Kurdistan.

The PKK clearly demonstrated in the ’94 period that the Kurdish bourgeoisie, facing obstacles to its development, embraced socialist rhetoric while fighting for a share of capital due to the powerful winds of socialism at the time. From this point onward, it has more openly attacked MLM science. (Although it had previously belittled and disparaged the revolutionary movement, seeking to discredit it, it began to do so more openly after this date.) While doing this, it also developed various collaborations with the revolutionary movement because it could not resist the attacks of the Turkish state alone, and within these collaborations, it developed policies to impose its own ideas. Its approach in the unions and confederations it was organized in was also essentially indexed to concrete demands for the Kurdish nation.

The Solution to the National Question

Idealistic ideas that view everything through the lens of “mindset” explain the existence of the Kurdish national question in this way, which is why they are able to sign a peace agreement with the Turkish state, which they are currently fighting against, on the basis of “a thousand years of brotherhood.” Of course, the reasons for signing this agreement are different. Due to pressure exerted in line with the interests of imperialist monopolies, the parties were forced to sign this agreement. Undoubtedly, considering power relations and material gains, the losers of this agreement in the medium and long term will be the PKK, which has elevated the guerrilla war to an epic dimension, and more fundamentally, the Kurdish workers and laborers who have sacrificed their children and their lives for the liberation struggle, saving every penny they have earned over the years. This is why the worldview that will solve the Kurdish national question cannot approach the issue from a “mentality” perspective.

However, the “democratic socialism” project places the emphasis not so much on production and exploitation relations as on “mentality” and the ‘state’ as the institutionalized form of this mentality, defending a “democratic socialist” project that does not foresee a radical transformation of exploitation relations. It states that Marxism and the socialism it envisions are statist, and therefore a supposedly stateless society must be established. In this approach, the “statist mentality” is primary; exploitative relations, which largely determine/influence the entire social and class structure, are not even secondary but insignificant. From this perspective, the liquidation of the market and capitalist private property is not even mentioned, but is explicitly defended.

Individuals have played a decisive role in the history of the Kurdish national movement, its formation, tactics, and strategy. However, the fact that the Turkish Republic is governed by a fascist regime that has not resolved the national question and has imposed a “single nation” identity on the entire society conditions the Kurds’ struggle on the basis of national equality. It would be incorrect to address it in isolation from its political and historical foundations, explaining it based on the will of one or a few individuals, independent of historical conditions and circumstances. Of course, in many actions and events, individuals can be critically important; they can determine its direction, course, and sometimes even its existence. However, all these actions are not carried out in a weightless environment independent of space, time—history—but within historical conditions that are diverse and initially beyond the individual’s will, with their military, organizational, political, and ideological structure; their culture, sociology, and psychology, which they face and set out to change. They are positively or negatively affected by these historical conditions. To consider the individual as if they had no relationships, connections, or place, independent of the historical conditions and environment in which they exist; to explain “great events” with “great wills” is not a serious analysis.

In reality, a socialist struggle that eliminates capitalism is rejected as “statism,” “Marxist dogmatism,” “economic reductionism,” and “support for capitalist modernity from the left.” The collective organization of the people and their participation in political processes are indispensable for democratic governance, but it is unrealistic to claim that an organization that does not aim to abolish feudalism and socialize bourgeois-capitalist private property has overcome capitalism, let alone socialism.

It is true that MLMs do not seek the foundations of society’s ideological and political relationship forms solely in the “mind,” nor do they limit the struggle against them to a struggle to change the “mindset”; rather, they target the social foundations that give rise to them.

After examining the nature of the national question in Turkey, Kaypakkaya concludes that workers and laborers belonging to oppressed nations are subject to double exploitation, adding that: “The oppression of the workers of minority nationalities thus acquires a multiplicative character. First, for class purposes, to exploit more and suppress the class struggle against the workers; the second is the national oppression applied to almost all classes of minority nations and nationalities for the purposes we have mentioned above, that is, for national purposes.

Communists have to distinguish between these two oppressions. For example, while Kurdish bourgeois and small landlords oppose the second kind of oppression, they are in favor of the first kind of oppression. We, on the other hand, are against both oppressions. We support the struggle of the Kurdish bourgeois and small landlords for the elimination of national oppression; but on the other hand, we have to struggle against them for the elimination of class oppression.” (Kaypakkaya, Selected Writings, Nisan Publishing)

1. Approach to Patriarchy

“So the task of history is to reveal the truth of this world after the other world of truth has disappeared.” (K. Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law)

A.Öcalan’s way of thinking, which places him above everything and everyone, brings with it many problematic statements. Particularly when it comes to women, the harshness of his discourse, the masculinity of the language he generally uses, the way he explains examples from his own life, and his careful selection of examples and words that emphasize male superiority when choosing general examples reveal his problematic stance on patriarchy.

There are many examples in the letter discussed in this article that prove this. Some of the statements used in the article and why they are problematic can be listed as follows:

– “How can a hermaphrodite man be both masculine and feminine?” (Intersex people have been defined as ‘hermaphrodites’ despite declaring that they do not accept this definition. Even when giving examples, the term “man” is used, assigning a gender to hermaphrodites.)

– “I have tremendous power of speech and action.” (As a man, he is boasting about his own power, positioning himself above all collectively created values.)

– “Yes, female superiority will develop, let’s explain it a little. The other rose as a counter-thesis, saying that the superior one is male.” (The sin of the emergence of patriarchy is attributed to women.)

– “Male-specific  thinking,  female-specific  thinking,  these  definitely  express problematicity.” (It rejects the shaping created by concrete conditions. This can extend to the idea that women’s positions within the current system can change without changing the material basis. Thousands of years of the relationship between oppressor and oppressed have, of course, developed a certain way of thinking in both men and women. This must, of course, change, but it cannot be changed simply by rejecting it.)

– “A frozen opposition is a dilemma, an abyss. In this abyss, blows are struck; this  reality  also  lies  beneath  family  murders.” (The  patriarchal  system  of exploitation lies beneath murders committed within the family. It is not a “frozen opposition.” Expressing it this way obscures the subject that must be fought against, leading the struggle into a dead end.)

– “In that murder, from the perspective of the one who did it, the woman is frozen, the woman is absolutely woman, the man is absolutely man, but if there is a dialectical flow of thought, one will inevitably betray the other. One shoots the other, the other shoots the one.” (He wanted to refer to gender roles and the consequences of these roles, but he defined the perpetrator of the murder as “the one who did it.” The vast majority of murders and rapes of women occur within the family. Different forms of violence are also most intensely experienced within the family. The predominant direction of this violence is from men to women. The reason for this is the dominance of the patriarchal system throughout the world.)

– “Now, a woman is a being who gives birth; there is no need to discuss this. Birth occurs in women; as a human species, the correct difference is in women, and this must be well understood.” (By emphasizing women’s fertility at every opportunity, it suggests that this is a woman’s most important function and, therefore, her place is “at home, with her children.” Furthermore, not every woman is “fertile.” Trans women or women who cannot or choose not to give birth for other reasons are also women.)

– “Without sexual  instinct, there  is no reproduction; without reproduction, there is no life.” (Human sexuality is not focused on reproduction. Sexuality can be experienced for reproduction or for pleasure. In fact, unlike many animals, humans mostly experience sexuality for pleasure. This is why there is diversity in sexual relationships and different methods of orgasm. At this stage, reproduction does not only occur through sexuality. In fact, in some living beings, reproduction can occur without the need for a male. Scientific studies are ongoing on the possibility of reproduction without the need for a man or a woman at the technical level humans have reached.)

– “ The village-city develops along with the state-class. What is important is that the social nature develops around women.” (Much information about the emergence of villages and cities has changed with the discovery of Göbeklitepe and other ancient cities in the surrounding area. These show that humans transitioned to a settled life before agriculture. What is important here is that after production began, men took control of the means of production and began to exploit reproductive labor as well.)

– “I’m amazed that if someone as desperate as me has noticed this, why haven’t all those men of science noticed it? I’m astonished.” (As a typical feature of patriarchy, on the one hand, he sees tremendous power in himself, while on the other hand, he defines it as helplessness. At the same time, by referring to the men of science as “men,” he assumes that they are male.)

– “Gilgamesh sends a prostitute to Enkidu (who is most likely the proto-Kurd in those mountains). It’s an epic, but there is also a culture of obtaining men through prostitutes.” (The idea of men “falling into women’s traps” is repeated.)

– “Such special women were sent to divide and fragment the PKK. It is very striking. We experienced this; I may have even experienced it myself.” (By saying “I may have,” he again emphasizes his power.)

– “As far as I remember, there was an incident where I hit my sister Eyne. She said something here too: ‘Your strength is only enough for me.’ It stuck in my mind, and I guess I was a little stronger than her. And I remember there was an incident where I raised my hand because she wasn’t doing her job properly or correctly.  Strangely, Eyne didn’t even feel the need to visit me.” (While downplaying the violence he inflicted on the woman, he again felt the need to emphasize his own power.)

– “In a matriarchal society, the mother’s brother, the uncle, is influential in the clan.” (It is true that matriarchal societies exhibit different characteristics in different tribes. However, he has not presented any scientific data regarding the influence of the “uncle,” and he has spoken clearly because he believes this cannot be questioned.)

– “Not only are the first values taken from her, but she also makes her sons and husband work like slaves. The woman kills the man with a sacred marriage ceremony. Just like the killing of the man in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the roots go back that far. Horrible. The act of sanctification kills even her lover. Why? Because she knows what will happen to her. She has to kill him to prevent this disaster from befalling her. That’s the essence. That’s historical materialism. That’s the most useful idea we can take from Marxism.“ (Marxist science does not explain the emergence of patriarchy in this way. And historical materialism is not ”this.”)

– “The next stage is the stage of property.” (He does not feel the need to define the nature of property. He is repeating Proudhon’s ideas. Property also exists in a matriarchal society. However, this is communal property. Patriarchy, on the other hand, is intertwined with private property.)

– “Moreover, in the domestic situation, such confinement to the home is a dangerous ideology, a major problem. As I mentioned, this is how problems begin in society. This is the core issue in society. It gives rise to class and the state.” (Confinement to the home is a consequence.)

– “We laid the foundation for women’s freedom.” (Women lay the foundation for women’s freedom. They initiate everything they see as positive themselves and disregard thousands of years of struggle.)

– “I said that, as a matter of respect for women, freedom must begin in the mind. I said, ‘Live however you want. If you have the power, of course.’” (He has graciously granted respect to women(!) and chooses a threatening ending to his sentence.)

– “Women create the economy, so aren’t they now in need of bread, in need of men?” (Women are not in need of men. However, the current system wants to create this perception. In response, women are organizing and resisting.)

– “If the man doesn’t work, the woman goes hungry.” (In many working-class families, the opposite is true. Without the woman’s domestic reproductive labor, the man would go hungry.)

-“In modern times, women’s relationship with the economy has been reduced to   zero.” (Because   women’s   relationship   with   the   economy   continues unabated, the system attacks women’s labor most intensely.)

– “The economic transition to male dominance originated in the West and was tremendous.” (The claim that patriarchy originated in the West is as false as the claim that patriarchy has disappeared in the West.)

-“You will take control of your body. The body that is completely controlled by men is your body. How will you do that? He has set all your limits, he has set your schedule. If he doesn’t give you money, he leaves you hungry. I don’t want to make the picture even darker. All of this has been established. For example, what did I say? Socialism passes through the liberation of women.” (The power that women have fragmented is as real as the power that men try to establish over women’s bodies. The issue is whose eyes we look at the world through. However, the claim that socialism passes through the liberation of women is based on Kollontai, who came long before it.)

-“What amazes me is that even Marx sells his clothes to live with his wife. Capitalism cannot support the author of its greatest book, its critic, who sells his coat because he cannot support his wife and children. ‘I’ll write this book so that it will bring in income and save this marriage,’ he says.” (Criticisms of Marx are often the opposite. They claim that Marx did not think enough about Jenny and the children, did not care about housework, and placed the burden of supporting the family on Jenny’s shoulders. Jenny and all the other members of the family are aware of the importance of Marx’s work and play important roles in the writing of his works, both intellectually and physically. However, despite all this, the truth has been turned upside down here. Instead, in order to discredit and caricature Marxism, it has been claimed that Marx wrote Capital to support his family. Because, from a patriarchal perspective, doing such work for one’s family is considered beneath one’s dignity.)

-“My friend, my most valuable friend, definitely wanted me to kill him. I was cautious around him. I struggled with him for ten years. But I am cautious. Let him do what he will, I told his story. And when he ran away, it was a tremendous relief for me.” (While describing his relationship, he claims that despite all his social superiority, he was still the one who escaped. Regardless of all the characteristics of the person who ran away, this reveals how a man sees himself in a relationship. He blames his partner for his own weaknesses.)

-“This way of standing my ground is what makes me who I am. While everyone else was condemning me, saying ‘the man’s wife ran away,’ and people were either sad or killing him, I said ‘I escaped.’”

-“Unmarried women like you are a big problem for me.” (Although he does not fully explain why unmarried women are a “problem,” as mentioned above, it is clearer that he blames the woman for his weaknesses. However, we see that a married woman does not cause a problem because she “belongs” to another man.)

-“At least we gave them the opportunity to think freely as individuals.” (He claims to have granted women the “opportunity to think freely.”)

Is the Oppression of Women the Guilt of Women?

When addressing patriarchy in general, avoiding its traps requires special effort. The observation that “dominant ideas are the ideas of the dominant” reveals what we must avoid. The Kurdish women’s movement, which took shape around the “Apocu Movement,” has accumulated important experiences in terms of the women’s movement in Turkey and the Middle East. While part of this experience is significant in a positive sense, another part is significant in a negative sense. It is clear that there is much we have learned and will learn from this movement, which took shape around a non-trans, heterosexual male charismatic leadership. The “Apocu Movement” generally not only attacks historical materialism by initiating the struggle for women’s liberation from itself, but also adds fuel to the fire of patriarchy in terms of the objectification of women.

Alongside all these general aspects, the reality that emerges in this letter in particular is the insistence that women’s oppression is again the guilt of women. The idea behind the emphasis on the matriarchal era, which ultimately leads to the conclusion that “men reacted to this,” is a reflection of the bourgeois justice system, where the perpetrator and the victim become intertwined and blurred, and the perpetrator is legitimized. For bourgeois courts always find an excuse to establish the justice of the oppressors and apply “good conduct” discounts.

When patriarchy itself is attempted to be addressed without historically tracing a series of developments such as the development of the means of production, private property, inheritance law, the family, and the emergence of the state, the result will inevitably be another “mental revolution” issue. Patriarchy is intertwined with private property and is essentially the first concrete manifestation of the oppressor-oppressed relationship in the male- female dichotomy.

A. Öcalan, who accepts that men appropriated the surplus value created by women, renders invisible many practices of the matriarchal period, such as the shared use of property, by saying, “men were also killed in the age of goddesses,” as if blaming women.

Again, with his assessments, he has hinted, though not directly stated, that women are “naturally” confined to the home because they can bear children. He also denies the fact that women, who were largely confined to the home under feudalism, re-emerged due to the development of capitalism and the need for cheap labor.

While discussing the contributions of Marxism on the one hand, on the other hand, the same patriarchal discomfort lies beneath his claim that Marx sold his coat to support his family and print Capital, and that he supported his family with the money he earned from the sales of this book. By confessing that he once worshiped Marx like a god, he expressed his discomfort with the “sacrifice” of a man who claimed to have made this sacrifice “for his wife.” In this way, he sought to expose and devalue Marx, whom he considered to be from the more “effeminate, housewife-like” class.

Of course, this is not the reality. All of Marx’s works, as we know them, are the product of serious collective effort. Jenny Marx, in particular, made an enormous contribution to all of Marx’s works, both intellectually and physically. Marxism is the dialectical product of collective effort. The same is true of Capital, which was later completed by Engels. Marx and his comrades created these works not to “make livings” but to change the world.

Unlike A. Öcalan, MLMs have correctly addressed the origins of patriarchy in Engels’ book The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, defining the first bourgeois-proletarian relationship in history as the male-female relationship so that it can be understood in our time. The matriarchal period, however, has not been presented as a justification for patriarchy in this work or in any other Marxist work.

It is a fact that everything arises from its opposite. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the opposites of patriarchy and matriarchy contain a complete opposition on many issues, such as private property and domination over the means of production. In short, patriarchy, as A. Öcalan also states, is based on the appropriation of the means of production and surplus value, while matriarchy or matrilineal society is based on collective production and the sharing of surplus value according to need.

The Man Who Will Liberate Women

The issue of women’s liberation is, of course, in one sense the issue of subjectification. This subjectification is possible through an uncompromising stance against patriarchy. It also requires a struggle against hetero-sexism, private property, and all forms of reactionary ideology, which have historically been intertwined with patriarchy. However, this struggle will not be realized through a worldview “bestowed” or to be bestowed upon women by A. Öcalan or any other man. However, as in all his speeches and analyses concerning women, A. Öcalan expresses the perspective of “either you do as I say or you continue to live as a slave” as a threatening element in this letter, as a representative of the oppressing gender.

A. Öcalan, who previously used phrases such as “do you have the courage to look me in the eye?” to women, also states here, “At least we gave you the opportunity to think freely as individuals. That is what keeps you standing, to some extent. If the idea of freedom is taken away from you, you will inevitably perish.” In doing so, he draws the women gathered around him into a different variation of patriarchal bargaining.

The historical defeat of women against men is the appropriation of surplus value by men and, in order to do so, the confinement of women to the home by exploiting their fertility. Over time, as structures such as law, culture, and education were shaped around this system of exploitation, the phenomenon known as the state was invented as a result, a means of control.

The presence of the goddess figure in the early forms of the state does not mean that they were not forcibly confined, as he himself pointed out when quoting from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Because patriarchy was still in a very primitive state, women were depicted as goddesses on the one hand and enslaved on the other.

In this sense, the man’s seizure of power did not happen overnight and with all its structures, but gradually, and has become a state that produces the most insidious policies in the name of “women’s liberation,” as it does today. It has mastered the art of holding power in the class struggle.

Just as no bourgeois can pave the way for the proletariat’s liberation from its chains unless he betrays his own class and sacrifices his life for the proletariat’s power, no man can serve women’s liberation unless he betrays his own gender and sacrifices his power in the ranks where women are the subjects in the war against patriarchy.

History has never recorded a proletarian leader who established the power of the working class by wagging their finger at the working class, threatening them, looking down on them, or giving advice from the outside. And it certainly never will! The masters of MLM science and their successors have demonstrated this most subtly in their assessment of the Paris Commune, in writing the April Theses, in addressing the betrayal of the Social Democrats in Germany, in analyzing the classes in China, and in addressing the national question in Turkey.

Those who claim to defend the liberation of a class or the oppressed but do the opposite have revealed their true faces both in their personal lives and in the counter-revolutionary terrain where they lead the revolutionary struggle. The successors of leaders like Proudhon and Bakunin today assert themselves in this terrain with the most libertarian rhetoric. While attacking the oppressed more than the oppressor, and those fighting against the capitalist-imperialist world order more than the order itself, they claim that women’s liberation is possible within the limits of the existing order.

They talk about “social equality” or “mental revolution” without ever addressing issues such as surplus value exploitation, reproductive labor, the common use of the means of production, or the just resolution of the contradictions created by particularities. Undoubtedly, the issue of women’s liberation is related to women’s masses taking history out of the hands of hunters. Hunters can show at most “mercy” to their prey. Therefore, liberation will, at best, be “merciless.”

1. Labor-Surplus Value-Property

Why Do Classes Exist?

A. Öcalan actually admits the answer to this question in his letter. Even while addressing the foundations of women’s exploitation in a distorted manner, as the MLM science he opposes also reveals, the exploitation of surplus value and the issue of ownership of the means of production form the basis of the problem.

However, classes have undergone many qualitative and quantitative changes throughout history, and with capitalism, the working class and the bourgeoisie emerged. Since this system continues today, it would be unrealistic to say that these classes have disappeared. However, it would be useful to see the material basis for the constant creation of this kind of mental confusion.

In contemporary class society, power is multi-layered and multi-dimensional. It can be understood as a unity that occurs in all economic, political, and ideological spheres. It is sustained both by coercion and consent. Broadly speaking, the power of capital is expressed not only in the state’s fundamental political institutions such as the government, parliament, parties, police, army, courts, and prisons, but also, in addition to these, not only in more “public” state institutions such as the tax office, the registry office, and religious affairs, but also in countless official or “civil” institutions that are spread throughout society like a network, from schools to mosques, municipalities to families, shopping malls to media, stock exchanges to companies, unions to cinemas. In this sense, power is relational. It is the contradictory unity of coercion and persuasion, domination and hegemony, exclusion and inclusion.

The bourgeoisie objectifies the individuals that make up society within this relationality. The general class interest of the bourgeoisie is presented as if it were the interest of the whole society and is engraved in the minds of individuals through production and market relations, state activities, political and social spheres, and cultural and intellectual interactions. However, this relationality is not merely a one-sided imposition of data. In the individual objectified by power, a kind of illusory subjectivity is also created, which in turn produces the continuity of power. The individual’s subjectification through their rights and freedoms in this order is, paradoxically, due to their subjugation to the bourgeois power that actually objectifies them. In their daily practice, thoughts, behaviors, beliefs, and preferences, objectified individuals adopt a way of being that accepts the legitimacy and immutability of power, even supporting its implementation.

Power, which surrounds social life and seeks to control minds and bodies, establishes norms that are identical to the economic, political, and social interests of the ruling class, the bourgeoisie. Political tendencies, sexual orientations, cultural practices, lifestyle choices, and everyday behaviors are shaped according to these norms, which are ideologically and politically imposed on society. Those who are governed believe they define themselves by their individual freedom, but in reality, they are objectified by the ideology and politics of power, their way of existence seemingly constructed by norms. This is the categorization of society.

Those who conform to the norms are considered normal, while those who show nonconformity are labeled abnormal. Thus, the suppression, isolation, or elimination of the labeled individual is presented as the legitimate duty of the ruling power and is also legitimized by those who have been made compliant with the order through the norms.

One of the greatest damages caused by postmodernism is the weakening of class consciousness in this sense. Undoubtedly, different layers of society are made up of different identities, and there are also unique characteristics brought about by these differences. However, these different identities are presented  as  “classless”  realities.  Not  only  that,  but  all  differences  are ‘othered’ and turned into rivals. This can also change in line with the interests of the ruling class. In a country where yesterday saying “I am Kurdish” was declared treason, discourses of “a thousand years of brotherhood” may begin to rise.

Neo-liberalism makes unprincipledness a principle, as if it were a modern version of Machiavellianism. This is because the approach to concepts such as “freedom, equality, justice, truth” varies according to interests, individuals, time, and place. Strikes, marches, exposés, etc. are supported if they are against the enemy or rivals, but if they occur “in their neighborhood,” they are now a threat and a lockout is required.

Various examples clearly show how circles that constantly talk about socialism and democracy have developed reflexes that are pro-capitalist and seek to reconcile the oppressor and the oppressed in the practice of class struggle. Yet a just policy requires defending the interests of workers and the oppressed, regardless of which “neighborhood” they are in. However, the justified anger of the masses is being turned into rumblings that can be used against “enemies” or “rivals” because of such understandings.

What Does Labor Produce as an Invisible Value?

In his letter, A. Öcalan states that “the proletariat has existed since the beginning of history” and that Marx did not discover anything new in this sense. Although he exaggerates and distorts the truth again and again to justify himself, he is right on this point: Marx did not make a new discovery when analyzing the existing system of exploitation.

Indeed, he himself writes this. When discussing Value, Price and Profit, as well as in the first volume of Capital, he analyzes the existing cycle of exploitation. He explains, one by one and in the simplest form, what wage labor produces. He reveals what productive labor produces and why it is “productive labor.” While revealing what alienation from one’s own labor means, he also explains how workers are persuaded to think, “these belong to the boss, thank goodness he gives us work here so we can feed ourselves.” Indeed, labor has not been treated this way in every era of labor history. The difference between slavery and labor is that one is paid.

In the ancient city of Athens, where paid labor was rare, those who rented their labor could not influence the social class structure. These people worked as artists, craftsmen, teachers, and consultants. The concentration of artists and those who received wages in exchange for knowledge in the city shows the developments in citizens’ leisure time and income. This indicator also supports the perspective of the Athenian citizen, who owned certain property, towards working in labor-intensive jobs. As conveyed in the ideal governance ideas of Plato and Aristotle, it was recommended that citizens engage in political activities or city-related work. The ideal citizen should not engage in labor-intensive work and should devote their energy to political activities. This is because working with one’s hands was considered a shameful activity. The prevailing belief was that ideal and valuable citizenship could be achieved through politics and cultural activities. The most important factor that can be presented as evidence of this belief is the Laws of Solon.

A similar situation existed in Sumer, Brahmanism, and different societies in the Middle East and much of the world. Of course, none of these are exactly the same. Although there are differences in the approach to artists and artisans in different regions and at different times—including in different cities of Ancient Greece—slavery law is more or less the same. The Draconian Laws were drafted entirely in favor of the ruling and wealthy classes and focused on the protection of property. The Hammurabi Laws are also explicitly about property. The heavy burden of Brahmanism still rests on the shoulders of South Asian workers and peasants.

Although the laws have undergone formal changes due to shifts in production methods and major uprisings, they essentially fulfill their role of protecting property owners and their interests.

This is precisely what A. Öcalan tries to conceal when addressing the women’s issue, the national issue, and socialism. A. Öcalan, with a class-based reflex, obscures a glaringly obvious truth, lumping the worker and the boss together. The view in Ancient Greece that others should serve them with endless sacrifice so that some could produce philosophy or “manage society better,” and that they should not take part in government, did not provide democracy to either women or slaves. Despite the fact that labor is still devalued and the right to own the means of production still lies with those who exploit the produced, not those who produce, how have classes disappeared? There is no explanation for this.

1. Contradictions

Is it a Conflict between the Commune and the State?

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas; that is to say, the class which is the dominant material force in society is at the same time the dominant intellectual force.” [(Marx-Engels, The German Ideology (Feuerbach)]

The dominant ideology throughout the world has undoubtedly become that of the bourgeoisie. As the ruling class, the bourgeoisie organizes the idea that “there is no such thing as class” in different forms in every era and/or paves the way for those who defend this idea in order to conceal its own exploitation and oppression and to protect itself from the anger of the oppressed.

Indeed, Abimael Guzman Reynoso, leader of the Peruvian Communist Party, who never took a single step back from the reality of the most ruthless class wars, was held in a cell at a submarine base until his death. Although the organization he led suffered a severe blow, his ideas remained ‘dangerous’ to the bourgeoisie until the very end.

What makes the ideas of İbrahim Kaypakkaya, founder of the Turkish Communist Party Marxist-Leninist, the ‘most dangerous form of revolutionary communism’ for the Turkish state is not that he refers to Kurds or Armenians as an identity or that he speaks of massacres. It is his revealing of which class’s interests the organization serves and his refusal to renounce this truth even under the most severe torture.

The burning of the body of Basavaraj, General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), is also a conscious choice of the same class hatred.

Today, while many truths, such as the rejection of classes and the origins of the state, are manipulated, this is not enough for the bourgeoisie. All concepts belonging to MLM science must be distorted, emptied of their meaning, and re-marketed in a form suitable to their own image. For the Paris Commune experience, one of the cornerstones of class struggle, and historical materialism are also affected by this.

In his letter ‘Perspective’, A. Öcalan states: ‘Historical  materialism  should replace class struggle with ‘commune’. Isn’t this not only a realistic approach, but also the healthiest way to transition to socialism in the science of sociology, through free thought and action?’ Instead of historical materialism and socialism based on class conflict, I believe that historical materialism and socialism based on the dilemma of state and commune is more accurate. I find it more correct to review Marxism and implement this concept instead. In other words, history is not a history of class struggle, but a history of conflict between state and commune.”

To prove the correctness of his own thinking, he states, “We can learn about the connection between the word ‘kom’ in our Kurdish language and the commune from our own language. Kom means “to gather”, i.e. commune. It is a word we still use today, which shows that the Aryan language originated from here and has at least 10,000 years of history. It is clear that the Aryan language group also developed around this commune. The Kurdish word “kom” proves this. Word derivations also explain this. Komagene is the name of a state. The head of the tribe creates the state. Tribe members whose interests are harmed also form the commune. That is actually how it really is. It’s very simple,” he says.

The fact that Kurdish, which belongs to the Indo-European language family, and other languages from the same family have many common roots and words is, of course, a subject for philology. Instead, we need to focus on the reality. A. Öcalan wants to, if possible, ‘condemn’ the observation that, while all forms of social relations are taken into account, production relations play a decisive role ‘in the final analysis’. Because accepting this role means:

1- Defining capitalism as an exploitative system in which the bourgeoisie appropriates the surplus value produced by the working class,

2- It requires advocating for the elimination of this fundamental mechanism of exploitation and the transformation of production relations on a social basis in order to fundamentally resolve other social contradictions and forms of exploitation.

A detailed critique of ‘democratic autonomy’ presented as an alternative model to socialism is beyond the scope of this article. However, it can be said that the rejection of the ultimately decisive role of production relations and the economy in general is closely linked to a political programme that does not envisage a fundamental change in exploitative relations. At best, it is in complete harmony with it. In essence, therefore, it is more a matter of defending the imperialist-capitalist system than of ‘criticising Marxism’.

Clearly, the bourgeoisie of any country and those sections that collaborate with international capital will not allow ‘opponents’ they cannot have any control over into their national parliaments. At the same time, they do not allow ‘opponents’ whom they cannot control to operate in their own parliaments. Whether in the world’s most “democratic” country or any other country, this is the general view of the capitalist classes, the ruling power, towards governments and alternative governments. Likewise, the attitude of the ‘privileged class’ is the same everywhere in the world.

The armed workers of Paris, not being represented in such bourgeois assemblies, finally turned against the bourgeois state apparatus on 18 March 1871, chanting ‘Vive la Commune!’ and proclaimed the Commune,  the ‘workers’ power’. The Commune was a class dictatorship just like the bourgeois state apparatus, but what distinguished it from the old dictatorship was that it relied on the majority of society, namely the working class, in whose interest it was to abolish all classes. The difference between this new state and the old one was that it was ‘the political form of social emancipation, that is, the emancipation of labor from the slavery of those who monopolize the means of labor created by workers or bestowed by nature,’ and it aimed to dispossess the dispossessors. (Karl Marx, ‘Selected Passages from the Drafts on the Civil War in France’)

In other words, the Commune sought to organize all production relations on the basis of social ownership, in opposition to exploitative relations and private property. It was precisely for this reason that, as ordinary workers shattered the social fabric they had believed to be indestructible and filled the void with new relationships, the bourgeoisie and landlords were seized by ‘fits of rage at the sight of the symbol of the Labor Republic, the Red Flag, waving above the town hall.’ (ibid., p. 89)

Although the Paris Commune fell, it achieved critical theoretical and practical gains for the working-class movement that developed after it. It can be said that: “Thanks to the struggle waged in Paris, the working class’s struggle against the capitalist class and the capitalist state entered a new phase. Regardless of the outcome of this struggle, it created a new starting point of historical importance on a global scale.” (Karl Marx, “From Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann in Hanover”)

Anti-Capitalism

When examining the idea of ‘democratic socialism,’ it is useful to highlight two fundamental points: the qualitative difference between capitalism and socialism, which are irreconcilable with each other; the former is an economic system based on surplus value production and the capitalist exploitation of labor power, while socialism is committed to the elimination of class differences along with exploitation.

When the concept of ‘democracy’ is used in relation to socialism, if socialism’s fundamental qualitative characteristics and specificity are ignored, the result will  be  the  positions  of  the  liberal  bourgeoisie.  The  fundamental  binding

‘principle’ that determines socialism’s democratic nature is the elimination of exploitation through the transfer of the means of production to collective ownership. Capitalism’s political oppression, privilege and attacks are determined by the exploiter-exploited relationship in the economic sphere. It is anti-democratic in that it is a hegemonic system of a minority—a privileged class—over the majority of society.

Based on A. Öcalan’s analysis of the conditioning/determining effect of production relations and the economy in general, one can discuss some of the reasons why he dismisses the MLM worldview as a form of capitalism, stating that it ‘does not even need to be criticized’ or accusing it of inadequacy. Alongside factors such as the bourgeois character of the movement, the international imperialist-capitalist ideological hegemony, and the partial backwardness of the world working-class movement, it is worth highlighting just one point relevant to our topic: A. Öcalan proposes a new paradigm of ‘democratic modernity’ that transcends ‘state-based and class-based capitalist modernity,’ targeting Marxism.

He does not really target the system he describes as ‘capitalist modernity’ at all. We are not even talking about a system that survives through coercive apparatus being destroyed by force and replaced by a new system, or about the role of force in this context. There is not the slightest indication that he advocates changing the system through ‘parliamentarism’. This is essentially what we are talking about.

As he states in his letter, capitalism and its current stage, imperialism, are not mentioned. Because A. Öcalan talks about establishing a Swiss-like structure integrated into this system, but what he misses is the capital in Switzerland’s hands and the hegemony it has established through it…

Of course, it is not because he does not know that for the realization of ‘democratic’ capitalism, once presented as ‘smiling socialism’, it is necessary to drink the blood of the peoples of other countries.

Eco-Economy

“ Here, as in natural science, is shown the correctness of the law discovered by Hegel (in his ‘Logic’), that merely quantitative differences beyond a certain point pass into qualitative changes.” (Marx, The Rate and Mass of Surplus Value)

When emerging under the banner of the ‘new left’ discourse, the most important foundation of this intellectual current, which overturned all previous scientific theories, was the crimes of social imperialism. It is no coincidence that a wave of attacks on MLM under the guise of ‘criticism’ emerged, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, when the ecological crisis began to make itself felt.

There are, of course, concrete conditions for attributing the crimes committed by the social imperialism of modern revisionist powers to MLM science. In particular, the inadequacy of current studies and information on previous studies on the highly pressing issues of patriarchy, hetero-sexism and ecology, which closely concern all the peoples of the world, has strengthened this basis and the attacks have been supported by the imperialists.

A.Öcalan also uses terms such as ‘ecological paradigm’ or ‘eco-economy’ in his letter and in many other writings. He is aware of the impact of the ecological crisis, one of the most pressing issues of our century, on the lives of the masses. In this sense, he also treats the ecological crisis itself as a tool for organising his thoughts.

However, this ‘ecological’ perspective, like his other ideas, is based more on a ‘mental transformation’ than on concrete grounding. Bookchin’s ideas have particularly influenced his theses on ecology. Since he denies the existence of classes, he argues that all of humanity is equally affected by this crisis. Marx and Engels, even at a time when the ecological struggle had not yet progressed this far, demonstrated that not everyone is affected equally by the problems that the ecological crisis will create. They also identified the root cause of this problem…

Day by day, the urgency of the ecological problem is increasing. It is an issue that the proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the world must focus on more. Until now, the fact that the main problem is the culture of consumption and the form of production has always been swept under the carpet. The discourse of the ‘ecological struggle’ was similarly constructed with an anti- socialist understanding.

Indeed, capitalism, which cuts down trees it cannot sell the shade of, has boasted about how ‘environmentally conscious’ and even superior a culture it has built through its “greenwashing” policies. In countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark, these policies are also used as an important weapon of ‘white supremacy,’ i.e., racism. Claims that immigrants do not separate their rubbish, throw rubbish on the streets, and do not pick up after their  dogs  form  the  most  basic  arguments  of  anti-immigrant  sentiment.

However, no one talks about how much water, land, and sky in the countries immigrants were forced to leave was sold off to mining or tourism companies.

The question of how issues such as global warming, pandemics, and environmental disasters should be understood from an MLM perspective naturally raises the question of how Marx and Engels addressed these issues in their own time.

Marx systematically focused on ecological issues and accorded particular importance to ecology in his critique of political economy. Marx’s examination of environmental problems dates back to the mid-1840s. After the publication of the first volume of Capital (1867), ecological issues continued to form a focal point of Marx’s work. Marx did not leave behind a complete written work as a result of these studies, but his notes and compiled sources on the subject are known. Marx’s general understanding of nature and his specific perspective on ecological issues do not contradict Engels’ dialectical philosophy of nature; rather, they confirm it.

“In short, the animal merely uses external nature, and brings about changes in it simply by his presence; man by his changes makes it serve his ends, masters it. This is the final, essential distinction between man and other animals, and once again it is labor that brings about this distinction.

Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human conquest over nature. For each such conquest takes its revenge on us. Each of them, it is true, has in the first place the consequences on which we counted, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel out the first. The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor, and elsewhere, destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land, never dreamed that they were laying the basis for the present devastated condition of these countries, by removing along with the forests the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture. When, on the southern slopes of the mountains, the Italians of the Alps used up the pine forests so carefully cherished on the northern slopes, they had no inkling that by doing so they were cutting at the roots of the dairy industry in their region; they had still less inkling that they were thereby depriving their mountain springs of water for the greater part of the year, with the effect that these would be able to pour still more furious flood torrents on the plains during the rainy seasons. Those who spread the potato in Europe were not aware that they were at the same time spreading the disease of scrofula. Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature – but that we, with flesh, blood, and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other beings of being able to know and correctly apply its laws.” (Engels, F. (1977) The Dialectics of Nature)

Here, the element that is important in terms of Engels’ dialectical understanding of nature is the contradiction that human labor, as a social activity, transforms nature, or more accurately, exploits natural resources at the expense of depleting them, thereby eroding the natural-material conditions that make human social life possible.

Like Engels, Marx certainly defends the knowability of objective reality and the objective dialectic in nature. However, in Marx’s ecology, a dialectical concept of nature becomes evident in the dialectical interaction between nature and society. (Kaan Kangal; Marx, Engels and Marxist Ecology, Theory and Action)

In this context, Marx’s concept of ‘metabolism’ (Stoffwechsel) is of key importance. Going beyond a philosophical problem analysis, Marx’s concept of metabolism forms a component of the critique of political economy. Based on the concept of material exchange, Marx will formulate the concept of the ‘irreparable rift’ (unheilbarer Riss), which forms the backbone of his ecological critique. (ibid)

“… large land ownership reduces the agricultural population to a constantly declining minimum, while in contrast there is a constantly growing industrial population concentrated in large cities. This creates conditions that cause an irreparable rift in the social exchange unity dictated by the natural laws of life. As a result, the vitality of the land is wasted, and this waste is carried far beyond the borders of a particular state through trade.” (Marx, K. Capital, Volume III)

Marx’s observation is a product of his critical perspective on the impact of modern agricultural industry on environmental conditions in cultivated areas, viewed within the framework of a critique of political economy.

“The capitalist mode of production, by constantly increasing the proportion of the urban population in the total population, which it concentrates in large centres, on the one hand intensifies the historical movement of society, on the other hand, it violates the material exchange between man and soil, that is, the return to the soil of the elements that man takes from it and uses as food and clothing, and thus the eternal condition necessary for the continuation of the soil’s productive power. Thus, the capitalist mode of production simultaneously destroys the physical health of the urban worker and the mental life of the agricultural worker. However, by destroying the conditions that ensure the continuity of the aforementioned material exchange and that arise spontaneously, the capitalist mode of production also necessitates the re-establishment of this material exchange as a system, as a law governing social production, and in a form appropriate to the full development of humanity. … Furthermore, every advance in capitalist agriculture is not merely an advance in the art of exploiting the worker, but also an advance in the art of exploiting the soil; every advance in increasing the soil’s productivity over a given period of time is also an advance in the destruction of the permanent sources of that productivity. (Marx, Capital, Volume 1)

Marx demonstrates that soil degradation is not only a national but also an international problem, using the example of England and Ireland: he states that England, for the past one and a half centuries, “has indirectly exported Irish soil, refusing even to provide the tools necessary for those who farm it to replace the depleted elements of the soil.” (Marx, ibid.)

In the third volume, he proposes a positive solution to the phenomenon of material exchange between nature and society, which he critically examines in the first volume of Capital: an ecologically sustainable relationship between nature and society can be achieved not through the spirit of capitalist production, which aims to make immediate profits, but through the efforts of a social ‘chain of generations’. (Marx, op. cit., p. 546, n. 27, cited by Kaan Kangal, ibid.)

The issue of overcoming the ecological crisis has undoubtedly been a problem addressed not only by Marx and Engels, but also by many other communists. However, there is still a significant lack of understanding and misinterpretation regarding the comprehension and handling of this issue, its transformation into general organizational programmes, and the production of politics based on this. This hinders the development of all these efforts, that is, the progress of the revolution. However, the ecological crisis is a reality that cannot be overcome by living as in the primitive communal period, as A. Öcalan claims. Nor is the Kurdish tribal system an ‘ecological society’; this is merely speculation.

Overcoming the ecological crisis and removing the antagonism between humans and nature is possible, as Marx put it, ‘… only when social man, the common producers, rationally manage the interaction of human metabolism with nature, not as a blind force subject to the domination of nature, but by bringing nature under their collective control…’ (Marx, ibid)

LGBT and Hermaphrodite Issues

“In the practical questions that arise in the politics of any particular or specific historical moment, it is important to single out those which display the principal type of intolerable and treacherous compromises, such as embody an opportunism that is fatal to the revolutionary class, and to exert all efforts to explain them and combat them.” (Lenin, Left-Wing Communism)

The issue of approaching hetero-sexism is, in general, a wound that continues to bleed for the revolutionary movement, but the experiences of LGBT+ masses in struggle and organization have forced revolutionaries to take steps forward on this issue. A threshold was crossed, particularly after the 2000s, and any movement insisting on remaining at or behind that threshold has been dragged into an increasingly reactionary position with each passing day.

The stance of the ‘Apocu Movement’ on this issue has been shaped by opportunism. However, in the recent period, with the rise of the ‘radical right,’ i.e., the re-consolidation of fascism in line with imperialist interests, hetero-sexist attacks have increased, and these increasing attacks have revealed how much many organizations have ‘overcome’ the issue. PAJK, an important component of the ‘Apocu Movement,’ has finally officially expressed its true views on this issue, as if it were the only institution and decision-making body that should speak out. At its last congress, PAJK defined LGBT+ people as ‘a disease created by capitalism’ and emphasized the need to fight against it. Subsequently, the TJA published brochures stating that LGBT+ people must be fought against.

As the class struggle intensifies, it has become clear which side such organizations will take, and their stance in the increasing attacks on LGBT+ people has been on the side of the oppressors. The fact that some ‘Apocular’ have developed a more ‘amicable’ relationship with the LGBT+ movement in Europe or in certain places in Turkey and Turkish Kurdistan and at certain moments in the struggle does not represent the general line of the organization. Although examples such as DEHAP, HDP and Sebahat Tuncel are often cited, the true line of the movement has repeatedly manifested itself and continues to do so, both in Turkish Kurdistan and in Rojava.

In the letter discussed in this article, A. Öcalan’s failure to see that Gilgamesh’s declaration of his own death upon Enkidu’s death is an emphasis on homosexual love, and the omission of any mention of the bisexual identities of the Sumerian goddesses, among many other details, demonstrate the validity of these views. it would be more concrete to address the section where the term ‘LGBT’ is directly mentioned.

“This was approximately three hundred million years ago. Such developments occur in both plants and animals. Some animals are both female and male, depending on temperature. Therefore, this is not a rigid thing; it is a transformable, dialectical reality. As you know, LGBT is a major topic of debate. There are many people who possess both masculine and feminine characteristics (hermaphrodites). Some even undergo surgery to become male or female. Such surgeries are common. The noteworthy point here is that there is no unbridgeable chasm between female and male. Of course, the philosophical and sociological aspects of this are very different. There is a moral dimension to it, and it has implications for society. These can be overcome with dialectical thinking. I don’t want to get into the role of women here. The distinction between male and female is not miraculous; it is a necessity of nature’s dialectic. It does not imply superiority. Being female is not superior, nor is being male sacred. These are not events from which a particular conclusion can be drawn. They will happen, they are happening, as required by nature’s dialectic. Indeed, we call this differentiation; without differentiation, there would be no life. The meaning of life is connected to differentiation. How can a single person be both feminine and masculine? It’s clear that they cannot live that way today. How can a hermaphrodite man be both masculine and feminine? Traditional morality condemns these people. But in my opinion, this is a problem. Through surgery, the masculine side can be emphasized, the feminine preference can be emphasized; let’s say both are valuable. If nature divides you into two, you will see this division as an opportunity for freedom, as a difference, and that difference has meaning. Femininity has meaning, masculinity has meaning. This has also taken shape in society; the important thing is not to make them opposites. Making them opposites is where the problem begins.”

The statements made by A. Öcalan in his letter to the PKK are in serious contradiction with his actual views. He frames homosexuality within the context of ‘hermaphroditism’ and seems reluctant to engage with the issue directly. He devalues the ideological, political, philosophical, scientific, and social progress made by LGBT+ communities today by stating that ‘some living beings may become hermaphroditic due to temperature changes.’

Again, while stating that there is no such thing as an ‘ideal’ male or female being, that every body has different characteristics, and that there are variations on the gender spectrum, they also state that, with advancing technology,  hermaphrodites  can be  assigned  to  one  of  the  two  genders, ‘whichever they are scientifically closer to,’ and thus made ‘compatible.’ He argues that intersex individuals must undergo surgery with the goal of assigning them a gender identity. By reducing everything to ‘biological proximity,’ he not only nullifies the individual’s right to have a say over their own body, but also otherizes those who, despite being closer to the ‘male’ gender, do not identify as male, do not live in accordance with their assigned gender, and, moreover, choose to undergo gender reassignment.

A. Öcalan’s views on this matter are firmly rooted in the binary gender system and are based on the idea that the ‘mental revolution’ repeatedly expressed by hetero-sexism, which materially surrounds every moment of the lives of LGBT+ communities, can overcome this. However, there is no obstacle to continuing to defend the view that trans activists are essentially the ones who create opposition. This is because it has rendered the perpetrator and the victim ambiguous and equal.

1. What is Öcalan Really Opposed To?

Marx and Communism

“In no period, therefore, do we find a more confused mixture of high-flown phrases and actual uncertainty and clumsiness, of more enthusiastic striving for innovation and more deeply rooted domination of the old routine, of more apparent harmony of the whole of society; and more profound estrangement of its elements.” (Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire)

The experiences of the world proletariat in its struggle for power to date have shown what should and should not be done, in short, enabling progress by drawing lessons from the positive and negative aspects. The greatest proof that the existing state structure cannot be changed without touching it and through ‘peaceful methods of struggle by disarming’ is the Paris Commune.

In his work The Civil War in France, Marx reveals the true secret of the Paris Commune experience as follows: ‘The true secret of the Commune was this: the Commune was essentially a workers’ government, the product of the struggle of the producing class against the exploiting class, the political form finally discovered that would bring about the economic emancipation of labor.’

In his 1891 introduction to this work, Engels refers to a very important feature that a communist type of power must possess, not only in relation to the past but also in relation to the future. When the working class comes to power, it must not only dismantle the old oppressive state apparatus, but also take measures to prevent the emergence of new masters:

“From the outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment… Against this transformation of the state and the organs of the state from servants of society into masters of society – an inevitable transformation in all previous states – the Commune made use of two infallible expedients. In this first place, it filled all posts – administrative, judicial, and educational – by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time. And in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers… In this way an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding mandates to delegates to representative bodies which were also added in profusion”.

Communists have learned a great deal from the Commune experience. The most important lesson is to aim to seize the entire state apparatus, without limiting oneself to specific areas, and to destroy it, creating a system that prevents the bourgeoisie from reproducing itself.

Indeed, what prompted Lenin to make his famous roll in the snow was not that the Bolshevik Revolution happened to outlive the Paris Commune by one day, but that the correctness of their policy had been concretely proven.

After the Commune, everyone undoubtedly drew lessons in line with their own worldview. A. Öcalan is one of them. However, what makes A. Öcalan different is that, as he explicitly states in his letter, even when referring to Marx’s assessment of the Paris Commune, he resorts to historical distortion to justify himself.

Although Marxists were an important part of the Commune, they can easily be declared ‘anti-Commune’ because they were fewer in number than the Proudhonists and Blanquists. Yet, with their positive and negative assessments, they held up the Commune as a beacon for the working class.

On the one hand, Marx may have intuitively regarded the Paris Commune as a premature birth, yet on the other hand, he organized the journey of many individuals, including Élisabeth Dmitrieff, to Paris to join the Commune. However, when we think of the ‘women of the Commune,’ the person who most often comes to mind is Louise Michel, and it is no coincidence, but rather a deliberate choice, that Élisabeth Dmitrieff is often forgotten. The fact that Marx and the MLMs were declared ‘anti-Commune’ despite everything that was written and done is also a result of this choice.

A. Öcalan, based on this choice, states in his letter, “It is striking that many people Marx knew well in his later years died during the Paris Commune. It is said that nearly 17,000 communards died. He also wrote an assessment called The Paris Commune in their memory. He abandons Capital. Because his predictions have suffered a major blow. In my opinion, he has suffered an internal breakdown. He focuses on the idea of the commune. He does not use the class much, he also uses the concept of the commune.”

Marx and his followers made a rigorous assessment when addressing the Commune. They demonstrated that the way for the proletariat to seize power was to take over the state in a more comprehensive manner. Indeed, the Bolshevik and Chinese Revolutions were the result of these assessments.

Based on this, it would not be unreasonable to say that although he places himself on an equal or even transcendent level, Marx was a parrhesiastes [‘a person who speaks the truth without any hesitation or fear’], while A. Öcalan is the exact opposite. A. Öcalan’s views not only fail to correspond with reality but also attract the attention of the ruling class. For, as Greek philosophy often emphasized, ‘truth’ is not our own thoughts. And only when truth coincides with our own thoughts is it correct to express this truth, which will disturb the rulers, by taking a risk: this is an example of speaking the truth/parrhesia [‘speaking the truth courageously’].

Lenin and the National Question

Lenin did not discover anything new when he addressed the national question. Debates on the national question were quite lively at the time. The solution to this problem fell on the shoulders of the proletariat. For this reason, we see that the period of lengthy debates and deliberations on the national question even became the subject of novels. These examples, which sometimes appear positive and sometimes negative, also show that even long before the revolution, there were conflicting understandings within the Bolsheviks themselves. The best example of this can be seen in Bogdanov’s work The Red Star, written ten years before the revolution. Lenin and then Stalin, in their writings on this subject, present the issue in the clearest way possible in line with the interests of the proletariat.

This problem, as A. Öcalan points out in his letter, seems to be that the Kurdish movement confuses the concept of the state with the nation-state and equates the two. The idea that if there is a state, it will logically be in the form of a nation-state, forms the spirit of all the texts.

However, the ideological orientation presented by A. Öcalan ‘does not take sufficient account’ of these historical realities and codes the Soviet Union experience as ‘capitalism feeding from the left.’ This approach leads to an abstraction that obscures the contributions socialism has made to the national question, even reducing them to the ‘statist’ category. Yet both the federal model and the principle of self-management are important elements of the socialist movement’s theoretical and practical openings towards oppressed nations. The setbacks experienced by socialism are not simply the result of nation-state building, but rather the outcome of much more complex economic, political and ideological processes.

In this sense, it should be remembered that in the MLM worldview, the Right to Free Secession (RFS) is not equated solely with statehood. The RFS is essentially a principle that guarantees the political equality of oppressed nations. The right to secession is merely the most advanced expression of this equality; whether a nation chooses to statehood or not is a matter to be determined within its own historical and social conditions. The claim of MLMs is that all nations have this right. ‘Full rights equality,’ including the right to secession, is the minimum condition for national equality and voluntary union. Therefore, interpretations that the right to secession conflicts with alternatives such as stateless democracy, confederal structures, or radical self- management fail to grasp how the MLM worldview grounds this right.

Mao and the Role of Violence

When the PKK emerged within a specific ideological framework, it was influenced by Maoism, much like many national liberation movements of its time. Although rarely mentioned in recent years, numerous writings from earlier periods contain references to the theories of People’s War and Democratic People’s Revolution. And while rejecting many of the things they had previously defended, they did not overlook the Democratic People’s Revolution.

In his earlier writings, A. Öcalan attacked Lenin and Stalin but did not oppose the rising Chinese social imperialism, claiming that they still defended Mao’s line. Moreover, while Maoists around the world denounced Chinese social imperialism…

While utilizing the strategy of Protracted People’s War, they gradually felt the need to draw clearer lines between themselves and Maoism. To such an extent that the terms Democratic People’s Revolution, Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, and Mao were no longer mentioned in any form. They only referred to the war they were waging as the Revolutionary People’s War. Now, they have abandoned even that.

Finally, when A. Öcalan addressed the struggle against the imperialist- capitalist system, which he defined as ‘modernity,’ he reduced Mao’s theses to a very narrow field in his perspective text, stating, ‘Mao tried to adapt this theory to the liberation struggles of the colonies, but he was limited. He could have developed a comprehensive system analysis and alternative solutions, but he fell short.’

Starting from ‘the role of violence in Kurdistan’ and arriving at this stage, he could not fully reject the role of violence in history without attacking Mao. In particular, he found a way to both strike at Mao and render him insignificant through his theses, which had become the nightmare of imperialism.

Imperialism and Internationalism

“Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which introduce everywhere the striving for domination, not for freedom. Whatever the political system, the result of these tendencies is everywhere reaction and an extreme intensification of antagonisms in this field. Particularly intensified become the yoke of national oppression and the striving for annexations, i.e., the violation of national independence (for annexation is nothing but the violation of the right of nations to self-determination).” (Lenin, Imperialism)

Every political movement requires not only rhetoric but also a leadership vision to be effective and achieve its goals. Today, the leadership vacuum experienced by the working class and the oppressed in the Middle East is also preventing the masses from building their revolutionary identity. While imperialism is ravaging the Middle East today, those who speak out ‘against imperialism’ are imperialism’s number one collaborators, such as R.T. Erdoğan. Or they are religious-reactionary organizations and gangs organized by imperialists against revolutionary forces. Instead of channeling their anger against imperialism into the revolutionary movement, which is struggling with the leadership problem, the peoples of the Middle East are aligning themselves with the programmes of nationalist-religious-reactionary organizations.

This negative positioning of the revolutionary movement has dulled its ability to produce valuable leaders or practices from within, legitimizing reactionary responses rather than policy-making. The crises experienced by the revolutionary movement in the Middle East make it difficult for a movement that will inspire enthusiasm among the masses to emerge, but concrete conditions keep the search alive.

Particularly in the context of the Kurdish national question, an effective leadership concept has been created in the Middle East. However, this leadership does not even mention imperialism, let alone speak out against it. Even on the issue it addresses as ‘neo-colonialism,’ it attacks MLM science instead of targeting the imperialist-capitalist system. On the other hand, as mentioned above, it uses terms associated with MLM science to subject them to ‘deconstruction.’ For example, evaluating D. Trump and his decisions without considering the social conditions he finds himself in, the influence and pressure of monopoly capital on US politics; reducing war to mere personal ambitions or limiting it to a ‘warrior mentality’ by ignoring these foundations is not analysis.

Of course, it is a fact that as imperialist attacks increase, so do the searches of the masses. Marx’s famous thesis reveals itself here once again: life abhors a vacuum. This crisis of leadership that revolutionaries are experiencing cannot be reduced to individuals alone. It is a deeper problem: a consistent political identity has not been established among the masses; rather than offering the masses a direction aimed at power, it has offered them reactivity. The replacement of political affiliation with temporary excitement perpetuates the crisis; in a structure where position is sanctified rather than leadership ability, institutional memory and social response are gradually weakening.

The most devastating manifestation of political polarization is the loss of ethical consistency. Today, many organizations in the Middle East resort to the principles they defend only to judge their opponents. Discourses that are particularly prevalent around more mass movements show that ethical and scientific claims have become mere tools. There are millions of practical examples where violence against women is covered up and the voices of LGBT+ people are silenced and ignored.

When positioning themselves in the Iran-Israel war, principles can give way to daily interests. The reactions of the masses to the poverty experienced in Rojava or Palestine, where they are forced to wage war to survive, also reveal a similar situation. Similarly, in Turkey, examples such as the suppression of municipal workers’ voices from time to time due to ‘attacks by the ruling power’…

In this sense, the question of how post-modernism has shaped the Middle East can be understood by examining pragmatism and positivism. Communist leader İbrahim Kaypakkaya stated: “When the interests of the people and the interests of the party conflict Marxist-Leninists always stand for the interests of the people. This is not factionalism. Taking a position against the interests of the people for the sake of the party’s interests, that is factionalism”, thus pointing precisely to these understandings. This also shows that this problem is  not  limited  to  the  present  day.  (Kaypakkaya, Selected Writings, Nisan Publishing)

The rhetoric of ‘social peace’ and so on, which has been revived in recent years, is supposedly being promoted for the ‘will and interests of the people.’ However, the reactions of A. Öcalan and other PKK leaders to those who have exposed the current process reveal the truth. It has been exposed that the politics being pursued have little to do with the interests of the people.

They have also overturned the understanding of internationalism, particularly with the opportunities they gained with the Rojava Revolution. The very establishment of the International was made possible by the struggles against the ideas defended by A. Öcalan. The International was founded thanks to the struggle against figures like Proudhon and Bakunin, and it was re-established through the struggle against Kautsky. What internationalism advocates is the removal of imperialism from colonies and semi-colonies and the organization of the people in imperialist centres along these lines, yet today we are seeing the reappearance of scenes we have witnessed before.

Those who say that peace cannot be built without waging war against imperialism and capitalism are accused of ‘war mongering’, while internationalism is discredited with a false ‘peace’ dream.

1. Conclusion

While imperialist-capitalists are making preparations for a new war of division, they are also strengthening their own fronts. In such a process, the existence of a power that has weapons and is outside the control of the state does not suit their purposes. At the same time, all the national oppression and violence to which the Kurds are subjected in the four parts are being skillfully exploited by Western imperialists, primarily US imperialism. They skillfully exploit a bleeding wound as one of the ways to break the influence of Russia, China and Iran in the Middle East. However, in doing so, it is essential that powerful forces such as the PKK and PAJK do not find themselves in a position to escape their control. For this reason, A. Öcalan’s messages have made headlines in the imperialists’ best-selling newspapers worldwide. Following examples such as ETA and IRA, and then the Tamil Tigers and FARC, the idea that ‘systemic methods of struggle’ also existed became ingrained in the minds of the oppressed peoples of the world. What happened after all this proved the reality that problems within the imperialist-capitalist system would not be resolved in favor of the oppressed.

The difference between A. Öcalan’s call and the examples given above was that he had been moving step by step in this direction from the very beginning. The issue is not merely organizational stagnation, the war reaching a deadlock, etc. (which are possible developments in a war), but where the foundations of his ideas lie.

A. Öcalan’s views resemble those of many revisionists, reformists and anarchists, from Proudhon to Kautsky, Negri to Foucault, Khrushchev to Bookchin. What matters more than which of these he resembles most is that his ideas are not based on overthrowing the existing system and establishing a new one. He reiterates that it is possible to live together peacefully within the system.

The process we are going through shows the exact opposite. While disarmament is being ingrained in the minds of the world’s proletariat and oppressed peoples, the imperialists and their collaborators are investing in armament. While the idea that ‘autonomous-democratic’ structures can be established within the system is constantly repeated, massacres continue in Palestine, throughout the Middle East and around the world. It is a fact that these will increase in scale. As the Soviet and Chinese revolutions have shown, only proletarian revolutions and democratic popular revolutions can put a stop to all this.

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/notes-on-a-ocalans-perspective-perspective-for-whom-and-for-what/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=25551

#criticism #guerrilla #iraq #kurdistan #pkk #rojava #tikko #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

TKP-ML: Notes On Abdullah Öcalan’s “Perspective” Document

Following PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan’s “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society,” the PKK decided to end its armed struggle by dissolving itself at its Extraordinary 12th Congress held between 5 and 7 May. A. Öcalan prepared two separate documents sent to the PKK’s 12th Congress. Serxwebûn newspaper published the 21-page document written by A. Öcalan on 25 April in its 521st issue.

1. General Introduction

Following PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan’s “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society,” the PKK decided to end its armed struggle by passing a resolution to dissolve itself at its 12th Extraordinary Congress held on May 5-7. A. Öcalan prepared two separate documents sent to the PKK’s 12th Congress. Serxwebûn newspaper published the 21-page document written by A. Öcalan on April 25 in its 521st issue.

In this “Perspective” document, consisting of an introduction and seven main sections, A. Öcalan addresses the theoretical, political, historical, and programmatic foundations of the new era from his and his organization’s perspective.

This article evaluates the “Perspective” letter sent by A. Öcalan to the PKK’s Extraordinary 12th Congress.

Idealism, as a Historical Perspective

Human history is filled with various variations of materialist and idealist ideas. Through a detailed examination of human history and by addressing the ideas of philosophers who came before him and his contemporaries, Karl Marx rescued materialism from its dead and soulless form and pulled dialectics out of the quagmire of idealism, putting dialectical materialism at the service of the proletariat. With the emergence of classes, idealism was imposed on the oppressed by the oppressors, and reality was always manipulated to produce a kind of consent.

For example, in ancient Greece, while citizens (slaves and women were not citizens) had various rights, and forms of government changed many times, with various laws being made and broken, what remained constant was slavery itself. Slavery was accepted as natural. Slaves themselves were made to accept it as natural.

We are now encountering a “new” definition of socialism by A. Öcalan. For example, we are faced with a ‘defense’ of socialism that rejects the dictatorship of the proletariat because it is not “democratic.” A. Öcalan says the following in his Perspective text: “This is why we are focusing on socialist ideology and attempting to democratize it. In fact, calling socialism democratic is not entirely accurate. Because socialism should already be democratic. However, real socialism is oriented towards seizing state power and proletarianizing the state, i.e., proletarian dictatorship, so its democratic essence is weak. That is why we felt the need to use the term democratic socialism.”

Much can be said about these expressions. We are talking about an approach that disregards for whom the dictatorship of the proletariat is democracy and for whom it is dictatorship, based on the claim of “democratizing socialism.” In fact, A. Öcalan’s way of thinking, regardless of his intentions, resembles that of the Bauer brothers.

In The Holy Family, the first joint work by K. Marx and F. Engels, an example of historical/social materialism is presented against the Bauer brothers, who put Christianity in their target sights as they were struggling to change the social mindset. According to this, although religion influences people in the ideological sphere, it did not descend from heaven as expressed in the holy book, but is rooted in social life and relationships. Theoretical criticism and ideological subjugation are not sufficient to eliminate religion; it can only be eliminated through practical criticism, that is, by changing the material relationships that create and nurture it. The Bauer brothers also seek the root of social problems in mentality, that is, in religion, and therefore base their struggle on opposition to religion. “Ideas can never lead beyond an old world order but only beyond the ideas of the old world order. Ideas cannot carry out anything at all. In order to carry out ideas men are needed who can exert practical force.” (Karl Marx-Friedrich Engels, The Holy Family)

From  Spartacus  to  Sheikh  Bedrettin,  from  Thomas  Münzer  to  the  Paris Commune, from the Celali Rebellions to the Kurdish Serhildans, from June 15-16 to the Gezi Uprising, there have been many practical criticisms, whether targeting power or not, armed or unarmed. Undoubtedly, these cannot all be considered in exactly the same way. Even the Kurdish uprisings are each a separate subject of analysis. What makes them the same is certainly not that they were defeated. Indeed, some even managed to seize power in certain time periods and regions. When these uprisings, some economically based, some democratically based, and some based on identity and religion, are examined, it will be seen that, regardless of their intentions, the thick scent of idealism permeated them due to reasons such as their historical processes and the failure to properly construct the foundations on which they rose.

From a certain point in history, we see idealism being imposed on the masses in a more conscious and organized manner. This process began with the successive national liberation struggles and revolutions in Bulgaria, Albania, Vietnam, Romania, Cuba, Laos, Chile, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, and many other places, particularly after the Soviet and Chinese revolutions and the defeat of Hitler’s fascism.

Reversals from Socialism and the End of History

National movements have different contents. We will discuss these again later. However, as if to confirm Lenin’s statement about “the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions,” the past century was marked by the victories of the national liberation struggles led by the proletariat against imperialism. However, a process of reversals from socialism, a process of revision and improvement, began through modern revisionist powers, primarily the Soviets and China, giving rise to a new contradiction. Although attempts were made to resolve this contradiction with the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) in China, in the long run, imperialism succeeded in creating a world in its own image.

However, this was not enough to quell the justified anger of the masses. Therefore, a more comprehensive wave of ideological attacks began with the rhetoric of “the end of history” and the manipulations of ‘democratization’ and “the end of classes.” Especially with the collapse of social imperialism and the dissolution of the remnants of the Soviet revolution, a great wave of pessimism began to engulf the world. The campaign against communism, led by US imperialism and with the cooperation of Western imperialists, began to include ideological subjugation along with physical attacks.

The First and Second Imperialist World Wars were a product of the capitalist mode  of  production,  imperialist  relations,  and  contradictions.  However, Khrushchev’s modern revisionism distorted this reality and rejected revolutions and wars in practice. It eliminated the distinction between just and unjust wars. He argued that the objective laws and the whole set of relationships that caused wars and revolutions had now disappeared. According to Khrushchev, imperialism had lost its aggressive nature and it was now possible to speak of “permanent peace” and the resolution of international problems through “mutual understanding.” (Which question is central? Revolution and war, or peace and coexistence? – People’s Fedayeen Organization of Iran, translated by Leman Meral Ünal, Sendika.Org)

This deviation, which captivated the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and many other communist parties at the time, caused the communist and revolutionary movement to take serious steps backward under the guise of “reducing tension.” These parties rejected the truth clearly stated by Lenin in The Military Program of the Proletarian Revolution: “Only if we overthrow, defeat, and dispossess the bourgeoisie not only in one country but throughout the world will wars become impossible.” We can interpret Lenin’s approach as follows: “Social peace is only possible through the elimination of classes and the full equality of rights for all strata of society.”

Again, Lenin states: “As long as capitalism and socialism coexist, they cannot live in peace; one or the other will eventually triumph, and either a funeral will be held for the Soviet Republic or for world capitalism.” (V.I. Lenin, “Speech Delivered at a Meeting of Activists of the Moscow Organization of the R.C.P.(B.)-December 6, 1920”)

Despite Lenin’s quite clear and explicit warnings, Khrushchev’s modern revisionism had emerged with its thesis of “permanent peace” and its claim that international problems could be solved through “mutual understanding.” Such an approach was significant in showing how modern revisionism revised MLM science, as well as being one of the concrete steps backward in socialism. (Of course, the origins of this regression must be sought deeper and earlier.)

In summary, while revolutionaries and communists generally approached the issue of “peace” in this manner, today A. Öcalan, as if he had discovered something new, expresses surprise in his letter, stating: “Strangely, it was not our side, but a Turk who was relentless against me and did everything to have me executed at any moment, Devlet Bahçeli, who opened this new era as the most authoritative voice and hand of the Turkish sensibility of the time, which had become a party and even a proto-party state. In other words, Bahçeli, as the relentless leader of the war against us, is saying this directly to the DEM delegation. ‘I have devoted my entire life to this, but now I want to start a new era.’ In my opinion, this is a clear call for peace and a democratic solution. It is both a call for peace and a consistent call for peace with democratic content. Developments seem to indicate this.”

The “peace” mentioned by A. Öcalan in this statement has been expressed in different ways at different times, as seen in the example of Khrushchev. Despite all their differences, the only place this type of peace rhetoric serves is the interests of the bourgeoisie.

Lenin, however, advanced the thesis of coexistence in peace as a revolutionary policy serving the goal of strengthening revolutionary movements worldwide. According to Lenin, this theory should be used to accelerate the proletarian revolutions of the world’s peoples, not as the foundation and essential element of a socialist country’s foreign policy.

An Organized Wave of Attacks: Neo-Liberalism and Postmodernism Hand in Hand

The betrayal initiated from within by people like Kautsky and Khrushchev, combined with the attacks of petty-bourgeois socialism and the imperialist- capitalist system, naturally resulted in a horribly distorted understanding of “democracy and socialism.” Figures, such as Bookchin and Negri, overturned the entire historical consciousness, even attacking from outside, as revealed by MLM science. Of course, we must not forget that ideological diseases such as patriarchy, hetero-sexism, and chauvinism had a major impact on accelerating this process. Because of these diseases, the masses were organizing against the revolutions they had created with their own hands in the name of “democracy.”

Imperialist-capitalists turned the sectarian policies implemented under the name of “socialism” into material for their own politics. Similar attacks, of course, existed from the very beginning. The personal slanders against K. Marx, F. Engels, and V. I. Lenin remained as rumors that no one took seriously because they were baseless.

However, in this process, which we now define as social imperialism, a series of policies implemented in the name of “socialism” had led to disastrous consequences for the masses. The participation of the masses in the revolution was being prevented, and the progress of the revolution was being halted. Under these conditions, figures like Khrushchev easily seized power. The bourgeoisie, which had been severely weakened by the working class’s seizure of power, was being restored.

Indeed, due to the manipulation of the imperialist-capitalists, these events were sold to the world’s working class and oppressed peoples under the guise of “democracy and freedoms.” Those who wanted to criticize these events lacked the clear information and ideological-theoretical background necessary to analyze the concrete conditions in a concrete way, resulting in a “criticism of real socialism” that lacked a real foundation.

The NGO approach was introduced under the guise of “humanitarian aid” to the colonies and semi-colonies where Soviet imperialism and Western imperialists were waging power struggles. The masses were bombarded with the idea that problems could be solved within the system. Crumbs of freedom, band-aids, painkillers… Just like the capitalist system’s understanding of health, an understanding that would never heal and would always keep people dependent on it was normalized. The slogan “either an honorable peace or a glorious resistance” gave way to the understanding that “there are no winners in war, no losers in peace.” However, even considering that the number of UN Peacekeeping Forces, which was 13 during the “Cold War” period, began operating in 20 regions between 1988 and 1993 and in 63 regions in 2008, it is clear that conflicts around the world have increased in parallel with neo-liberalism and how possible “peace” is in this system.

In his letter to the PKK, A. Öcalan wrote: “And the only conclusion we can draw from this is that only those who fight can make peace. In other words, not secondary or third powers, not allies, but those who bear the responsibility for the war itself can take on the responsibility for peace. Because peace is as serious an event as war. And the responsibility for such a serious event can only be assumed by its primary bearers. Therefore, realistically, the state is waging this war. I feel the need for the state to transform this war into a new beginning as an attempt at peace. This has been voiced over the last six months. We, too, were convinced that this hand should not be left hanging in the air, that indifference should not be shown to this voice, and we responded immediately. As the primary responsible party and executor of this struggle, we felt a sense of responsibility and responded without delay. This has also been shared with the public. The expression is as follows: only those who fight can achieve peace. Other parties do not have the power to achieve peace. They are secondary or auxiliary. The main initiative lies with those who spearhead this work. We have embarked on such a path, which I believe is a sound approach. Based on this approach, we have expanded the scope of the beginning somewhat and are preparing  our  program  with  this  meeting  under  state  supervision.” While saying this, he both glosses over the reasons why the war started and ignores the inevitability of wars in the imperialist capitalist system.

The greatest trap of postmodernism is that it blurs the distinction between the super ordinate identity and subordinate identities. Indeed, in his recent writings, A. Öcalan, who has not mentioned “imperialism” in the slightest, has, as seen in the above quote, glossed over the “causes” of the war and spoken of an imaginary spring.

The main point of living together in peace is democracy. So what does this mean? The denial of revolution and class struggle! If living together in peace means democracy, and if “the most important arena of struggle is the democratic arena,” that is, if the ultimate resolution of existing contradictions is possible through democracy, then there is no longer any need to talk about proletarian revolution, class struggle, or the role of revolutionary struggle. Where there is no revolutionary struggle, weapons are not needed. In this sense, the issue of the PKK laying down its arms is not such an urgent matter. The path outlined by A. Öcalan is clear.

Neo-liberalism, the ideology of globalization, and postmodernism, the cultural structure of globalization, found their field of application during the period known as the “Cold War,” which was waged between Western imperialists and social imperialists. Political and social life, the role of the state, and the existence of the nation-state are being reinterpreted.

“In the second half of the 20th century, faced with labor movements and socialist struggles that interrupted liberalism, liberalism began to establish its epistemological basis in order to redefine itself. Frederich August Von Hayek, who defended liberalism against the rising socialist movements, is an economist and political scientist who won the Nobel Prize in 1974 for his views defending the free market economy. Neo-liberalism can be defined as a capital project, an aggressive class domination project, designed to reorganize the role of the capitalist state in relation to class power, and thus the power relations and forms of power it represents.” (Güler Kalay, Neo-Liberalism and Identity Politics)

Neo-liberalism, whose epistemological foundation is based on postmodern theory, emphasizes diversity and differences, highlighting multiculturalism by addressing identities in terms of differences rather than similarities, criticizing modernism’s nation-state model, and opposing nation-state nationalism with micro-nationalisms. Micro-nationalism, created by emphasizing cultural differences based on ethnicity and belief, has become the determinant of neo-liberalism’s identity politics.

Postmodernism creates the illusion of multiculturalism by reducing all cultures and traditions to a single sphere. According to Terry Eagleton, postmodernism, “Despite boasting about being open to the Other, it can be just as exclusionary and censorious as the orthodoxies it opposes. For example, human culture is generally discussed, but class is not; the body is addressed, but biology is not; jouissance (pleasure) is mentioned, but justice is not; post-colonialism is discussed, but the petty bourgeoisie is not. This is a completely orthodox heterodoxy, like any imaginary form of identity, which needs bogeymen and false targets to do its job.“(The Illusions of Postmodernism)

Indeed, A. Öcalan also states: ”A society based on war, that is, on plunder, is a male-dominated society. Its business is surplus value. Marx links this to class division, but there is no need for that. If a surplus value opportunity begins to emerge, a plant society forms around the woman, and if there is an increase in food, the man sets his sights on it. He hunts animals, but he also seizes the food gathered by the woman. He seizes both the food and the woman; that’s how the story begins. He kills two birds with one stone.”

In this way, A. Öcalan obscures the concept of “class” while once again defending his famous thesis that “classes have ended”! It is precisely the production of surplus value and the appropriation of this production—which he himself admits—that turns women and men into two separate identities, oppressor and oppressed classes, bourgeoisie and proletariat…

1. Understanding of Materialism

Historical Materialism and the Problem of Social Nature

While A. Öcalan claims that the bourgeoisie is a class with which compromise is possible, he also overturns the terms, definitions, and analyses that are closely linked to MLM science. One of the most important of these is historical materialism.

A. Öcalan states: “The act of sanctification kills even a woman’s lover. Why? Because she knows what will happen to her. She has to kill him to prevent this disaster from befalling her. That is the essence. That is historical materialism. This is the most useful idea we can take from Marxism. Dialectical materialism explains it this way. But men also put an end to this female rule in Sumerian society.”

In this way, A. Öcalan reduces historical materialism to a single point. While doing so, he addresses the emergence of classes but also continues with a terrible class denial. His aim in doing so is, of course, an effort to “transform” the irreconcilable fundamental class antagonisms in society through a peace policy based on humanist discourse. This post-modern policy is one of the foremost forms of liquidation in history.

This form of liquidation, which purges the ideological and political sphere of revolutionary elements, has achieved significant successes today. The fact that a thought that has lost its revolutionary essence by reconciling with the bourgeoisie still maintains its mass base does not mean that it has not undergone ideological liquidation. In today’s revolutionary society, where the level of political consciousness has declined, taking pride in the continued existence of an organization is not a sign that things are going well. Unlike those who have succumbed to the idealistic illusion of “social peace,” MLMs know that the revolutionary and the counter-revolutionary cannot coexist in harmony. Concrete experiences in the history of class struggles clearly show that a parallel sphere of social consensus cannot be established in spite of the state.

F.Engels said that nature is the testing ground of dialectics. Similarly, the history of societies is the testing ground of historical materialism.

“Just as, according to the Pauli exclusion principle, two electrons cannot coexist in an atom at the same time and at the same energy level, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie cannot coexist without conflict in social history. Rejecting the necessities of matter and the social sphere is a bourgeois illusion of freedom. Even recent experiences show us that the bourgeois utopian understanding of freedom is actually a shackle that binds the feet of slaves. In Latin America, Mexico, and Nepal, class and national liberation organizations that joined the order through bourgeois social contracts after exhausting their revolutionary powder were eventually crushed by the wheels of the capitalist system. Thus, it became clear that the normal cultural, legal, and political flow of bourgeois society served as a mill for revolutionary organizations. These political movements, which resisted firearms for more than half a century, could not escape melting away like a candle within the normal flow of bourgeois social life. Some of the bureaucrats of these revolutionary organizations, later found privileged political opportunities for themselves within the system. But the poor workers and peasant children who were once guerrillas were mostly thrown out of the process of social realization, suffering from the high cost of living, poor living conditions, murders by drug cartels, and existential annihilation. Their final attempt to rebel was resolved without a single shot being fired, under the siege of civil society, the voluntary ideological executor of bourgeois civilization… Historical Materialism has shown us that a neutral sphere of thought, isolated from the economic infrastructure, is impossible throughout the history of class society. This includes the period of primitive animistic thought. Traces of economic activity can even be found at the origin of the first totem  cults.  The  fact  that  plant  and  animal  species  beneficial  to  the continuation of species existence were sacralized and tabooized tells us that the fundamental element determining consciousness in the transition from animal to human was human self-activity. All these historical materialist findings inform us that the democratic transformation of society cannot be achieved through bourgeois compromise.” (Anton Ekmekçi, The Story of the Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing in Aesop’s Fables)

In this sense, “democratic socialism” seeks the codes for creating a new life not in the transformation of areas that are the subject of political economy, but rather in thought. Yet correct thought is based on changing reality through practice. It is not possible to acquire knowledge of objectivity through “mental transformation” alone. This amounts to reshaping objective reality with ghosts summoned from beneath the ground. However, knowledge of reality is obtained, precisely as Marxism predicts, by changing its own object through praxis.

1. The National Question

Why Does It Exist?

“It is an indisputable fact that the Kurds in Turkey constitute a nation and that anyone who has not been blinded by raging Turkish chauvinism will accept it. Kurdish workers, poor and moderately well-to-do peasants, semi-proletarians, urban petty-bourgeoisie, the entire Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords are included in the Kurdish nation.

National oppression is applied not only to the Kurdish people, but to the entire Kurdish nation, except for a handful of feudal lords and three or five big bourgeoisie, who are fused with the Turkish ruling classes in every way. Kurdish workers, peasants, urban petty-bourgeoisie, small landlords suffer from this oppression.

In fact, the main target of national oppression is the bourgeoisie of the oppressed, dependent and subordinate nation. Because the capitalists and landlords belonging to the dominant nation want to be the unrivaled owners of all the riches and markets of the country. They want to retain the privileges of  forming  a  state.  By  banning  other  languages,  they  want  to  achieve “language unity”, which is extremely necessary for the market. The bourgeoisie and landlords belonging to the oppressed nationality stand in front of these ambitions as an important obstacle. Because they [the bourgeoisie and landlords of the oppressed nationality], too, have the ambition to own their own market, to control this market as they wish, to exploit the material wealth and the workforce of the people themselves.

These are the powerful economic factors that set the bourgeois and landlords of the two nations against each other; this is where the bourgeois and landlords of the dominant nation engage in uninterrupted national oppression; This is why national oppressions is aimed also to the bourgeois and landlords of the oppressed nation.” (Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, Selected Writings, Nisan Publishing)

Nationalism, is a class ideology adopted by the Turkish, Arab, and Persian bourgeoisie, defined by A. Öcalan as the “Turkish, Arab, and Persian ruling elites,” to secure their economic and political dominance in their own regions and protect their class interests. In order to ensure the stable preservation of these interests, they regularly attempt to impose this ideology on the oppressed classes and strata. The fact that the working class and poor peasantry have been influenced by “nationalist poison” or have become its advocates does not change the fact that nationalism is not an “external poison” but a bourgeois class view.

The rationale for viewing nationalism not as a class ideology and policy but as a poison injected into the “elites” from outside and a pathological disease of the people is that the ruling classes of Western European countries increasingly embracing multiculturalism and European citizenship, at least officially, in the 1990s (which coincided with the most concrete manifestations of the retreat from socialism and the collapse of social imperialism) and their criticism of nationalism can be cited. The German and French monopoly bourgeoisie defended multiculturalism as a necessity of the European Union project, which they undertook to consolidate their dominance in Europe and create a powerful imperialist center against imperialists, primarily the US.

A. Öcalan and the national movement, starting from this point, view nationalism not as a bourgeois ideology, but as a poison that is either chosen or injected. The German bourgeoisie, relying on the anger and hatred of the people against fascism, as well as the internationalist instincts of the working class and laborers, has not abandoned its “national” and “imperialist” interests and is trying to shape the European Union in line with these interests. Today, as seen in the form of the “rising far right,” it also begins to defend nationalism again when its interests require it. Undoubtedly, not only A. Öcalan but also a much broader segment that argues that the national question can be solved within the system has been affected by these erroneous assessments.

The national question belongs to the capitalist system by its very nature and cannot be resolved without the destruction of this system. A reformist approach to the national question does not end all the privileges of the oppressor nation, nor does it eliminate all forms of fascist tyranny over the oppressed nation. Ultimately, it alleviates the pain but does not and cannot eliminate it. The fact that the Western European bourgeoisie and other imperialists defend a multicultural ideological line to one degree or another does not mean that nationalism can be reduced to a mentality independent of classes, poisoning the “elites,” or to a matter of free choice.

Nationalism is not a poison injected from outside, but a bourgeois “mindset” that must be fought against on an internationalist front based on the unity of the working class and peoples. The fact and necessity that it must be fought with an internationalist “mentality” (i.e., that it is a question of mentality), demanding full equality of rights, cannot justify ignoring the social and class foundations of nationalism.

The Reality of the PKK

“The PKK is a movement to prove the existence of the Kurds and open the door to freedom,” says A. Öcalan. Although the PKK has been defined differently in each period, this is where it has ultimately arrived. The historical denial of the Kurdish nation coincides with the continuation of the First Imperialist War of Partition. The Kurds, who are mentioned in many places throughout history, from Ancient Greece to the Persian Empire, were subjected to denial and annihilation in the four parts of Kurdistan, primarily by the fascist Turkish Republic, as a result of agreements made with the imperialists after the First Imperialist  War  of  Partition.  The  situation  is  slightly  different  for  Soviet Kurdistan, also known as the fifth part of Kurdistan, or Kûrdîstana Sor (Red Kurdistan).

After the emergence of national consciousness among the Kurds, many different Kurdish national organizations were established. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, none of the promises made by the imperialists and the reactionaries of the region were fulfilled, and a policy of denial and annihilation began. A. Öcalan describes this situation in his letter with a quote: “…Sheikh Sait’s words: ‘Prosecutor, you promised we would have a feast together. What  happened to  the  lambs  and goats?’”  He  quotes  this  as  a question. In fact, massacres against Kurds had already begun long before Sheikh Sait. In particular, Alevi Kurds were targeted in the early stages in the Turkish Republic. The most important reason for this was that the Alevis had historically been a thorn in the side of the Ottoman Empire. “Infidelity” was an important propaganda issue in the massacre of Alevi Kurds. Muslim-Shafi Kurdish tribes were prevented from speaking out against these massacres and, beyond that, took part in them. This influence continues in subsequent years and even today. For this reason, the Turkish state can easily cite the example of Idris-i Bitlisi, who collaborated in an Alevi massacre in the historical process. They are aware that these religiously reactionary sentiments are still alive among the Shafi Kurds. They harbor the hope that they can rebuild their divide- and-rule policy from here. However, the PKK’s organization among Alevi Kurds has prevented this effort from yielding the results desired by the Turkish state at this time.

A. Öcalan, in the continuation of the paragraph where he mentions the examples of Sheikh Sait and Seyid Rıza, states, “And these leaders actually express this; it is very important that they are on the gallows. A dead reality, not sick, not wounded, but dead. A transitional period associated with this, experienced in the persons of Qadi Muhammad, Mustafa Barzani, Qasimlo, Jalal Talabani… What we know as traditional feudalism, we call transition, personalities who are half-bourgeois, half-aristocratic, who have come down to us from there. What we mean by bourgeois is a period that began after World War II and continues to this day, that is, the capitalistization and bourgeoisification of Islam… Did such a period occur, could it occur? But it exists. There is such a capitalism, a nationalist entity, and a fundamental consciousness of nationalism. This is evident from the representatives. After all, Qadi Muhammad has a tradition of statehood. Barzani is still experiencing an attempt at statehood. Talabani is also a partner in this. But there is no Kurdish nation-state that has yet left its mark on the era, or it is questionable no matter how hard one tries,” he continues.

He does not consider other Kurdish organizations that have fought or are still fighting to be significant. He does not see them as equals or rivals. The PKK was founded precisely within this Kurdish reality. Throughout its nearly fifty years of existence, it has constantly fought to be the sole ruling power in all four parts of Kurdistan. Although it has collaborated with other Kurdish or revolutionary organizations from time to time, like all organizations engaged in power struggles, its main goal was to consolidate its own power. It is a fact that it did not always use revolutionary methods to achieve this.

Along with all this, the PKK followed an ideological development path from the demand for a Free Kurdistan to the demand for democratic socialism and populist municipalism. It created a charismatic leadership model around A. Öcalan. While cultivating this leadership model into a cult, it also applied various methods to silence dissenting voices within its own ranks. During the same period, it advanced itself in developing military-political maneuvers in line with its own goals, establishing organizations quickly when necessary and dissolving others, and making B and C plans. With the dissolution of the remnants of the Soviet Union, it strengthened its relations with Western imperialists. This same period is also when the Palestinian resistance was forced into the Oslo talks…

The basis of these relations developed with Western imperialists, primarily US imperialism, was the discourse of “democracy.” In this period, when the EU was established and post-modern attacks on revolutionaries intensified, guerrilla warfare was elevated to a higher level, while at the same time a conciliatory ideology matured.

The intense participation of Kurdish workers and laborers plays a significant role in the continuation of guerrilla warfare. The epic images of the war further increase the PKK’s influence within the Kurdish nation. The charismatic leadership approach develops a will to fight among militants, who sacrifice themselves for their leader. Organized around this reality, the PKK requires that any steps taken when A. Öcalan and the rest of the organization disagree must be in line with A. Öcalan’s wishes and ideas. Even when A. Öcalan declared that his relationship with the PKK was over, the reality of the “leadership” that had been created pushed the organization to continue to shape itself according to A. Öcalan’s wishes.

Even when the PKK used rhetoric such as socialism, Stalin, the Turkish bourgeoisie, and the Kurdish poor until the 1990s, it was not actually talking about the liberation of the Kurdish proletariat. In the letter mentioned above, A. Öcalan states: “This is an interim period… that is, Kurdish nationalism, Kurdish capital, we call it primitive comprador bourgeoisie, some may be more developed, centered in Diyarbakır, Erbil, Sulaymaniyah, even Mahabat. But in my opinion, these are extremely temporary, artificial counter-revolutionary elements, imposed as instruments of liquidation. Both their ideological content and their practical implementation are like this.“ Although he tries to show that he still retains his ”revolutionary content,” throughout its history, the PKK has produced policies aimed at winning over its own feudal lords rather than fighting against the feudal system, which has had a significant impact in Kurdistan.

The PKK clearly demonstrated in the ’94 period that the Kurdish bourgeoisie, facing obstacles to its development, embraced socialist rhetoric while fighting for a share of capital due to the powerful winds of socialism at the time. From this point onward, it has more openly attacked MLM science. (Although it had previously belittled and disparaged the revolutionary movement, seeking to discredit it, it began to do so more openly after this date.) While doing this, it also developed various collaborations with the revolutionary movement because it could not resist the attacks of the Turkish state alone, and within these collaborations, it developed policies to impose its own ideas. Its approach in the unions and confederations it was organized in was also essentially indexed to concrete demands for the Kurdish nation.

The Solution to the National Question

Idealistic ideas that view everything through the lens of “mindset” explain the existence of the Kurdish national question in this way, which is why they are able to sign a peace agreement with the Turkish state, which they are currently fighting against, on the basis of “a thousand years of brotherhood.” Of course, the reasons for signing this agreement are different. Due to pressure exerted in line with the interests of imperialist monopolies, the parties were forced to sign this agreement. Undoubtedly, considering power relations and material gains, the losers of this agreement in the medium and long term will be the PKK, which has elevated the guerrilla war to an epic dimension, and more fundamentally, the Kurdish workers and laborers who have sacrificed their children and their lives for the liberation struggle, saving every penny they have earned over the years. This is why the worldview that will solve the Kurdish national question cannot approach the issue from a “mentality” perspective.

However, the “democratic socialism” project places the emphasis not so much on production and exploitation relations as on “mentality” and the ‘state’ as the institutionalized form of this mentality, defending a “democratic socialist” project that does not foresee a radical transformation of exploitation relations. It states that Marxism and the socialism it envisions are statist, and therefore a supposedly stateless society must be established. In this approach, the “statist mentality” is primary; exploitative relations, which largely determine/influence the entire social and class structure, are not even secondary but insignificant. From this perspective, the liquidation of the market and capitalist private property is not even mentioned, but is explicitly defended.

Individuals have played a decisive role in the history of the Kurdish national movement, its formation, tactics, and strategy. However, the fact that the Turkish Republic is governed by a fascist regime that has not resolved the national question and has imposed a “single nation” identity on the entire society conditions the Kurds’ struggle on the basis of national equality. It would be incorrect to address it in isolation from its political and historical foundations, explaining it based on the will of one or a few individuals, independent of historical conditions and circumstances. Of course, in many actions and events, individuals can be critically important; they can determine its direction, course, and sometimes even its existence. However, all these actions are not carried out in a weightless environment independent of space, time—history—but within historical conditions that are diverse and initially beyond the individual’s will, with their military, organizational, political, and ideological structure; their culture, sociology, and psychology, which they face and set out to change. They are positively or negatively affected by these historical conditions. To consider the individual as if they had no relationships, connections, or place, independent of the historical conditions and environment in which they exist; to explain “great events” with “great wills” is not a serious analysis.

In reality, a socialist struggle that eliminates capitalism is rejected as “statism,” “Marxist dogmatism,” “economic reductionism,” and “support for capitalist modernity from the left.” The collective organization of the people and their participation in political processes are indispensable for democratic governance, but it is unrealistic to claim that an organization that does not aim to abolish feudalism and socialize bourgeois-capitalist private property has overcome capitalism, let alone socialism.

It is true that MLMs do not seek the foundations of society’s ideological and political relationship forms solely in the “mind,” nor do they limit the struggle against them to a struggle to change the “mindset”; rather, they target the social foundations that give rise to them.

After examining the nature of the national question in Turkey, Kaypakkaya concludes that workers and laborers belonging to oppressed nations are subject to double exploitation, adding that: “The oppression of the workers of minority nationalities thus acquires a multiplicative character. First, for class purposes, to exploit more and suppress the class struggle against the workers; the second is the national oppression applied to almost all classes of minority nations and nationalities for the purposes we have mentioned above, that is, for national purposes.

Communists have to distinguish between these two oppressions. For example, while Kurdish bourgeois and small landlords oppose the second kind of oppression, they are in favor of the first kind of oppression. We, on the other hand, are against both oppressions. We support the struggle of the Kurdish bourgeois and small landlords for the elimination of national oppression; but on the other hand, we have to struggle against them for the elimination of class oppression.” (Kaypakkaya, Selected Writings, Nisan Publishing)

1. Approach to Patriarchy

“So the task of history is to reveal the truth of this world after the other world of truth has disappeared.” (K. Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law)

A.Öcalan’s way of thinking, which places him above everything and everyone, brings with it many problematic statements. Particularly when it comes to women, the harshness of his discourse, the masculinity of the language he generally uses, the way he explains examples from his own life, and his careful selection of examples and words that emphasize male superiority when choosing general examples reveal his problematic stance on patriarchy.

There are many examples in the letter discussed in this article that prove this. Some of the statements used in the article and why they are problematic can be listed as follows:

– “How can a hermaphrodite man be both masculine and feminine?” (Intersex people have been defined as ‘hermaphrodites’ despite declaring that they do not accept this definition. Even when giving examples, the term “man” is used, assigning a gender to hermaphrodites.)

– “I have tremendous power of speech and action.” (As a man, he is boasting about his own power, positioning himself above all collectively created values.)

– “Yes, female superiority will develop, let’s explain it a little. The other rose as a counter-thesis, saying that the superior one is male.” (The sin of the emergence of patriarchy is attributed to women.)

– “Male-specific  thinking,  female-specific  thinking,  these  definitely  express problematicity.” (It rejects the shaping created by concrete conditions. This can extend to the idea that women’s positions within the current system can change without changing the material basis. Thousands of years of the relationship between oppressor and oppressed have, of course, developed a certain way of thinking in both men and women. This must, of course, change, but it cannot be changed simply by rejecting it.)

– “A frozen opposition is a dilemma, an abyss. In this abyss, blows are struck; this  reality  also  lies  beneath  family  murders.” (The  patriarchal  system  of exploitation lies beneath murders committed within the family. It is not a “frozen opposition.” Expressing it this way obscures the subject that must be fought against, leading the struggle into a dead end.)

– “In that murder, from the perspective of the one who did it, the woman is frozen, the woman is absolutely woman, the man is absolutely man, but if there is a dialectical flow of thought, one will inevitably betray the other. One shoots the other, the other shoots the one.” (He wanted to refer to gender roles and the consequences of these roles, but he defined the perpetrator of the murder as “the one who did it.” The vast majority of murders and rapes of women occur within the family. Different forms of violence are also most intensely experienced within the family. The predominant direction of this violence is from men to women. The reason for this is the dominance of the patriarchal system throughout the world.)

– “Now, a woman is a being who gives birth; there is no need to discuss this. Birth occurs in women; as a human species, the correct difference is in women, and this must be well understood.” (By emphasizing women’s fertility at every opportunity, it suggests that this is a woman’s most important function and, therefore, her place is “at home, with her children.” Furthermore, not every woman is “fertile.” Trans women or women who cannot or choose not to give birth for other reasons are also women.)

– “Without sexual  instinct, there  is no reproduction; without reproduction, there is no life.” (Human sexuality is not focused on reproduction. Sexuality can be experienced for reproduction or for pleasure. In fact, unlike many animals, humans mostly experience sexuality for pleasure. This is why there is diversity in sexual relationships and different methods of orgasm. At this stage, reproduction does not only occur through sexuality. In fact, in some living beings, reproduction can occur without the need for a male. Scientific studies are ongoing on the possibility of reproduction without the need for a man or a woman at the technical level humans have reached.)

– “ The village-city develops along with the state-class. What is important is that the social nature develops around women.” (Much information about the emergence of villages and cities has changed with the discovery of Göbeklitepe and other ancient cities in the surrounding area. These show that humans transitioned to a settled life before agriculture. What is important here is that after production began, men took control of the means of production and began to exploit reproductive labor as well.)

– “I’m amazed that if someone as desperate as me has noticed this, why haven’t all those men of science noticed it? I’m astonished.” (As a typical feature of patriarchy, on the one hand, he sees tremendous power in himself, while on the other hand, he defines it as helplessness. At the same time, by referring to the men of science as “men,” he assumes that they are male.)

– “Gilgamesh sends a prostitute to Enkidu (who is most likely the proto-Kurd in those mountains). It’s an epic, but there is also a culture of obtaining men through prostitutes.” (The idea of men “falling into women’s traps” is repeated.)

– “Such special women were sent to divide and fragment the PKK. It is very striking. We experienced this; I may have even experienced it myself.” (By saying “I may have,” he again emphasizes his power.)

– “As far as I remember, there was an incident where I hit my sister Eyne. She said something here too: ‘Your strength is only enough for me.’ It stuck in my mind, and I guess I was a little stronger than her. And I remember there was an incident where I raised my hand because she wasn’t doing her job properly or correctly.  Strangely, Eyne didn’t even feel the need to visit me.” (While downplaying the violence he inflicted on the woman, he again felt the need to emphasize his own power.)

– “In a matriarchal society, the mother’s brother, the uncle, is influential in the clan.” (It is true that matriarchal societies exhibit different characteristics in different tribes. However, he has not presented any scientific data regarding the influence of the “uncle,” and he has spoken clearly because he believes this cannot be questioned.)

– “Not only are the first values taken from her, but she also makes her sons and husband work like slaves. The woman kills the man with a sacred marriage ceremony. Just like the killing of the man in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the roots go back that far. Horrible. The act of sanctification kills even her lover. Why? Because she knows what will happen to her. She has to kill him to prevent this disaster from befalling her. That’s the essence. That’s historical materialism. That’s the most useful idea we can take from Marxism.“ (Marxist science does not explain the emergence of patriarchy in this way. And historical materialism is not ”this.”)

– “The next stage is the stage of property.” (He does not feel the need to define the nature of property. He is repeating Proudhon’s ideas. Property also exists in a matriarchal society. However, this is communal property. Patriarchy, on the other hand, is intertwined with private property.)

– “Moreover, in the domestic situation, such confinement to the home is a dangerous ideology, a major problem. As I mentioned, this is how problems begin in society. This is the core issue in society. It gives rise to class and the state.” (Confinement to the home is a consequence.)

– “We laid the foundation for women’s freedom.” (Women lay the foundation for women’s freedom. They initiate everything they see as positive themselves and disregard thousands of years of struggle.)

– “I said that, as a matter of respect for women, freedom must begin in the mind. I said, ‘Live however you want. If you have the power, of course.’” (He has graciously granted respect to women(!) and chooses a threatening ending to his sentence.)

– “Women create the economy, so aren’t they now in need of bread, in need of men?” (Women are not in need of men. However, the current system wants to create this perception. In response, women are organizing and resisting.)

– “If the man doesn’t work, the woman goes hungry.” (In many working-class families, the opposite is true. Without the woman’s domestic reproductive labor, the man would go hungry.)

-“In modern times, women’s relationship with the economy has been reduced to   zero.” (Because   women’s   relationship   with   the   economy   continues unabated, the system attacks women’s labor most intensely.)

– “The economic transition to male dominance originated in the West and was tremendous.” (The claim that patriarchy originated in the West is as false as the claim that patriarchy has disappeared in the West.)

-“You will take control of your body. The body that is completely controlled by men is your body. How will you do that? He has set all your limits, he has set your schedule. If he doesn’t give you money, he leaves you hungry. I don’t want to make the picture even darker. All of this has been established. For example, what did I say? Socialism passes through the liberation of women.” (The power that women have fragmented is as real as the power that men try to establish over women’s bodies. The issue is whose eyes we look at the world through. However, the claim that socialism passes through the liberation of women is based on Kollontai, who came long before it.)

-“What amazes me is that even Marx sells his clothes to live with his wife. Capitalism cannot support the author of its greatest book, its critic, who sells his coat because he cannot support his wife and children. ‘I’ll write this book so that it will bring in income and save this marriage,’ he says.” (Criticisms of Marx are often the opposite. They claim that Marx did not think enough about Jenny and the children, did not care about housework, and placed the burden of supporting the family on Jenny’s shoulders. Jenny and all the other members of the family are aware of the importance of Marx’s work and play important roles in the writing of his works, both intellectually and physically. However, despite all this, the truth has been turned upside down here. Instead, in order to discredit and caricature Marxism, it has been claimed that Marx wrote Capital to support his family. Because, from a patriarchal perspective, doing such work for one’s family is considered beneath one’s dignity.)

-“My friend, my most valuable friend, definitely wanted me to kill him. I was cautious around him. I struggled with him for ten years. But I am cautious. Let him do what he will, I told his story. And when he ran away, it was a tremendous relief for me.” (While describing his relationship, he claims that despite all his social superiority, he was still the one who escaped. Regardless of all the characteristics of the person who ran away, this reveals how a man sees himself in a relationship. He blames his partner for his own weaknesses.)

-“This way of standing my ground is what makes me who I am. While everyone else was condemning me, saying ‘the man’s wife ran away,’ and people were either sad or killing him, I said ‘I escaped.’”

-“Unmarried women like you are a big problem for me.” (Although he does not fully explain why unmarried women are a “problem,” as mentioned above, it is clearer that he blames the woman for his weaknesses. However, we see that a married woman does not cause a problem because she “belongs” to another man.)

-“At least we gave them the opportunity to think freely as individuals.” (He claims to have granted women the “opportunity to think freely.”)

Is the Oppression of Women the Guilt of Women?

When addressing patriarchy in general, avoiding its traps requires special effort. The observation that “dominant ideas are the ideas of the dominant” reveals what we must avoid. The Kurdish women’s movement, which took shape around the “Apocu Movement,” has accumulated important experiences in terms of the women’s movement in Turkey and the Middle East. While part of this experience is significant in a positive sense, another part is significant in a negative sense. It is clear that there is much we have learned and will learn from this movement, which took shape around a non-trans, heterosexual male charismatic leadership. The “Apocu Movement” generally not only attacks historical materialism by initiating the struggle for women’s liberation from itself, but also adds fuel to the fire of patriarchy in terms of the objectification of women.

Alongside all these general aspects, the reality that emerges in this letter in particular is the insistence that women’s oppression is again the guilt of women. The idea behind the emphasis on the matriarchal era, which ultimately leads to the conclusion that “men reacted to this,” is a reflection of the bourgeois justice system, where the perpetrator and the victim become intertwined and blurred, and the perpetrator is legitimized. For bourgeois courts always find an excuse to establish the justice of the oppressors and apply “good conduct” discounts.

When patriarchy itself is attempted to be addressed without historically tracing a series of developments such as the development of the means of production, private property, inheritance law, the family, and the emergence of the state, the result will inevitably be another “mental revolution” issue. Patriarchy is intertwined with private property and is essentially the first concrete manifestation of the oppressor-oppressed relationship in the male- female dichotomy.

A. Öcalan, who accepts that men appropriated the surplus value created by women, renders invisible many practices of the matriarchal period, such as the shared use of property, by saying, “men were also killed in the age of goddesses,” as if blaming women.

Again, with his assessments, he has hinted, though not directly stated, that women are “naturally” confined to the home because they can bear children. He also denies the fact that women, who were largely confined to the home under feudalism, re-emerged due to the development of capitalism and the need for cheap labor.

While discussing the contributions of Marxism on the one hand, on the other hand, the same patriarchal discomfort lies beneath his claim that Marx sold his coat to support his family and print Capital, and that he supported his family with the money he earned from the sales of this book. By confessing that he once worshiped Marx like a god, he expressed his discomfort with the “sacrifice” of a man who claimed to have made this sacrifice “for his wife.” In this way, he sought to expose and devalue Marx, whom he considered to be from the more “effeminate, housewife-like” class.

Of course, this is not the reality. All of Marx’s works, as we know them, are the product of serious collective effort. Jenny Marx, in particular, made an enormous contribution to all of Marx’s works, both intellectually and physically. Marxism is the dialectical product of collective effort. The same is true of Capital, which was later completed by Engels. Marx and his comrades created these works not to “make livings” but to change the world.

Unlike A. Öcalan, MLMs have correctly addressed the origins of patriarchy in Engels’ book The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, defining the first bourgeois-proletarian relationship in history as the male-female relationship so that it can be understood in our time. The matriarchal period, however, has not been presented as a justification for patriarchy in this work or in any other Marxist work.

It is a fact that everything arises from its opposite. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the opposites of patriarchy and matriarchy contain a complete opposition on many issues, such as private property and domination over the means of production. In short, patriarchy, as A. Öcalan also states, is based on the appropriation of the means of production and surplus value, while matriarchy or matrilineal society is based on collective production and the sharing of surplus value according to need.

The Man Who Will Liberate Women

The issue of women’s liberation is, of course, in one sense the issue of subjectification. This subjectification is possible through an uncompromising stance against patriarchy. It also requires a struggle against hetero-sexism, private property, and all forms of reactionary ideology, which have historically been intertwined with patriarchy. However, this struggle will not be realized through a worldview “bestowed” or to be bestowed upon women by A. Öcalan or any other man. However, as in all his speeches and analyses concerning women, A. Öcalan expresses the perspective of “either you do as I say or you continue to live as a slave” as a threatening element in this letter, as a representative of the oppressing gender.

A. Öcalan, who previously used phrases such as “do you have the courage to look me in the eye?” to women, also states here, “At least we gave you the opportunity to think freely as individuals. That is what keeps you standing, to some extent. If the idea of freedom is taken away from you, you will inevitably perish.” In doing so, he draws the women gathered around him into a different variation of patriarchal bargaining.

The historical defeat of women against men is the appropriation of surplus value by men and, in order to do so, the confinement of women to the home by exploiting their fertility. Over time, as structures such as law, culture, and education were shaped around this system of exploitation, the phenomenon known as the state was invented as a result, a means of control.

The presence of the goddess figure in the early forms of the state does not mean that they were not forcibly confined, as he himself pointed out when quoting from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Because patriarchy was still in a very primitive state, women were depicted as goddesses on the one hand and enslaved on the other.

In this sense, the man’s seizure of power did not happen overnight and with all its structures, but gradually, and has become a state that produces the most insidious policies in the name of “women’s liberation,” as it does today. It has mastered the art of holding power in the class struggle.

Just as no bourgeois can pave the way for the proletariat’s liberation from its chains unless he betrays his own class and sacrifices his life for the proletariat’s power, no man can serve women’s liberation unless he betrays his own gender and sacrifices his power in the ranks where women are the subjects in the war against patriarchy.

History has never recorded a proletarian leader who established the power of the working class by wagging their finger at the working class, threatening them, looking down on them, or giving advice from the outside. And it certainly never will! The masters of MLM science and their successors have demonstrated this most subtly in their assessment of the Paris Commune, in writing the April Theses, in addressing the betrayal of the Social Democrats in Germany, in analyzing the classes in China, and in addressing the national question in Turkey.

Those who claim to defend the liberation of a class or the oppressed but do the opposite have revealed their true faces both in their personal lives and in the counter-revolutionary terrain where they lead the revolutionary struggle. The successors of leaders like Proudhon and Bakunin today assert themselves in this terrain with the most libertarian rhetoric. While attacking the oppressed more than the oppressor, and those fighting against the capitalist-imperialist world order more than the order itself, they claim that women’s liberation is possible within the limits of the existing order.

They talk about “social equality” or “mental revolution” without ever addressing issues such as surplus value exploitation, reproductive labor, the common use of the means of production, or the just resolution of the contradictions created by particularities. Undoubtedly, the issue of women’s liberation is related to women’s masses taking history out of the hands of hunters. Hunters can show at most “mercy” to their prey. Therefore, liberation will, at best, be “merciless.”

1. Labor-Surplus Value-Property

Why Do Classes Exist?

A. Öcalan actually admits the answer to this question in his letter. Even while addressing the foundations of women’s exploitation in a distorted manner, as the MLM science he opposes also reveals, the exploitation of surplus value and the issue of ownership of the means of production form the basis of the problem.

However, classes have undergone many qualitative and quantitative changes throughout history, and with capitalism, the working class and the bourgeoisie emerged. Since this system continues today, it would be unrealistic to say that these classes have disappeared. However, it would be useful to see the material basis for the constant creation of this kind of mental confusion.

In contemporary class society, power is multi-layered and multi-dimensional. It can be understood as a unity that occurs in all economic, political, and ideological spheres. It is sustained both by coercion and consent. Broadly speaking, the power of capital is expressed not only in the state’s fundamental political institutions such as the government, parliament, parties, police, army, courts, and prisons, but also, in addition to these, not only in more “public” state institutions such as the tax office, the registry office, and religious affairs, but also in countless official or “civil” institutions that are spread throughout society like a network, from schools to mosques, municipalities to families, shopping malls to media, stock exchanges to companies, unions to cinemas. In this sense, power is relational. It is the contradictory unity of coercion and persuasion, domination and hegemony, exclusion and inclusion.

The bourgeoisie objectifies the individuals that make up society within this relationality. The general class interest of the bourgeoisie is presented as if it were the interest of the whole society and is engraved in the minds of individuals through production and market relations, state activities, political and social spheres, and cultural and intellectual interactions. However, this relationality is not merely a one-sided imposition of data. In the individual objectified by power, a kind of illusory subjectivity is also created, which in turn produces the continuity of power. The individual’s subjectification through their rights and freedoms in this order is, paradoxically, due to their subjugation to the bourgeois power that actually objectifies them. In their daily practice, thoughts, behaviors, beliefs, and preferences, objectified individuals adopt a way of being that accepts the legitimacy and immutability of power, even supporting its implementation.

Power, which surrounds social life and seeks to control minds and bodies, establishes norms that are identical to the economic, political, and social interests of the ruling class, the bourgeoisie. Political tendencies, sexual orientations, cultural practices, lifestyle choices, and everyday behaviors are shaped according to these norms, which are ideologically and politically imposed on society. Those who are governed believe they define themselves by their individual freedom, but in reality, they are objectified by the ideology and politics of power, their way of existence seemingly constructed by norms. This is the categorization of society.

Those who conform to the norms are considered normal, while those who show nonconformity are labeled abnormal. Thus, the suppression, isolation, or elimination of the labeled individual is presented as the legitimate duty of the ruling power and is also legitimized by those who have been made compliant with the order through the norms.

One of the greatest damages caused by postmodernism is the weakening of class consciousness in this sense. Undoubtedly, different layers of society are made up of different identities, and there are also unique characteristics brought about by these differences. However, these different identities are presented  as  “classless”  realities.  Not  only  that,  but  all  differences  are ‘othered’ and turned into rivals. This can also change in line with the interests of the ruling class. In a country where yesterday saying “I am Kurdish” was declared treason, discourses of “a thousand years of brotherhood” may begin to rise.

Neo-liberalism makes unprincipledness a principle, as if it were a modern version of Machiavellianism. This is because the approach to concepts such as “freedom, equality, justice, truth” varies according to interests, individuals, time, and place. Strikes, marches, exposés, etc. are supported if they are against the enemy or rivals, but if they occur “in their neighborhood,” they are now a threat and a lockout is required.

Various examples clearly show how circles that constantly talk about socialism and democracy have developed reflexes that are pro-capitalist and seek to reconcile the oppressor and the oppressed in the practice of class struggle. Yet a just policy requires defending the interests of workers and the oppressed, regardless of which “neighborhood” they are in. However, the justified anger of the masses is being turned into rumblings that can be used against “enemies” or “rivals” because of such understandings.

What Does Labor Produce as an Invisible Value?

In his letter, A. Öcalan states that “the proletariat has existed since the beginning of history” and that Marx did not discover anything new in this sense. Although he exaggerates and distorts the truth again and again to justify himself, he is right on this point: Marx did not make a new discovery when analyzing the existing system of exploitation.

Indeed, he himself writes this. When discussing Value, Price and Profit, as well as in the first volume of Capital, he analyzes the existing cycle of exploitation. He explains, one by one and in the simplest form, what wage labor produces. He reveals what productive labor produces and why it is “productive labor.” While revealing what alienation from one’s own labor means, he also explains how workers are persuaded to think, “these belong to the boss, thank goodness he gives us work here so we can feed ourselves.” Indeed, labor has not been treated this way in every era of labor history. The difference between slavery and labor is that one is paid.

In the ancient city of Athens, where paid labor was rare, those who rented their labor could not influence the social class structure. These people worked as artists, craftsmen, teachers, and consultants. The concentration of artists and those who received wages in exchange for knowledge in the city shows the developments in citizens’ leisure time and income. This indicator also supports the perspective of the Athenian citizen, who owned certain property, towards working in labor-intensive jobs. As conveyed in the ideal governance ideas of Plato and Aristotle, it was recommended that citizens engage in political activities or city-related work. The ideal citizen should not engage in labor-intensive work and should devote their energy to political activities. This is because working with one’s hands was considered a shameful activity. The prevailing belief was that ideal and valuable citizenship could be achieved through politics and cultural activities. The most important factor that can be presented as evidence of this belief is the Laws of Solon.

A similar situation existed in Sumer, Brahmanism, and different societies in the Middle East and much of the world. Of course, none of these are exactly the same. Although there are differences in the approach to artists and artisans in different regions and at different times—including in different cities of Ancient Greece—slavery law is more or less the same. The Draconian Laws were drafted entirely in favor of the ruling and wealthy classes and focused on the protection of property. The Hammurabi Laws are also explicitly about property. The heavy burden of Brahmanism still rests on the shoulders of South Asian workers and peasants.

Although the laws have undergone formal changes due to shifts in production methods and major uprisings, they essentially fulfill their role of protecting property owners and their interests.

This is precisely what A. Öcalan tries to conceal when addressing the women’s issue, the national issue, and socialism. A. Öcalan, with a class-based reflex, obscures a glaringly obvious truth, lumping the worker and the boss together. The view in Ancient Greece that others should serve them with endless sacrifice so that some could produce philosophy or “manage society better,” and that they should not take part in government, did not provide democracy to either women or slaves. Despite the fact that labor is still devalued and the right to own the means of production still lies with those who exploit the produced, not those who produce, how have classes disappeared? There is no explanation for this.

1. Contradictions

Is it a Conflict between the Commune and the State?

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas; that is to say, the class which is the dominant material force in society is at the same time the dominant intellectual force.” [(Marx-Engels, The German Ideology (Feuerbach)]

The dominant ideology throughout the world has undoubtedly become that of the bourgeoisie. As the ruling class, the bourgeoisie organizes the idea that “there is no such thing as class” in different forms in every era and/or paves the way for those who defend this idea in order to conceal its own exploitation and oppression and to protect itself from the anger of the oppressed.

Indeed, Abimael Guzman Reynoso, leader of the Peruvian Communist Party, who never took a single step back from the reality of the most ruthless class wars, was held in a cell at a submarine base until his death. Although the organization he led suffered a severe blow, his ideas remained ‘dangerous’ to the bourgeoisie until the very end.

What makes the ideas of İbrahim Kaypakkaya, founder of the Turkish Communist Party Marxist-Leninist, the ‘most dangerous form of revolutionary communism’ for the Turkish state is not that he refers to Kurds or Armenians as an identity or that he speaks of massacres. It is his revealing of which class’s interests the organization serves and his refusal to renounce this truth even under the most severe torture.

The burning of the body of Basavaraj, General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), is also a conscious choice of the same class hatred.

Today, while many truths, such as the rejection of classes and the origins of the state, are manipulated, this is not enough for the bourgeoisie. All concepts belonging to MLM science must be distorted, emptied of their meaning, and re-marketed in a form suitable to their own image. For the Paris Commune experience, one of the cornerstones of class struggle, and historical materialism are also affected by this.

In his letter ‘Perspective’, A. Öcalan states: ‘Historical  materialism  should replace class struggle with ‘commune’. Isn’t this not only a realistic approach, but also the healthiest way to transition to socialism in the science of sociology, through free thought and action?’ Instead of historical materialism and socialism based on class conflict, I believe that historical materialism and socialism based on the dilemma of state and commune is more accurate. I find it more correct to review Marxism and implement this concept instead. In other words, history is not a history of class struggle, but a history of conflict between state and commune.”

To prove the correctness of his own thinking, he states, “We can learn about the connection between the word ‘kom’ in our Kurdish language and the commune from our own language. Kom means “to gather”, i.e. commune. It is a word we still use today, which shows that the Aryan language originated from here and has at least 10,000 years of history. It is clear that the Aryan language group also developed around this commune. The Kurdish word “kom” proves this. Word derivations also explain this. Komagene is the name of a state. The head of the tribe creates the state. Tribe members whose interests are harmed also form the commune. That is actually how it really is. It’s very simple,” he says.

The fact that Kurdish, which belongs to the Indo-European language family, and other languages from the same family have many common roots and words is, of course, a subject for philology. Instead, we need to focus on the reality. A. Öcalan wants to, if possible, ‘condemn’ the observation that, while all forms of social relations are taken into account, production relations play a decisive role ‘in the final analysis’. Because accepting this role means:

1- Defining capitalism as an exploitative system in which the bourgeoisie appropriates the surplus value produced by the working class,

2- It requires advocating for the elimination of this fundamental mechanism of exploitation and the transformation of production relations on a social basis in order to fundamentally resolve other social contradictions and forms of exploitation.

A detailed critique of ‘democratic autonomy’ presented as an alternative model to socialism is beyond the scope of this article. However, it can be said that the rejection of the ultimately decisive role of production relations and the economy in general is closely linked to a political programme that does not envisage a fundamental change in exploitative relations. At best, it is in complete harmony with it. In essence, therefore, it is more a matter of defending the imperialist-capitalist system than of ‘criticising Marxism’.

Clearly, the bourgeoisie of any country and those sections that collaborate with international capital will not allow ‘opponents’ they cannot have any control over into their national parliaments. At the same time, they do not allow ‘opponents’ whom they cannot control to operate in their own parliaments. Whether in the world’s most “democratic” country or any other country, this is the general view of the capitalist classes, the ruling power, towards governments and alternative governments. Likewise, the attitude of the ‘privileged class’ is the same everywhere in the world.

The armed workers of Paris, not being represented in such bourgeois assemblies, finally turned against the bourgeois state apparatus on 18 March 1871, chanting ‘Vive la Commune!’ and proclaimed the Commune,  the ‘workers’ power’. The Commune was a class dictatorship just like the bourgeois state apparatus, but what distinguished it from the old dictatorship was that it relied on the majority of society, namely the working class, in whose interest it was to abolish all classes. The difference between this new state and the old one was that it was ‘the political form of social emancipation, that is, the emancipation of labor from the slavery of those who monopolize the means of labor created by workers or bestowed by nature,’ and it aimed to dispossess the dispossessors. (Karl Marx, ‘Selected Passages from the Drafts on the Civil War in France’)

In other words, the Commune sought to organize all production relations on the basis of social ownership, in opposition to exploitative relations and private property. It was precisely for this reason that, as ordinary workers shattered the social fabric they had believed to be indestructible and filled the void with new relationships, the bourgeoisie and landlords were seized by ‘fits of rage at the sight of the symbol of the Labor Republic, the Red Flag, waving above the town hall.’ (ibid., p. 89)

Although the Paris Commune fell, it achieved critical theoretical and practical gains for the working-class movement that developed after it. It can be said that: “Thanks to the struggle waged in Paris, the working class’s struggle against the capitalist class and the capitalist state entered a new phase. Regardless of the outcome of this struggle, it created a new starting point of historical importance on a global scale.” (Karl Marx, “From Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann in Hanover”)

Anti-Capitalism

When examining the idea of ‘democratic socialism,’ it is useful to highlight two fundamental points: the qualitative difference between capitalism and socialism, which are irreconcilable with each other; the former is an economic system based on surplus value production and the capitalist exploitation of labor power, while socialism is committed to the elimination of class differences along with exploitation.

When the concept of ‘democracy’ is used in relation to socialism, if socialism’s fundamental qualitative characteristics and specificity are ignored, the result will  be  the  positions  of  the  liberal  bourgeoisie.  The  fundamental  binding

‘principle’ that determines socialism’s democratic nature is the elimination of exploitation through the transfer of the means of production to collective ownership. Capitalism’s political oppression, privilege and attacks are determined by the exploiter-exploited relationship in the economic sphere. It is anti-democratic in that it is a hegemonic system of a minority—a privileged class—over the majority of society.

Based on A. Öcalan’s analysis of the conditioning/determining effect of production relations and the economy in general, one can discuss some of the reasons why he dismisses the MLM worldview as a form of capitalism, stating that it ‘does not even need to be criticized’ or accusing it of inadequacy. Alongside factors such as the bourgeois character of the movement, the international imperialist-capitalist ideological hegemony, and the partial backwardness of the world working-class movement, it is worth highlighting just one point relevant to our topic: A. Öcalan proposes a new paradigm of ‘democratic modernity’ that transcends ‘state-based and class-based capitalist modernity,’ targeting Marxism.

He does not really target the system he describes as ‘capitalist modernity’ at all. We are not even talking about a system that survives through coercive apparatus being destroyed by force and replaced by a new system, or about the role of force in this context. There is not the slightest indication that he advocates changing the system through ‘parliamentarism’. This is essentially what we are talking about.

As he states in his letter, capitalism and its current stage, imperialism, are not mentioned. Because A. Öcalan talks about establishing a Swiss-like structure integrated into this system, but what he misses is the capital in Switzerland’s hands and the hegemony it has established through it…

Of course, it is not because he does not know that for the realization of ‘democratic’ capitalism, once presented as ‘smiling socialism’, it is necessary to drink the blood of the peoples of other countries.

Eco-Economy

“ Here, as in natural science, is shown the correctness of the law discovered by Hegel (in his ‘Logic’), that merely quantitative differences beyond a certain point pass into qualitative changes.” (Marx, The Rate and Mass of Surplus Value)

When emerging under the banner of the ‘new left’ discourse, the most important foundation of this intellectual current, which overturned all previous scientific theories, was the crimes of social imperialism. It is no coincidence that a wave of attacks on MLM under the guise of ‘criticism’ emerged, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, when the ecological crisis began to make itself felt.

There are, of course, concrete conditions for attributing the crimes committed by the social imperialism of modern revisionist powers to MLM science. In particular, the inadequacy of current studies and information on previous studies on the highly pressing issues of patriarchy, hetero-sexism and ecology, which closely concern all the peoples of the world, has strengthened this basis and the attacks have been supported by the imperialists.

A.Öcalan also uses terms such as ‘ecological paradigm’ or ‘eco-economy’ in his letter and in many other writings. He is aware of the impact of the ecological crisis, one of the most pressing issues of our century, on the lives of the masses. In this sense, he also treats the ecological crisis itself as a tool for organising his thoughts.

However, this ‘ecological’ perspective, like his other ideas, is based more on a ‘mental transformation’ than on concrete grounding. Bookchin’s ideas have particularly influenced his theses on ecology. Since he denies the existence of classes, he argues that all of humanity is equally affected by this crisis. Marx and Engels, even at a time when the ecological struggle had not yet progressed this far, demonstrated that not everyone is affected equally by the problems that the ecological crisis will create. They also identified the root cause of this problem…

Day by day, the urgency of the ecological problem is increasing. It is an issue that the proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the world must focus on more. Until now, the fact that the main problem is the culture of consumption and the form of production has always been swept under the carpet. The discourse of the ‘ecological struggle’ was similarly constructed with an anti- socialist understanding.

Indeed, capitalism, which cuts down trees it cannot sell the shade of, has boasted about how ‘environmentally conscious’ and even superior a culture it has built through its “greenwashing” policies. In countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark, these policies are also used as an important weapon of ‘white supremacy,’ i.e., racism. Claims that immigrants do not separate their rubbish, throw rubbish on the streets, and do not pick up after their  dogs  form  the  most  basic  arguments  of  anti-immigrant  sentiment.

However, no one talks about how much water, land, and sky in the countries immigrants were forced to leave was sold off to mining or tourism companies.

The question of how issues such as global warming, pandemics, and environmental disasters should be understood from an MLM perspective naturally raises the question of how Marx and Engels addressed these issues in their own time.

Marx systematically focused on ecological issues and accorded particular importance to ecology in his critique of political economy. Marx’s examination of environmental problems dates back to the mid-1840s. After the publication of the first volume of Capital (1867), ecological issues continued to form a focal point of Marx’s work. Marx did not leave behind a complete written work as a result of these studies, but his notes and compiled sources on the subject are known. Marx’s general understanding of nature and his specific perspective on ecological issues do not contradict Engels’ dialectical philosophy of nature; rather, they confirm it.

“In short, the animal merely uses external nature, and brings about changes in it simply by his presence; man by his changes makes it serve his ends, masters it. This is the final, essential distinction between man and other animals, and once again it is labor that brings about this distinction.

Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human conquest over nature. For each such conquest takes its revenge on us. Each of them, it is true, has in the first place the consequences on which we counted, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel out the first. The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor, and elsewhere, destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land, never dreamed that they were laying the basis for the present devastated condition of these countries, by removing along with the forests the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture. When, on the southern slopes of the mountains, the Italians of the Alps used up the pine forests so carefully cherished on the northern slopes, they had no inkling that by doing so they were cutting at the roots of the dairy industry in their region; they had still less inkling that they were thereby depriving their mountain springs of water for the greater part of the year, with the effect that these would be able to pour still more furious flood torrents on the plains during the rainy seasons. Those who spread the potato in Europe were not aware that they were at the same time spreading the disease of scrofula. Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature – but that we, with flesh, blood, and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other beings of being able to know and correctly apply its laws.” (Engels, F. (1977) The Dialectics of Nature)

Here, the element that is important in terms of Engels’ dialectical understanding of nature is the contradiction that human labor, as a social activity, transforms nature, or more accurately, exploits natural resources at the expense of depleting them, thereby eroding the natural-material conditions that make human social life possible.

Like Engels, Marx certainly defends the knowability of objective reality and the objective dialectic in nature. However, in Marx’s ecology, a dialectical concept of nature becomes evident in the dialectical interaction between nature and society. (Kaan Kangal; Marx, Engels and Marxist Ecology, Theory and Action)

In this context, Marx’s concept of ‘metabolism’ (Stoffwechsel) is of key importance. Going beyond a philosophical problem analysis, Marx’s concept of metabolism forms a component of the critique of political economy. Based on the concept of material exchange, Marx will formulate the concept of the ‘irreparable rift’ (unheilbarer Riss), which forms the backbone of his ecological critique. (ibid)

“… large land ownership reduces the agricultural population to a constantly declining minimum, while in contrast there is a constantly growing industrial population concentrated in large cities. This creates conditions that cause an irreparable rift in the social exchange unity dictated by the natural laws of life. As a result, the vitality of the land is wasted, and this waste is carried far beyond the borders of a particular state through trade.” (Marx, K. Capital, Volume III)

Marx’s observation is a product of his critical perspective on the impact of modern agricultural industry on environmental conditions in cultivated areas, viewed within the framework of a critique of political economy.

“The capitalist mode of production, by constantly increasing the proportion of the urban population in the total population, which it concentrates in large centres, on the one hand intensifies the historical movement of society, on the other hand, it violates the material exchange between man and soil, that is, the return to the soil of the elements that man takes from it and uses as food and clothing, and thus the eternal condition necessary for the continuation of the soil’s productive power. Thus, the capitalist mode of production simultaneously destroys the physical health of the urban worker and the mental life of the agricultural worker. However, by destroying the conditions that ensure the continuity of the aforementioned material exchange and that arise spontaneously, the capitalist mode of production also necessitates the re-establishment of this material exchange as a system, as a law governing social production, and in a form appropriate to the full development of humanity. … Furthermore, every advance in capitalist agriculture is not merely an advance in the art of exploiting the worker, but also an advance in the art of exploiting the soil; every advance in increasing the soil’s productivity over a given period of time is also an advance in the destruction of the permanent sources of that productivity. (Marx, Capital, Volume 1)

Marx demonstrates that soil degradation is not only a national but also an international problem, using the example of England and Ireland: he states that England, for the past one and a half centuries, “has indirectly exported Irish soil, refusing even to provide the tools necessary for those who farm it to replace the depleted elements of the soil.” (Marx, ibid.)

In the third volume, he proposes a positive solution to the phenomenon of material exchange between nature and society, which he critically examines in the first volume of Capital: an ecologically sustainable relationship between nature and society can be achieved not through the spirit of capitalist production, which aims to make immediate profits, but through the efforts of a social ‘chain of generations’. (Marx, op. cit., p. 546, n. 27, cited by Kaan Kangal, ibid.)

The issue of overcoming the ecological crisis has undoubtedly been a problem addressed not only by Marx and Engels, but also by many other communists. However, there is still a significant lack of understanding and misinterpretation regarding the comprehension and handling of this issue, its transformation into general organizational programmes, and the production of politics based on this. This hinders the development of all these efforts, that is, the progress of the revolution. However, the ecological crisis is a reality that cannot be overcome by living as in the primitive communal period, as A. Öcalan claims. Nor is the Kurdish tribal system an ‘ecological society’; this is merely speculation.

Overcoming the ecological crisis and removing the antagonism between humans and nature is possible, as Marx put it, ‘… only when social man, the common producers, rationally manage the interaction of human metabolism with nature, not as a blind force subject to the domination of nature, but by bringing nature under their collective control…’ (Marx, ibid)

LGBT and Hermaphrodite Issues

“In the practical questions that arise in the politics of any particular or specific historical moment, it is important to single out those which display the principal type of intolerable and treacherous compromises, such as embody an opportunism that is fatal to the revolutionary class, and to exert all efforts to explain them and combat them.” (Lenin, Left-Wing Communism)

The issue of approaching hetero-sexism is, in general, a wound that continues to bleed for the revolutionary movement, but the experiences of LGBT+ masses in struggle and organization have forced revolutionaries to take steps forward on this issue. A threshold was crossed, particularly after the 2000s, and any movement insisting on remaining at or behind that threshold has been dragged into an increasingly reactionary position with each passing day.

The stance of the ‘Apocu Movement’ on this issue has been shaped by opportunism. However, in the recent period, with the rise of the ‘radical right,’ i.e., the re-consolidation of fascism in line with imperialist interests, hetero-sexist attacks have increased, and these increasing attacks have revealed how much many organizations have ‘overcome’ the issue. PAJK, an important component of the ‘Apocu Movement,’ has finally officially expressed its true views on this issue, as if it were the only institution and decision-making body that should speak out. At its last congress, PAJK defined LGBT+ people as ‘a disease created by capitalism’ and emphasized the need to fight against it. Subsequently, the TJA published brochures stating that LGBT+ people must be fought against.

As the class struggle intensifies, it has become clear which side such organizations will take, and their stance in the increasing attacks on LGBT+ people has been on the side of the oppressors. The fact that some ‘Apocular’ have developed a more ‘amicable’ relationship with the LGBT+ movement in Europe or in certain places in Turkey and Turkish Kurdistan and at certain moments in the struggle does not represent the general line of the organization. Although examples such as DEHAP, HDP and Sebahat Tuncel are often cited, the true line of the movement has repeatedly manifested itself and continues to do so, both in Turkish Kurdistan and in Rojava.

In the letter discussed in this article, A. Öcalan’s failure to see that Gilgamesh’s declaration of his own death upon Enkidu’s death is an emphasis on homosexual love, and the omission of any mention of the bisexual identities of the Sumerian goddesses, among many other details, demonstrate the validity of these views. it would be more concrete to address the section where the term ‘LGBT’ is directly mentioned.

“This was approximately three hundred million years ago. Such developments occur in both plants and animals. Some animals are both female and male, depending on temperature. Therefore, this is not a rigid thing; it is a transformable, dialectical reality. As you know, LGBT is a major topic of debate. There are many people who possess both masculine and feminine characteristics (hermaphrodites). Some even undergo surgery to become male or female. Such surgeries are common. The noteworthy point here is that there is no unbridgeable chasm between female and male. Of course, the philosophical and sociological aspects of this are very different. There is a moral dimension to it, and it has implications for society. These can be overcome with dialectical thinking. I don’t want to get into the role of women here. The distinction between male and female is not miraculous; it is a necessity of nature’s dialectic. It does not imply superiority. Being female is not superior, nor is being male sacred. These are not events from which a particular conclusion can be drawn. They will happen, they are happening, as required by nature’s dialectic. Indeed, we call this differentiation; without differentiation, there would be no life. The meaning of life is connected to differentiation. How can a single person be both feminine and masculine? It’s clear that they cannot live that way today. How can a hermaphrodite man be both masculine and feminine? Traditional morality condemns these people. But in my opinion, this is a problem. Through surgery, the masculine side can be emphasized, the feminine preference can be emphasized; let’s say both are valuable. If nature divides you into two, you will see this division as an opportunity for freedom, as a difference, and that difference has meaning. Femininity has meaning, masculinity has meaning. This has also taken shape in society; the important thing is not to make them opposites. Making them opposites is where the problem begins.”

The statements made by A. Öcalan in his letter to the PKK are in serious contradiction with his actual views. He frames homosexuality within the context of ‘hermaphroditism’ and seems reluctant to engage with the issue directly. He devalues the ideological, political, philosophical, scientific, and social progress made by LGBT+ communities today by stating that ‘some living beings may become hermaphroditic due to temperature changes.’

Again, while stating that there is no such thing as an ‘ideal’ male or female being, that every body has different characteristics, and that there are variations on the gender spectrum, they also state that, with advancing technology,  hermaphrodites  can be  assigned  to  one  of  the  two  genders, ‘whichever they are scientifically closer to,’ and thus made ‘compatible.’ He argues that intersex individuals must undergo surgery with the goal of assigning them a gender identity. By reducing everything to ‘biological proximity,’ he not only nullifies the individual’s right to have a say over their own body, but also otherizes those who, despite being closer to the ‘male’ gender, do not identify as male, do not live in accordance with their assigned gender, and, moreover, choose to undergo gender reassignment.

A. Öcalan’s views on this matter are firmly rooted in the binary gender system and are based on the idea that the ‘mental revolution’ repeatedly expressed by hetero-sexism, which materially surrounds every moment of the lives of LGBT+ communities, can overcome this. However, there is no obstacle to continuing to defend the view that trans activists are essentially the ones who create opposition. This is because it has rendered the perpetrator and the victim ambiguous and equal.

1. What is Öcalan Really Opposed To?

Marx and Communism

“In no period, therefore, do we find a more confused mixture of high-flown phrases and actual uncertainty and clumsiness, of more enthusiastic striving for innovation and more deeply rooted domination of the old routine, of more apparent harmony of the whole of society; and more profound estrangement of its elements.” (Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire)

The experiences of the world proletariat in its struggle for power to date have shown what should and should not be done, in short, enabling progress by drawing lessons from the positive and negative aspects. The greatest proof that the existing state structure cannot be changed without touching it and through ‘peaceful methods of struggle by disarming’ is the Paris Commune.

In his work The Civil War in France, Marx reveals the true secret of the Paris Commune experience as follows: ‘The true secret of the Commune was this: the Commune was essentially a workers’ government, the product of the struggle of the producing class against the exploiting class, the political form finally discovered that would bring about the economic emancipation of labor.’

In his 1891 introduction to this work, Engels refers to a very important feature that a communist type of power must possess, not only in relation to the past but also in relation to the future. When the working class comes to power, it must not only dismantle the old oppressive state apparatus, but also take measures to prevent the emergence of new masters:

“From the outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment… Against this transformation of the state and the organs of the state from servants of society into masters of society – an inevitable transformation in all previous states – the Commune made use of two infallible expedients. In this first place, it filled all posts – administrative, judicial, and educational – by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time. And in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers… In this way an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding mandates to delegates to representative bodies which were also added in profusion”.

Communists have learned a great deal from the Commune experience. The most important lesson is to aim to seize the entire state apparatus, without limiting oneself to specific areas, and to destroy it, creating a system that prevents the bourgeoisie from reproducing itself.

Indeed, what prompted Lenin to make his famous roll in the snow was not that the Bolshevik Revolution happened to outlive the Paris Commune by one day, but that the correctness of their policy had been concretely proven.

After the Commune, everyone undoubtedly drew lessons in line with their own worldview. A. Öcalan is one of them. However, what makes A. Öcalan different is that, as he explicitly states in his letter, even when referring to Marx’s assessment of the Paris Commune, he resorts to historical distortion to justify himself.

Although Marxists were an important part of the Commune, they can easily be declared ‘anti-Commune’ because they were fewer in number than the Proudhonists and Blanquists. Yet, with their positive and negative assessments, they held up the Commune as a beacon for the working class.

On the one hand, Marx may have intuitively regarded the Paris Commune as a premature birth, yet on the other hand, he organized the journey of many individuals, including Élisabeth Dmitrieff, to Paris to join the Commune. However, when we think of the ‘women of the Commune,’ the person who most often comes to mind is Louise Michel, and it is no coincidence, but rather a deliberate choice, that Élisabeth Dmitrieff is often forgotten. The fact that Marx and the MLMs were declared ‘anti-Commune’ despite everything that was written and done is also a result of this choice.

A. Öcalan, based on this choice, states in his letter, “It is striking that many people Marx knew well in his later years died during the Paris Commune. It is said that nearly 17,000 communards died. He also wrote an assessment called The Paris Commune in their memory. He abandons Capital. Because his predictions have suffered a major blow. In my opinion, he has suffered an internal breakdown. He focuses on the idea of the commune. He does not use the class much, he also uses the concept of the commune.”

Marx and his followers made a rigorous assessment when addressing the Commune. They demonstrated that the way for the proletariat to seize power was to take over the state in a more comprehensive manner. Indeed, the Bolshevik and Chinese Revolutions were the result of these assessments.

Based on this, it would not be unreasonable to say that although he places himself on an equal or even transcendent level, Marx was a parrhesiastes [‘a person who speaks the truth without any hesitation or fear’], while A. Öcalan is the exact opposite. A. Öcalan’s views not only fail to correspond with reality but also attract the attention of the ruling class. For, as Greek philosophy often emphasized, ‘truth’ is not our own thoughts. And only when truth coincides with our own thoughts is it correct to express this truth, which will disturb the rulers, by taking a risk: this is an example of speaking the truth/parrhesia [‘speaking the truth courageously’].

Lenin and the National Question

Lenin did not discover anything new when he addressed the national question. Debates on the national question were quite lively at the time. The solution to this problem fell on the shoulders of the proletariat. For this reason, we see that the period of lengthy debates and deliberations on the national question even became the subject of novels. These examples, which sometimes appear positive and sometimes negative, also show that even long before the revolution, there were conflicting understandings within the Bolsheviks themselves. The best example of this can be seen in Bogdanov’s work The Red Star, written ten years before the revolution. Lenin and then Stalin, in their writings on this subject, present the issue in the clearest way possible in line with the interests of the proletariat.

This problem, as A. Öcalan points out in his letter, seems to be that the Kurdish movement confuses the concept of the state with the nation-state and equates the two. The idea that if there is a state, it will logically be in the form of a nation-state, forms the spirit of all the texts.

However, the ideological orientation presented by A. Öcalan ‘does not take sufficient account’ of these historical realities and codes the Soviet Union experience as ‘capitalism feeding from the left.’ This approach leads to an abstraction that obscures the contributions socialism has made to the national question, even reducing them to the ‘statist’ category. Yet both the federal model and the principle of self-management are important elements of the socialist movement’s theoretical and practical openings towards oppressed nations. The setbacks experienced by socialism are not simply the result of nation-state building, but rather the outcome of much more complex economic, political and ideological processes.

In this sense, it should be remembered that in the MLM worldview, the Right to Free Secession (RFS) is not equated solely with statehood. The RFS is essentially a principle that guarantees the political equality of oppressed nations. The right to secession is merely the most advanced expression of this equality; whether a nation chooses to statehood or not is a matter to be determined within its own historical and social conditions. The claim of MLMs is that all nations have this right. ‘Full rights equality,’ including the right to secession, is the minimum condition for national equality and voluntary union. Therefore, interpretations that the right to secession conflicts with alternatives such as stateless democracy, confederal structures, or radical self- management fail to grasp how the MLM worldview grounds this right.

Mao and the Role of Violence

When the PKK emerged within a specific ideological framework, it was influenced by Maoism, much like many national liberation movements of its time. Although rarely mentioned in recent years, numerous writings from earlier periods contain references to the theories of People’s War and Democratic People’s Revolution. And while rejecting many of the things they had previously defended, they did not overlook the Democratic People’s Revolution.

In his earlier writings, A. Öcalan attacked Lenin and Stalin but did not oppose the rising Chinese social imperialism, claiming that they still defended Mao’s line. Moreover, while Maoists around the world denounced Chinese social imperialism…

While utilizing the strategy of Protracted People’s War, they gradually felt the need to draw clearer lines between themselves and Maoism. To such an extent that the terms Democratic People’s Revolution, Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, and Mao were no longer mentioned in any form. They only referred to the war they were waging as the Revolutionary People’s War. Now, they have abandoned even that.

Finally, when A. Öcalan addressed the struggle against the imperialist- capitalist system, which he defined as ‘modernity,’ he reduced Mao’s theses to a very narrow field in his perspective text, stating, ‘Mao tried to adapt this theory to the liberation struggles of the colonies, but he was limited. He could have developed a comprehensive system analysis and alternative solutions, but he fell short.’

Starting from ‘the role of violence in Kurdistan’ and arriving at this stage, he could not fully reject the role of violence in history without attacking Mao. In particular, he found a way to both strike at Mao and render him insignificant through his theses, which had become the nightmare of imperialism.

Imperialism and Internationalism

“Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which introduce everywhere the striving for domination, not for freedom. Whatever the political system, the result of these tendencies is everywhere reaction and an extreme intensification of antagonisms in this field. Particularly intensified become the yoke of national oppression and the striving for annexations, i.e., the violation of national independence (for annexation is nothing but the violation of the right of nations to self-determination).” (Lenin, Imperialism)

Every political movement requires not only rhetoric but also a leadership vision to be effective and achieve its goals. Today, the leadership vacuum experienced by the working class and the oppressed in the Middle East is also preventing the masses from building their revolutionary identity. While imperialism is ravaging the Middle East today, those who speak out ‘against imperialism’ are imperialism’s number one collaborators, such as R.T. Erdoğan. Or they are religious-reactionary organizations and gangs organized by imperialists against revolutionary forces. Instead of channeling their anger against imperialism into the revolutionary movement, which is struggling with the leadership problem, the peoples of the Middle East are aligning themselves with the programmes of nationalist-religious-reactionary organizations.

This negative positioning of the revolutionary movement has dulled its ability to produce valuable leaders or practices from within, legitimizing reactionary responses rather than policy-making. The crises experienced by the revolutionary movement in the Middle East make it difficult for a movement that will inspire enthusiasm among the masses to emerge, but concrete conditions keep the search alive.

Particularly in the context of the Kurdish national question, an effective leadership concept has been created in the Middle East. However, this leadership does not even mention imperialism, let alone speak out against it. Even on the issue it addresses as ‘neo-colonialism,’ it attacks MLM science instead of targeting the imperialist-capitalist system. On the other hand, as mentioned above, it uses terms associated with MLM science to subject them to ‘deconstruction.’ For example, evaluating D. Trump and his decisions without considering the social conditions he finds himself in, the influence and pressure of monopoly capital on US politics; reducing war to mere personal ambitions or limiting it to a ‘warrior mentality’ by ignoring these foundations is not analysis.

Of course, it is a fact that as imperialist attacks increase, so do the searches of the masses. Marx’s famous thesis reveals itself here once again: life abhors a vacuum. This crisis of leadership that revolutionaries are experiencing cannot be reduced to individuals alone. It is a deeper problem: a consistent political identity has not been established among the masses; rather than offering the masses a direction aimed at power, it has offered them reactivity. The replacement of political affiliation with temporary excitement perpetuates the crisis; in a structure where position is sanctified rather than leadership ability, institutional memory and social response are gradually weakening.

The most devastating manifestation of political polarization is the loss of ethical consistency. Today, many organizations in the Middle East resort to the principles they defend only to judge their opponents. Discourses that are particularly prevalent around more mass movements show that ethical and scientific claims have become mere tools. There are millions of practical examples where violence against women is covered up and the voices of LGBT+ people are silenced and ignored.

When positioning themselves in the Iran-Israel war, principles can give way to daily interests. The reactions of the masses to the poverty experienced in Rojava or Palestine, where they are forced to wage war to survive, also reveal a similar situation. Similarly, in Turkey, examples such as the suppression of municipal workers’ voices from time to time due to ‘attacks by the ruling power’…

In this sense, the question of how post-modernism has shaped the Middle East can be understood by examining pragmatism and positivism. Communist leader İbrahim Kaypakkaya stated: “When the interests of the people and the interests of the party conflict Marxist-Leninists always stand for the interests of the people. This is not factionalism. Taking a position against the interests of the people for the sake of the party’s interests, that is factionalism”, thus pointing precisely to these understandings. This also shows that this problem is  not  limited  to  the  present  day.  (Kaypakkaya, Selected Writings, Nisan Publishing)

The rhetoric of ‘social peace’ and so on, which has been revived in recent years, is supposedly being promoted for the ‘will and interests of the people.’ However, the reactions of A. Öcalan and other PKK leaders to those who have exposed the current process reveal the truth. It has been exposed that the politics being pursued have little to do with the interests of the people.

They have also overturned the understanding of internationalism, particularly with the opportunities they gained with the Rojava Revolution. The very establishment of the International was made possible by the struggles against the ideas defended by A. Öcalan. The International was founded thanks to the struggle against figures like Proudhon and Bakunin, and it was re-established through the struggle against Kautsky. What internationalism advocates is the removal of imperialism from colonies and semi-colonies and the organization of the people in imperialist centres along these lines, yet today we are seeing the reappearance of scenes we have witnessed before.

Those who say that peace cannot be built without waging war against imperialism and capitalism are accused of ‘war mongering’, while internationalism is discredited with a false ‘peace’ dream.

1. Conclusion

While imperialist-capitalists are making preparations for a new war of division, they are also strengthening their own fronts. In such a process, the existence of a power that has weapons and is outside the control of the state does not suit their purposes. At the same time, all the national oppression and violence to which the Kurds are subjected in the four parts are being skillfully exploited by Western imperialists, primarily US imperialism. They skillfully exploit a bleeding wound as one of the ways to break the influence of Russia, China and Iran in the Middle East. However, in doing so, it is essential that powerful forces such as the PKK and PAJK do not find themselves in a position to escape their control. For this reason, A. Öcalan’s messages have made headlines in the imperialists’ best-selling newspapers worldwide. Following examples such as ETA and IRA, and then the Tamil Tigers and FARC, the idea that ‘systemic methods of struggle’ also existed became ingrained in the minds of the oppressed peoples of the world. What happened after all this proved the reality that problems within the imperialist-capitalist system would not be resolved in favor of the oppressed.

The difference between A. Öcalan’s call and the examples given above was that he had been moving step by step in this direction from the very beginning. The issue is not merely organizational stagnation, the war reaching a deadlock, etc. (which are possible developments in a war), but where the foundations of his ideas lie.

A. Öcalan’s views resemble those of many revisionists, reformists and anarchists, from Proudhon to Kautsky, Negri to Foucault, Khrushchev to Bookchin. What matters more than which of these he resembles most is that his ideas are not based on overthrowing the existing system and establishing a new one. He reiterates that it is possible to live together peacefully within the system.

The process we are going through shows the exact opposite. While disarmament is being ingrained in the minds of the world’s proletariat and oppressed peoples, the imperialists and their collaborators are investing in armament. While the idea that ‘autonomous-democratic’ structures can be established within the system is constantly repeated, massacres continue in Palestine, throughout the Middle East and around the world. It is a fact that these will increase in scale. As the Soviet and Chinese revolutions have shown, only proletarian revolutions and democratic popular revolutions can put a stop to all this.

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/notes-on-a-ocalans-perspective-perspective-for-whom-and-for-what/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=25551

#criticism #guerrilla #iraq #kurdistan #pkk #rojava #tikko #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

TKP-ML TİKKO Command: The Fascist Indian State Will Be Destroyed; The Indian New Democratic Revolution Will Win!

The Fascist Indian State Will Be Destroyed; The Indian New Democratic Revolution Will Win!

The People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army, which is continuing the People’s War with great perseverance and determination for the victory of the new democratic revolution, is completing its 25th year of struggle. We, the commanders and fighters of the Workers and Peasants Liberation Army of Turkey, celebrate the anniversary of the founding of the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army (PLGA), led by the Communist Party of Indian (Maoist), which is the fighting force of all oppressed laborers, oppressed nations and nationalities, women, and youth, especially the workers and peasants of India. We salute all the fighters and command structure of the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army with our most sincere revolutionary feelings.

The red flag waving in the depths of the forests, on the peaks of the mountains, on the roof of South Asia heralds the future of humanity. The People’s War, launched under the leadership of Comrade Charu Mazumdar, the great leader of the Indian revolution, together with the Naxalbari uprising, has come to the present day through different stages, difficult paths, and twisting trails.

We know that in the struggle for New Democratic Revolution, Socialism, and Communism, the Indian Revolution passed great tests and held high the red flag of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. The People’s War struggle lost thousands of fighters, members, and cadres. However, it never gave up its determination to continue the revolutionary war. And that is why it trained tens of thousands more fighters, members, and cadres. It became the hope of the Indian people, the oppressed Dalits, and the Adivasis.

Today, the People’s War in India is going through a very difficult process. The Brahmanical Hindutva fascist RSS-BJP regime has increased its attacks on the Indian people. In a massacre attempt called “Operation Kagaar”, 850,000 police, commandos, Indian army and air force personnel were mobilized against the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army forces as part of this operation. The aim of “Operation Kagaar” is clear. They plan to encircle and destroy the guerrilla forces.

Faced with the fascist “Kagaar war”, the sons and daughters of India, the brave fighters and commanders of the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army, are responding with heroic resistance, determination, and counterattacks they have developed. In this war, 320 comrades have been martyred in the last year, including Comrade Basavaraj, General Secretary of the CPI (Maoist), members of the Central Committee, members of the Regional Committee, and PLGA commanders. Most recently, we learned that Comrade Madvi Hidma, a member of the Central Committee and one of the commanders of the PLGA, was captured unarmed and brutally murdered. Undoubtedly, the losses suffered over the past year are heavy and, in terms of their consequences, irreparable.

No matter how heavy the losses and the price paid, we know that the wheel of history always turns forward. The losses suffered can only create a bend in the path of the Indian revolution’s march to victory, but they cannot stop it.

Those who eat the people’s bread but betray the people’s hope for liberation, who surrender the people’s and the revolution’s weapons to the fascist Indian government, and who call for a life of dishonor—the clique of Sonu and Satish—will also take their cursed place in history. The workers and peasants of India will never forget that photo took by the fascist rulers of the Indian state while their own children were heroically fighting and dying as martyrs. In accordance with the dialectical flow of history, on one side heroism and glorious resistance are displayed, while on the other side stands the despair of fear and discouragement. Sonu and Satish, the clique of traitors, will spend the rest of their lives in shame under the weight of their cowardice. We have no doubt that the bright path of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism will triumph over the ideological chaos that this clique of traitors has tried to create in the ranks of the revolution.

As imperialists and their local collaborator governments prepare for a new war of partition, their greatest fear is that Armed People’s Uprisings and People’s Wars will break the imperialist capitalist chain in their places. That is why imperialists and governments under their control, while allocating enormous budgets to armament and using developing technology to produce more deadly weapons, have launched a massive wave of attacks to disarm workers, peasants, and the oppressed peoples of the world.

As Comrade Mao Zedong clearly stated, “without a people’s army, the people have nothing.” They are attempting to deprive the oppressed of their own liberation armies and strip them of their right to use force. But these efforts are futile.

While reformists, revisionists, and all kinds of left-looking movements with a conciliatory line are accelerating their ideological attacks by claiming that the era of armed struggle is over, on the other hand, they are carrying out campaigns of destruction and genocide, as they did against the New People’s Army in the Philippines and the resistance movements in Palestine. The “Kagaar Operation” is part of this attack unfolding worldwide. And this attack will be answered by the anti-imperialist struggles of the oppressed peoples of the world and the united international resistance of the proletariat.

In light of these developments, we celebrate the 25th year of struggle of our sister army, the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army, fighting with great determination under the leadership of the CPI (Maoist), and we reiterate that absolute victory will belong to the workers and peasants of India, and that Indian fascism cannot escape the fate that awaits it.

Comrade Basavaraj, Comrade Madvi Hidma, and the Martyrs of the People’s War in India are Immortal!

Long live the Communist Party of India (Maoist)!

Long live the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army!

Long live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

November 30, 2025

TKP-ML TİKKO Command

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/tkp-ml-tikko-command-the-fascist-indian-state-will-be-destroyed-the-indian-new-democratic-revolution-will-win-video/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=25080

#asia #india #tikko #tkpml #turkey #westAsia

TKP-ML TİKKO Command: The Fascist Indian State Will Be Destroyed; The Indian New Democratic Revolution Will Win!

The Fascist Indian State Will Be Destroyed; The Indian New Democratic Revolution Will Win!

The People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army, which is continuing the People’s War with great perseverance and determination for the victory of the new democratic revolution, is completing its 25th year of struggle. We, the commanders and fighters of the Workers and Peasants Liberation Army of Turkey, celebrate the anniversary of the founding of the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army (PLGA), led by the Communist Party of Indian (Maoist), which is the fighting force of all oppressed laborers, oppressed nations and nationalities, women, and youth, especially the workers and peasants of India. We salute all the fighters and command structure of the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army with our most sincere revolutionary feelings.

The red flag waving in the depths of the forests, on the peaks of the mountains, on the roof of South Asia heralds the future of humanity. The People’s War, launched under the leadership of Comrade Charu Mazumdar, the great leader of the Indian revolution, together with the Naxalbari uprising, has come to the present day through different stages, difficult paths, and twisting trails.

We know that in the struggle for New Democratic Revolution, Socialism, and Communism, the Indian Revolution passed great tests and held high the red flag of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. The People’s War struggle lost thousands of fighters, members, and cadres. However, it never gave up its determination to continue the revolutionary war. And that is why it trained tens of thousands more fighters, members, and cadres. It became the hope of the Indian people, the oppressed Dalits, and the Adivasis.

Today, the People’s War in India is going through a very difficult process. The Brahmanical Hindutva fascist RSS-BJP regime has increased its attacks on the Indian people. In a massacre attempt called “Operation Kagaar”, 850,000 police, commandos, Indian army and air force personnel were mobilized against the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army forces as part of this operation. The aim of “Operation Kagaar” is clear. They plan to encircle and destroy the guerrilla forces.

Faced with the fascist “Kagaar war”, the sons and daughters of India, the brave fighters and commanders of the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army, are responding with heroic resistance, determination, and counterattacks they have developed. In this war, 320 comrades have been martyred in the last year, including Comrade Basavaraj, General Secretary of the CPI (Maoist), members of the Central Committee, members of the Regional Committee, and PLGA commanders. Most recently, we learned that Comrade Madvi Hidma, a member of the Central Committee and one of the commanders of the PLGA, was captured unarmed and brutally murdered. Undoubtedly, the losses suffered over the past year are heavy and, in terms of their consequences, irreparable.

No matter how heavy the losses and the price paid, we know that the wheel of history always turns forward. The losses suffered can only create a bend in the path of the Indian revolution’s march to victory, but they cannot stop it.

Those who eat the people’s bread but betray the people’s hope for liberation, who surrender the people’s and the revolution’s weapons to the fascist Indian government, and who call for a life of dishonor—the clique of Sonu and Satish—will also take their cursed place in history. The workers and peasants of India will never forget that photo took by the fascist rulers of the Indian state while their own children were heroically fighting and dying as martyrs. In accordance with the dialectical flow of history, on one side heroism and glorious resistance are displayed, while on the other side stands the despair of fear and discouragement. Sonu and Satish, the clique of traitors, will spend the rest of their lives in shame under the weight of their cowardice. We have no doubt that the bright path of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism will triumph over the ideological chaos that this clique of traitors has tried to create in the ranks of the revolution.

As imperialists and their local collaborator governments prepare for a new war of partition, their greatest fear is that Armed People’s Uprisings and People’s Wars will break the imperialist capitalist chain in their places. That is why imperialists and governments under their control, while allocating enormous budgets to armament and using developing technology to produce more deadly weapons, have launched a massive wave of attacks to disarm workers, peasants, and the oppressed peoples of the world.

As Comrade Mao Zedong clearly stated, “without a people’s army, the people have nothing.” They are attempting to deprive the oppressed of their own liberation armies and strip them of their right to use force. But these efforts are futile.

While reformists, revisionists, and all kinds of left-looking movements with a conciliatory line are accelerating their ideological attacks by claiming that the era of armed struggle is over, on the other hand, they are carrying out campaigns of destruction and genocide, as they did against the New People’s Army in the Philippines and the resistance movements in Palestine. The “Kagaar Operation” is part of this attack unfolding worldwide. And this attack will be answered by the anti-imperialist struggles of the oppressed peoples of the world and the united international resistance of the proletariat.

In light of these developments, we celebrate the 25th year of struggle of our sister army, the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army, fighting with great determination under the leadership of the CPI (Maoist), and we reiterate that absolute victory will belong to the workers and peasants of India, and that Indian fascism cannot escape the fate that awaits it.

Comrade Basavaraj, Comrade Madvi Hidma, and the Martyrs of the People’s War in India are Immortal!

Long live the Communist Party of India (Maoist)!

Long live the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army!

Long live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

November 30, 2025

TKP-ML TİKKO Command

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/tkp-ml-tikko-command-the-fascist-indian-state-will-be-destroyed-the-indian-new-democratic-revolution-will-win-video/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=25080

#asia #india #tikko #tkpml #turkey #westAsia

TKP-ML Central Committee: Nureddin Sofi and Koçero Urfa Are Immortal!

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=20838

#iraq #kurdistan #pkk #rojava #syria #tikko #tkpMl #turkey

TKP-ML Central Committee: Nureddin Sofi and Koçero Urfa Are Immortal!

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=20838

#iraq #kurdistan #pkk #rojava #syria #tikko #tkpMl #turkey

TKP-ML CC Statement: Lal Salam To The Martyrs Of The Indian Revolution!

TKP-ML extends its greetings to the Communist Party of India (Maoist) on its Martyrs’ Memorial Week, held from July 28 to August 3. Our party sends its solidarity greetings to the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and all revolutionary forces in India.

On behalf of the revolutionary movement in Turkey and Turkish Kurdistan, our party commemorates the martyrs who made the greatest sacrifices in the resolute struggle of Indian revolutionaries against imperialism, feudalism, bureaucratic capitalism and fascism, led by the CPI (Maoist) in India. We offer our deepest revolutionary respects. The heroes of the Indian people, who sacrificed their lives in the struggle for national and social liberation, are also heroes of the Turkish and Kurdish nations and of our people from various nationalities and beliefs.

Last year, approximately 357 revolutionaries fell on the path of the protracted people’s war outlined by the great leaders of the Indian revolution, the founding leaders of your party, and our teachers, Comrade Charu Mazumdar and Comrade Kanhai Chatterjee. Of these, 136 were female comrades, and 34 were peasants.

We bow with respect before the revolutionary struggles of all our martyrs, including the former General Secretary Comrade Basavaraj (Namballa Kesava Rao), who fell alongside 27 comrades on 21 May, and four Central Committee members who fell at different times.

A significant part of these martyrs were killed during the counter-revolutionary ‘Operation Kagaar’ launched by the fascist Hindutva Indian state. The reactionary forces of India are setting a deadline to eliminate the Maoist movement. However, their grave mistake will soon become evident. On one side of the reactionary Indian state’s attack campaign against the Maoists is the unrestricted opening of India’s natural resources to imperialist and comprador capital for plundering, while on the other side there is the struggle led by the CPI (Maoist), which constitutes one of the most advanced positions of the international proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the world.

Imperialists and their regional reactionary lackeys are using all available means and opportunities to eliminate communist and revolutionary resistance centres they perceive as an immediate and real threat to themselves. For this reason, global reaction is engaged in full-scale aggression on the international stage. What is happening in Gaza should not be understood merely as the genocide and massacre of Palestinians. What is actually happening should be seen as a preview of the future that the imperialist capitalist system promises to the working class and the oppressed peoples of the world. A clear message is being sent to every class and oppressed people who refuse to submit to imperialist capitalism, who are in any way contrary to the order, and who oppose the established system. Today’s Gaza is tomorrow’s world.

In this sense, we view the martyrs who have become immortal in the struggle for a New Democratic India and Socialism against the imperialist capitalist system and the reactionary Indian state as a symbol of our determination to struggle, and we draw inspiration from the revolutionary struggle of the Indian working class and people. The names of all the martyrs, especially Comrade Basavaraj, stand at the forefront among the immortal heroes of India’s epic people’s war and the revolutionary struggles for national liberation and socialism worldwide. They raised the banner of armed struggle in India at the cost of their lives and blood, inspiring proletarian revolutionary forces worldwide to persevere in the struggle against the aggressiveness of the imperialist capitalist system.

On this occasion, the Central Committee of the CPI (Maoist) calls upon all party members, PLGA forces, revolutionary workers, and the entire people to commemorate all the martyrs, draw inspiration from their sacrifices, revolutionary resolve, and fighting spirit, and to protect the party, the PLGA, the united movement/people’s organization, and the revolutionary movement, and to resist the counter-revolutionary “Operation Kagaar” offensive launched by the state governments to destroy the revolutionary movement across the country.

Martyrs, never die!

Long live the Communist Party of India (Maoist)!

Long live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

Long live Proletarian Internationalism!

TKP-ML Central Committee

July 27, 2025

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/tkp-ml-central-committee-lal-salam-to-the-martyrs-of-the-indian-revolution/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=20624

#guerrilla #india #kurdistan #rojava #Solidarity #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

TKP-ML CC Statement: Lal Salam To The Martyrs Of The Indian Revolution!

TKP-ML extends its greetings to the Communist Party of India (Maoist) on its Martyrs’ Memorial Week, held from July 28 to August 3. Our party sends its solidarity greetings to the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and all revolutionary forces in India.

On behalf of the revolutionary movement in Turkey and Turkish Kurdistan, our party commemorates the martyrs who made the greatest sacrifices in the resolute struggle of Indian revolutionaries against imperialism, feudalism, bureaucratic capitalism and fascism, led by the CPI (Maoist) in India. We offer our deepest revolutionary respects. The heroes of the Indian people, who sacrificed their lives in the struggle for national and social liberation, are also heroes of the Turkish and Kurdish nations and of our people from various nationalities and beliefs.

Last year, approximately 357 revolutionaries fell on the path of the protracted people’s war outlined by the great leaders of the Indian revolution, the founding leaders of your party, and our teachers, Comrade Charu Mazumdar and Comrade Kanhai Chatterjee. Of these, 136 were female comrades, and 34 were peasants.

We bow with respect before the revolutionary struggles of all our martyrs, including the former General Secretary Comrade Basavaraj (Namballa Kesava Rao), who fell alongside 27 comrades on 21 May, and four Central Committee members who fell at different times.

A significant part of these martyrs were killed during the counter-revolutionary ‘Operation Kagaar’ launched by the fascist Hindutva Indian state. The reactionary forces of India are setting a deadline to eliminate the Maoist movement. However, their grave mistake will soon become evident. On one side of the reactionary Indian state’s attack campaign against the Maoists is the unrestricted opening of India’s natural resources to imperialist and comprador capital for plundering, while on the other side there is the struggle led by the CPI (Maoist), which constitutes one of the most advanced positions of the international proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the world.

Imperialists and their regional reactionary lackeys are using all available means and opportunities to eliminate communist and revolutionary resistance centres they perceive as an immediate and real threat to themselves. For this reason, global reaction is engaged in full-scale aggression on the international stage. What is happening in Gaza should not be understood merely as the genocide and massacre of Palestinians. What is actually happening should be seen as a preview of the future that the imperialist capitalist system promises to the working class and the oppressed peoples of the world. A clear message is being sent to every class and oppressed people who refuse to submit to imperialist capitalism, who are in any way contrary to the order, and who oppose the established system. Today’s Gaza is tomorrow’s world.

In this sense, we view the martyrs who have become immortal in the struggle for a New Democratic India and Socialism against the imperialist capitalist system and the reactionary Indian state as a symbol of our determination to struggle, and we draw inspiration from the revolutionary struggle of the Indian working class and people. The names of all the martyrs, especially Comrade Basavaraj, stand at the forefront among the immortal heroes of India’s epic people’s war and the revolutionary struggles for national liberation and socialism worldwide. They raised the banner of armed struggle in India at the cost of their lives and blood, inspiring proletarian revolutionary forces worldwide to persevere in the struggle against the aggressiveness of the imperialist capitalist system.

On this occasion, the Central Committee of the CPI (Maoist) calls upon all party members, PLGA forces, revolutionary workers, and the entire people to commemorate all the martyrs, draw inspiration from their sacrifices, revolutionary resolve, and fighting spirit, and to protect the party, the PLGA, the united movement/people’s organization, and the revolutionary movement, and to resist the counter-revolutionary “Operation Kagaar” offensive launched by the state governments to destroy the revolutionary movement across the country.

Martyrs, never die!

Long live the Communist Party of India (Maoist)!

Long live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

Long live Proletarian Internationalism!

TKP-ML Central Committee

July 27, 2025

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/tkp-ml-central-committee-lal-salam-to-the-martyrs-of-the-indian-revolution/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=20624

#guerrilla #india #kurdistan #rojava #Solidarity #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

TKP-ML IB: Condolences And Revolutionary Salute To Ka Louie Jalandoni!

To the CPP, the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, to Ka Coni, his family and to all comrades continuing the revolutionary struggle in the Philippines,

We extend our deepest condolences on the passing of Comrade Louie Jalandoni, a towering figure of the Filipino people’s movement, a tireless servant of the masses, and a stalwart of revolutionary internationalism. We join you in grief, and more importantly, in remembrance and reaffirmation of the revolutionary path to which he gave his life.

Ka Louie’s journey stands as a shining example of revolutionary transformation. His decision to abandon a life of privilege and take the side of the oppressed was not merely symbolic, it was total and unwavering. Through decades of struggle, he proved that true commitment to the people means not only standing with them in suffering but fighting relentlessly to end that suffering at its root.

Ka Louie knew that genuine justice can only be won through class struggle and revolution. In every terrain of the fight against imperialism and feudalism he stood firmly on the side of the people, always carrying the banner of organized struggle and ideological clarity. Whether in the underground, in the prisons of the fascist regime, or on the international stage, Ka Louie acted with clarity, humility, and discipline. He never allowed himself to become detached from the masses, from the core principles of the revolutionary cause, or from the harsh realities of imperialism and reaction that shaped the lives of the exploited around the world.

His life was a bridge, between faith and revolutionary praxis, between generations of fighters, between the Philippines and the global anti-imperialist movement. Through his international work, he helped to bring the Filipino people’s struggle to the world stage, forging bonds of solidarity that continue to grow stronger today.

As fellow revolutionaries, we are moved not only by the loss of a comrade, but by the depth of his example. Throughout the years, across different layers of international solidarity work, we have had the honor of working alongside Ka Louie, always marked by his sharp political clarity, gentle discipline, his warm smile, and genuine humility. Ka Louie’s life was a reminder that the revolution requires not only sacrifice, but love, love for the people, for liberation, for the future we fight to build.

We stand with you in honoring Ka Louie’s life, not only in mourning, but in action. Let us take strength from his memory, from his steadfastness, from his humility and courage. His legacy will live in every trench dug by the people, in every school of revolutionary education, in every act of resistance against imperialism, and in every step, we take toward the liberation of all oppressed peoples.

Long live the memory of Ka Louie Jalandoni!

Honor his life through continued struggle!

TKP-ML International Bureau

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/tkp-ml-ib-condolences-and-revolutionary-salute-to-ka-louie-jalandoni/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=19700

#kurdistan #ndfp #philippines #syria #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

TKP-ML IB: Condolences And Revolutionary Salute To Ka Louie Jalandoni!

To the CPP, the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, to Ka Coni, his family and to all comrades continuing the revolutionary struggle in the Philippines,

We extend our deepest condolences on the passing of Comrade Louie Jalandoni, a towering figure of the Filipino people’s movement, a tireless servant of the masses, and a stalwart of revolutionary internationalism. We join you in grief, and more importantly, in remembrance and reaffirmation of the revolutionary path to which he gave his life.

Ka Louie’s journey stands as a shining example of revolutionary transformation. His decision to abandon a life of privilege and take the side of the oppressed was not merely symbolic, it was total and unwavering. Through decades of struggle, he proved that true commitment to the people means not only standing with them in suffering but fighting relentlessly to end that suffering at its root.

Ka Louie knew that genuine justice can only be won through class struggle and revolution. In every terrain of the fight against imperialism and feudalism he stood firmly on the side of the people, always carrying the banner of organized struggle and ideological clarity. Whether in the underground, in the prisons of the fascist regime, or on the international stage, Ka Louie acted with clarity, humility, and discipline. He never allowed himself to become detached from the masses, from the core principles of the revolutionary cause, or from the harsh realities of imperialism and reaction that shaped the lives of the exploited around the world.

His life was a bridge, between faith and revolutionary praxis, between generations of fighters, between the Philippines and the global anti-imperialist movement. Through his international work, he helped to bring the Filipino people’s struggle to the world stage, forging bonds of solidarity that continue to grow stronger today.

As fellow revolutionaries, we are moved not only by the loss of a comrade, but by the depth of his example. Throughout the years, across different layers of international solidarity work, we have had the honor of working alongside Ka Louie, always marked by his sharp political clarity, gentle discipline, his warm smile, and genuine humility. Ka Louie’s life was a reminder that the revolution requires not only sacrifice, but love, love for the people, for liberation, for the future we fight to build.

We stand with you in honoring Ka Louie’s life, not only in mourning, but in action. Let us take strength from his memory, from his steadfastness, from his humility and courage. His legacy will live in every trench dug by the people, in every school of revolutionary education, in every act of resistance against imperialism, and in every step, we take toward the liberation of all oppressed peoples.

Long live the memory of Ka Louie Jalandoni!

Honor his life through continued struggle!

TKP-ML International Bureau

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/tkp-ml-ib-condolences-and-revolutionary-salute-to-ka-louie-jalandoni/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=19700

#kurdistan #ndfp #philippines #syria #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

TKP-ML CC Statement On The 52nd Anniversary Of The Martyrdom Of Ibrahim Kaypakkaya

Wherever there is Resistance and Struggle, there lives and fights Ibrahim Kaypakkaya!

We are on the 52nd anniversary of the murder of the communist leader comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya by the fascist Turkish state. The young communist leader from the Kurdish and Turkish nations, from various nationalities and beliefs of the working class and the working people of Turkey and the founder of our party I. Kaypakkaya was immortalized on May 18, 1973, in the Amed Prison after months of torture.

From the murder of I.Kaypakkaya to the present day there are lessons from the class struggle and the social practices of him to learn; this has proven why he was seen by the class enemies as the “most dangerous representative of revolutionary communism” and why he was murdered precisely for this reason. Comrade Kaypakkaya is still the nightmare of the Turkish state. Even to defend his views, carrying posters and banners with his picture on it is seen as a crime. This is not without reason, of course. Because Comrade I.Kaypakkaya shed light on the ground on which the Turkish state rose and moreover showed how to overthrow this reactionary fascist power.

The fear of Turkish fascism remains because I.Kaypakkaya is the product of the class struggle of our geography. It is the most advanced consciousness of the class struggle of these lands. As long as there are classes in our geography and the class struggle is continuing, this consciousness will continue to live and fight.

I.Kaypakkaya constitutes the communist aspect of the ’71 revolutionary movement, which is the glorious shake-up of the revolutionary movement against all kinds of parliamentarianism and reformism, which were defended in the name of communism and revolution in our geography. The revolutionary and communist movement, which was liquidated in the last period of the Ottoman Empire, the predecessor of the Turkish state, with the interruption of the struggles of the Armenian and Greek revolutionaries with genocide and the murder of the leading cadres of the TKP, including M. Suphi, reasserted itself with the ’71 revolutionary movement after nearly half a century of silence.

Within this movement, I.Kaypakkaya undoubtedly emerged as an exception. His being an exception among the revolutionary leaders of ’71 was not because he was murdered in torture as a young communist leader who “gave his head but not his secrets” after months of torture. What made him special and the reason why a significant part of the theses he put forward are still current is his defense of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the scientific theory of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, and his understanding of dialectical materialism. Comrade I.Kaypakkaya is first of all a revolutionary in practice. He took part in the mass struggles of his period, “thrown into the vast sea of class struggle with his whole being” and by synthesizing the experience he gained from this practice with MLM and “throwing away the old and taking the new”, he led the communist movement to rise again in our geography.

The emergence of I.Kaypakkaya cannot be evaluated separately from the class struggles of the working class and the masses of the people, especially the youth in our geography. The developments in the international arena in the ’60s and especially the world-shaking storm of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution led by Chairman Mao in China found its echo in our geography; The class struggle evolved into a new stage with the anti-imperialist youth actions, the land occupations of the peasants and the great workers’ resistance on June 15-16.

I.Kaypakkaya took part in all these resistances and learned from them; The quality and path of the revolution in Turkey, the class structure and historical development of the Turkish state, especially the fascist character of Kemalism, the theses on the national question, especially the Kurdish national question, and even the theses on the class struggle in socialism, the communist party, especially the theses on organization and armed struggle are theses that he brought up through his fight.

I.Kaypakkaya’s strict adherence to the principle of being a revolutionary in practice first has caused the theses he put forward to continue to guide the revolutionary and communist movement while putting the communist movement in our country on its feet once again. That is why; although half a century has passed, a significant part of the theses put forward by I.Kaypakkaya for the revolution in Turkey remain up to date.

Being revolutionary in practice, building theory within practical revolutionary activity is an MLM principle and the guarantee of scientificity. Since the ground on which the Communist Party rised are the theses derived from the class struggles and mass movements of our country, the actuality and scientificity of these theses will continue to live, as long as the class struggle and mass movements continue.

52 years ago, those who thought that by assassinating Comrade I.Kaypakkaya, they destroyed the revolutionary communism that rose again as a product of the class struggles of the working class and the people in our geography were greatly mistaken. The flag that I.Kaypakkaya “raised high” continued to wave. Today, his name echoes in the language of the people’s youth, especially in the mass actions and struggles that took place on March 19 and afterwards, and his pictures are waving in their hands. I.Kaypakkaya is alive!

From Istanbul to Ankara, from Izmir to Dersim, from the Middle East to Germany and even from Bangladesh to India, from the Philippines to Nepal, the name and picture of Comrade I.Kaypakkaya echoes in all resistance and actions. This is what it means to be immortalized! The photo of him with a cap taken to make a fake ID is still enough to scare the ruling classes. Comrade I.Kaypakkaya lives and fights wherever there is resistance and struggle.

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya Lives and Will Live in Our Fight!

TKP-ML CC

May 2025

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/tkp-ml-cc-wherever-there-is-resistance-and-struggle-there-lives-and-fights-ibrahim-kaypakkaya/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=19205

#guerrilla #kurdistan #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

TKP-ML CC Statement On The 52nd Anniversary Of The Martyrdom Of Ibrahim Kaypakkaya

Wherever there is Resistance and Struggle, there lives and fights Ibrahim Kaypakkaya!

We are on the 52nd anniversary of the murder of the communist leader comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya by the fascist Turkish state. The young communist leader from the Kurdish and Turkish nations, from various nationalities and beliefs of the working class and the working people of Turkey and the founder of our party I. Kaypakkaya was immortalized on May 18, 1973, in the Amed Prison after months of torture.

From the murder of I.Kaypakkaya to the present day there are lessons from the class struggle and the social practices of him to learn; this has proven why he was seen by the class enemies as the “most dangerous representative of revolutionary communism” and why he was murdered precisely for this reason. Comrade Kaypakkaya is still the nightmare of the Turkish state. Even to defend his views, carrying posters and banners with his picture on it is seen as a crime. This is not without reason, of course. Because Comrade I.Kaypakkaya shed light on the ground on which the Turkish state rose and moreover showed how to overthrow this reactionary fascist power.

The fear of Turkish fascism remains because I.Kaypakkaya is the product of the class struggle of our geography. It is the most advanced consciousness of the class struggle of these lands. As long as there are classes in our geography and the class struggle is continuing, this consciousness will continue to live and fight.

I.Kaypakkaya constitutes the communist aspect of the ’71 revolutionary movement, which is the glorious shake-up of the revolutionary movement against all kinds of parliamentarianism and reformism, which were defended in the name of communism and revolution in our geography. The revolutionary and communist movement, which was liquidated in the last period of the Ottoman Empire, the predecessor of the Turkish state, with the interruption of the struggles of the Armenian and Greek revolutionaries with genocide and the murder of the leading cadres of the TKP, including M. Suphi, reasserted itself with the ’71 revolutionary movement after nearly half a century of silence.

Within this movement, I.Kaypakkaya undoubtedly emerged as an exception. His being an exception among the revolutionary leaders of ’71 was not because he was murdered in torture as a young communist leader who “gave his head but not his secrets” after months of torture. What made him special and the reason why a significant part of the theses he put forward are still current is his defense of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the scientific theory of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, and his understanding of dialectical materialism. Comrade I.Kaypakkaya is first of all a revolutionary in practice. He took part in the mass struggles of his period, “thrown into the vast sea of class struggle with his whole being” and by synthesizing the experience he gained from this practice with MLM and “throwing away the old and taking the new”, he led the communist movement to rise again in our geography.

The emergence of I.Kaypakkaya cannot be evaluated separately from the class struggles of the working class and the masses of the people, especially the youth in our geography. The developments in the international arena in the ’60s and especially the world-shaking storm of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution led by Chairman Mao in China found its echo in our geography; The class struggle evolved into a new stage with the anti-imperialist youth actions, the land occupations of the peasants and the great workers’ resistance on June 15-16.

I.Kaypakkaya took part in all these resistances and learned from them; The quality and path of the revolution in Turkey, the class structure and historical development of the Turkish state, especially the fascist character of Kemalism, the theses on the national question, especially the Kurdish national question, and even the theses on the class struggle in socialism, the communist party, especially the theses on organization and armed struggle are theses that he brought up through his fight.

I.Kaypakkaya’s strict adherence to the principle of being a revolutionary in practice first has caused the theses he put forward to continue to guide the revolutionary and communist movement while putting the communist movement in our country on its feet once again. That is why; although half a century has passed, a significant part of the theses put forward by I.Kaypakkaya for the revolution in Turkey remain up to date.

Being revolutionary in practice, building theory within practical revolutionary activity is an MLM principle and the guarantee of scientificity. Since the ground on which the Communist Party rised are the theses derived from the class struggles and mass movements of our country, the actuality and scientificity of these theses will continue to live, as long as the class struggle and mass movements continue.

52 years ago, those who thought that by assassinating Comrade I.Kaypakkaya, they destroyed the revolutionary communism that rose again as a product of the class struggles of the working class and the people in our geography were greatly mistaken. The flag that I.Kaypakkaya “raised high” continued to wave. Today, his name echoes in the language of the people’s youth, especially in the mass actions and struggles that took place on March 19 and afterwards, and his pictures are waving in their hands. I.Kaypakkaya is alive!

From Istanbul to Ankara, from Izmir to Dersim, from the Middle East to Germany and even from Bangladesh to India, from the Philippines to Nepal, the name and picture of Comrade I.Kaypakkaya echoes in all resistance and actions. This is what it means to be immortalized! The photo of him with a cap taken to make a fake ID is still enough to scare the ruling classes. Comrade I.Kaypakkaya lives and fights wherever there is resistance and struggle.

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya Lives and Will Live in Our Fight!

TKP-ML CC

May 2025

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/tkp-ml-cc-wherever-there-is-resistance-and-struggle-there-lives-and-fights-ibrahim-kaypakkaya/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=19205

#guerrilla #kurdistan #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

TKP-ML IB Statement On The Commemoration Of The Nakba

Resistance Until Liberation: The Unfinished Return

On the 78th anniversary of the Nakba, we stand with Palestinians everywhere to shatter the silence that hides ongoing dispossession. In May 1948, more than seven hundred thousand lives were uprooted so that colonial powers could plant their flags in the Middle East. The violence of 1948 did not end with history; it echoes today in Gaza’s relentless blockade, where families endure chronic shortages of food, water, fuel, and medicine; in the West Bank, where airstrikes and sniper fire stalk children playing in the streets; and in Jenin and other refugee camps, where bulldozers raze homes by night and soldiers carry out mass arrests at dawn.

We fully expose, in all its brutality, the settler-colonial Zionist ideology that legitimizes the genocide against the Palestinian people. Imperialist states arm occupation forces, spin tales of “peace” and “stability,” and look away as bombs fall on refugee tents and entire neighborhoods are flattened. Their calculated silence is part of a broader strategy of re-division, an ominous prelude to a new imperialist world war in which Palestine is but one battlefield among many. Yet their plots only bind us more tightly together in solidarity.

Our solidarity is rooted in everyday acts: workers refusing to service weapons factories, students organizing divestment campaigns on campuses, and communities hosting Palestinian artists and speakers. We bring Palestinian voices into our unions, our neighborhoods, and our classrooms, offering spaces where their stories are heard, learned, and passed on. Through these actions we make clear that the right to return is not a distant hope but a shared responsibility and collective mission.

As long as checkpoints still choke movement, blockades starve families, and imperialist powers scheme fresh carve-ups under the threat of a third world war, our solidarity will pulse through every corner of the globe. We are bound together in struggle until every Palestinian can walk home again, unhampered by colonial walls.

Long live the struggle of the Palestinian People!

Long live International Solidarity!

Free Palestine!

TKP-ML International Bureau

May 2025

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/statement-of-the-tkp-ml-international-bureau-on-the-commemoration-of-the-nakba/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=19123

#guerrilla #iraq #kurdistan #nakba #palestine #resistance #rojava #Solidarity #syria #tikko #tkpMl

TKP-ML IB Statement On The Commemoration Of The Nakba

Resistance Until Liberation: The Unfinished Return

On the 78th anniversary of the Nakba, we stand with Palestinians everywhere to shatter the silence that hides ongoing dispossession. In May 1948, more than seven hundred thousand lives were uprooted so that colonial powers could plant their flags in the Middle East. The violence of 1948 did not end with history; it echoes today in Gaza’s relentless blockade, where families endure chronic shortages of food, water, fuel, and medicine; in the West Bank, where airstrikes and sniper fire stalk children playing in the streets; and in Jenin and other refugee camps, where bulldozers raze homes by night and soldiers carry out mass arrests at dawn.

We fully expose, in all its brutality, the settler-colonial Zionist ideology that legitimizes the genocide against the Palestinian people. Imperialist states arm occupation forces, spin tales of “peace” and “stability,” and look away as bombs fall on refugee tents and entire neighborhoods are flattened. Their calculated silence is part of a broader strategy of re-division, an ominous prelude to a new imperialist world war in which Palestine is but one battlefield among many. Yet their plots only bind us more tightly together in solidarity.

Our solidarity is rooted in everyday acts: workers refusing to service weapons factories, students organizing divestment campaigns on campuses, and communities hosting Palestinian artists and speakers. We bring Palestinian voices into our unions, our neighborhoods, and our classrooms, offering spaces where their stories are heard, learned, and passed on. Through these actions we make clear that the right to return is not a distant hope but a shared responsibility and collective mission.

As long as checkpoints still choke movement, blockades starve families, and imperialist powers scheme fresh carve-ups under the threat of a third world war, our solidarity will pulse through every corner of the globe. We are bound together in struggle until every Palestinian can walk home again, unhampered by colonial walls.

Long live the struggle of the Palestinian People!

Long live International Solidarity!

Free Palestine!

TKP-ML International Bureau

May 2025

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/statement-of-the-tkp-ml-international-bureau-on-the-commemoration-of-the-nakba/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=19123

#guerrilla #iraq #kurdistan #nakba #palestine #resistance #rojava #Solidarity #syria #tikko #tkpMl

TKP-ML MK: Ali Haydar Kaytan and Rıza Altun are Immortal!

We have learned the martyrdom of Ali Haydar Kaytan and Rıza Altun, who left indelible traces in Kurdistan, Turkey and the Middle East geography with the history of the Kurdish national freedom struggle, which exceeds the date of struggle and resistance, which has exceeded the date of 50 years of struggle and resistance.

PKK, 12th Congress, as well as the historical decisions; Ali Haydar Kaytan, one of the founding leader cadres, is the symbol of devotion to the leadership, the symbol of truth and holy life ”; Rıza Altun’s friend described it as the il symbol of comrade of freedom .. As TKP-ML, we meet the loss of our trench comrades, which are resistance, uninterrupted persistence and freedom, but also with our commitment to their memories.

The people of the Middle East, especially the paths of the earth, nor the Kurdish people, will forget these two freedom workers and the porter of the revolution.

“>Torch carriers of ancient lands; Kaws, Hürreşler, Mazdek, Sheikh Sait, Seyit Consent; Haki Karer, Mazlum Doğan, Kemal Pirlar took over the task and delivered to these days. These torches have been burning in the mountains of Kurdistan for a thousand years.

The fascist Turkish state, along with the establishment of the Republic, on the one hand, Armenian, Greek, Syriac genocide and massacres given the self -confidence; On the other hand, the uneasiness given by the existence of the Kurdish nation built the foundations of assimilation, denial and disinformation about different nations and nationalities.

The most fundamental rights of the Kurdish nation have been ignored one by one since the establishment of the Republic of Turkey and ignored the smallest quest of the massacres. Kurdish identity and language have been tried to be erased. The rebellion and resistance, starting from Koçgiri to Dersim, was answered by blood and deportation by the fascist Kemalist dictatorship, and for many years the dark clouds of fascism collapsed like a nightmare on the plains and mountains of Kurdistan cities.

In 68, the wind of revolution and socialism in the world has also visited our geography and has aroused a strong repercussion in universities, factories and villages. With this wind blowing by socialism, the revolutionary pioneer-left cadres went to the stage of history and attempted to destroy all the banned taboos. First, the leader and founder of our party, Communist İbrahim Kaypakkaya, expressed the full equality of rights of the Kurdish nation, which is banned and language, shattered this prohibited chain of history from its place.

Subsequently, under the leadership of Abdullah Öcalan, the founding leader of the PKK, in 1973, the foundations of the Kurdish National Freedom was laid in Ankara Çubuk and the Kurdish National Freedom March was launched. This march has given the will of a ring that has been updated and has been ignored, the will of its identity, personality and self -essence. A reality, a sociology of freedom was born and the most political public reality of the Middle East was created from a nation whose existence was denied.

In the definition of his comrades, Ali Haydar Kaytan, who is a politician, a guerrilla, an intellectual, a poet, a wise seeking truth ,, and Rıza Altun, who is the sharpness in heart, consciousness, so -called and action ,, has great efforts in every gains of the Kurdish people in this march.

And it can be said that both our trench comrades have left us by reaching their purpose and the secret of the truth.

We reiterate our commitment to the memories and future ideals of them and all our martyrs, and we state that we will carry the torch they carry with pride and honor until absolute victory to every mountain, street and square of our geography.

Ali Haydar Kaytan is immortal!
Rıza Altun is immortal!
Martyr Namırın!
Long live revolution and socialism!
TKP-ML Central Committee May 2025

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=19092

#guerrilla #iraq #kurdistan #pkk #tikko #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

TKP-ML MK: Ali Haydar Kaytan and Rıza Altun are Immortal!

We have learned the martyrdom of Ali Haydar Kaytan and Rıza Altun, who left indelible traces in Kurdistan, Turkey and the Middle East geography with the history of the Kurdish national freedom struggle, which exceeds the date of struggle and resistance, which has exceeded the date of 50 years of struggle and resistance.

PKK, 12th Congress, as well as the historical decisions; Ali Haydar Kaytan, one of the founding leader cadres, is the symbol of devotion to the leadership, the symbol of truth and holy life ”; Rıza Altun’s friend described it as the il symbol of comrade of freedom .. As TKP-ML, we meet the loss of our trench comrades, which are resistance, uninterrupted persistence and freedom, but also with our commitment to their memories.

The people of the Middle East, especially the paths of the earth, nor the Kurdish people, will forget these two freedom workers and the porter of the revolution.

“>Torch carriers of ancient lands; Kaws, Hürreşler, Mazdek, Sheikh Sait, Seyit Consent; Haki Karer, Mazlum Doğan, Kemal Pirlar took over the task and delivered to these days. These torches have been burning in the mountains of Kurdistan for a thousand years.

The fascist Turkish state, along with the establishment of the Republic, on the one hand, Armenian, Greek, Syriac genocide and massacres given the self -confidence; On the other hand, the uneasiness given by the existence of the Kurdish nation built the foundations of assimilation, denial and disinformation about different nations and nationalities.

The most fundamental rights of the Kurdish nation have been ignored one by one since the establishment of the Republic of Turkey and ignored the smallest quest of the massacres. Kurdish identity and language have been tried to be erased. The rebellion and resistance, starting from Koçgiri to Dersim, was answered by blood and deportation by the fascist Kemalist dictatorship, and for many years the dark clouds of fascism collapsed like a nightmare on the plains and mountains of Kurdistan cities.

In 68, the wind of revolution and socialism in the world has also visited our geography and has aroused a strong repercussion in universities, factories and villages. With this wind blowing by socialism, the revolutionary pioneer-left cadres went to the stage of history and attempted to destroy all the banned taboos. First, the leader and founder of our party, Communist İbrahim Kaypakkaya, expressed the full equality of rights of the Kurdish nation, which is banned and language, shattered this prohibited chain of history from its place.

Subsequently, under the leadership of Abdullah Öcalan, the founding leader of the PKK, in 1973, the foundations of the Kurdish National Freedom was laid in Ankara Çubuk and the Kurdish National Freedom March was launched. This march has given the will of a ring that has been updated and has been ignored, the will of its identity, personality and self -essence. A reality, a sociology of freedom was born and the most political public reality of the Middle East was created from a nation whose existence was denied.

In the definition of his comrades, Ali Haydar Kaytan, who is a politician, a guerrilla, an intellectual, a poet, a wise seeking truth ,, and Rıza Altun, who is the sharpness in heart, consciousness, so -called and action ,, has great efforts in every gains of the Kurdish people in this march.

And it can be said that both our trench comrades have left us by reaching their purpose and the secret of the truth.

We reiterate our commitment to the memories and future ideals of them and all our martyrs, and we state that we will carry the torch they carry with pride and honor until absolute victory to every mountain, street and square of our geography.

Ali Haydar Kaytan is immortal!
Rıza Altun is immortal!
Martyr Namırın!
Long live revolution and socialism!
TKP-ML Central Committee May 2025

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=19092

#guerrilla #iraq #kurdistan #pkk #tikko #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

Against War, Exploitation and Fascism: Workers, Rise Up! Peoples, Resist! – TKP-ML May Day Statement

The imperialist-capitalist system is in the midst of one of the deepest crises in its history. The capitalist mode of production’s quest for continuity is leading, on the one hand, to growing social inequalities in imperialist countries and, on the other hand, to the deepening of brutal exploitation policies in colonial and semi-colonial countries. From the US to Germany, from Russia to China, the major imperialist powers are embroiled in a vortex of economic, political, and military hegemonic wars. The stagnation of capital accumulation, the shrinkage of markets and overproduction are sharpening the internal contradictions of the system. These contradictions are weaving the bloody ground for a new world order behind the facade of temporary “stability.”

The trade wars between imperialist powers, which have escalated with Donald Trump’s announcement of new custom tariffs, are heightening tensions between imperialist blocs. The high tariffs imposed by the US on China and the economic strategies developed by China in response are developments that threaten to shake global supply chains and disrupt the world economy. This situation, of course, primarily and especially affects the working class in colonial and semi-colonial countries.

As we have been saying for a long time, the proxy wars taking shape in Ukraine, Palestine, Syria, etc., are only the beginning of the growing threat of war worldwide. NATO’s expansionist moves, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in response, China’s rise in the Pacific and increasingly across the world, the redrawing of the Middle East… All these developments indicate that tensions between imperialist camps are escalating into hot conflicts. This process, reminiscent of certain developments prior to the First and Second Imperialist World Wars, is confronting the peoples of the world with the danger of a new world war. The imperialist blocs, to resolve their own crises, offer the peoples nothing but death and destruction.

The ongoing conflicts in the Middle East continue to have devastating consequences for the peoples of the region. In Yemen, attacks carried out by the US, UK, and Israel are threatening the lives of civilians. While the number of people who have lost their lives as a result of Israel’s attacks on Gaza has exceeded 50,000, increasing tensions with Iran are further deepening instability in the region. These conflicts are shaped by the interests of imperialist powers and are exacerbating the suffering and losses of the peoples of the Middle East.

The global arms race is another dimension of imperialist competition. The US continues to lead the way in arms exports, accounting for 43% of global arms exports, while European countries are also increasing their arms imports and joining the race. All this arms race is being carried out at the expense of the further impoverishment of the oppressed masses of the working class, the restriction of their wages, the closure of factories, the rapid growth of unemployment, and the elimination of social services.

Racism and xenophobia are being systematically promoted in many countries as one of the most dangerous responses to the crisis of the imperialist-capitalist system. In European countries such as Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Italy, anti-immigrant parties—such as the AfD, RN, PVV, and Meloni’s party—are achieving electoral successes and gaining enough power to influence government policies. In Germany, racist and Islamophobic attacks increased by 22% throughout 2023, and arson attacks on refugee shelters have returned to the headlines. In France, the “immigration law” that came into force at the beginning of 2024 has severely restricted the residence and social assistance rights of many immigrants.

In the US, not only Donald Trump’s but also Joe Biden’s administration’s immigration policies continue along a line that criminalizes Latin American workers. Anti-immigrant laws implemented in states like Florida and Texas are increasing police violence and deportation threats, making systemic racism even more visible. For all these reasons, May 1, 2025, is a day to raise the banner not only of economic demands but also of the anti-imperialist struggle.

The Working Class in the Shadow of War, Armament, and Racism

The working class stands at a historic crossroads on a global scale. Class inequalities, which have become even more visible with the pandemic, have condemned millions of workers to poverty and insecurity. Technological developments, automation, and digitalization are being used by capital to deepen its mechanisms of exploitation, while union busting, subcontracting, and flexible working models are being employed to dismantle the organized power of the working class. However, the rising wave of strikes around the world shows that workers will not submit to these attacks. From France to South Korea, from Argentina to Kenya, the worker movement is taking to the streets at various levels.

People are also surrounded by a similar chain of exploitation and oppression. The Right of Nations to Self-Determination is systematically violated by imperialists; migrants, women, youth, and oppressed peoples are under multifaceted attacks at both the economic and cultural levels. These conditions highlight the historical necessity of forming a united people’s front and establishing a common ground for the struggle of workers and the oppressed. The unification of fragmented resistance into a united revolutionary line is not only the task of today but also of the future.

In this context, May 1 is not merely a day of remembrance but a call to struggle for the revival of revolutionary organizing, united class struggle, and internationalist solidarity among peoples. This world, caught in the vortex of crisis and war, can only be changed through the joint intervention of the organized peoples under the leadership of the working class. Enlarging the goal of a world without borders, classes, or exploitation in the face of the decaying structure of capitalism is not only a task but a matter of existence on this May 1st.

The bill for all these developments is being footed by the working class and oppressed peoples. Imperialist policies are deepening economic crises, cutting social rights, and making living conditions more difficult. Therefore, May 1, 2025, is not just a day of remembrance, but also a day when the united and organized struggle against the imperialist system must be raised under the leadership of the working class.

The Deepening of the Fascist Regime in Turkey and the Siege of the Working Class

In Turkey, the working class and oppressed peoples are confronted not only with the capitalist system of exploitation but also with an institutionalized fascist dictatorship. This regime of oppression, carried out by the AKP-MHP government, has restructured all state institutions in line with the interests of the capitalist class. While unionization, strikes, press freedom, and the right of the masses to protest are systematically suppressed, the working class is being disorganized, and all forms of opposition to the AKP-MHP regime are being crushed with brutal terror.

The policies of the fascist dictatorship are not limited to repressive mechanisms. At the same time, hostility between peoples is being fueled in order to cover up the real issues. Under the name of “Turkey without terrorism,” the policy of annihilation and denial against the Kurdish people continues; trustees are appointed to municipalities, and elected representatives are sent to prisons. Women, LGBT+ people, migrants, and Alevis face systematic discrimination. Every component of social opposition is either criminalized or threatened by security policies. With the institutionalization of fascist ideology, social polarization has become a state policy, and the people are being governed by hostilities developed among it.

In foreign policy, the Turkish state, a loyal member of NATO, has increasingly lost its ability to maneuver between imperialist powers, but continues to assert both its claim to power and its ambition to be a regional power. The discourse of “multilateral diplomacy,” which is still being voiced, albeit in a low voice, is in fact aimed at both strengthening Turkey’s position within the imperialist camp led by the US and Britain and covering up the crises in internal politics. Military activities carried out in many regions, from Libya to Syria, from the Caucasus to Africa, are being conducted at the expense of the people, who are burdened with economic and political costs. The Turkish state is an accomplice to the wars and occupations in the Middle East.

In this environment of oppression and attack, the working class in Turkey is facing historical levels of impoverishment. Even the manipulative data from the Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK) cannot hide this reality: annual increases in food prices are over 80%. The minimum wage has fallen below the poverty line. According to a report published by DİSK at the beginning of 2025, one in four workers lives below the poverty line. Real wages have fallen by 35% compared to 2021. Rents exceed 60% of average wages, while the number of people with credit debt has reached 40 million.

High inflation and rising poverty have severely lowered the living standards of the population. Despite the government’s increase in social assistance spending, the real value of this assistance has been eroded by inflation, leaving approximately 20 million people dependent on social assistance. Additionally, while the official unemployment rate stands at 8.6%, the increase in the number of people who have given up looking for work indicates that the actual unemployment rate is higher.

The arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu on March 19, 2025, amid conflicts between bourgeois cliques, and the subsequent protests, exposed the government’s intolerant stance toward all forms of opposition. This incident also had a negative impact on economic markets, with the Turkish lira losing value and the Istanbul Stock Exchange experiencing a 9% decline.

Women and migrant workers in Turkey bear the heaviest burden of capitalist exploitation. As of 2024, 30.8% of women work in the informal sector, and 3.248 million women struggle to survive without social security. 31.5% of women are at risk of poverty or social exclusion. Migrants and refugees, numbering over 4 million, constitute one of the most vulnerable and heavily exploited segments of the capitalist system. Syrian, Afghan, Turkmen, Uzbek, Pakistani, and African migrants are employed in unregistered, low-wage, and uninsured jobs. According to joint reports by the International Labor Organization (ILO) and local unions, over 90% of migrants are excluded from the social security system. Migrant labor constitutes a significant portion of the workforce in sectors such as construction, textiles, agriculture, and services, where wages for local workers are also suppressed. The bourgeoisie exploits cheap migrant labor to maximize profits while pitting local workers against migrants, thereby deepening class divisions.

The picture we have painted from several angles is not merely an economic crisis but a systematic war waged against the working class. The AKP-MHP regime is dragging millions into poverty, insecurity, and despair in order to protect the interests of a handful of comprador bourgeoisie and their imperialist masters.

Under these conditions, the task of the Turkish working class is not merely to defend its economic rights, but to build a united class struggle that will overthrow this fascist regime. Without a united resistance front with the Kurdish people, women, youth, and all oppressed social sections, neither a humane life nor the overthrow of the exploitative order will be possible.

May 1st must be the day when this struggle is intensified and the walls of fear are shattered. It is time for a united struggle, with the belief that an organized people will defeat fascism in every factory, every neighborhood, and every school.

Long live May 1st!

Long live proletarian internationalism!

TKP-ML Central Committee

April 2025

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/tkp-ml-central-committeeagainst-war-exploitation-and-fascism-workers-rise-up-peoples-resist/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=18756

#guerrilla #iraq #kurdistan #rojava #tikko #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

Against War, Exploitation and Fascism: Workers, Rise Up! Peoples, Resist! – TKP-ML May Day Statement

The imperialist-capitalist system is in the midst of one of the deepest crises in its history. The capitalist mode of production’s quest for continuity is leading, on the one hand, to growing social inequalities in imperialist countries and, on the other hand, to the deepening of brutal exploitation policies in colonial and semi-colonial countries. From the US to Germany, from Russia to China, the major imperialist powers are embroiled in a vortex of economic, political, and military hegemonic wars. The stagnation of capital accumulation, the shrinkage of markets and overproduction are sharpening the internal contradictions of the system. These contradictions are weaving the bloody ground for a new world order behind the facade of temporary “stability.”

The trade wars between imperialist powers, which have escalated with Donald Trump’s announcement of new custom tariffs, are heightening tensions between imperialist blocs. The high tariffs imposed by the US on China and the economic strategies developed by China in response are developments that threaten to shake global supply chains and disrupt the world economy. This situation, of course, primarily and especially affects the working class in colonial and semi-colonial countries.

As we have been saying for a long time, the proxy wars taking shape in Ukraine, Palestine, Syria, etc., are only the beginning of the growing threat of war worldwide. NATO’s expansionist moves, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in response, China’s rise in the Pacific and increasingly across the world, the redrawing of the Middle East… All these developments indicate that tensions between imperialist camps are escalating into hot conflicts. This process, reminiscent of certain developments prior to the First and Second Imperialist World Wars, is confronting the peoples of the world with the danger of a new world war. The imperialist blocs, to resolve their own crises, offer the peoples nothing but death and destruction.

The ongoing conflicts in the Middle East continue to have devastating consequences for the peoples of the region. In Yemen, attacks carried out by the US, UK, and Israel are threatening the lives of civilians. While the number of people who have lost their lives as a result of Israel’s attacks on Gaza has exceeded 50,000, increasing tensions with Iran are further deepening instability in the region. These conflicts are shaped by the interests of imperialist powers and are exacerbating the suffering and losses of the peoples of the Middle East.

The global arms race is another dimension of imperialist competition. The US continues to lead the way in arms exports, accounting for 43% of global arms exports, while European countries are also increasing their arms imports and joining the race. All this arms race is being carried out at the expense of the further impoverishment of the oppressed masses of the working class, the restriction of their wages, the closure of factories, the rapid growth of unemployment, and the elimination of social services.

Racism and xenophobia are being systematically promoted in many countries as one of the most dangerous responses to the crisis of the imperialist-capitalist system. In European countries such as Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Italy, anti-immigrant parties—such as the AfD, RN, PVV, and Meloni’s party—are achieving electoral successes and gaining enough power to influence government policies. In Germany, racist and Islamophobic attacks increased by 22% throughout 2023, and arson attacks on refugee shelters have returned to the headlines. In France, the “immigration law” that came into force at the beginning of 2024 has severely restricted the residence and social assistance rights of many immigrants.

In the US, not only Donald Trump’s but also Joe Biden’s administration’s immigration policies continue along a line that criminalizes Latin American workers. Anti-immigrant laws implemented in states like Florida and Texas are increasing police violence and deportation threats, making systemic racism even more visible. For all these reasons, May 1, 2025, is a day to raise the banner not only of economic demands but also of the anti-imperialist struggle.

The Working Class in the Shadow of War, Armament, and Racism

The working class stands at a historic crossroads on a global scale. Class inequalities, which have become even more visible with the pandemic, have condemned millions of workers to poverty and insecurity. Technological developments, automation, and digitalization are being used by capital to deepen its mechanisms of exploitation, while union busting, subcontracting, and flexible working models are being employed to dismantle the organized power of the working class. However, the rising wave of strikes around the world shows that workers will not submit to these attacks. From France to South Korea, from Argentina to Kenya, the worker movement is taking to the streets at various levels.

People are also surrounded by a similar chain of exploitation and oppression. The Right of Nations to Self-Determination is systematically violated by imperialists; migrants, women, youth, and oppressed peoples are under multifaceted attacks at both the economic and cultural levels. These conditions highlight the historical necessity of forming a united people’s front and establishing a common ground for the struggle of workers and the oppressed. The unification of fragmented resistance into a united revolutionary line is not only the task of today but also of the future.

In this context, May 1 is not merely a day of remembrance but a call to struggle for the revival of revolutionary organizing, united class struggle, and internationalist solidarity among peoples. This world, caught in the vortex of crisis and war, can only be changed through the joint intervention of the organized peoples under the leadership of the working class. Enlarging the goal of a world without borders, classes, or exploitation in the face of the decaying structure of capitalism is not only a task but a matter of existence on this May 1st.

The bill for all these developments is being footed by the working class and oppressed peoples. Imperialist policies are deepening economic crises, cutting social rights, and making living conditions more difficult. Therefore, May 1, 2025, is not just a day of remembrance, but also a day when the united and organized struggle against the imperialist system must be raised under the leadership of the working class.

The Deepening of the Fascist Regime in Turkey and the Siege of the Working Class

In Turkey, the working class and oppressed peoples are confronted not only with the capitalist system of exploitation but also with an institutionalized fascist dictatorship. This regime of oppression, carried out by the AKP-MHP government, has restructured all state institutions in line with the interests of the capitalist class. While unionization, strikes, press freedom, and the right of the masses to protest are systematically suppressed, the working class is being disorganized, and all forms of opposition to the AKP-MHP regime are being crushed with brutal terror.

The policies of the fascist dictatorship are not limited to repressive mechanisms. At the same time, hostility between peoples is being fueled in order to cover up the real issues. Under the name of “Turkey without terrorism,” the policy of annihilation and denial against the Kurdish people continues; trustees are appointed to municipalities, and elected representatives are sent to prisons. Women, LGBT+ people, migrants, and Alevis face systematic discrimination. Every component of social opposition is either criminalized or threatened by security policies. With the institutionalization of fascist ideology, social polarization has become a state policy, and the people are being governed by hostilities developed among it.

In foreign policy, the Turkish state, a loyal member of NATO, has increasingly lost its ability to maneuver between imperialist powers, but continues to assert both its claim to power and its ambition to be a regional power. The discourse of “multilateral diplomacy,” which is still being voiced, albeit in a low voice, is in fact aimed at both strengthening Turkey’s position within the imperialist camp led by the US and Britain and covering up the crises in internal politics. Military activities carried out in many regions, from Libya to Syria, from the Caucasus to Africa, are being conducted at the expense of the people, who are burdened with economic and political costs. The Turkish state is an accomplice to the wars and occupations in the Middle East.

In this environment of oppression and attack, the working class in Turkey is facing historical levels of impoverishment. Even the manipulative data from the Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK) cannot hide this reality: annual increases in food prices are over 80%. The minimum wage has fallen below the poverty line. According to a report published by DİSK at the beginning of 2025, one in four workers lives below the poverty line. Real wages have fallen by 35% compared to 2021. Rents exceed 60% of average wages, while the number of people with credit debt has reached 40 million.

High inflation and rising poverty have severely lowered the living standards of the population. Despite the government’s increase in social assistance spending, the real value of this assistance has been eroded by inflation, leaving approximately 20 million people dependent on social assistance. Additionally, while the official unemployment rate stands at 8.6%, the increase in the number of people who have given up looking for work indicates that the actual unemployment rate is higher.

The arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu on March 19, 2025, amid conflicts between bourgeois cliques, and the subsequent protests, exposed the government’s intolerant stance toward all forms of opposition. This incident also had a negative impact on economic markets, with the Turkish lira losing value and the Istanbul Stock Exchange experiencing a 9% decline.

Women and migrant workers in Turkey bear the heaviest burden of capitalist exploitation. As of 2024, 30.8% of women work in the informal sector, and 3.248 million women struggle to survive without social security. 31.5% of women are at risk of poverty or social exclusion. Migrants and refugees, numbering over 4 million, constitute one of the most vulnerable and heavily exploited segments of the capitalist system. Syrian, Afghan, Turkmen, Uzbek, Pakistani, and African migrants are employed in unregistered, low-wage, and uninsured jobs. According to joint reports by the International Labor Organization (ILO) and local unions, over 90% of migrants are excluded from the social security system. Migrant labor constitutes a significant portion of the workforce in sectors such as construction, textiles, agriculture, and services, where wages for local workers are also suppressed. The bourgeoisie exploits cheap migrant labor to maximize profits while pitting local workers against migrants, thereby deepening class divisions.

The picture we have painted from several angles is not merely an economic crisis but a systematic war waged against the working class. The AKP-MHP regime is dragging millions into poverty, insecurity, and despair in order to protect the interests of a handful of comprador bourgeoisie and their imperialist masters.

Under these conditions, the task of the Turkish working class is not merely to defend its economic rights, but to build a united class struggle that will overthrow this fascist regime. Without a united resistance front with the Kurdish people, women, youth, and all oppressed social sections, neither a humane life nor the overthrow of the exploitative order will be possible.

May 1st must be the day when this struggle is intensified and the walls of fear are shattered. It is time for a united struggle, with the belief that an organized people will defeat fascism in every factory, every neighborhood, and every school.

Long live May 1st!

Long live proletarian internationalism!

TKP-ML Central Committee

April 2025

Source : https://www.tkpml.com/tkp-ml-central-committeeagainst-war-exploitation-and-fascism-workers-rise-up-peoples-resist/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=18756

#guerrilla #iraq #kurdistan #rojava #tikko #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

On Ocalan’s Call for Peace and Social Democratic Imperialism: An Anarchist Communist Critique

Revolutionary struggle is never a solitary endeavor; rather it is an unfolding process replete with contradiction and tension. But sifting through the complexity what fundamentally endures is solidarity and principles. When we – anarchist and communist revolutionaries – embark on the path of struggle we expect to exist, grow and die in a life of contradiction and tension, but we also intend for the path we are on to steadily maintain the positions that we’ve historically defined as unequivocal. In essence, some things are negotiable, some deviations are forgivable, and some can be treacherous. The recent positions and actions by the PKK, in several of its components, are not only inconsistent with revolutionary struggle, but have deviated so far from the established principles of proletarian and internationalist struggle that the project has now veered into an essentially revisionist, collaborationist posture. This is particularly alarming as the internationalist movement exceedingly needs heightened, resolute and honorable positions as the challenges facing us are grave and growing.

We are writing from an anarchist communist position that is far from monolithic in our locale, or in general, but we have also been at the forefront of solidarity efforts with the PKK since the formation of the International Freedom Battalion, the HBDH, and the establishment of the anarchist guerrilla faction, the IRPGF. We have been increasingly alarmed at ongoing developments and the most recent political realities need to be addressed. We are not writing this with any elation and are not laying out this statement from a dogmatic, idealist stance. In actuality, we maintained principled silence on a whole host of revisionist deviations, and would have continued out of respect for the complex and dynamic position the combatants find themselves in at the forefront in the conflict zones in West Asia. However, recent developments have pushed us to publicly critique the organization in spite of our admiration for their historical accomplishments.

In the earlier phases of the struggle in Rojava, the US and the YPG both stated their collaboration was “temporary, transactional and tactical”; in essence, not a strategic partnership but a brief association to combat ISIS. This stated position is now, approximately, 8 years old and has turned into unarguably a comprehensive strategic partnership.

The reality is even more stark in light of the larger situation in West Asia today. The Palestinian Revolution, ignited by the monumental October 7th operation, followed by remarkable acts of solidarity performed in northern occupied Palestine and the Red Sea, set a new stage in contemporary struggle against colonialism and imperialism, but is also an illustrative example of resistance for the entire internationalist movement. The war against the Zionist settler regime, and in effect the US-led imperialist world system, is at an elevated state, and due to the genocidal nature of the imperialist forces, the planned ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and the potential of success for the Resistance in Gaza, the liberation of Palestine must have a central role. To be clear, this is not to contrast the Kurdish movement with the Palestinian movement, but to highlight a fundamental contradiction that has reached its peak. The Zionist regime, being a settler appendage of US power projection, has embarked on a genocidal campaign, and the eradication of the Zionist state will put unprecedented pressure on American imperialism, particularly as the US is a wounded animal that has been in decline for some time due to its intensifying excesses. In this context, the PKK partnership with the American regime is particularly inconceivable – as a crucial war for liberation against colonialism rages on in the region.

The opportunism in this collusion is evident but there are also three other crucial points that we feel must be addressed to clarify the true scope of the morass.

1) The historic statement by Abdullah Ocalan calling for the PKK to lay down its arms and to dissolve itself not only betrays the strategy of revolutionary people’s war, self-defense, and proletarian struggle; the release of the statement had been timed at the height of the counter-revolutionary push across the region, which is the HTS/Turkish consolidation of power and the Zionist colonial expansion in Syria.

The statement was met with confusion initially by PKK executive committee members. Murat Karayilan, for instance, stated, “Let’s assume that he [Ocalan] made the call. But this work cannot be done only through a call. We are a movement with tens of thousands of armed people. These fighters are not on a payroll to be sacked. These are ideological fighters. They have beliefs and are willing to sacrifice themselves.”

The Turkish revolutionary organization, the MLKP who is allied with the PKK, resoundingly rejected the statement arguing:

We strongly emphasize that the view in the “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society,” which states, “There is no path outside of democracy for system searches and implementations. There cannot be. Democratic consensus is the fundamental method,” is incompatible with the reality of polarization between oppressors and the oppressed, the rich and the poor, the rulers and the oppressed peoples in Turkey, Kurdistan, and worldwide. In a world where the ruling class, through their state apparatuses, hold the monopoly on violence, have access to the means of violence, are armed to the teeth, fascistize state apparatuses, and divide the world with blood and fire, it is impossible for the working class, women, oppressed peoples, and workers to achieve their basic demands, gain freedom, and create a just, humane world without armed struggle and revolutionary mass violence.

The MLKP will continue the fight for freedom against the fascist regime, denialist colonialism, the patriarchal system, capitalist exploitation, and imperialism, for the Union of the People’s Republics of Turkey and Kurdistan, for the Democratic and Socialist Federation in the Middle East, and for the war for socialism, using all means and forms of struggle.

We echo a similar sentiment here. The renunciation of revolutionary self defense and mass violence is the siren call of a movement replete with bourgeois revisionism. Other segments in Ocalan’s call illuminate the same issues: the demands for “free self-expression, democratic self-organization of each segment of society based on their own socio-economic and political structures”; the idea that “permanent and fraternal continuity” can be achieved if it is “crowned with democracy.” Or that “there is no alternative to democracy in the pursuit and realization of a political system. Democratic consensus is the fundamental way.” This is the language of imperialist power; it is the language of liberalism. We don’t mean this in a pejorative sense either, but literally. The discourse of democracy separated from class war, a movement without an armed component, or a strategic initiative against the colonialist enemies is merely speaking the language of defeat.

2) Mazloum Abdi, the top SDF general, who was in the PKK high command, the HPG and a personal friend of Ocalan, publicly stated that the YPG is open to support from the Zionist colonial regime. Abdi stated if the occupation regime can “prevent attacks against us and stop the killing of our people, we welcome that and appreciate it… ‘Israel’ is a force with influence in the US, the West, and the region.” As we noted, Palestine is the compass for anti-colonial revolution, and publicly articulating (particularly now) a desire to open relations with the Zionist regime is unconscionable.

From Imrali Island to SDF headquarters, the whispers of social democratic imperialism have now become screams, however, in Qandil, and HBDH guerrilla zones we hear a different discourse. Cemil Bayik recently stated, for instance that, “A new Syria is being built, and it is based on protecting ‘Israel’ and the global capital. What does ‘Israel’ represent? It represents global capital; it represents the capitalist system. Protecting ‘Israel’ does not only mean protecting Israel; it also means protecting the system of capitalist modernity.”

After the martyrdom of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah the MLKP proclaimed his “memory will live on in the struggle for a free and united Middle East,” while also calling “on the peoples of Kurdistan and Turkey to take the streets, side by side with the peoples of Palestine and Lebanon, against genocidal colonialism.” TKP-ML’s Martyr Nubar Ozanyan Brigade, based in Rojava, proclaimed that “Nasrallah has become an example of resistance against ‘Israels’ brutality, attacks and occupations.” They called “on all peoples to take a stand against genocide and to actively solidarize with the Palestinian and Lebanese people,” since the “only remedy for the oppressed against this system is to unite in a common line of resistance and to strengthen solidarity networks with the oppressed peoples of the world.”

These positions hearken back to the foundational era of the PKK’s Kurdish Freedom struggle, when guerrillas were based in the Bekaa Valley as guests of the Palestinian Resistance, and even took casualties fighting Zionist colonialists in the 1982 battle for the Castle Arnun in Lebanon. Evoking this period highlights the nature of the political differences that have emerged, and the consolidation of bourgeois thought and practice within the upper echelon of the PKK – seemingly the dominant perspectives. The revolutionary parties and some of the executive branch in Qandil fully understands that the Kurdish Freedom Movement, allied with the Palestinian Resistance is unmistakably the path to liberate both societies – merged again through resistance.

Practically speaking, the Resistance in Palestine and Lebanon wanted a front opened against the Zionist regime from Syria. The Assad regime, being as opportunistic and cynical as expected, refused to open a new front for the Resistance, leaving Hezbollah to take the brunt of the fighting in the north singlehandedly. If PKK/YPG forces had opened a front, even symbolically, the contradictions that exist would have been severely disrupted, solidarity between the stateless peoples would have been strengthened and the repairing of Kurdish-Arab ties could have been addressed with a foundational basis of revolutionary solidarity and not political maneuvering.

3) The SDF/YPG announcement of their political and military merger with the HTS regime in Damascus signals an impending collapse of the revolutionary project.

The HTS seizure of power in Syria is the culmination of a counter revolutionary process targeting Palestine and revolutionary Kurdistan in tandem. HTS, like its counterparts ISIS and Al-Qaeda, are accomplices with the fascist Turkish state. Its military offensive against Assad, timed on the very day of the ceasefire in Lebanon – November 27th – was designed to put extraordinary pressure on the Palestinian Resistance and its supporters during a period of vulnerability. In this regard, it was almost certainly agreed upon by the Zionists and their American sponsors. Before the offensive, the US and Zionist regime were beaten to a stalemate in Lebanon and the HTS actions became the one marker of strategic success for imperialism in the entire al-Aqsa Flood battle. Fascist Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed the collapse of the Syrian regime was “a direct result of the blows we have inflicted” on the anti-Zionist Resistance forces.

On the Kurdish side, the success of the HTS military operation brought to power the same people the PKK had fought against since the rise of ISIS and it also rejuvenated the Turkish backed SNA forces that were attacking the YPG in the north. However, this also put political pressure on revolutionary factions in the Kurdish movement since Rojava was surrounded by hostile forces who have now gained momentum.

The Communist factions have maintained the position that striving for a Kurdish nation, allied with internationalist anti-imperialist forces as a bulwark against Western expansion is the objective. The PKK, on the other hand, proposed the formation of the democratic nation, opposed to the nation-state system, where directly-democratic communes organize themselves, cutting through the miscellaneous Sykes-Picot arrangement, and through ethnic divisions. But the opportunistic forces in the PKK, based in Syria and Turkey, disregarded both revolutionary propositions and took Ocalan’s call for disarming/dissolution and the opportunity to appease western forces to its logical conclusion. As TKP-ML stated in their recent text about Ocalan’s call, “it appears that even this ‘paradigm’” – Democratic Confederalism – “has now been abandoned.” In both instances, in Syria and Turkey, the party is calling for subsumption by both states. In Turkey the PKK calls for the establishment of a democratic process, which as Cemil Bayak says the conditions for such an initiative do not even exist. He states, “The Turkish state attacks us every day with all kinds of weapons. How are we going to stop under these circumstances? Of course, our struggle continues.” In Syria, Salih Muslim, spokesperson for the PYD’s foreign relations, reinforces the capitulation, claiming that the agreement with HTS is consistent with Ocalan’s decree.

We should also note that the signing of the agreement with the HTS regime, just like the offensive against Assad, was timed in a particularly heinous manner. The signing ceremony was commenced immediately after one of the gravest massacres – resembling Sabra and Chatilla – was committed by regime forces. Recent estimates maintain that almost 1400 people were slaughtered by the state in western Syria, the vast majority civilians, with tacit approval by the west and their puppet Arab states.

In the imperial core, particularly in the US, we had struggled against the revisionist creep in Rojava solidarity efforts; promoting the combative forces and maintaining the line of armed struggle, anti-imperialism, while supporting efforts either towards the Kurdish nation, or the Democratic Confederalist line. Both positions have merit, and solidarity was established through struggle, with its clearest articulation in the International Freedom Battalion in Rojava, and the HBDH in Turkey in Bakur. Through this process we have also understood mourning, loss and sacrifice. The internationalist movement has given martyrs from all over the world; Orhan Bakırcıyan, Ivana Hoffmann, Dogan Kirefe, Lorenzo Orsetti, Michael Israel, Ulaş Bayraktaroglu, Alina Sanchez, Nurhak Cem, and the list continues.

In memory of the fallen it is our responsibility to clearly proclaim that the direction the party has taken is contrary to the stated objectives of the revolution: from either the class struggle position or the Democratic Nation. We hope non-revisionist forces within the struggle can exert the necessary pressure to prevent a further drift towards reaction and normalization with imperialism. In a similar manner that Fatah’s capitulation in the Palestinian struggle damned the left to years of insignificance, or Khrushchev’s peaceful coexistence betrayed anti-colonial forces, thoroughly discrediting the Soviet project, the PKK’s shift towards integration and peaceful coexistence with US imperialism will certainly have a similar effect.

The integration of revolutionary political forces into the Western-backed state in Syria, and the dismantling of revolutionary military forces in Qandil and Bakur is totally irreconcilable and antagonistic to the furtherance of the internationalist movement. The Kurdish Revolution, with the PKK as its primary revolutionary force, cannot prevail after being absorbed into bourgeois, fascist political structures in West Asia; in fact, the most advanced sections of the movement – the women’s movement and the armed struggle – will only survive if the democratic aspirations of the Kurdish people are fulfilled and maintained through embracing the principled positions that have been established and continuing to combine efforts with other forces fighting against imperialism today. People’s War, the Democratic Confederalist model, and the “right to freely secede” (the right to establish a Kurdish nation which is now rejected by Ocalan), are all positions that reject absorption and must be upheld. As TKP-ML succinctly stated, “Renouncing or refusing to demand.. national-collective rights does not mean that the Kurdish national question has been resolved, nor does it indicate that the contradiction between the oppressor and oppressed nations has disappeared.”

Due to wary statements from some members of the PKK leadership and the revolutionary organizations we believe there is still potential to pivot and rectify the situation internally. We are certain the guerrillas in the mountains, the commando units in the cities, and local organizers who worked diligently to build popular power are questioning these positions. Revolutionaries in Kurdistan and elsewhere understand what is at stake and that now is not the time for half measures. The collaborationist posture is particularly egregious as antagonisms and conflict are amplified in the region. The internationalist anarchist and communist positions must further the line against capitulation.

For a free Kurdistan and a free Palestine!

No to unilateral ceasefire and disarmament!

Revolutionary Anarcho-Communists in the Northeastern “US”

Further reading:

“Kurdish National Question ”The Call of the Century”: Solution or Dissolution? – TKP-ML,” https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/17751/

“Let’s Strengthen the Struggle for the National and Democratic Rights of the Kurdish People! — MLKP,” https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/17327/

“PKK: We will comply with Leader Öcalan’s call, we declare a ceasefire,” https://anfenglish.com/features/-78180

“Call for Peace and Democratic Society: Abdullah Ocalan,” https://www.demparti.org.tr/Images/UserFiles/Documents/Editor/2025/eng-callfor-peace-and-democratic-society.pdf

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=18070

#anarchism #critique #hbdh #mlkp #palestine #pkk #rojava #syria #tkpMl #westAsia

On Ocalan’s Call for Peace and Social Democratic Imperialism: An Anarchist Communist Critique

Revolutionary struggle is never a solitary endeavor; rather it is an unfolding process replete with contradiction and tension. But sifting through the complexity what fundamentally endures is solidarity and principles. When we – anarchist and communist revolutionaries – embark on the path of struggle we expect to exist, grow and die in a life of contradiction and tension, but we also intend for the path we are on to steadily maintain the positions that we’ve historically defined as unequivocal. In essence, some things are negotiable, some deviations are forgivable, and some can be treacherous. The recent positions and actions by the PKK, in several of its components, are not only inconsistent with revolutionary struggle, but have deviated so far from the established principles of proletarian and internationalist struggle that the project has now veered into an essentially revisionist, collaborationist posture. This is particularly alarming as the internationalist movement exceedingly needs heightened, resolute and honorable positions as the challenges facing us are grave and growing.

We are writing from an anarchist communist position that is far from monolithic in our locale, or in general, but we have also been at the forefront of solidarity efforts with the PKK since the formation of the International Freedom Battalion, the HBDH, and the establishment of the anarchist guerrilla faction, the IRPGF. We have been increasingly alarmed at ongoing developments and the most recent political realities need to be addressed. We are not writing this with any elation and are not laying out this statement from a dogmatic, idealist stance. In actuality, we maintained principled silence on a whole host of revisionist deviations, and would have continued out of respect for the complex and dynamic position the combatants find themselves in at the forefront in the conflict zones in West Asia. However, recent developments have pushed us to publicly critique the organization in spite of our admiration for their historical accomplishments.

In the earlier phases of the struggle in Rojava, the US and the YPG both stated their collaboration was “temporary, transactional and tactical”; in essence, not a strategic partnership but a brief association to combat ISIS. This stated position is now, approximately, 8 years old and has turned into unarguably a comprehensive strategic partnership.

The reality is even more stark in light of the larger situation in West Asia today. The Palestinian Revolution, ignited by the monumental October 7th operation, followed by remarkable acts of solidarity performed in northern occupied Palestine and the Red Sea, set a new stage in contemporary struggle against colonialism and imperialism, but is also an illustrative example of resistance for the entire internationalist movement. The war against the Zionist settler regime, and in effect the US-led imperialist world system, is at an elevated state, and due to the genocidal nature of the imperialist forces, the planned ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and the potential of success for the Resistance in Gaza, the liberation of Palestine must have a central role. To be clear, this is not to contrast the Kurdish movement with the Palestinian movement, but to highlight a fundamental contradiction that has reached its peak. The Zionist regime, being a settler appendage of US power projection, has embarked on a genocidal campaign, and the eradication of the Zionist state will put unprecedented pressure on American imperialism, particularly as the US is a wounded animal that has been in decline for some time due to its intensifying excesses. In this context, the PKK partnership with the American regime is particularly inconceivable – as a crucial war for liberation against colonialism rages on in the region.

The opportunism in this collusion is evident but there are also three other crucial points that we feel must be addressed to clarify the true scope of the morass.

1) The historic statement by Abdullah Ocalan calling for the PKK to lay down its arms and to dissolve itself not only betrays the strategy of revolutionary people’s war, self-defense, and proletarian struggle; the release of the statement had been timed at the height of the counter-revolutionary push across the region, which is the HTS/Turkish consolidation of power and the Zionist colonial expansion in Syria.

The statement was met with confusion initially by PKK executive committee members. Murat Karayilan, for instance, stated, “Let’s assume that he [Ocalan] made the call. But this work cannot be done only through a call. We are a movement with tens of thousands of armed people. These fighters are not on a payroll to be sacked. These are ideological fighters. They have beliefs and are willing to sacrifice themselves.”

The Turkish revolutionary organization, the MLKP who is allied with the PKK, resoundingly rejected the statement arguing:

We strongly emphasize that the view in the “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society,” which states, “There is no path outside of democracy for system searches and implementations. There cannot be. Democratic consensus is the fundamental method,” is incompatible with the reality of polarization between oppressors and the oppressed, the rich and the poor, the rulers and the oppressed peoples in Turkey, Kurdistan, and worldwide. In a world where the ruling class, through their state apparatuses, hold the monopoly on violence, have access to the means of violence, are armed to the teeth, fascistize state apparatuses, and divide the world with blood and fire, it is impossible for the working class, women, oppressed peoples, and workers to achieve their basic demands, gain freedom, and create a just, humane world without armed struggle and revolutionary mass violence.

The MLKP will continue the fight for freedom against the fascist regime, denialist colonialism, the patriarchal system, capitalist exploitation, and imperialism, for the Union of the People’s Republics of Turkey and Kurdistan, for the Democratic and Socialist Federation in the Middle East, and for the war for socialism, using all means and forms of struggle.

We echo a similar sentiment here. The renunciation of revolutionary self defense and mass violence is the siren call of a movement replete with bourgeois revisionism. Other segments in Ocalan’s call illuminate the same issues: the demands for “free self-expression, democratic self-organization of each segment of society based on their own socio-economic and political structures”; the idea that “permanent and fraternal continuity” can be achieved if it is “crowned with democracy.” Or that “there is no alternative to democracy in the pursuit and realization of a political system. Democratic consensus is the fundamental way.” This is the language of imperialist power; it is the language of liberalism. We don’t mean this in a pejorative sense either, but literally. The discourse of democracy separated from class war, a movement without an armed component, or a strategic initiative against the colonialist enemies is merely speaking the language of defeat.

2) Mazloum Abdi, the top SDF general, who was in the PKK high command, the HPG and a personal friend of Ocalan, publicly stated that the YPG is open to support from the Zionist colonial regime. Abdi stated if the occupation regime can “prevent attacks against us and stop the killing of our people, we welcome that and appreciate it… ‘Israel’ is a force with influence in the US, the West, and the region.” As we noted, Palestine is the compass for anti-colonial revolution, and publicly articulating (particularly now) a desire to open relations with the Zionist regime is unconscionable.

From Imrali Island to SDF headquarters, the whispers of social democratic imperialism have now become screams, however, in Qandil, and HBDH guerrilla zones we hear a different discourse. Cemil Bayik recently stated, for instance that, “A new Syria is being built, and it is based on protecting ‘Israel’ and the global capital. What does ‘Israel’ represent? It represents global capital; it represents the capitalist system. Protecting ‘Israel’ does not only mean protecting Israel; it also means protecting the system of capitalist modernity.”

After the martyrdom of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah the MLKP proclaimed his “memory will live on in the struggle for a free and united Middle East,” while also calling “on the peoples of Kurdistan and Turkey to take the streets, side by side with the peoples of Palestine and Lebanon, against genocidal colonialism.” TKP-ML’s Martyr Nubar Ozanyan Brigade, based in Rojava, proclaimed that “Nasrallah has become an example of resistance against ‘Israels’ brutality, attacks and occupations.” They called “on all peoples to take a stand against genocide and to actively solidarize with the Palestinian and Lebanese people,” since the “only remedy for the oppressed against this system is to unite in a common line of resistance and to strengthen solidarity networks with the oppressed peoples of the world.”

These positions hearken back to the foundational era of the PKK’s Kurdish Freedom struggle, when guerrillas were based in the Bekaa Valley as guests of the Palestinian Resistance, and even took casualties fighting Zionist colonialists in the 1982 battle for the Castle Arnun in Lebanon. Evoking this period highlights the nature of the political differences that have emerged, and the consolidation of bourgeois thought and practice within the upper echelon of the PKK – seemingly the dominant perspectives. The revolutionary parties and some of the executive branch in Qandil fully understands that the Kurdish Freedom Movement, allied with the Palestinian Resistance is unmistakably the path to liberate both societies – merged again through resistance.

Practically speaking, the Resistance in Palestine and Lebanon wanted a front opened against the Zionist regime from Syria. The Assad regime, being as opportunistic and cynical as expected, refused to open a new front for the Resistance, leaving Hezbollah to take the brunt of the fighting in the north singlehandedly. If PKK/YPG forces had opened a front, even symbolically, the contradictions that exist would have been severely disrupted, solidarity between the stateless peoples would have been strengthened and the repairing of Kurdish-Arab ties could have been addressed with a foundational basis of revolutionary solidarity and not political maneuvering.

3) The SDF/YPG announcement of their political and military merger with the HTS regime in Damascus signals an impending collapse of the revolutionary project.

The HTS seizure of power in Syria is the culmination of a counter revolutionary process targeting Palestine and revolutionary Kurdistan in tandem. HTS, like its counterparts ISIS and Al-Qaeda, are accomplices with the fascist Turkish state. Its military offensive against Assad, timed on the very day of the ceasefire in Lebanon – November 27th – was designed to put extraordinary pressure on the Palestinian Resistance and its supporters during a period of vulnerability. In this regard, it was almost certainly agreed upon by the Zionists and their American sponsors. Before the offensive, the US and Zionist regime were beaten to a stalemate in Lebanon and the HTS actions became the one marker of strategic success for imperialism in the entire al-Aqsa Flood battle. Fascist Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed the collapse of the Syrian regime was “a direct result of the blows we have inflicted” on the anti-Zionist Resistance forces.

On the Kurdish side, the success of the HTS military operation brought to power the same people the PKK had fought against since the rise of ISIS and it also rejuvenated the Turkish backed SNA forces that were attacking the YPG in the north. However, this also put political pressure on revolutionary factions in the Kurdish movement since Rojava was surrounded by hostile forces who have now gained momentum.

The Communist factions have maintained the position that striving for a Kurdish nation, allied with internationalist anti-imperialist forces as a bulwark against Western expansion is the objective. The PKK, on the other hand, proposed the formation of the democratic nation, opposed to the nation-state system, where directly-democratic communes organize themselves, cutting through the miscellaneous Sykes-Picot arrangement, and through ethnic divisions. But the opportunistic forces in the PKK, based in Syria and Turkey, disregarded both revolutionary propositions and took Ocalan’s call for disarming/dissolution and the opportunity to appease western forces to its logical conclusion. As TKP-ML stated in their recent text about Ocalan’s call, “it appears that even this ‘paradigm’” – Democratic Confederalism – “has now been abandoned.” In both instances, in Syria and Turkey, the party is calling for subsumption by both states. In Turkey the PKK calls for the establishment of a democratic process, which as Cemil Bayak says the conditions for such an initiative do not even exist. He states, “The Turkish state attacks us every day with all kinds of weapons. How are we going to stop under these circumstances? Of course, our struggle continues.” In Syria, Salih Muslim, spokesperson for the PYD’s foreign relations, reinforces the capitulation, claiming that the agreement with HTS is consistent with Ocalan’s decree.

We should also note that the signing of the agreement with the HTS regime, just like the offensive against Assad, was timed in a particularly heinous manner. The signing ceremony was commenced immediately after one of the gravest massacres – resembling Sabra and Chatilla – was committed by regime forces. Recent estimates maintain that almost 1400 people were slaughtered by the state in western Syria, the vast majority civilians, with tacit approval by the west and their puppet Arab states.

In the imperial core, particularly in the US, we had struggled against the revisionist creep in Rojava solidarity efforts; promoting the combative forces and maintaining the line of armed struggle, anti-imperialism, while supporting efforts either towards the Kurdish nation, or the Democratic Confederalist line. Both positions have merit, and solidarity was established through struggle, with its clearest articulation in the International Freedom Battalion in Rojava, and the HBDH in Turkey in Bakur. Through this process we have also understood mourning, loss and sacrifice. The internationalist movement has given martyrs from all over the world; Orhan Bakırcıyan, Ivana Hoffmann, Dogan Kirefe, Lorenzo Orsetti, Michael Israel, Ulaş Bayraktaroglu, Alina Sanchez, Nurhak Cem, and the list continues.

In memory of the fallen it is our responsibility to clearly proclaim that the direction the party has taken is contrary to the stated objectives of the revolution: from either the class struggle position or the Democratic Nation. We hope non-revisionist forces within the struggle can exert the necessary pressure to prevent a further drift towards reaction and normalization with imperialism. In a similar manner that Fatah’s capitulation in the Palestinian struggle damned the left to years of insignificance, or Khrushchev’s peaceful coexistence betrayed anti-colonial forces, thoroughly discrediting the Soviet project, the PKK’s shift towards integration and peaceful coexistence with US imperialism will certainly have a similar effect.

The integration of revolutionary political forces into the Western-backed state in Syria, and the dismantling of revolutionary military forces in Qandil and Bakur is totally irreconcilable and antagonistic to the furtherance of the internationalist movement. The Kurdish Revolution, with the PKK as its primary revolutionary force, cannot prevail after being absorbed into bourgeois, fascist political structures in West Asia; in fact, the most advanced sections of the movement – the women’s movement and the armed struggle – will only survive if the democratic aspirations of the Kurdish people are fulfilled and maintained through embracing the principled positions that have been established and continuing to combine efforts with other forces fighting against imperialism today. People’s War, the Democratic Confederalist model, and the “right to freely secede” (the right to establish a Kurdish nation which is now rejected by Ocalan), are all positions that reject absorption and must be upheld. As TKP-ML succinctly stated, “Renouncing or refusing to demand.. national-collective rights does not mean that the Kurdish national question has been resolved, nor does it indicate that the contradiction between the oppressor and oppressed nations has disappeared.”

Due to wary statements from some members of the PKK leadership and the revolutionary organizations we believe there is still potential to pivot and rectify the situation internally. We are certain the guerrillas in the mountains, the commando units in the cities, and local organizers who worked diligently to build popular power are questioning these positions. Revolutionaries in Kurdistan and elsewhere understand what is at stake and that now is not the time for half measures. The collaborationist posture is particularly egregious as antagonisms and conflict are amplified in the region. The internationalist anarchist and communist positions must further the line against capitulation.

For a free Kurdistan and a free Palestine!

No to unilateral ceasefire and disarmament!

Revolutionary Anarcho-Communists in the Northeastern “US”

Further reading:

“Kurdish National Question ”The Call of the Century”: Solution or Dissolution? – TKP-ML,” https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/17751/

“Let’s Strengthen the Struggle for the National and Democratic Rights of the Kurdish People! — MLKP,” https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/17327/

“PKK: We will comply with Leader Öcalan’s call, we declare a ceasefire,” https://anfenglish.com/features/-78180

“Call for Peace and Democratic Society: Abdullah Ocalan,” https://www.demparti.org.tr/Images/UserFiles/Documents/Editor/2025/eng-callfor-peace-and-democratic-society.pdf

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=18070

#anarchism #critique #hbdh #mlkp #palestine #pkk #rojava #syria #tkpMl #westAsia

HBDH Executive Committee: Comrade Baran Serhat Lives in Our United Revolutionary Struggle!

We sent off comrade Baran Serhat, one of the pioneers of our United Revolution, to immortality in a treacherous attack 6 years ago. Despite those who murdered him, comrade Baran Serhat continues to lead our United Revolution struggle. His successors are now proudly waving the glorious flag that he never let go of until his last breath, in the mountains, cities, prisons, squares, factories and schools of Turkey and Kurdistan, in the toughest trenches of the struggle. The dreams of those who think that they can end the struggle for revolution by massacring the revolutionaries are once again shattered. It is again the red road of the revolution that advances to victory despite all the difficult conditions and the all-out attacks of the fascist power. The sacrifice and effort of comrade Baran Serhat on this red road continues to guide us today, as it did yesterday. Comrade Baran Serhat devoted his life to the revolutionary struggle to carry our world, where exploitation and oppression prevail, to salvation and freedom. He became a creative leader by adapting the huge struggle experience he received from his predecessors to the conditions he was in. Wherever there was oppression and pain, he took his place at the forefront of the struggle of the peoples. The cities and prisons of Türkiye-Northern Kurdistan witnessed his many brave actions. He made the enemy kneel down with his upright stance, turning every place he was in into a fortress where the revolution was defended.

Comrade Baran Serhat was a master revolutionary who lived as he thought and brought theory to life with practice. He became both a brave warrior and a creative commander and leader of the struggle, positioned himself in accordance with whatever the need of the struggle was, and embraced his duties accordingly. He made intense efforts to develop the common struggle of the people by not recognizing the artificial borders created. He played important roles in protecting and advancing the Rojava Revolution and in expanding the internationalist struggle. He pioneered the establishment and development of our United Revolution movement and undertook historical duties. And in March, which witnessed many heroisms, resistances and also massacres, he fell to the ground in the attack of the fascist Turkish state and its gangs.

We are going through times when the flow of history has entered a sharp turn. We are in a process in which the contradictions and struggles between the rulers who drag the world towards a great destruction and the world’s peoples on the other side have become much sharper. Learning from the lives of the martyrs of the revolution and commemorating them is the most meaningful way to commemorate them, in conditions where revolutionary militancy, revolutionary values ​​and strong comradeship are as necessary as bread and water. Because they walked towards the enemy, never taking a step back from their struggle under the most difficult conditions, always moving forward, never hesitating for a moment, they became indomitable warriors of truth by embracing the consciousness of sacrifice. They instilled hope in the world and humanity, defying pessimism and indecision.

Those we send off to eternity in the struggle for revolution and socialism are the sources of resistance of our revolutionary war. They are monuments of resistance that show us what to do in the face of the unjust wars, occupations, oppression and torture, exploitation and massacres that continue today. We will increase the fight with the awareness that commemorating them is to develop the revolutionary struggle.

While we respectfully commemorate comrade Baran Serhat and all the monuments of resistance, we promise that we will walk more determinedly on the path they walked, that we will expand the united struggle, and that we will carry the struggle for revolution and socialism to victory. Let us raise the struggle for the United Revolution against imperialism, capitalism, fascism and male domination.

Comrade Baran Serhat Lives in Our Struggle in the Year of Immortality!
Martyr Namirin!
HBDH Executive Committee – 23 March 2025

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=17889

#guerrilla #hbdh #kurdistan #mlkp #rojava #syria #tkpMl #turkey

HBDH Executive Committee: Comrade Baran Serhat Lives in Our United Revolutionary Struggle!

We sent off comrade Baran Serhat, one of the pioneers of our United Revolution, to immortality in a treacherous attack 6 years ago. Despite those who murdered him, comrade Baran Serhat continues to lead our United Revolution struggle. His successors are now proudly waving the glorious flag that he never let go of until his last breath, in the mountains, cities, prisons, squares, factories and schools of Turkey and Kurdistan, in the toughest trenches of the struggle. The dreams of those who think that they can end the struggle for revolution by massacring the revolutionaries are once again shattered. It is again the red road of the revolution that advances to victory despite all the difficult conditions and the all-out attacks of the fascist power. The sacrifice and effort of comrade Baran Serhat on this red road continues to guide us today, as it did yesterday. Comrade Baran Serhat devoted his life to the revolutionary struggle to carry our world, where exploitation and oppression prevail, to salvation and freedom. He became a creative leader by adapting the huge struggle experience he received from his predecessors to the conditions he was in. Wherever there was oppression and pain, he took his place at the forefront of the struggle of the peoples. The cities and prisons of Türkiye-Northern Kurdistan witnessed his many brave actions. He made the enemy kneel down with his upright stance, turning every place he was in into a fortress where the revolution was defended.

Comrade Baran Serhat was a master revolutionary who lived as he thought and brought theory to life with practice. He became both a brave warrior and a creative commander and leader of the struggle, positioned himself in accordance with whatever the need of the struggle was, and embraced his duties accordingly. He made intense efforts to develop the common struggle of the people by not recognizing the artificial borders created. He played important roles in protecting and advancing the Rojava Revolution and in expanding the internationalist struggle. He pioneered the establishment and development of our United Revolution movement and undertook historical duties. And in March, which witnessed many heroisms, resistances and also massacres, he fell to the ground in the attack of the fascist Turkish state and its gangs.

We are going through times when the flow of history has entered a sharp turn. We are in a process in which the contradictions and struggles between the rulers who drag the world towards a great destruction and the world’s peoples on the other side have become much sharper. Learning from the lives of the martyrs of the revolution and commemorating them is the most meaningful way to commemorate them, in conditions where revolutionary militancy, revolutionary values ​​and strong comradeship are as necessary as bread and water. Because they walked towards the enemy, never taking a step back from their struggle under the most difficult conditions, always moving forward, never hesitating for a moment, they became indomitable warriors of truth by embracing the consciousness of sacrifice. They instilled hope in the world and humanity, defying pessimism and indecision.

Those we send off to eternity in the struggle for revolution and socialism are the sources of resistance of our revolutionary war. They are monuments of resistance that show us what to do in the face of the unjust wars, occupations, oppression and torture, exploitation and massacres that continue today. We will increase the fight with the awareness that commemorating them is to develop the revolutionary struggle.

While we respectfully commemorate comrade Baran Serhat and all the monuments of resistance, we promise that we will walk more determinedly on the path they walked, that we will expand the united struggle, and that we will carry the struggle for revolution and socialism to victory. Let us raise the struggle for the United Revolution against imperialism, capitalism, fascism and male domination.

Comrade Baran Serhat Lives in Our Struggle in the Year of Immortality!
Martyr Namirin!
HBDH Executive Committee – 23 March 2025

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=17889

#guerrilla #hbdh #kurdistan #mlkp #rojava #syria #tkpMl #turkey

Kurdish National Question “The Call of the Century”: Solution or Dissolution? – TKP-ML

First, a brief reminder is necessary. Following the “Al-Aqsa Flood Operation” carried out by the Palestinian National Resistance on October 7, 2023, the Middle East witnessed developments of historical significance. Israel launched military operations first against Gaza and then against Lebanon. Meanwhile, in Syria, the Ba’ath regime collapsed, and power was handed over to the Salafi- jihadist HTS gang.

Contradictions among capitalist-imperialist powers on the international stage escalated into open war with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing wars and conflicts in the Middle East. This situation is reshaping alliances and realignments among the imperialist-capitalist powers based on these contradictions. All sides are preparing for a new war of redivision (the Third Imperialist War of Division).

In the words of Chairman Mao, “there is chaos under the heavens.”

It is unthinkable that these developments would not affect the Turkish state and the ruling Turkish classes. Since its founding, Turkey has been a semi-colonial market for imperialism, and due to its geopolitical position, it has served as a “regional gendarme” for the imperialist powers, making this situation all the more inevitable.

While Turkey’s goals and objectives in Syria are well known, the emergence of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria—led by the Kurdish national movement and encompassing various nationalities and faiths, particularly the Arab nation—has become a critical factor. As this “autonomy” has increasingly gained the prospect of achieving an official status, the ruling Turkish classes have been compelled to develop a new policy on the Kurdish national question.

The Turkish state once again turned to Abdullah Öcalan, whom it has kept under severe isolation on İmralı Island for 26 years. Reports emerged that a process, which was not officially called a “solution process,” had been underway following meetings that apparently began about a year ago. As a result of this process, on February 27, the “İmralı Delegation” announced a call titled “Peace and Democratic Society,” personally written by Öcalan. After the written statement was read in both Kurdish and Turkish, delegation member Sırrı Süreyya Önder shared a note from Öcalan: “While presenting this perspective, it undoubtedly requires the abandonment of arms, the dissolution of the PKK, and the recognition of the legal and political framework for democratic politics.”

These developments have once again brought discussions centered on the Kurdish national question to the forefront. Naturally, the approaches of the “parties” to the process differ drastically. The Kurdish national movement embraced Abdullah Öcalan’s call and announced that guerrilla forces would lay down their arms. It was stated that the Kurdish national movement had no conditions regarding the process. As Sırrı Süreyya Önder from the “İmralı Delegation” put it: “There are no conditions for this. There is neither a precondition nor a condition afterward.” (March 3, 2025)

The stance of the Turkish state’s spokespeople on the process is well known, making it unnecessary to reiterate.

This is not the first time that the Turkish state and the Kurdish national movement have engaged in direct or indirect negotiations on the Kurdish national question. For instance, in 1993, under the initiatives of President Turgut Özal, PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan declared a unilateral ceasefire for the first time on March 20, 1993.

Following Öcalan’s capture on February 15, 1999, as a result of an international conspiracy, he called for another ceasefire, which the PKK declared in September 1999. Along with this, orders were given for the withdrawal of guerrilla forces from Turkish borders. The PKK largely complied with this call, initiating a period of “unilateral inaction” that lasted until 2004.

When the Turkish state failed to take any steps toward a “solution,” the PKK ended its unilateral ceasefire and resumed armed struggle on June 1, 2004. The AKP government launched the so-called “Democratic Initiative” process in 2009 under the name “National Unity and Brotherhood Project.” Talks with Abdullah Öcalan resumed on İmralı Island, and officials from the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) and some AKP representatives held secret meetings with PKK representatives (KCK executives) in Oslo, Europe. These meetings, known as the Oslo Talks, took place between 2009 and 2011.

In December 2012, then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan publicly announced that negotiations were taking place with Öcalan on İmralı. Following this statement, in early 2013, government representatives, led by the Undersecretary of MİT, held discussions with the “İmralı Delegation.” This period, which lasted from 2013 to 2015 and became known as the “solution process” in public discourse, saw the AKP government take legal steps to institutionalize the process. In 2014, a law was passed, the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) established a “Solution Commission,” and the “Wise People Committee” was formed. On March 21, 2013, during the Newroz celebrations in Amed, Öcalan’s letter was read to the public. On February 28,

2015, the İmralı Delegation and representatives of the AKP government held a joint press conference at Dolmabahçe Palace. During this conference, Öcalan’s 10-point negotiation framework was read, and it was announced that Öcalan was calling on the PKK to convene an extraordinary congress in the spring to decide on disarmament. However, in March 2015, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan opposed the Dolmabahçe Agreement, stating that he had not given his approval and declaring, “I do not recognize the agreement.”

Toward the end of 2024, reports surfaced that a new “negotiation” process had taken place between the Turkish state and Abdullah Öcalan. This process was distinct from previous ones in that it was not officially labeled as a “process” and that the details of the meetings were not disclosed to the public. While the Kurdish national movement was reportedly not given any conditions or demands, the Turkish state, on the other hand, made no commitments or concessions. As a result, the nature of this process remains unknown. However, it must be emphasized that the Turkish state’s renewed engagement with Abdullah Öcalan regarding the Kurdish national question is significant. The primary reason for this is the developments unfolding in the Middle East, particularly in Syria. Therefore, it is essential to analyze the Turkish state’s new policy in this context.

Fortifying the “Internal Front”

It is understood that Israel’s aggression, the ongoing process in Syria, and overall developments in the Middle East have pushed the Turkish state toward developing a new policy. The signs of this policy began to appear a year ago. The first indication came when President and AKP Chairman Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated, “When we look at the events we are experiencing today, we can see much more clearly how crucial the internal front is for a nation.” (August 30, 2024). Later, in New York for the 79th United Nations General Assembly, Erdoğan reiterated this emphasis, declaring, “Our internal front objectives are our ‘Kızıl Elma’ (Red Apple).” (September 27, 2024).

Following Erdoğan, MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli also emphasized the “internal front,” stating, “Our primary duty is to fortify our national and spiritual front against a chaotic world. Our internal front, which is being shaken, and our unity and solidarity, which are being threatened with dissolution, cannot be ignored, and we will not allow it.” (October 2, 2024).

As a product of this new political strategy, the process began when MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli shook hands with the DEM Party Group in the Turkish Grand National Assembly on October 1, 2024. On the same day, Bahçeli stated, “We are entering a new era. While calling for peace in the world, we must also ensure peace within our own country.”

That same day, President and AKP Chairman Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, in his speech at the General Assembly, said, “It is now more than a necessity—it is an obligation—to realize that, in the face of Israeli aggression, it is not areas of conflict but areas of reconciliation that must come to the forefront both domestically and internationally.” As a further indication of this new political strategy, on October 22, 2024, Bahçeli declared at an MHP Group Meeting in Parliament, “If the isolation of the leader of the terrorists is lifted, let him come and speak at the DEM Party Group Meeting in Parliament. Let him declare that terrorism has ended completely, and that the organization has been dissolved.” Erdoğan also followed up with a statement: “We hope that the historic window of opportunity opened by the People’s Alliance will not be sacrificed for personal interests.” (October 22, 2024). Following these statements, the “İmralı Delegation” published Abdullah Öcalan’s statement, titled “Peace and Democratic Society,” marking the 26th year of his imprisonment by the Turkish state. As indicated above, although this call was written by Öcalan himself, it appears to be essentially a product of negotiations conducted over the past year between Turkish state officials and Öcalan, ultimately resulting in a certain agreement. Since no official explanation has been provided to the public regarding the nature of these talks or the “agreement” reached, making a concrete assessment is difficult. However, it is understood that in return for the PKK laying down arms and dissolving itself, certain measures have been taken by the Turkish state.

According to publicly available information, negotiations and discussions between the Turkish state and Abdullah Öcalan have been ongoing for the past year. It appears that the Turkish state has conducted this process with Öcalan, whom it has held captive—an inherently problematic and fundamentally unjust situation. Under these conditions, it is necessary to speak of “secret diplomacy.” This, in turn, limits the ability to make an objective assessment of the matter.

Is Öcalan’s Call a Surrender?

First and foremost, it should be noted that it is not unusual for warring parties to engage in negotiations with their enemies, go through “peace processes,” or enter into mutual or unilateral ceasefires. Throughout history, communists and leaders of various national and social liberation movements have taken similar practical steps. These steps must be considered tactical maneuvers serving the goal of revolution and liberation, as long as that goal is not abandoned.

Although Öcalan’s call on February 27, which includes the dissolution of the PKK, signifies a significant political break, it should not be forgotten that this is not the first time he has made such a call. Indeed, Öcalan has previously stated in various declarations and writings that, due to the setbacks experienced in socialism and the collapse of modern revisionist regimes (what Öcalan calls the “collapse of real socialism”), a change in line (which he refers to as a “paradigm shift”) was necessary and that new organizational methods and models should be adopted.

The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) initially emerged as a national movement influenced by Marxism, waging a revolutionary war against the Turkish ruling classes’ policies of national denial and extermination. However, in his statements and defenses following his imprisonment, Öcalan renounced the “Right to Freely Secede” meaning the demand to establish a separate state. Instead, he led the Kurdish National Movement toward what he conceptualized as “Democratic Modernity,” characterized by an “Ecological, Women’s Liberationist, and Democratic Nation Paradigm.”

Öcalan, in his statements and defenses, defined his ideological shift as a “break from real socialism” and distanced himself from the revolutionary-socialist ideas that influenced the founding of the PKK. Instead, he introduced various alternative models, including ecological theories, “post-Marxist” currents, and anarchist tendencies, as a “new organizational model” for the Kurdish National Movement. In this sense, there is nothing truly “new” in Öcalan’s latest declaration.

However, as seen in the recent statement, it appears that even this “paradigm” has now been abandoned. Notably, Öcalan explicitly described the PKK, the organization he led in its foundation, as suffering from “lack of meaning and excessive repetition.” While this remark signifies an important political rupture, it should also be understood as a call to the practical leadership of the Kurdish National Movement to “update its meaning.” In this sense, it would be inaccurate to interpret Öcalan’s position as one of “surrender.” Given his ideological stance, political maneuvering, and pragmatism as a representative of a national movement, this becomes even more significant. Therefore, reducing the issue merely to “liquidationism,” “surrender,” or even “betrayal” would be misleading. It must not be forgotten that the Kurdish nation had rebelled even before the PKK and, with the PKK, sustained its rebellion through a long-term guerrilla war. A national struggle that has endured oppression, bans on its existence and language, and massacres cannot simply be summed up as “surrender” at this stage. Moreover, the Kurdish national question is not confined to Turkey’s Kurdistan alone; it continues to exist in various forms across different parts of Kurdistan.

At this point, the Kurdish national question has surpassed Öcalan’s “paradigm” time and again. The reactions to his statement have further placed the Kurdish nation and the reality of Kurdistan on the global agenda. The primary figure responsible for this situation is none other than Öcalan himself, who has been held in severe isolation on an island for 26 years. Despite all its weaknesses and shortcomings, the uninterrupted struggle of the Kurdish nation, and above all, its armed resistance, has been the determining factor. Even in its current state, the Kurdish National Movement, which began in Turkey’s Kurdistan and later expanded to Iraq, Syria, and Iran’s Kurdistan, has become a subject of not only the Middle East but also global political discourse. This has undoubtedly been shaped by the PKK’s practical leadership and the Kurdish people’s elevation of Öcalan to a symbolic position of “national leadership,” even if not in direct practice.

For this reason, it is problematic to assess the situation based on the premise that, under Öcalan’s leadership, the Kurdish National Movement has surrendered through negotiation and is set to be dissolved, thereby imposing liquidation on the revolutionary movement as a whole. Evaluating the matter solely through this possibility is fundamentally an ideological and political line issue. The Kurdish national question remains one of the primary contradictions in our region. Its resolution, whether through this or that means, or the reduction of its intensity and urgency does not necessarily mean that other contradictions in our region, or indeed the principal contradiction, will also be resolved.

Those who base their entire analysis and critique purely on “surrender” and “liquidation” expose their own ideological and political insecurity. More importantly, they reveal their tendency to link the entire revolutionary process exclusively to the struggle of the oppressed nation, disregarding the broader class struggle.

Like any national movement, the Kurdish National Movement can, of course, reach agreements and compromises with the enemy it fights against. This possibility has existed since the moment the national movement emerged, and at certain stages of the war, it is understandable for the movement to acknowledge and highlight this possibility as a tactical consideration. However, continuously focusing on this possibility as the primary issue reflects a problematic approach. What must remain uncompromising are not possibilities but principles. It is essential to be unwavering in principles while maintaining flexibility in formulating policies according to concrete conditions.

Principle: The Right to Freely Secede

First and foremost, it is problematic that a fundamental right such as the Right to Freely Secede, which arises from the very existence of an oppressed nation, is being renounced, especially when this renunciation is expressed by a single individual (Öcalan) under conditions of captivity. Furthermore, criminalizing the legitimate and just foundation upon which the struggle of the oppressed nation stands, while proposing a compromise (or agreement) with the ruling- class bourgeoisie of the oppressor nation, does not change the reality that the Kurdish nation in Turkey remains an oppressed nation.

Another problematic aspect of Öcalan’s statement is his emphasis on the so- called “shared destiny of Turks and Kurds.” This rhetoric is frequently used by the representatives of the oppressor nation. Phrases like “brotherhood” and “we are like flesh and bone” serve only to obscure and legitimize the oppression exerted by the dominant nation over the oppressed one. True fraternity between nations can only be discussed once full national equality is recognized. Therefore, the real issue is not about renewing and strengthening a so-called “Turkish-Kurdish alliance” but rather about putting an end to the historical injustices imposed on the Kurdish nation.

The Kurds in Turkey exist as a nation and are subjected to national oppression by the dominant nation. Changes in the form or methods of this oppression— whether its intensity increases or decreases—do not negate the fact that the Kurds are a nation. Nor does it invalidate their legitimate and just democratic demands, above all, their Right to Freely Secede, which stems from their status as a nation.

In general, the national question, and specifically the Kurdish national question, is ultimately a matter of rights and status. As the term itself suggests, it is not solely a problem to be resolved on a class basis. While its ultimate resolution is tied to class struggle, this does not prevent it from producing various intermediate “solutions” along the way. In the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, some national questions have, in one way or another, been “resolved” through imperialist intervention.

The demand for statehood, which is at the core of the national question in terms of securing national rights and establishing an independent economic space, can take different forms. It may evolve into arrangements such as autonomy or federation, as seen in various historical examples. Indeed, the establishment of collective cultural rights, political status, and organizational structures, particularly concerning language, constitutes an advanced stage from the perspective of national criteria. In this sense, it represents a shift in status. Furthermore, these demands are the democratic demands of the oppressed national bourgeoisie against the ruling-class bourgeoisie of the oppressor nation. The possibility that these demands may be instrumentalized by imperialism or co-opted for other interests does not invalidate their democratic content. In our specific case, the solution to the Kurdish national question lies in the fulfillment of the Kurdish nation’s national-collective rights, including the right to secede, federation, autonomy, and cultural rights. Renouncing or refusing to demand these national-collective rights does not mean that the Kurdish national question has been resolved, nor does it indicate that the contradiction between the oppressor and oppressed nations has disappeared.

For this reason, in Öcalan’s “Call for Peace and Democratic Society,” he states that “the inevitable consequence of an excessively nationalist drift, such as the creation of a separate nation-state, federation, administrative autonomy, and culturalist solutions, fails to provide an answer to the sociology of historical society.” While this statement points to a deadlock in solving the national question, it also implicitly accepts the Turkish nation’s privilege of statehood while rejecting, even in the bourgeois-democratic sense, the Kurdish nation’s right to establish an independent state, which stems from its status as a nation. Such a view is, of course, unacceptable to communists.

In Turkey, the Kurdish national question remains unresolved. It continues with all its intensity. Contrary to Öcalan’s claims, the issue of the Kurdish nation’s national rights in Turkey persists.

Has the Era of Armed Struggle Ended?

On the other hand, it is necessary to point out the following reality: when it comes to resolving the Kurdish national question, caution is needed against narratives that can be formulated as “laying down arms and opening the political channel” narratives that have also found resonance within the ranks of the Kurdish movement. While it is understandable for those on the side of the oppressor nation to promote such narratives, they hold no real value for the proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the world. After all, “if a people have no army, they have nothing!” This is another principle.

Of course, “democratic political struggle instead of armed struggle” is a choice. However, whether the conditions exist for such a choice is decisive. Under current circumstances in Turkey, leaving aside the well-known obstacles to “democratic political struggle,” even the slightest crumbs of bourgeois democracy are no longer tolerated. In Turkey, the conditions for “democratic politics” have always existed on paper, but in practice, they have no real foundation. Fascism is not simply a form of government; it is the very mode of governance and the essence of politics itself. For this reason, even the slightest demand for rights or any democratic and revolutionary struggle is met with fascist terror. In the recent period, under the so-called “Presidential System,” the AKP-MHP fascism has imposed a policy of fascist repression against all democratic demands, including freedom of expression. One of those who have experienced this reality most acutely is the Kurdish national.

It must not be forgotten that the Kurdish National Movement resorted to armed struggle because there was no path for democratic struggle, as denial and annihilation were imposed upon it. This was not merely a choice but a necessity under the conditions of Turkey and Turkish Kurdistan. There have been Kurdish national movements that did not take up arms, yet they too could not escape the heavy repression of fascism. This reality, just as it was in the past, remains valid today. The presence of certain changes does not mean that fascism has been eliminated or that contradictions, particularly the Kurdish national question, have been resolved.

On the other hand, the propaganda that equates armed struggle with a lack of political strategy under the guise of “solution” and “peace” is fundamentally flawed. Armed struggle is, in itself, a form of politics. For years, those who have made political arguments under the pretense of criticizing armed struggle, despite acknowledging the justified assertion of “the role of force in Kurdistan,” cannot erase the fact that armed struggle is also a political struggle.

The search for reconciliation with fascism leads to unfounded theories such as “armed struggle is not political struggle” and even that “armed struggle hinders democratic struggle.” As practice has consistently demonstrated, “War is the continuation of politics by other means.” The rejection of this reality by its practitioner’s points to their ideological stance and their current decision to conduct politics through different means.

Moreover, the assertion that “the era of armed struggle has ended” can only be a dream in today’s conditions, where preparations for a new imperialist war of division are underway, especially in the Middle East. Furthermore, the process has repeatedly invalidated Öcalan’s statement that “the era of armed struggle has ended.” For instance, while Öcalan made this declaration in 2013, at the same time, the Kurdish nation was achieving successes through a life-and-death armed struggle against ISIS in Rojava. Additionally, it is evident that currently, in Rojava, there is no other option but to respond with armed resistance to the direct attacks of Turkey and its proxy groups. As these realities have consistently proven, not only has “the era of armed struggle” not ended, but especially under Middle Eastern conditions, it is clear that it remains a necessity. Truths are revolutionary, and the era of armed struggle has not ended. In the current situation of the imperialist capitalist system, with signs of a new war of division emerging, and in today’s reality where the world is increasingly arming itself under the guise of “defense,” theories suggesting that the era of armed struggle has ended for the proletariat, oppressed peoples, and nations of the world are, in the broadest sense, equivalent to disarming the oppressed and are, of course, unacceptable.

Is a “Democratic Society” Possible Under Conditions of Fascism?

In his statement, Abdullah Öcalan discusses Turkish-Kurdish relations, speaks of a “spirit of brotherhood,” and proposes “democratic society” and “democratic reconciliation” as the fundamental methods for a solution. However, under capitalism, there is no democracy that is independent of or above class structures. Every class has its own understanding of democracy and implements it accordingly. Therefore, a “democratic society” or “democracy” cannot truly be realized within a capitalist system dominated by the bourgeoisie. Real people’s democracy and a democratic society can only exist under a people’s state, where the people hold power.

Expecting a “democratic society” from the Turkish state is an illusion. The fundamental approach is flawed from the outset. Even as the call for a “democratic society” is made, the reality remains that the process is being carried out behind closed doors. Without a comprehensive public explanation of what is happening, even the possibility of a “democratic discussion” is out of the question. Moreover, one of the parties involved is under severe isolation. Before anything else, the heavy isolation imposed on Öcalan must be lifted, and he must be freed. If the goal is truly a democratic society, then at the very least, Öcalan must be provided with the conditions to work freely and be allowed unrestricted communication with his organization.

Öcalan justifies his call for the dissolution of the PKK and the laying down of arms by arguing that in Turkey, “the denial of identity has been resolved” and “progress has been made in freedom of expression.” However, it is evident to all that no fundamental progress has actually been made in these areas. The so- called “recognition” of the existence of Kurds is, at best, a superficial acknowledgment. Even this limited recognition was only achieved through a struggle that cost countless lives. Therefore, it is clear that this does not correspond to any concrete status in terms of resolving the national question. Moreover, at this stage, the situation regarding freedom of expression is so stark that it leaves no room for debate.

The point that A. Öcalan overlooks or rather misjudges because he fails to approach the issue from a class perspective — is the root of the national question in general, and the Kurdish national question in particular. The Kurdish national question cannot be reduced to issues of identity denial and freedom of expression, nor is the Kurdish nation itself the source of this problem. The problem lies in the national oppression imposed on the Kurdish nation. This oppression is not only directed at the Kurdish people in general but affects the entire Kurdish nation—except for a handful of large feudal landlords and a few big bourgeois figures who have fully integrated with the Turkish ruling classes. Kurdish workers, peasants, the urban petty bourgeoisie, and small landowners all continue to suffer from national oppression. As a result of the Kurdish nation’s struggle, certain concessions have been made in the national oppression policy of the dominant nation, yet the policy of national oppression continues uninterrupted. The Kurdish national question remains unresolved. In our region, resolving the Kurdish national question remains one of the tasks of the People’s Democratic Revolution. Under conditions of fascism, it is impossible to achieve a revolutionary resolution of the Kurdish national question. However, as a result of revolutionary-democratic struggle, certain steps may be taken. Supporting progressive steps that contribute to resolving the Kurdish national question and other major contradictions in Turkey and Turkish Kurdistan, while integrating these reforms into the revolutionary struggle, is not incorrect.

However, propagating reforms as a solution, and even more so, claiming that under current conditions the Kurdish nation has exercised its right to self- determination, is entirely misleading. Öcalan, in his statement, argues that “there is no non-democratic path for system-building and implementation. There cannot be. Democratic reconciliation is the fundamental method.” In today’s world, within the reality of class society, this view is fundamentally flawed. Within the reality of class divisions, the concept of democracy is also class- based.The imperialist capitalist world order, which is built upon the system of private property, and the reality of the state in Turkey and Turkish Kurdistan, prove that the state is nothing more than “an instrument of one class’s oppression over another.” Even bourgeois democracies have become increasingly questionable under current conditions.

From its very foundation, bourgeois democracy in Turkey and Turkish Kurdistan has had a fascist character. “Our country has never truly experienced real bourgeois democracy; it has only tasted some of its crumbs.” (İK, Collected Works, Nisan Yayımcılık).

Thus, setting aside other contradictions, the emergence of the Kurdish national question and the policy of national oppression imposed on the Kurdish nation have been carried out under the guise of “democracy.”

The emancipation, freedom, and independence of the Turkish working class, the laboring people, and the Kurdish nation cannot be achieved within the system or through its so-called democracy. The struggle for liberation of the peoples from the Turkish and Kurdish nations, as well as various other nationalities and faiths, does not depend on “democratic reconciliation” but rather necessitates methods and tools of struggle outside the system.This is not a matter of choice but a historical necessity.

TC (Turkish Republic) Fascism Must Be Targeted!

At this stage, the Turkish state, which once labeled Öcalan as a “terrorist leader,” now presents him as a figure advocating peace and seeking a solution. Although the state’s media propaganda will frame this process as the “elimination of terrorism,” at the same time, discussions will emerge both domestically and internationally about the obligations of the Turkish state, democratization, and the steps it must take.

Indeed, in the note conveyed to the public by Sırrı Süreyya Önder—though absent from Öcalan’s official statement (likely because the Turkish state did not permit it to be included), Öcalan outlines what the Turkish state must do in return for the “agreement” reached. He points to legal and constitutional changes that would secure the political rights of the Kurdish nation, emphasizing that the process of disarmament and the dissolution of the PKK should be synchronized with democratic legal reforms within the country. These demands, within the conditions of fascism, are undeniably “progressive” and “democratic.” Whether they will be implemented is another matter entirely.

Regardless of the calculations of Turkish fascism, these demands must be supported and defended.

In general, regarding the national question, and specifically the Kurdish national question, the class-conscious proletariat holds a clear stance. It is worth reiterating:

“..Regardless of nationality, the class-conscious Turkish proletariat will unconditionally and unequivocally support the general democratic content of

the Kurdish national movement that targets the oppression, tyranny, and privileges of the Turkish ruling classes, seeks to abolish all forms of national oppression, and aims for the equality of nations. It will likewise unconditionally and unequivocally support the movements of other oppressed nationalities in the same direction.

…Regardless of nationality, the class-conscious Turkish proletariat will remain entirely neutral in the struggles waged by the bourgeoisie and landlords of various nationalities for their own superiority and privileges. The class- conscious Turkish proletariat will never support tendencies within the Kurdish national movement that seek to strengthen Kurdish nationalism; it will never assist bourgeois nationalism; it will never support the struggles of Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords to secure their own privileges and superiority. That is to say, it will support only the general democratic content within the Kurdish national movement and will not go beyond that.” (İbrahim Kaypakkaya, Collected Works, p.194)

In conclusion, a new process has begun in the context of the Kurdish national question with Abdullah Öcalan’s call. The distinguishing factor of this process compared to previous ones is the new political orientation implemented by the Turkish comprador bourgeoisie under the discourse of “consolidating the internal front.”

For this reason, it must be recognized that this process carries risks not only for the Kurdish National Movement but also for TC fascism. The equation of solution or dissolution is not solely an issue for the Kurdish National Movement but is also a matter of concern for the Turkish state itself.

The fundamental issue here is that the “sharp edge of the arrow” must not be directed at the Kurdish National Movement or Abdullah Öcalan, but at Turkish fascism. The creator and cause of the Kurdish national question is TC fascism, the fascist dictatorship of the Turkish comprador bourgeoisie.

The TC fascism is in a state of crisis. As a result of this crisis, it is seeking “reconciliation” with the Kurdish National Movement. Under these conditions, it is necessary to stand in solidarity with the Kurdish National Movement.

Criticism, of course, is possible and even necessary. However, the primary enemy must not be overlooked, the focus must remain on the revolutionary struggle of the peoples of Turkey, including the Turkish and Kurdish nations, as well as various nationalities and religious communities.

Whether the “Call of the Century” will lead to a solution or dissolution will ultimately be determined by the unfolding process and the struggle itself. This necessitates that the revolutionary democratic opposition does not remain indifferent but actively intervenes in the process.

Referring the solution of the Kurdish national question to revolution under the guise of a “real solution”, invoking the Right to Freely Secede while overlooking the current dynamics of the issue means falling out of touch with the political reality of the present moment. Such an approach is unacceptable from the perspective of the interests of the People’s Democratic Revolution in Turkey. The issue must not be reduced merely to a question of power but must be grasped with ideological clarity.

https://www.tkpml.com

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=17751

#iraq #kurdistan #rojava #tikko #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

Kurdish National Question “The Call of the Century”: Solution or Dissolution? – TKP-ML

First, a brief reminder is necessary. Following the “Al-Aqsa Flood Operation” carried out by the Palestinian National Resistance on October 7, 2023, the Middle East witnessed developments of historical significance. Israel launched military operations first against Gaza and then against Lebanon. Meanwhile, in Syria, the Ba’ath regime collapsed, and power was handed over to the Salafi- jihadist HTS gang.

Contradictions among capitalist-imperialist powers on the international stage escalated into open war with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing wars and conflicts in the Middle East. This situation is reshaping alliances and realignments among the imperialist-capitalist powers based on these contradictions. All sides are preparing for a new war of redivision (the Third Imperialist War of Division).

In the words of Chairman Mao, “there is chaos under the heavens.”

It is unthinkable that these developments would not affect the Turkish state and the ruling Turkish classes. Since its founding, Turkey has been a semi-colonial market for imperialism, and due to its geopolitical position, it has served as a “regional gendarme” for the imperialist powers, making this situation all the more inevitable.

While Turkey’s goals and objectives in Syria are well known, the emergence of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria—led by the Kurdish national movement and encompassing various nationalities and faiths, particularly the Arab nation—has become a critical factor. As this “autonomy” has increasingly gained the prospect of achieving an official status, the ruling Turkish classes have been compelled to develop a new policy on the Kurdish national question.

The Turkish state once again turned to Abdullah Öcalan, whom it has kept under severe isolation on İmralı Island for 26 years. Reports emerged that a process, which was not officially called a “solution process,” had been underway following meetings that apparently began about a year ago. As a result of this process, on February 27, the “İmralı Delegation” announced a call titled “Peace and Democratic Society,” personally written by Öcalan. After the written statement was read in both Kurdish and Turkish, delegation member Sırrı Süreyya Önder shared a note from Öcalan: “While presenting this perspective, it undoubtedly requires the abandonment of arms, the dissolution of the PKK, and the recognition of the legal and political framework for democratic politics.”

These developments have once again brought discussions centered on the Kurdish national question to the forefront. Naturally, the approaches of the “parties” to the process differ drastically. The Kurdish national movement embraced Abdullah Öcalan’s call and announced that guerrilla forces would lay down their arms. It was stated that the Kurdish national movement had no conditions regarding the process. As Sırrı Süreyya Önder from the “İmralı Delegation” put it: “There are no conditions for this. There is neither a precondition nor a condition afterward.” (March 3, 2025)

The stance of the Turkish state’s spokespeople on the process is well known, making it unnecessary to reiterate.

This is not the first time that the Turkish state and the Kurdish national movement have engaged in direct or indirect negotiations on the Kurdish national question. For instance, in 1993, under the initiatives of President Turgut Özal, PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan declared a unilateral ceasefire for the first time on March 20, 1993.

Following Öcalan’s capture on February 15, 1999, as a result of an international conspiracy, he called for another ceasefire, which the PKK declared in September 1999. Along with this, orders were given for the withdrawal of guerrilla forces from Turkish borders. The PKK largely complied with this call, initiating a period of “unilateral inaction” that lasted until 2004.

When the Turkish state failed to take any steps toward a “solution,” the PKK ended its unilateral ceasefire and resumed armed struggle on June 1, 2004. The AKP government launched the so-called “Democratic Initiative” process in 2009 under the name “National Unity and Brotherhood Project.” Talks with Abdullah Öcalan resumed on İmralı Island, and officials from the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) and some AKP representatives held secret meetings with PKK representatives (KCK executives) in Oslo, Europe. These meetings, known as the Oslo Talks, took place between 2009 and 2011.

In December 2012, then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan publicly announced that negotiations were taking place with Öcalan on İmralı. Following this statement, in early 2013, government representatives, led by the Undersecretary of MİT, held discussions with the “İmralı Delegation.” This period, which lasted from 2013 to 2015 and became known as the “solution process” in public discourse, saw the AKP government take legal steps to institutionalize the process. In 2014, a law was passed, the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) established a “Solution Commission,” and the “Wise People Committee” was formed. On March 21, 2013, during the Newroz celebrations in Amed, Öcalan’s letter was read to the public. On February 28,

2015, the İmralı Delegation and representatives of the AKP government held a joint press conference at Dolmabahçe Palace. During this conference, Öcalan’s 10-point negotiation framework was read, and it was announced that Öcalan was calling on the PKK to convene an extraordinary congress in the spring to decide on disarmament. However, in March 2015, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan opposed the Dolmabahçe Agreement, stating that he had not given his approval and declaring, “I do not recognize the agreement.”

Toward the end of 2024, reports surfaced that a new “negotiation” process had taken place between the Turkish state and Abdullah Öcalan. This process was distinct from previous ones in that it was not officially labeled as a “process” and that the details of the meetings were not disclosed to the public. While the Kurdish national movement was reportedly not given any conditions or demands, the Turkish state, on the other hand, made no commitments or concessions. As a result, the nature of this process remains unknown. However, it must be emphasized that the Turkish state’s renewed engagement with Abdullah Öcalan regarding the Kurdish national question is significant. The primary reason for this is the developments unfolding in the Middle East, particularly in Syria. Therefore, it is essential to analyze the Turkish state’s new policy in this context.

Fortifying the “Internal Front”

It is understood that Israel’s aggression, the ongoing process in Syria, and overall developments in the Middle East have pushed the Turkish state toward developing a new policy. The signs of this policy began to appear a year ago. The first indication came when President and AKP Chairman Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated, “When we look at the events we are experiencing today, we can see much more clearly how crucial the internal front is for a nation.” (August 30, 2024). Later, in New York for the 79th United Nations General Assembly, Erdoğan reiterated this emphasis, declaring, “Our internal front objectives are our ‘Kızıl Elma’ (Red Apple).” (September 27, 2024).

Following Erdoğan, MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli also emphasized the “internal front,” stating, “Our primary duty is to fortify our national and spiritual front against a chaotic world. Our internal front, which is being shaken, and our unity and solidarity, which are being threatened with dissolution, cannot be ignored, and we will not allow it.” (October 2, 2024).

As a product of this new political strategy, the process began when MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli shook hands with the DEM Party Group in the Turkish Grand National Assembly on October 1, 2024. On the same day, Bahçeli stated, “We are entering a new era. While calling for peace in the world, we must also ensure peace within our own country.”

That same day, President and AKP Chairman Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, in his speech at the General Assembly, said, “It is now more than a necessity—it is an obligation—to realize that, in the face of Israeli aggression, it is not areas of conflict but areas of reconciliation that must come to the forefront both domestically and internationally.” As a further indication of this new political strategy, on October 22, 2024, Bahçeli declared at an MHP Group Meeting in Parliament, “If the isolation of the leader of the terrorists is lifted, let him come and speak at the DEM Party Group Meeting in Parliament. Let him declare that terrorism has ended completely, and that the organization has been dissolved.” Erdoğan also followed up with a statement: “We hope that the historic window of opportunity opened by the People’s Alliance will not be sacrificed for personal interests.” (October 22, 2024). Following these statements, the “İmralı Delegation” published Abdullah Öcalan’s statement, titled “Peace and Democratic Society,” marking the 26th year of his imprisonment by the Turkish state. As indicated above, although this call was written by Öcalan himself, it appears to be essentially a product of negotiations conducted over the past year between Turkish state officials and Öcalan, ultimately resulting in a certain agreement. Since no official explanation has been provided to the public regarding the nature of these talks or the “agreement” reached, making a concrete assessment is difficult. However, it is understood that in return for the PKK laying down arms and dissolving itself, certain measures have been taken by the Turkish state.

According to publicly available information, negotiations and discussions between the Turkish state and Abdullah Öcalan have been ongoing for the past year. It appears that the Turkish state has conducted this process with Öcalan, whom it has held captive—an inherently problematic and fundamentally unjust situation. Under these conditions, it is necessary to speak of “secret diplomacy.” This, in turn, limits the ability to make an objective assessment of the matter.

Is Öcalan’s Call a Surrender?

First and foremost, it should be noted that it is not unusual for warring parties to engage in negotiations with their enemies, go through “peace processes,” or enter into mutual or unilateral ceasefires. Throughout history, communists and leaders of various national and social liberation movements have taken similar practical steps. These steps must be considered tactical maneuvers serving the goal of revolution and liberation, as long as that goal is not abandoned.

Although Öcalan’s call on February 27, which includes the dissolution of the PKK, signifies a significant political break, it should not be forgotten that this is not the first time he has made such a call. Indeed, Öcalan has previously stated in various declarations and writings that, due to the setbacks experienced in socialism and the collapse of modern revisionist regimes (what Öcalan calls the “collapse of real socialism”), a change in line (which he refers to as a “paradigm shift”) was necessary and that new organizational methods and models should be adopted.

The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) initially emerged as a national movement influenced by Marxism, waging a revolutionary war against the Turkish ruling classes’ policies of national denial and extermination. However, in his statements and defenses following his imprisonment, Öcalan renounced the “Right to Freely Secede” meaning the demand to establish a separate state. Instead, he led the Kurdish National Movement toward what he conceptualized as “Democratic Modernity,” characterized by an “Ecological, Women’s Liberationist, and Democratic Nation Paradigm.”

Öcalan, in his statements and defenses, defined his ideological shift as a “break from real socialism” and distanced himself from the revolutionary-socialist ideas that influenced the founding of the PKK. Instead, he introduced various alternative models, including ecological theories, “post-Marxist” currents, and anarchist tendencies, as a “new organizational model” for the Kurdish National Movement. In this sense, there is nothing truly “new” in Öcalan’s latest declaration.

However, as seen in the recent statement, it appears that even this “paradigm” has now been abandoned. Notably, Öcalan explicitly described the PKK, the organization he led in its foundation, as suffering from “lack of meaning and excessive repetition.” While this remark signifies an important political rupture, it should also be understood as a call to the practical leadership of the Kurdish National Movement to “update its meaning.” In this sense, it would be inaccurate to interpret Öcalan’s position as one of “surrender.” Given his ideological stance, political maneuvering, and pragmatism as a representative of a national movement, this becomes even more significant. Therefore, reducing the issue merely to “liquidationism,” “surrender,” or even “betrayal” would be misleading. It must not be forgotten that the Kurdish nation had rebelled even before the PKK and, with the PKK, sustained its rebellion through a long-term guerrilla war. A national struggle that has endured oppression, bans on its existence and language, and massacres cannot simply be summed up as “surrender” at this stage. Moreover, the Kurdish national question is not confined to Turkey’s Kurdistan alone; it continues to exist in various forms across different parts of Kurdistan.

At this point, the Kurdish national question has surpassed Öcalan’s “paradigm” time and again. The reactions to his statement have further placed the Kurdish nation and the reality of Kurdistan on the global agenda. The primary figure responsible for this situation is none other than Öcalan himself, who has been held in severe isolation on an island for 26 years. Despite all its weaknesses and shortcomings, the uninterrupted struggle of the Kurdish nation, and above all, its armed resistance, has been the determining factor. Even in its current state, the Kurdish National Movement, which began in Turkey’s Kurdistan and later expanded to Iraq, Syria, and Iran’s Kurdistan, has become a subject of not only the Middle East but also global political discourse. This has undoubtedly been shaped by the PKK’s practical leadership and the Kurdish people’s elevation of Öcalan to a symbolic position of “national leadership,” even if not in direct practice.

For this reason, it is problematic to assess the situation based on the premise that, under Öcalan’s leadership, the Kurdish National Movement has surrendered through negotiation and is set to be dissolved, thereby imposing liquidation on the revolutionary movement as a whole. Evaluating the matter solely through this possibility is fundamentally an ideological and political line issue. The Kurdish national question remains one of the primary contradictions in our region. Its resolution, whether through this or that means, or the reduction of its intensity and urgency does not necessarily mean that other contradictions in our region, or indeed the principal contradiction, will also be resolved.

Those who base their entire analysis and critique purely on “surrender” and “liquidation” expose their own ideological and political insecurity. More importantly, they reveal their tendency to link the entire revolutionary process exclusively to the struggle of the oppressed nation, disregarding the broader class struggle.

Like any national movement, the Kurdish National Movement can, of course, reach agreements and compromises with the enemy it fights against. This possibility has existed since the moment the national movement emerged, and at certain stages of the war, it is understandable for the movement to acknowledge and highlight this possibility as a tactical consideration. However, continuously focusing on this possibility as the primary issue reflects a problematic approach. What must remain uncompromising are not possibilities but principles. It is essential to be unwavering in principles while maintaining flexibility in formulating policies according to concrete conditions.

Principle: The Right to Freely Secede

First and foremost, it is problematic that a fundamental right such as the Right to Freely Secede, which arises from the very existence of an oppressed nation, is being renounced, especially when this renunciation is expressed by a single individual (Öcalan) under conditions of captivity. Furthermore, criminalizing the legitimate and just foundation upon which the struggle of the oppressed nation stands, while proposing a compromise (or agreement) with the ruling- class bourgeoisie of the oppressor nation, does not change the reality that the Kurdish nation in Turkey remains an oppressed nation.

Another problematic aspect of Öcalan’s statement is his emphasis on the so- called “shared destiny of Turks and Kurds.” This rhetoric is frequently used by the representatives of the oppressor nation. Phrases like “brotherhood” and “we are like flesh and bone” serve only to obscure and legitimize the oppression exerted by the dominant nation over the oppressed one. True fraternity between nations can only be discussed once full national equality is recognized. Therefore, the real issue is not about renewing and strengthening a so-called “Turkish-Kurdish alliance” but rather about putting an end to the historical injustices imposed on the Kurdish nation.

The Kurds in Turkey exist as a nation and are subjected to national oppression by the dominant nation. Changes in the form or methods of this oppression— whether its intensity increases or decreases—do not negate the fact that the Kurds are a nation. Nor does it invalidate their legitimate and just democratic demands, above all, their Right to Freely Secede, which stems from their status as a nation.

In general, the national question, and specifically the Kurdish national question, is ultimately a matter of rights and status. As the term itself suggests, it is not solely a problem to be resolved on a class basis. While its ultimate resolution is tied to class struggle, this does not prevent it from producing various intermediate “solutions” along the way. In the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, some national questions have, in one way or another, been “resolved” through imperialist intervention.

The demand for statehood, which is at the core of the national question in terms of securing national rights and establishing an independent economic space, can take different forms. It may evolve into arrangements such as autonomy or federation, as seen in various historical examples. Indeed, the establishment of collective cultural rights, political status, and organizational structures, particularly concerning language, constitutes an advanced stage from the perspective of national criteria. In this sense, it represents a shift in status. Furthermore, these demands are the democratic demands of the oppressed national bourgeoisie against the ruling-class bourgeoisie of the oppressor nation. The possibility that these demands may be instrumentalized by imperialism or co-opted for other interests does not invalidate their democratic content. In our specific case, the solution to the Kurdish national question lies in the fulfillment of the Kurdish nation’s national-collective rights, including the right to secede, federation, autonomy, and cultural rights. Renouncing or refusing to demand these national-collective rights does not mean that the Kurdish national question has been resolved, nor does it indicate that the contradiction between the oppressor and oppressed nations has disappeared.

For this reason, in Öcalan’s “Call for Peace and Democratic Society,” he states that “the inevitable consequence of an excessively nationalist drift, such as the creation of a separate nation-state, federation, administrative autonomy, and culturalist solutions, fails to provide an answer to the sociology of historical society.” While this statement points to a deadlock in solving the national question, it also implicitly accepts the Turkish nation’s privilege of statehood while rejecting, even in the bourgeois-democratic sense, the Kurdish nation’s right to establish an independent state, which stems from its status as a nation. Such a view is, of course, unacceptable to communists.

In Turkey, the Kurdish national question remains unresolved. It continues with all its intensity. Contrary to Öcalan’s claims, the issue of the Kurdish nation’s national rights in Turkey persists.

Has the Era of Armed Struggle Ended?

On the other hand, it is necessary to point out the following reality: when it comes to resolving the Kurdish national question, caution is needed against narratives that can be formulated as “laying down arms and opening the political channel” narratives that have also found resonance within the ranks of the Kurdish movement. While it is understandable for those on the side of the oppressor nation to promote such narratives, they hold no real value for the proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the world. After all, “if a people have no army, they have nothing!” This is another principle.

Of course, “democratic political struggle instead of armed struggle” is a choice. However, whether the conditions exist for such a choice is decisive. Under current circumstances in Turkey, leaving aside the well-known obstacles to “democratic political struggle,” even the slightest crumbs of bourgeois democracy are no longer tolerated. In Turkey, the conditions for “democratic politics” have always existed on paper, but in practice, they have no real foundation. Fascism is not simply a form of government; it is the very mode of governance and the essence of politics itself. For this reason, even the slightest demand for rights or any democratic and revolutionary struggle is met with fascist terror. In the recent period, under the so-called “Presidential System,” the AKP-MHP fascism has imposed a policy of fascist repression against all democratic demands, including freedom of expression. One of those who have experienced this reality most acutely is the Kurdish national.

It must not be forgotten that the Kurdish National Movement resorted to armed struggle because there was no path for democratic struggle, as denial and annihilation were imposed upon it. This was not merely a choice but a necessity under the conditions of Turkey and Turkish Kurdistan. There have been Kurdish national movements that did not take up arms, yet they too could not escape the heavy repression of fascism. This reality, just as it was in the past, remains valid today. The presence of certain changes does not mean that fascism has been eliminated or that contradictions, particularly the Kurdish national question, have been resolved.

On the other hand, the propaganda that equates armed struggle with a lack of political strategy under the guise of “solution” and “peace” is fundamentally flawed. Armed struggle is, in itself, a form of politics. For years, those who have made political arguments under the pretense of criticizing armed struggle, despite acknowledging the justified assertion of “the role of force in Kurdistan,” cannot erase the fact that armed struggle is also a political struggle.

The search for reconciliation with fascism leads to unfounded theories such as “armed struggle is not political struggle” and even that “armed struggle hinders democratic struggle.” As practice has consistently demonstrated, “War is the continuation of politics by other means.” The rejection of this reality by its practitioner’s points to their ideological stance and their current decision to conduct politics through different means.

Moreover, the assertion that “the era of armed struggle has ended” can only be a dream in today’s conditions, where preparations for a new imperialist war of division are underway, especially in the Middle East. Furthermore, the process has repeatedly invalidated Öcalan’s statement that “the era of armed struggle has ended.” For instance, while Öcalan made this declaration in 2013, at the same time, the Kurdish nation was achieving successes through a life-and-death armed struggle against ISIS in Rojava. Additionally, it is evident that currently, in Rojava, there is no other option but to respond with armed resistance to the direct attacks of Turkey and its proxy groups. As these realities have consistently proven, not only has “the era of armed struggle” not ended, but especially under Middle Eastern conditions, it is clear that it remains a necessity. Truths are revolutionary, and the era of armed struggle has not ended. In the current situation of the imperialist capitalist system, with signs of a new war of division emerging, and in today’s reality where the world is increasingly arming itself under the guise of “defense,” theories suggesting that the era of armed struggle has ended for the proletariat, oppressed peoples, and nations of the world are, in the broadest sense, equivalent to disarming the oppressed and are, of course, unacceptable.

Is a “Democratic Society” Possible Under Conditions of Fascism?

In his statement, Abdullah Öcalan discusses Turkish-Kurdish relations, speaks of a “spirit of brotherhood,” and proposes “democratic society” and “democratic reconciliation” as the fundamental methods for a solution. However, under capitalism, there is no democracy that is independent of or above class structures. Every class has its own understanding of democracy and implements it accordingly. Therefore, a “democratic society” or “democracy” cannot truly be realized within a capitalist system dominated by the bourgeoisie. Real people’s democracy and a democratic society can only exist under a people’s state, where the people hold power.

Expecting a “democratic society” from the Turkish state is an illusion. The fundamental approach is flawed from the outset. Even as the call for a “democratic society” is made, the reality remains that the process is being carried out behind closed doors. Without a comprehensive public explanation of what is happening, even the possibility of a “democratic discussion” is out of the question. Moreover, one of the parties involved is under severe isolation. Before anything else, the heavy isolation imposed on Öcalan must be lifted, and he must be freed. If the goal is truly a democratic society, then at the very least, Öcalan must be provided with the conditions to work freely and be allowed unrestricted communication with his organization.

Öcalan justifies his call for the dissolution of the PKK and the laying down of arms by arguing that in Turkey, “the denial of identity has been resolved” and “progress has been made in freedom of expression.” However, it is evident to all that no fundamental progress has actually been made in these areas. The so- called “recognition” of the existence of Kurds is, at best, a superficial acknowledgment. Even this limited recognition was only achieved through a struggle that cost countless lives. Therefore, it is clear that this does not correspond to any concrete status in terms of resolving the national question. Moreover, at this stage, the situation regarding freedom of expression is so stark that it leaves no room for debate.

The point that A. Öcalan overlooks or rather misjudges because he fails to approach the issue from a class perspective — is the root of the national question in general, and the Kurdish national question in particular. The Kurdish national question cannot be reduced to issues of identity denial and freedom of expression, nor is the Kurdish nation itself the source of this problem. The problem lies in the national oppression imposed on the Kurdish nation. This oppression is not only directed at the Kurdish people in general but affects the entire Kurdish nation—except for a handful of large feudal landlords and a few big bourgeois figures who have fully integrated with the Turkish ruling classes. Kurdish workers, peasants, the urban petty bourgeoisie, and small landowners all continue to suffer from national oppression. As a result of the Kurdish nation’s struggle, certain concessions have been made in the national oppression policy of the dominant nation, yet the policy of national oppression continues uninterrupted. The Kurdish national question remains unresolved. In our region, resolving the Kurdish national question remains one of the tasks of the People’s Democratic Revolution. Under conditions of fascism, it is impossible to achieve a revolutionary resolution of the Kurdish national question. However, as a result of revolutionary-democratic struggle, certain steps may be taken. Supporting progressive steps that contribute to resolving the Kurdish national question and other major contradictions in Turkey and Turkish Kurdistan, while integrating these reforms into the revolutionary struggle, is not incorrect.

However, propagating reforms as a solution, and even more so, claiming that under current conditions the Kurdish nation has exercised its right to self- determination, is entirely misleading. Öcalan, in his statement, argues that “there is no non-democratic path for system-building and implementation. There cannot be. Democratic reconciliation is the fundamental method.” In today’s world, within the reality of class society, this view is fundamentally flawed. Within the reality of class divisions, the concept of democracy is also class- based.The imperialist capitalist world order, which is built upon the system of private property, and the reality of the state in Turkey and Turkish Kurdistan, prove that the state is nothing more than “an instrument of one class’s oppression over another.” Even bourgeois democracies have become increasingly questionable under current conditions.

From its very foundation, bourgeois democracy in Turkey and Turkish Kurdistan has had a fascist character. “Our country has never truly experienced real bourgeois democracy; it has only tasted some of its crumbs.” (İK, Collected Works, Nisan Yayımcılık).

Thus, setting aside other contradictions, the emergence of the Kurdish national question and the policy of national oppression imposed on the Kurdish nation have been carried out under the guise of “democracy.”

The emancipation, freedom, and independence of the Turkish working class, the laboring people, and the Kurdish nation cannot be achieved within the system or through its so-called democracy. The struggle for liberation of the peoples from the Turkish and Kurdish nations, as well as various other nationalities and faiths, does not depend on “democratic reconciliation” but rather necessitates methods and tools of struggle outside the system.This is not a matter of choice but a historical necessity.

TC (Turkish Republic) Fascism Must Be Targeted!

At this stage, the Turkish state, which once labeled Öcalan as a “terrorist leader,” now presents him as a figure advocating peace and seeking a solution. Although the state’s media propaganda will frame this process as the “elimination of terrorism,” at the same time, discussions will emerge both domestically and internationally about the obligations of the Turkish state, democratization, and the steps it must take.

Indeed, in the note conveyed to the public by Sırrı Süreyya Önder—though absent from Öcalan’s official statement (likely because the Turkish state did not permit it to be included), Öcalan outlines what the Turkish state must do in return for the “agreement” reached. He points to legal and constitutional changes that would secure the political rights of the Kurdish nation, emphasizing that the process of disarmament and the dissolution of the PKK should be synchronized with democratic legal reforms within the country. These demands, within the conditions of fascism, are undeniably “progressive” and “democratic.” Whether they will be implemented is another matter entirely.

Regardless of the calculations of Turkish fascism, these demands must be supported and defended.

In general, regarding the national question, and specifically the Kurdish national question, the class-conscious proletariat holds a clear stance. It is worth reiterating:

“..Regardless of nationality, the class-conscious Turkish proletariat will unconditionally and unequivocally support the general democratic content of

the Kurdish national movement that targets the oppression, tyranny, and privileges of the Turkish ruling classes, seeks to abolish all forms of national oppression, and aims for the equality of nations. It will likewise unconditionally and unequivocally support the movements of other oppressed nationalities in the same direction.

…Regardless of nationality, the class-conscious Turkish proletariat will remain entirely neutral in the struggles waged by the bourgeoisie and landlords of various nationalities for their own superiority and privileges. The class- conscious Turkish proletariat will never support tendencies within the Kurdish national movement that seek to strengthen Kurdish nationalism; it will never assist bourgeois nationalism; it will never support the struggles of Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords to secure their own privileges and superiority. That is to say, it will support only the general democratic content within the Kurdish national movement and will not go beyond that.” (İbrahim Kaypakkaya, Collected Works, p.194)

In conclusion, a new process has begun in the context of the Kurdish national question with Abdullah Öcalan’s call. The distinguishing factor of this process compared to previous ones is the new political orientation implemented by the Turkish comprador bourgeoisie under the discourse of “consolidating the internal front.”

For this reason, it must be recognized that this process carries risks not only for the Kurdish National Movement but also for TC fascism. The equation of solution or dissolution is not solely an issue for the Kurdish National Movement but is also a matter of concern for the Turkish state itself.

The fundamental issue here is that the “sharp edge of the arrow” must not be directed at the Kurdish National Movement or Abdullah Öcalan, but at Turkish fascism. The creator and cause of the Kurdish national question is TC fascism, the fascist dictatorship of the Turkish comprador bourgeoisie.

The TC fascism is in a state of crisis. As a result of this crisis, it is seeking “reconciliation” with the Kurdish National Movement. Under these conditions, it is necessary to stand in solidarity with the Kurdish National Movement.

Criticism, of course, is possible and even necessary. However, the primary enemy must not be overlooked, the focus must remain on the revolutionary struggle of the peoples of Turkey, including the Turkish and Kurdish nations, as well as various nationalities and religious communities.

Whether the “Call of the Century” will lead to a solution or dissolution will ultimately be determined by the unfolding process and the struggle itself. This necessitates that the revolutionary democratic opposition does not remain indifferent but actively intervenes in the process.

Referring the solution of the Kurdish national question to revolution under the guise of a “real solution”, invoking the Right to Freely Secede while overlooking the current dynamics of the issue means falling out of touch with the political reality of the present moment. Such an approach is unacceptable from the perspective of the interests of the People’s Democratic Revolution in Turkey. The issue must not be reduced merely to a question of power but must be grasped with ideological clarity.

https://www.tkpml.com

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=17751

#iraq #kurdistan #rojava #tikko #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

TKP-ML KKB: With the Struggle We Have Woven and Organized with Our Labor, Let Us Uproot and Destroy the Patriarchal System!

With the Struggle We Have Woven and Organized with Our Labor, Let Us Uproot and Destroy the Patriarchal System!

Today, as millions of women across the world, we once again mark March 8, International Working Women’s Day, as a crucial milestone in our struggle for freedom, defending our labor, our rights, and our human dignity. For March 8 is not a celebration but a vital tool for advancing our struggle towards liberation—especially at a time when the fascist dictatorship in our country intensifies its exploitation and oppression, when imperialist aggression and the devastating consequences of wars escalate, and when our bodies and labor are subjected to ever-increasing forms of repression.

Imperialism, just as it oppresses the peoples of the world, crushes working women in a vicious cycle of exploitation and violence. Neoliberal policies, wars raging across the globe, unemployment, poverty, and environmental disasters systematically impoverish women, steal their lives, and condemn them to slavery. Today, women around the world are not only victims of economic crises but also of wars. According to United Nations data, women in countries affected by war, occupation, and conflict suffer 70% more victimization. The barbaric attacks women face in war, sexual violence, rape, and enslavement, stand before us as the most savage face of imperialism.

We, as women, are not only the victims of wars but also those who bear their heaviest burdens. We are the ones displaced from our homes and lands, subjected to torture and violence, forced to live in misery as migrants, cast out socially and economically, and devastated in every possible way. Let us not forget: the ever-growing number of migrant and refugee women is a direct consequence of the destruction wrought by wars and capitalism.

Imperialism does not only make us women the victims of wars and economic crises, but it is also the very system that exploits women and sustains their status as second-class citizens. Today, also women in Turkey are deeply affected by the destructive effects of this global order. The country’s economic crisis, unemployment, inflation, and precarious working conditions disproportionately target women and LGBTQ+ individuals. While the female labor force participation rate in Turkey hovers around 30%, this figure not only highlights the exclusion of women from the workforce but also exposes the extent of workplace discrimination they face. Women are subjected to wage inequality, job insecurity, and a concentration in low-paid jobs, leading to the ruthless exploitation of their labor. Meanwhile, the AKP-MHP government, which erects police barricades to protect bosses against every worker’s strike and action demanding rights, does everything in its power to crush our struggle.

But this is not all. In recent years, there has been a severe regression in women’s and LGBTQ+ rights in Turkey. Patriarchal control over women’s bodies has intensified, and since the government’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention in 2021, the AKP has been systematically weakening laws against gender-based violence under the guise of “protecting the family,” further increasing women’s insecurity. Violence against women has become a daily reality, often culminating in femicides, while the state and judiciary’s stance has only reinforced this culture of violence.

The declaration of this year as the “year of the family” signals that this state of insecurity will only deepen further. Last year, 68% of femicides were committed by a former or current husband or partner, making it clear that the family itself is a fundamental security threat for women. The ongoing attempts to abolish our already inadequate and poorly enforced alimony rights are yet another means of trapping us within the prison called the “family.”

At the same time, the hard-won rights over our own bodies continue to be attacked through anti-women legislation. Our right to abortion has been under severe threat in recent years, and the AKP government’s rhetoric about restricting abortion is nothing but an attempt to strip us of the right to make decisions over our own bodies.

“We Will Win Through Organized Struggle!”

The aggressive policies of imperialism, the growing threat of war, and the worsening economic and social conditions of women and LGBTQ+ individuals in our country call on all of us to organize, unite in solidarity, and fight back.

Despite this bleak reality, the women’s struggle must raise its voice in every sphere, from the streets to the factories, from schools to workplaces. We must organize more every day, expand the resistance, and wage an uncompromising fight against the patriarchal system. And we must do this not only for our own rights but for the true liberation of the working class and the oppressed masses.

Throughout history, we have resisted, fought, and won victories! Now, as women from Turkey and all around the world, let us once again raise the banner of our struggle even higher and proclaim our fight for equality, freedom, and justice.

The struggle ignited in 1857 by the textile women workers in New York, at the cost of their lives, continues and will continue in every corner of the world!

Long live International Women’s Solidarity!

We will fight, and we will win against Imperialist war threats, Fascism, Racism, Poverty, and Patriarchy!

Long live our party TKP-ML and KKB

TKP-ML KKB

March 2025

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=17474

#feminism #guerrilla #iraq #kurdistan #resistance #rojava #syria #tikko #tkpMl #turkey

TKP-ML KKB: With the Struggle We Have Woven and Organized with Our Labor, Let Us Uproot and Destroy the Patriarchal System!

With the Struggle We Have Woven and Organized with Our Labor, Let Us Uproot and Destroy the Patriarchal System!

Today, as millions of women across the world, we once again mark March 8, International Working Women’s Day, as a crucial milestone in our struggle for freedom, defending our labor, our rights, and our human dignity. For March 8 is not a celebration but a vital tool for advancing our struggle towards liberation—especially at a time when the fascist dictatorship in our country intensifies its exploitation and oppression, when imperialist aggression and the devastating consequences of wars escalate, and when our bodies and labor are subjected to ever-increasing forms of repression.

Imperialism, just as it oppresses the peoples of the world, crushes working women in a vicious cycle of exploitation and violence. Neoliberal policies, wars raging across the globe, unemployment, poverty, and environmental disasters systematically impoverish women, steal their lives, and condemn them to slavery. Today, women around the world are not only victims of economic crises but also of wars. According to United Nations data, women in countries affected by war, occupation, and conflict suffer 70% more victimization. The barbaric attacks women face in war, sexual violence, rape, and enslavement, stand before us as the most savage face of imperialism.

We, as women, are not only the victims of wars but also those who bear their heaviest burdens. We are the ones displaced from our homes and lands, subjected to torture and violence, forced to live in misery as migrants, cast out socially and economically, and devastated in every possible way. Let us not forget: the ever-growing number of migrant and refugee women is a direct consequence of the destruction wrought by wars and capitalism.

Imperialism does not only make us women the victims of wars and economic crises, but it is also the very system that exploits women and sustains their status as second-class citizens. Today, also women in Turkey are deeply affected by the destructive effects of this global order. The country’s economic crisis, unemployment, inflation, and precarious working conditions disproportionately target women and LGBTQ+ individuals. While the female labor force participation rate in Turkey hovers around 30%, this figure not only highlights the exclusion of women from the workforce but also exposes the extent of workplace discrimination they face. Women are subjected to wage inequality, job insecurity, and a concentration in low-paid jobs, leading to the ruthless exploitation of their labor. Meanwhile, the AKP-MHP government, which erects police barricades to protect bosses against every worker’s strike and action demanding rights, does everything in its power to crush our struggle.

But this is not all. In recent years, there has been a severe regression in women’s and LGBTQ+ rights in Turkey. Patriarchal control over women’s bodies has intensified, and since the government’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention in 2021, the AKP has been systematically weakening laws against gender-based violence under the guise of “protecting the family,” further increasing women’s insecurity. Violence against women has become a daily reality, often culminating in femicides, while the state and judiciary’s stance has only reinforced this culture of violence.

The declaration of this year as the “year of the family” signals that this state of insecurity will only deepen further. Last year, 68% of femicides were committed by a former or current husband or partner, making it clear that the family itself is a fundamental security threat for women. The ongoing attempts to abolish our already inadequate and poorly enforced alimony rights are yet another means of trapping us within the prison called the “family.”

At the same time, the hard-won rights over our own bodies continue to be attacked through anti-women legislation. Our right to abortion has been under severe threat in recent years, and the AKP government’s rhetoric about restricting abortion is nothing but an attempt to strip us of the right to make decisions over our own bodies.

“We Will Win Through Organized Struggle!”

The aggressive policies of imperialism, the growing threat of war, and the worsening economic and social conditions of women and LGBTQ+ individuals in our country call on all of us to organize, unite in solidarity, and fight back.

Despite this bleak reality, the women’s struggle must raise its voice in every sphere, from the streets to the factories, from schools to workplaces. We must organize more every day, expand the resistance, and wage an uncompromising fight against the patriarchal system. And we must do this not only for our own rights but for the true liberation of the working class and the oppressed masses.

Throughout history, we have resisted, fought, and won victories! Now, as women from Turkey and all around the world, let us once again raise the banner of our struggle even higher and proclaim our fight for equality, freedom, and justice.

The struggle ignited in 1857 by the textile women workers in New York, at the cost of their lives, continues and will continue in every corner of the world!

Long live International Women’s Solidarity!

We will fight, and we will win against Imperialist war threats, Fascism, Racism, Poverty, and Patriarchy!

Long live our party TKP-ML and KKB

TKP-ML KKB

March 2025

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=17474

#feminism #guerrilla #iraq #kurdistan #resistance #rojava #syria #tikko #tkpMl #turkey

TKP-ML International Bureau: PFLP Leader Ebu Ahmed Fuad İmmortalized

PFLP Leader Ebu Ahmed Fuad İmmortalized

It is with profound sadness that we mourn the loss of Comrade Davud Maraga (Ebu Ahmed Fuad), a revolutionary icon, former Deputy Secretary-General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and a steadfast leader of the Palestinian struggle. Ebu Ahmed Fuad’s entire life was a testament to resistance, shaped by his unwavering dedication to justice, liberation, and the defeat of Zionist colonialism. He embodied the principles of resilience and self-sacrifice, leaving behind a rich legacy that will inspire generations of revolutionaries to come.

Born in 1942 in the Silvan neighborhood of occupied Jerusalem, Ebu Ahmed Fuad grew up in a family deeply rooted in the love of Palestine and defiance of occupation. His revolutionary ideals crystallized in his youth as he became part of the Arab Nationalist Movement, which laid the foundation for his lifelong fight against imperialism. As one of the founding members of the PFLP in 1967, alongside Comrade George Habash, he played a vital role in building the political and military capabilities of the Palestinian resistance.

Throughout his journey, Ebu Ahmed Fuad remained committed to the principles of unity and resistance, consistently advocating for armed struggle as a cornerstone of liberation. Even as he assumed political leadership roles within the PFLP, he stayed true to the ideals of revolutionary solidarity. In his later years, he became a leading figure in national dialogues, emphasizing the need for unity among Palestinians to confront occupation and imperialism.

In his final months, despite battling illness, Ebu Ahmed Fuad remained deeply connected to the struggle, following the developments in Gaza and reaffirming his faith in the inevitability of victory through resistance. For him, Gaza’s resilience symbolized the unbreakable spirit of the Palestinian people and their capacity to challenge Zionist domination.

Ebu Ahmed Fuad’s life was one of extraordinary courage and purpose. His legacy is not only a reminder of what has been achieved but a call to continue the struggle until Palestine is free. While his loss is deeply felt, his example will remain a beacon for all who fight for justice and liberation.

We express our sorrow and condolences to the leadership, members, fighters, family and comrades of the PFLP

TKP-ML International Bureau

January 2025

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=13981

#guerrilla #hbdh #kurdistan #pkk #resistance #tkpMl #westAsia

TKP-ML International Bureau: PFLP Leader Ebu Ahmed Fuad İmmortalized

PFLP Leader Ebu Ahmed Fuad İmmortalized

It is with profound sadness that we mourn the loss of Comrade Davud Maraga (Ebu Ahmed Fuad), a revolutionary icon, former Deputy Secretary-General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and a steadfast leader of the Palestinian struggle. Ebu Ahmed Fuad’s entire life was a testament to resistance, shaped by his unwavering dedication to justice, liberation, and the defeat of Zionist colonialism. He embodied the principles of resilience and self-sacrifice, leaving behind a rich legacy that will inspire generations of revolutionaries to come.

Born in 1942 in the Silvan neighborhood of occupied Jerusalem, Ebu Ahmed Fuad grew up in a family deeply rooted in the love of Palestine and defiance of occupation. His revolutionary ideals crystallized in his youth as he became part of the Arab Nationalist Movement, which laid the foundation for his lifelong fight against imperialism. As one of the founding members of the PFLP in 1967, alongside Comrade George Habash, he played a vital role in building the political and military capabilities of the Palestinian resistance.

Throughout his journey, Ebu Ahmed Fuad remained committed to the principles of unity and resistance, consistently advocating for armed struggle as a cornerstone of liberation. Even as he assumed political leadership roles within the PFLP, he stayed true to the ideals of revolutionary solidarity. In his later years, he became a leading figure in national dialogues, emphasizing the need for unity among Palestinians to confront occupation and imperialism.

In his final months, despite battling illness, Ebu Ahmed Fuad remained deeply connected to the struggle, following the developments in Gaza and reaffirming his faith in the inevitability of victory through resistance. For him, Gaza’s resilience symbolized the unbreakable spirit of the Palestinian people and their capacity to challenge Zionist domination.

Ebu Ahmed Fuad’s life was one of extraordinary courage and purpose. His legacy is not only a reminder of what has been achieved but a call to continue the struggle until Palestine is free. While his loss is deeply felt, his example will remain a beacon for all who fight for justice and liberation.

We express our sorrow and condolences to the leadership, members, fighters, family and comrades of the PFLP

TKP-ML International Bureau

January 2025

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=13981

#guerrilla #hbdh #kurdistan #pkk #resistance #tkpMl #westAsia

General Situation in the World, Our Duties, and the Situation in Turkey: TKP-ML

GENERAL SITUATION IN THE WORLD OUR DUTIES

AND

THE SITUATION IN TURKEY

[Explanation: This document is the short decisions of the TKP-ML 2nd Congress ‘Situation in the World and in Turkey’ agenda. The document was published under the title ‘General Situation in the World and Our Tasks’ in the Communist 78th issue, the party organ of the TKP-ML, as ‘Decision: 19’ and again “Situation in Turkey” with the title “Decision: 20” was published as. We publish the document as a brochure. Ed.]

Contents
GENERAL SITUATION IN THE WORLD AND OUR DUTIES
Contradictions between imperialists deepen
General Picture Among Imperialists
Africa in the Fight for the Redistribution of Markets
Ukraine: Unceasing Conflict and Destruction
New searches in the sharing dispute
Bandits at Work in the US ‘Backyard’
Middle East and Caucasus: ‘Divide and Rule!’
Palestinian Resistance Continues
EU’s Competitiveness Weakens
The Danger of War and the EU
The State of the Revolutionary and Communist Movement
Conclusion

SITUATION IN TURKEY

General Situation of the Working Class
The Working Class: Fighting Tendency under Attack
The State of the Revolutionary and Communist Movement
The Situation of the Kurdish National Freedom Movement

The General Situation In The World And Our Tasks

Developments in the world are becoming increasingly complex and conflictual, and the contradictions between the oppressors and the oppressed are deepening. It does not seem possible to prevent this situation from turning into conflicts based on class antagonism. The military, political, economic and social policies implemented by the imperialists and their collaborators to suppress the just and legitimate struggles of the peoples of the world and oppressed nations cannot produce the desired results in the short and long term. Because the periodically deepening crises of imperialist capitalism create an objective ground for class-based conflicts.

Today, a handful of rich people, numbering in the hundreds, hold a significant portion of the world’s wealth. And every time there is a crisis, this parasitic minority adds to their wealth. On the other hand, the purchasing power of workers and laborers is decreasing day by day.

In a world where the gap between the exploiters and the exploited is so deepening, it is inevitable that the slogan “no bread, no peace” will become a current phenomenon. Regional conflicts and spontaneous mass movements in different continents of our globe are the result of this objective picture.

At the First Congress of our Party, the following assessment of the situation in the world was made: “Our world is under the yoke of the imperialist-capitalist system. The imperialists direct the world both through the countries they dominate and through their collaborators in dependent countries. This system as a whole is solely responsible for all internal and regional wars in the world. Likewise, the imperialist system is also responsible for migration in the world, the mass deaths caused by it and all the suffering. Just as it is the only one responsible for hunger, poverty and unemployment. On the other hand, for the sake of profit, the imperialists are rapidly dragging the world towards an ecological disaster. In a rapidly desertifying world, water reserves are being depleted, agricultural land is disappearing, forests are being depleted, marine species are dwindling, bird and animal species are disappearing. In short, the world can only be saved by the radical overthrow of the imperialist system”.

In the intervening period, the politics of aggression has continued along with the deepening crisis of the capitalist-imperialist system. The exploitative-destructive policies in the economic sphere have led to an avalanche of unemployment and deepened poverty.

In order to grasp more accurately the destructive-crushing nature of this exploitative system, let us recall the following historical analysis: “Capitalism has become a universal system of colonial oppression, a system in which a handful of ‘advanced’ countries financially strangle the vast majority of the world’s population. And this ‘booty’ is divided between two or three of the most powerful monsters (America, Britain, Japan), armed to the teeth, dragging the whole world into their wars in order to share their own booty.” (Lenin, Imperialism, Preface, p. 11)

Every moment of the more than a hundred years that have passed confirms these scientific determinations about the nature of the capitalist-imperialist system. Everything is developing and changing. The exploitative system is also changing in itself. But this change is never about its exploitative, destructive essence. During this time, there have been many sold-out pens trying to dress the imperialist monsters in angel shirts. But all these efforts only found a place in the dustbin of history in the face of reality. Of course, in the ongoing rivalry between the imperialist monsters, in the war of redistribution of the “spoils”, there have been those who have fallen back and even lost. But they were replaced by new imperialist monsters.

At the present stage, the world is divided into two main imperialist camps. The US-UK and European imperialists on the one hand, and the Chinese and Russian imperialists on the other. The only thing that has changed is the position of the imperialist monsters. Because the imperialist monsters continue to shed blood in every part of our globe, especially in Asia and Africa, for the redistribution of markets, and to deepen the picture of poverty and misery for the oppressed.

Imperialism and world reaction are responsible for the unjust wars and poverty. The imperialist bandits and the reactionary-fascist states that fight for their interests are the creators of the unjust wars that continue today in different parts of the world, especially in Asia and Africa, and cost the lives of tens of thousands of people. For example, we cannot consider the internal conflicts in Syria and Ukraine independently of the regional interests of the imperialists of the USA, Britain, Europe, China and Russia. Therefore, all those who are in favor of democracy and freedom in the real sense of the word, have to fight against imperialist aggression and their reactionary, fascist and collaborationist governments. Because the freedom of the peoples of the world and the oppressed nations passes through the anti-imperialist anti-fascist struggle.

In the first quarter of the 21st century, the imperialists, who still talk about “peace” and “democracy”, are the creators of two major world wars as well as many regional wars in the 20th century. While these wars waged by the imperialists cost the lives of millions of people, the masses of the people have realized the necessity to struggle against the imperialist policy of aggression and war. Undoubtedly, the imperialists and their ideological extensions within the “left” have struggled to weaken this rising anti-imperialist consciousness through modern revisionists who betrayed the cause of revolution and socialism. At every opportunity, the modern revisionists tried to cover up the policy of imperialist aggression with false “peace” rhetoric. But they did not/cannot succeed in this. Just like in the 20th century, the danger of a new imperialist war continues in the 21st century. No matter how much the imperialists talk about world “peace”, they cannot cover up the fact that they are arsonists of unjust wars.

Today, the communist parties in the capitalist-imperialist centers face the historical duty and responsibility to raise the consciousness of the workers and laborers against all the regional conflicts and occupations that the imperialists create and provoke in different parts of our globe. The mass dimension of the struggle in these centers against this policy of aggression can prevent the policies of occupation and conflict of the imperialists from being limited to regional levels and gaining a more general dimension. In this sense, the establishment of anti-imperialist unions against imperialist aggression at both the general and regional levels is a task that cannot be postponed.

Contradictions between Imperialists Deepen

The crisis of the capitalist-imperialist system continues. The effects of this structural crisis, which continues as a result of overproduction, are deeply felt not only in dependent countries but also in imperialist centers. Mass unemployment, budget deficits, increasing debts, regional invasions and conflicts arising from market competition, etc. In short, the system, which has difficulty in reproducing itself, is looking for a way out by means of force.

First of all, the competition between imperialists and the existing contradictions are based on the fact of dominating the markets. Therefore, in the relations between imperialists, the state of contradiction and conflict is constant. Of course, compromises are also made between some imperialist powers on the basis of blocs. In the 20th century, some of the economic and military alliances formed by the US, UK and EU imperialists against the Soviet Union or the socialist camp in general are still continuing. Despite the disintegration of the socialist camp after the betrayal of the modern revisionists, the IMF and the World Bank economically and NATO militarily still exist. US imperialism, together with Britain, is the main actor of these imperialist powers, although its former hegemonic power has weakened somewhat. It is forming new military and economic alliances on different continents against the Shanghai Cooperation Organization led by the imperialists of Russia and China. The US is resorting to all kinds of measures to narrow the sphere of action of China, which is expanding especially in the Asia Pacific. The “Trilateral Partnership” with Japan and South Korea is a product of this approach. All efforts to expand NATO, a war organization, are also based on this axis.

General Picture Among Imperialists

The US wants to encircle China with a wide arc from India to Japan. However, it has not been able to get India to accept this. Therefore, it is now trying to build a military front stretching from Australia to Japan-South Korea. For this purpose, it wants to expand the AUKUS (Australia, the US and the UK) with New Zealand, to make Japan and South Korea allies, and to establish partnerships that will allow it to build bases in the Pacific Islands as a link between these two clusters.

On the other side, there is India, which “refuses” to be integrated into the US strategy; the US’s refusal to form a trilateral alliance with Japan and South Korea, and instead settling for a trilateral partnership; New Zealand’s refusal to accept the ICCPR; and the opposition of the majority of the Pacific Islands to the transformation of the region into a geo-political force field.

In sum, the US has been making moves in the Asia-Pacific in order to maintain its “colonial order whose rules are written by the US”, but has not been able to achieve the desired results due to its weakening hegemony. However, the US is trying to create new blocs against China, North Korea and Russia at every opportunity. Because it cannot maintain its old hegemonic power in many areas, especially in the Middle East, and wants to encircle China with new alliance forces, especially by putting barriers against China’s economic expansionism. However, the fact that India is not yet part of this US project and the alliance between China and Russia weakens the US moves in the Middle East, Asia Pacific and Africa. All these developments indicate that the rivalry between imperialists and regional conflicts will continue.

In parallel with these developments, expenditures on armament continues to increase. US imperialism leads this race. Undoubtedly, other imperialist powers such as China, Japan, Britain, France etc. are also in the race.

The efforts of the US and its accomplices to gain new members to NATO, a war organization, and to increase its intervention capacity in the military field provide concrete data about the general course. As is well known, NATO is an international militarist organization created by the US, Britain and their allies against the Soviet Union and the socialist camp in a broad sense. This militarist focus, which is claimed to have been established against threats, has continued to commit crimes for the interests of imperialist monopolies since the day it was founded and continues to exist by expanding.

Other prominent imperialist powers in today’s world are Chinese social imperialism and Russia. In the struggle for the redistribution of the world, in addition to China and Russia, the USA, Britain, Germany, France and Japan also stand out as imperialist powers coveting new markets.

China’s influence on Africa and Russia’s increasing influence through BRICS constitute the basis of contradictions. That is why the US, Britain and other imperialist countries see China and Russia as the biggest obstacle in their way. Russia’s declaration of war on Ukraine, which sees Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO as a threat to its sovereignty, the US’s desire to encircle China through Taiwan, etc. all developments are a sign that a possible war will take place between these powers.

Today, two blocs stand out in the inter-imperialist alignments: The first bloc consists of the US, Britain and the EU (though not all of them) and the military alliance organization NATO. The US, which is the main power of this bloc, is backing Canada, Australia and New Zealand along with Britain, and on the other hand, it continues to support some South Asian countries, especially Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. On the other hand, it also continues to draw Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan to its side, to develop relations with Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, to draw Pakistan, which it lost to China, and to pull India out of BRICS and bring it into the war against China.

The main power of the second bloc is China and Russia. Although each of them is trying to draw countries close to them or keep them around, they have aligned themselves as BRICS countries under the leadership of Russia.

However, it should be noted that with the sharpening of the contradictions of the imperialist blocs, these blocs are unions that will show fragility. Under the leadership of Russia and China against the Western imperialists, Korea, Iran and some of the countries they influence may also act together. (Such as Belarus, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen.) Another fact is that as the contradictions between the imperialists sharpen, there is a possibility of differentiation in the ranks of the imperialist blocs.

The world is rapidly drifting towards war. Governments are making arrangements within themselves accordingly, foreign, “defence”, interior and justice ministers and spokespersons are formed from the most reactionary, racist, fascist and aggressive ones. The democratic rights and freedoms of workers and laborers are usurped, and reactionary fascist laws are passed. At the same time, thousands of tanks, armored vehicles and ammunition continue to be stored in Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland for the last two years under the umbrella of NATO, especially the USA. There are more joint exercises within NATO.

In the economic sphere, too, arrangements are being made according to the war, and war ministries are being created. Nationalism, racism, immigrant and xenophobia are on the rise; practices and access to services for immigrants are becoming more and more difficult, and some are even threatened with deportation or being sent to a third country (Africa). In addition, the pressure on progressive, revolutionary, socialist and communist movements continues to increase. Some pennants, some photos, some slogans, some democratic institutions are banned.

Arms factories are working at full capacity; the capacity of war planes, missiles, drones, tanks, cannons, artillery, bullets, and explosives factories are being increased and new ones are being built.

As a result, the leapfrogging and unbalanced development of the imperialist economies, overproduction and concentration of capital, the moves to control new markets, energy and raw material resources and routes and to neutralize their rivals are increasing contradictions and dragging the world towards a new war of division.

Africa in the Fight for Market Redistribution

The struggle for the redistribution of markets between the US-UK and EU imperialist bloc and the social imperialist blocs of Russia and China continues on many continents with different alliance forces. The first bloc, through NATO, wanted to neighbor Russia in Ukraine. Of course this was a strategy of encirclement. It was also a move to drag Russian imperialism into a de facto conflict with its neighbors. As a matter of fact, Russia did not consent to this neighborliness and invaded Ukraine. On the surface, the conflict is between Ukraine and Russia. In essence, it is a struggle for dominance between the two imperialist blocs in different areas of the Middle East. Therefore, the countries and regions where conflicts take place may change, but the aims and objectives of the imperialist powers do not change.

The civil unrest and coups in Africa – and there are usually different imperialist powers behind military coups in dependent countries– create the ground for imperialist invasions. For example, with the coup in Niger, the long-standing struggle for dominance in the continent has evolved into a conflictual process. As a matter of fact, after the military coup in Niger, an African summit was held in Russia. After this summit, the reactions against the Western imperialists in Burkina Faso, Guinea and Mali, which are ruled by military coups and supported by Russia, have become even harsher. Undoubtedly, this anger is mostly directed against the French imperialists who plundered the rich resources of countries like Niger. But the interest of not only the French imperialists but also the US imperialism in this geography is increasing.

As it can be understood from the final declaration of the African summit held in Russia, the Russian imperialists make the best use of this growing anger against the West from Africa for their own interests. In addition to Russia’s moves towards the African continent, China, its alliance partner, is also continuing its activities towards permanence in the region.

This competition between imperialists in the African continent has the potential to lead to new imperialist interventions and military coups. The oil, gas, uranium, gold and diamond deposits in the continent whet the appetite of imperialist monopolies. In this sense, it is not surprising that the US and western imperialist powers confronted the Russian and Chinese imperialists as a result of the military coup in Niger.

Ukraine: Unceasing Conflict and Destruction

The problems between Russia and Ukraine have their roots in a certain historical process. When we look at this and similar wars that have been going on in recent years, we see the imperialist banditry to redistribute markets.

As a matter of fact, the US-led NATO expansion policy has reached the borders of Russia, in other words, NATO’s attempt to make Ukraine a part of NATO has made the Russian imperialists’ invasion plan even easier.

The US and some other imperialist powers foresaw that Ukraine’s NATO membership would limit Russia’s sphere of influence in the region. In addition, they aimed to weaken Russia militarily and economically by creating de facto conflicts with their siege plans. Indeed, all this has happened and continues to happen in Ukraine. First of all, the invasion plan did not turn out the way the Russian ruling classes wanted. And the war is still going on. Moreover, the hesitations of some NATO member countries about the existence of this war organization have disappeared due to these conflicts arising from the rivalry between the imperialist blocs. Some imperialist states, especially in Western Europe, have even increased their economic aid to strengthen NATO. And they became a part of this unjust war due to their class character. While all this is happening, Ukraine is still not a member of NATO. But the Ukrainian ruling classes have reached the level of servitude to imperialism in every respect. There is a complete destruction in the country. The response of their imperialist masters to Zelenski’s statement that “Ukraine deserves respect” was “take the weapons and continue the war”. Undoubtedly, every servant deserves respect as much as his servitude. A pawn like Zelenski seems to have realized this fact only with the destruction of Ukraine(!) Ukraine’s membership in NATO means that the US and its accomplices are de facto involved in the war. But they do not prefer this path now. They favor the continuation of the war with arms aid and sales, diplomatic support. Because keeping the Russian ruling classes in this conflict means keeping them away from the moves for the redistribution of markets in other areas. Behind all the interventions of the imperialists lies the reality of getting out of the crisis they have fallen into by expanding their markets and spheres of influence. In the simplest definition, war means more armament. The occupations and conflicts created in Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, etc. have led not only to the armament of these countries but also to the armament of the countries of the region as a whole. In other words, it has led/is leading to great destructions, migrations, intellectual-moral-cultural degeneration and decay in a multifaceted and comprehensive manner, especially in the economy.

New Searches in the Struggle for Sharing

Of course, the main thing in the relations between imperialist countries in every historical period is competition. The interests of monopolies. In this competition, there are countries that decline and lose their hegemony, as well as imperialist countries that come to the fore economically and militarily. Today, our globe is witnessing such a process. Despite all the efforts of US imperialism and some of its allies, the influence of Chinese imperialism in the world markets is gradually increasing.

Comrade Lenin defines the power struggle between the imperialists as follows: “To answer this question in the negative, it is enough to put the question clearly. For under capitalism, as the basis for the division of interests, spheres of influence, colonies, etc., no other basis can be conceived than the power of the participants in this division, their general economic, financial, military, etc. power, and the power of the participants in the division does not vary equally. For under capitalism the equal development of individual enterprises, trusts, branches of industry and countries is impossible. Compared with the capitalist power of England at that time, Germany half a century ago was a miserable nothing; the position of Japan vis-à-vis Russia is no different. Can it be ‘conceivable’ that the balance of forces between the imperialist powers will remain unchanged after ten or twenty years? Absolutely unthinkable.” (Lenin, Imperialism, Sol Yayınları, p. 133)

Again, from the perspective of the redivision of the world, Comrade Lenin points to the following facts: “…For the first time the world has been completely divided. So much so that from now on there is only a question of redivision, that is, not of the seizure of unclaimed lands, but of the transfer of lands from one “owner” to another. “ (age, p. 87)

Despite all the developments and quantitative changes, our age is still the age of imperialism and proletarian revolutions. Today, the invasions and conflicts, the different blocs formed in different continents of our globe due to the competition between imperialists are the natural result of the moves for the redistribution of markets, just as Comrade Lenin pointed out.

Bandits at Work in the US’s “Backyard”

Latin America is defined as the “backyard” of US imperialism and US imperialism sees it as its “right” to intervene in this “backyard” at every opportunity. It organizes military coups in these countries or, as in Venezuela in 2018, it follows a policy in line with imperialist thuggery by not recognizing the elected head of state (Maduro) and instead recognizing Juan Guaido, who has declared himself president.

Likewise, in our age, the imperialists and their accomplices use the same arguments, almost by rote, to justify their policies of aggression and occupation. While their justification in Venezuela is “anti-democratic elections”, in Iraq it is “chemical weapons” and so on. However, the truth is that whether it is Venezuela or Iraq, the main aim of the US is to hand over the underground and above-ground rich resources of these countries to the imperialist monopolies.

Imperialist contradictions and plunder continue in the “backyard” of the USA. The Russian and Chinese imperialists are offering the same support to Madura as they did to Chavez. Of course, this support is not for the benefit of the Venezuelan people but for the benefit of the Russian and Chinese monopolies. It is to weaken the hegemony of US imperialism in Latin America.

The maximum profit policies of the imperialist monopolies have caused/are causing deep unemployment and poverty in this continent. These consequences have also led to the accumulation of anti-US anger in the continent. While this anger has sometimes turned into massive protests in the streets, in other periods it has led to the rise to power and the formation of governments by personalities such as Chavez, Lula, Madura, etc., who define themselves in the “left”. Undoubtedly, the social opposition in Latin America does not consist of this “left” within the establishment. There are also communist-revolutionary forces that emerge from time to time and create great revolutionary values.

The recent election results in Guatemala, the developments in Ecuador, etc. show that the weakening hegemony of US imperialism will continue, and the economic and political influence of imperialist China and Russia, with which it is in competition, will gradually increase in the region.

In Ecuador, President Guillermo Lasso, supported by US imperialism, has caused a major economic and political crisis in this country with his servility to imperialism and his anti-people policies. The decay of the system has not only led to deep poverty. The increasing drug and human trafficking and gangsterism brought with it internal conflicts, political assassinations, migration, etc.

Middle East and Caucasus: “Divide and Rule!”

The Middle East is a geography where the imperialists’ policies of “divide and rule”, conflict and weaken have been going on for centuries and they want to continue to do so in the future. The strategic location of the region and the abundance of energy resources have made the Middle East the focus of inter-imperialist competitive struggle. The region, which was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire for decades, has been the center of conflict since the British and French imperialists settled in the region after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Britain occupied Palestine, Iraq and Jordan; France occupied Lebanon and Syria. In the Gulf region and Egypt, it was again the British imperialists who dominated. The imperialists first divided the population into small states. Then they aimed to protect their interests through their henchmen with the title of “dictator” specific to the region such as “King”, “Sheikh”, “Emir”, “Prince” etc. All these counter-revolutionary policies were implemented through the politics of “divide and rule”. These governments, shaped on ethnic, religious, sectarian and even tribal basis, were made ready to strangle each other at every opportunity. As a result of these policies, first of all, other non-Arab peoples were oppressed. And again, Kurdistan was divided into four parts by the imperialists. This huge bunch of problems created by the imperialists and regional reactionaries at the beginning of the previous century has become more complicated in the new century.

It is the profit greed, fascist and racist mentality of the imperialist-capitalist system that has displaced the Palestinian people, divided the geography of Kurdistan into four parts, turned Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya into a bloodbath with occupations and internal conflicts, and forced hundreds of thousands of people to migrate. In this historical process of more than a century, the policies of exploitation and oppression implemented by the imperialists and their servant governments have led to deep poverty, destruction and wars. Wherever there is poverty, destruction, denialism and genocide, there is not only suffering. At the same time, the noble resistance of oppressed peoples and nations takes its place in the pages of history. The struggle of the Palestinian people against Israeli Zionism and the struggle of the Kurdish nation against the fascist and reactionary states under their domination has created hope for the struggles of other peoples of the region and oppressed sects and faith groups.

As we have underlined above, the Middle East has been one of the most conflicted regions of our globe throughout its history. Undoubtedly, internal contradictions and conflicts in the region have always facilitated foreign interventions. Religious and sectarian conflicts in particular have both curbed social developments on a modern basis and made the region vulnerable to foreign attacks. On this objective basis, social decay, collaborative relations and the culture of obedience have been transformed into a way of life. Religion plays a major role here. Religious bigotry has hindered all kinds of progressive developments.

Therefore, in order for revolutionaries and socialists to build the united struggle of oppressed peoples and the class-based brotherhood of oppressed peoples on a healthy basis in this region where national, religious-sectarian contradictions exist intensely, they must first take a clear stance against unrealistic ideas such as “brotherhood of religions”, “Islam is a religion of peace”, etc., which have no equivalent in social life. The same applies to other religions and belief groups.

In the current context, we can say that the influence of US imperialism in the region has weakened to a certain extent compared to the past. The US withdrew from Iraq, leaving behind long years of destruction. As of now, it has positioned its military forces in Southern Kurdistan. Again, the reactionary Arab states in the region, especially Qatar, have military bases and forces.

The US and EU imperialists’ organization of the civil war to overthrow the reactionary Assad regime in Syria by using the revolt of the peoples of the region defined as the “Arab Spring” and supporting reactionary jihadist Salafist gang organizations under the name of regime opponents has brought Syria to the brink of destruction. In the face of the US and EU imperialists’ plan to overthrow the Assad regime by using the reactionary Islamist gang organizations in Syria, the Russian imperialists supported the Assad regime. The support offered by the Russian ruling classes to the Assad regime ensured Assad’s survival. Of course, the Iranian regime also plays an important role in Assad’s survival. This is because the Iranian regime realized that with the overthrow of Assad, they would be next in line. Undoubtedly, the situation in Syria will get worse and worse as Russia, which has kept Assad alive until today, has not achieved the quick victory it had hoped for in Ukraine and has been embroiled in this war, while Iran is unable to even take a defensive position in the face of Zionist Israeli attacks on its territory and Iranian-affiliated forces in the countries it calls the “Axis of Resistance”.

And again, we must underline that at the root of these conflicts lies the fact that the US imperialists and their western imperialist allies are weakening the influence of the Russian imperialists in the region. Therefore, it is understandable that the Iranian regime, whose interests periodically coincide with the Russian imperialists, takes an active position on the side of the Assad regime in Syria. As we mentioned above, all these developments disrupt the plan of the US, Britain and their allies and cause US imperialism to improve its relations with various representatives of the Kurdish national movement. In other words, the US imperialism, which offers support to the Kurdish movement in Rojava against jihadist groups such as ISIS etc., which the imperialists created for their periodic interests, has also given a “legitimacy” to its stay in the field by acting in this way. Undoubtedly, this support has led to a partial deterioration of its relations with the fascist Turkish state. While the US is doing this, its closest ally Britain is underhandedly feeding jihadist organizations such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

It should be known that the support offered by US imperialism to the Kurdish national movement and struggle is a support limited to its periodic interests.

In the Middle East, the Palestinian and Kurdish question continues to exist today as it did yesterday. The Zionist state of Israel is not generally accepted by the peoples of the region. However, Israel’s most useful ally in the region is the Turkish state. As it will be remembered, in the attacks against the Armenian people in Artsakh, the Turkish Republic was arm-in-arm with the fascist government of Azerbaijan and Zionist Israel. It is the state of Israel that sells billion-dollar weapons to Azerbaijan and trains its militarist forces. The Turkish ruling classes, on the one hand, claim that they support the Palestinian cause, on the other hand, they continue to commit murders against the Armenian people, arm in arm with Zionism.

The US servitude of the Turkish Republic and its complicity with Israel are not deeply wounded as some claim. Moreover, the Putin-Erdogan “friendship” is not built on opposition to the US. This friendship is a relationship of interest that involves mutual concessions and condemnation, and the place where the Turkish Republic will stand “when the time comes” is clear, next to its master US imperialism.

The multifaceted and comprehensive economic embargoes and attacks imposed on Russia by the US, UK and EU imperialist powers have a heavy cost. The Russian ruling classes are trying to frustrate this siege policy imposed on them, albeit partially, through Azerbaijan and the Turkish Republic. For this reason, the Russian rulers can digest the support offered by the fascist Turkish state indirectly to the Zelenski administration in Ukraine and openly to the jihadist gang groups in Syria.

Likewise, the Putin administration, which got stuck in the mud, so to speak, in Ukraine, has mainly concentrated on the Ukrainian front by withdrawing its forces in Syria, albeit partially. This situation also provides certain advantages to the US allies in the region. This is exactly what the US, Britain and their EU imperialist allies wanted. That is, to render the Russian imperialists “ineffective” in the politics of the region by confronting and weakening them with their henchmen and the jihadist gang groups they support.

Of course, Russia, China and even Iran are not idle. While China is gradually increasing its economic influence in the region, the Shiite militia groups supported by Iran and organized under different names are active parties in the ongoing conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc. under the name of the “Axis of Resistance”. Likewise, compared to the past, the relations between the Gulf countries and the Iranian and Syrian regimes have taken a softer course. All these developments may open the door to new conflicts as well as new periodic alliances. This is the first one.

Secondly, the Artsakh issue will also remain on the agenda to a certain extent. Because the new target of the Turkish and Azerbaijani ruling classes is the Zengezur Corridor. The opening of this corridor is the common desire of the Turkish and Azerbaijani ruling classes. But this move also disturbs the Iranian state. If this move of the Turkish and Azerbaijani rulers becomes a reality, then the land connection between Armenia and the Iranian state will be cut.

In conclusion, the green light given to the occupation of Artsakh by the Russian rulers, partly due to the objective conditions we have tried to underline above, has led to the displacement of the Armenian people, which is a continuation of the 1915 Armenian Genocide.

Again, these attacks have the possibility of further straining the relations between Armenia and the Russian rulers. US imperialism is also trying to turn this situation into an opportunity.

The feeble voice of the Western imperialists against the occupation of Artsakh, that is, against the displacement of the Armenian people, has no meaning. The truth is that their priority is not the Armenian people but Azerbaijani oil and gas. Therefore, adding a new bloody ring to the crimes they have committed against the peoples in history in exchange for getting rid of Russian dependence is quite in line with the moral-conscience of these bandits. It is therefore not surprising that the spokespersons of the western imperialist states shake the bloody hands of Aliyev and Erdogan.

Palestinian Resistance Continues

The Zionist state of Israel, established as the “outpost” of imperialist monopoly capital in the Middle East geography, continues to be a threat to the peoples of the region, especially the Palestinian people. The state of Israel, which was established as an artificial state on Palestinian lands, is increasingly pursuing a policy of occupation and annexation of Palestinian lands as the representative of the Zionist reaction, which defends the interests of imperialism in the Middle East geography. The Zionist state of Israel, in addition to the territories it occupied in wars with reactionary Arab regimes, declares the lands where Palestinians live as “settlement areas” and forces Palestinians to migrate through the terror of massacres, oppression and arrests.

The Zionist state is now building “Jewish settlements” in the Palestinian-dominated West Bank and annexing it step by step. It controls 2.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, in conditions resembling an open-air prison, imposes an embargo and organizes terrorist attacks from time to time.

The Palestinian national resistance responded to these attacks by Zionist Israel on October 7, 2023, with an attack it called the “Aqsa Flood”. Hundreds of Israeli soldiers, including civilians called “Jewish settlers”, were killed or captured in the attack on Israeli-occupied territories from Gaza by 12 parties and organizations, including revolutionary organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), in which Hamas was the main force. This operation of the Palestinian resistance shocked the technologically superior and omnipotent Israeli state and the western imperialist capitalist states that support it. Following this shock, tens of thousands of people were killed, tens of thousands were wounded and hundreds of thousands of people were forcibly displaced from their homes after Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza from the air and land.

While the imperialist capitalist states and reactionary states, especially the Arab regimes in the region, openly or implicitly supported Israel by maintaining all kinds of relations, especially trade, with Israel, the peoples of the world stood by the Palestinian people in the face of the genocidal attacks of Israel, which was unconditionally and unconditionally supported by the western imperialists, especially the US, British and German imperialism, against the Palestinian people in Gaza. The peoples of the world, especially in the imperialist capitalist centers, took to the streets and condemned Israel’s massacre attacks.

Although Israel and its imperialist supporters’ denigration of the resistance based on lies cooked in the Zionist kitchen, such as the Muslim Brotherhood connection in the process of the establishment of Hamas and the “targeting of civilians” for the October 7 attack had a certain effect, it failed to deceive the peoples of the world this time.

The ideological positioning of organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and moreover the extent of their relations with the reactionary states of the region, cannot cast a shadow on the justness and legitimacy of the Palestinian national resistance. Undoubtedly, the Palestinian nation’s revolt, rebellion and resistance to oppression as an oppressed nation is legitimate.

The victory of the Palestinian national resistance depends on the fact that it is based on its own strength and that the policy of exploiting the contradictions between the imperialists and the reactionaries of the region does not become a tool of the policy of the imperialists and the reactionary states of the region to use it for their own interests. In the current situation, there is a danger that the Palestinian national resistance, under the leadership of Hamas, will turn into a Gaza-centered “religious referential” content and, moreover, into a tool of the Iranian reactionary mullah regime’s policy called the “axis of resistance”, which is essentially the product of the strategy of meeting its reactionary policy of preserving its own reactionary power on the “front lines”.

And essentially Iran’s attitude towards the Palestinian national resistance is purely pragmatist. Iran supports the Palestinian national resistance against US imperialism and the Zionist Israeli regime. The reactionary mullah regime of Iran is aware that it is one of the strategic targets of US imperialism. For this reason, it has organized the “axis of resistance” in order to meet any threat to itself outside its borders.

It is no secret that the main target of US imperialism in the region is Iran. The reason why US imperialism is not directly attacking Iran at the moment is because Iran is a “big bite”. Just like in Syria, the US and “western imperialism” will attack Iran when the conditions are created or when they find the opportunity. The reactionary Iranian mullah regime is aware of this reality, which is why it is taking various steps, especially to acquire nuclear weapons. These steps include organizing an “axis of resistance” in the region with an anti-US mission, while deepening its economic and military relations with Russia and China, rivals of US imperialism. Iran’s regional cooperation with Russia as well as its agreements with Chinese social imperialism should be evaluated in this context.

The agreement between Iran and China is a product of the increasing influence of Chinese social imperialism against US imperialism in the Middle East in recent years in the competition between imperialist monopolies. China’s influence has been increasing in the region in recent years. On August 22, 2023, at the BRICS meeting held in South Africa, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia were accepted as new members and at least 40 countries lined up to become members, which was important in terms of showing the influence of Chinese imperialism in the region.

In the coming years, the Caucasus and the Middle East will continue to be the regions where new wars and conflicts will take place in the competition between imperialist monopolies. The steps taken as a result of the competition between the imperialist monopolies point to this fact.

EU’s Competitiveness Weakens

The European Union (EU) is one of the world’s most important geographies with a population of 450 million. Its economic capacity and market union stand in an important place. However, it is also a fact that not all member states within the 27-member EU have the same level of capitalist development. The motor power of the EU is Germany, France, the Netherlands and Italy. The rest of the member states are dependent on the EU, are semi-colonial countries or their economies are not sufficiently developed.

The world economic crisis has engulfed the EU. The real estate crisis that erupted in the US in 2008 affected the whole world in waves, and the EU was no exception. Although the EU has entered a period of partial recovery after the economic crisis that increased with the pandemic, the economic crisis continues to move at a rapid pace as of 2022. The figures show that the EU’s economic growth trend is steadily declining, weakening its competitiveness with other imperialist powers.

On the one hand, the EU is trying to minimize the impact of the world economic crisis on the continent, on the other hand, it is trying to overcome its internal economic problems in a struggle with its rivals.

One of the biggest structural problems of the EU is the gradual decline in investment. Stagnation in the domestic market, high inflation and the decline in purchasing power are among the reasons for the decline in the growth rate. The deteriorating economic situation in countries such as Germany and France, the engine of the EU, naturally has a negative impact on other EU countries, which in turn exacerbates the crisis. While this summarizes the overall situation in the EU, the economic crisis continues to grow in Germany, France, the Netherlands and Italy, which represent the engine of the union.

For example, the German economy continues to shrink. German Economy Minister Robert Habeck announced that the German economy will shrink by 0.2 percent by the end of 2024. The European Center for Economic Research (ZEW) announced in its report that “The Current Situation Index in Germany fell by 7.2 points in September compared to the previous month and became minus 84.5. Theindex fell to its lowest level since May 2020“in September. Moreover, studies show that economic development in the Eurozone has declined by 8.6 percentage points.

The budget deficit of the French state is increasing every year. In 2023, it is emphasized that the budget deficit is 5.5%, and it is predicted that this deficit will increase further in 2024.

The UK, which is not a member of the EU but is located on the European continent, is also the subject of a separate evaluation. The UK economy is also experiencing the worst period of the last 14 years. In the OECD report on the UK economy, it is emphasized that the country’s economy grew by only 1.1% in 2023 and this will not change in 2024.

The Danger of War and the EU

Britain is one of the main instigators of a third imperialist war. The British monopoly bourgeoisie, acting together with the USA, is among the main instigators of the war. Britain is one of the forces that plays the most active role in the anti-Russia bloc formed against Russia in the creation of regional wars.

Within the EU, German imperialism does not consider itself ready for war for the time being. Germany, whose weapons and army are not ready for war, has declared through its Chief of General Staff that it will be ready for war only in five years. Of course, this does not mean that German imperialism is “peaceful”. As a country that directly caused the First and Second Imperialist Wars, Germany will not hold back in its efforts to take its share in the redivision of the world.

All European countries allocate huge budgets for armaments. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Germany allocated 100 billion dollars for armament in a single move. Other countries followed suit.

The rapid rise of internal fascism in the European Union countries also shows with which forces the imperialists will secure their own backyards in the event of a war. In Italy, the Netherlands, Hungary, Greece and Spain, fascist parties directly became governments. In Germany, Sweden, France, Denmark and Poland, racist fascist parties are increasing their votes in every election. In addition, democratic rights are being scaled back at every opportunity. Police laws are being expanded, marches and demonstrations are being restricted, while repression against revolutionaries and progressives is expanding.

The class struggle against the developing crisis, the impoverishment of the masses, repression, bans and increasing internal fascistization is in a backward position. The absence of class-led parties across Europe, and the very limited influence of those that exist, must be seen as the reason for the backwardness of the social struggle.

The State of the Revolutionary and Communist Movement

In the late 20th century, after the reversals of socialism and the modern revisionists threw off the socialist mask and openly switched to capitalism, the imperialist capitalist system propagandized that the “class struggle” was over and claimed that the “end of history” had arrived. US imperialism, as the spokesperson of the imperialist monopolies, was declared the “sole ruler of the world”.

Along with this process, a purge attack against the revolutionary and communist movement was launched internationally. Ideologically, this process, which was continued with the propaganda that “ideologies are dead”, was also continued as a complete counter-revolutionary attack in every field such as cultural, military, etc.

However, what was called “the victory of capitalism” was not possible due to the inner workings of capitalism itself. The “peace” of the imperialist monopolies and the “unipolar world” proclaimed under the leadership of the USA, with the emergence of imperialist states such as China and Russia, imperialist monopolies and their spokesmen, ended with the emergence of imperialist states such as China and Russia. The late 20th century “unipolar world” was replaced by a “multipolar world” based on the imperialist capitalist system. This determined the movement of the imperialist capitalist system in the international arena. Imperialist camps took shape under the leadership of various imperialist states. These camps, formed by states that were the spokespersons of the imperialist monopolies, struggled against each other.

The imperialist monopolies reorganized the international division of labour in this process in which they declared relative victory. The capitalist states took steps to change step by step the policies they implemented in the face of the existence of the socialist system and the struggle of the working class, which they called the “social state”, and to usurp the gains of the working class and the working people. Under the name of “neo-liberal” policies, they wanted to solve the capitalist crises produced by the nature of capitalism itself and the decline in profit rates by shifting production processes to countries dependent on imperialism. In this way, in countries dependent on imperialism, it was aimed to get rid of a series of costs that caused loss of profit for itself, especially the intensive exploitation of surplus-value.

With the “neo-liberal” policies of imperialism, the semi-colonial, semi-colonial semi-feudal countries dependent on imperialism were subjected to the complete plunder of imperialist capital. The underground and above-ground resources of these countries have been plundered more and more in order for imperialist capital to gain more profit. This situation led to the further impoverishment of the peoples of the countries dependent on imperialism.

With this “new” orientation of the imperialist monopolies in the imperialist capitalist centers, the step-by-step change of “social state” policies, the usurpation of the gains of the working class and the working people for the sake of the interests of the bourgeoisie, led to the emergence of various “anti-capitalist” movements called “anti-globalization” in the imperialist capitalist centers. In reality, these movements objected not to the capitalist system itself but to its consequences. The weakness and disorganization of the communist parties in the imperialist capitalist centers prevented these movements from being organized on the right basis within the class struggle.

Meanwhile, in the semi-colonial and semi-feudal semi-colonial countries dependent on imperialism, the changes and transformations in these countries, parallel to imperialism’s reorganization of the international division of labour, led to the struggles of representatives of various classes. It should be noted that in addition to the struggle of petty bourgeois revolutionary organizations in some countries, struggles were also waged under the leadership of the communist parties of the international working class organized in every country.

At the same time, the oppressed nations continued their struggles in various forms and contents. From the Zapatistas in Mexico to the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and from the Palestinian National Movement to the Kurdish National Movement in the Middle East, a series of anarchist, reformist and revolutionary organizations continued their struggles.

For MLM movements, although this process was answered by the People’s War raised by the Communist Party of Peru, it was interrupted by the imprisonment of the leader of the SEP, President Gonzalo, and the subsequent defeat of the Peruvian revolution. The Nepalese revolution, which followed the Peruvian revolution, shifted to a class collaborationist line with the betrayal of its leadership at the stage of taking power, which was recorded as a failure of the communist movement. Despite these negativities, the communist movement continued its struggle for power through people’s war in semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries dependent on imperialism. In India, the communist movement united in the early 21st century and consolidated its organization among the masses, especially in rural areas. In the Philippines, the communist movement continued its struggle steadily.

After the defeat of the Nepalese revolution, the communist movement there is in the process of reorganization. Most recently, the communist movement in Nepal announced its unification as the Nepal Revolutionary Communist Party (NDKP). The Communist Party of India (Maoist), in its struggle to lead the class struggle and raise the People’s War in India, has successfully responded to the counter-revolutionary attacks of the Indian state under the guise of various campaigns, even though it has suffered significant losses, and has maintained its positions.

In line with the Indian reaction’s policy of confining the communist movement to the countryside, counter-revolutionary attacks on the urban activities of the HKP (Maoist) were increased and many arrests were made.

In the Philippines, there are increasing counter-revolutionary attacks by the Philippine state against the Communist Party of the Philippines. Parallel to the growing contradiction between the US and Chinese imperialists, the geo-strategic importance of the Philippines in the US imperialism’s policy of containment of China has led to the establishment of US military bases in the Philippines and, moreover, to the further subordination of the Philippine reaction to the US imperialists. The increasing influence of the US on the Philippines has further increased the attacks of the Philippine state on the communist movement. The Communist Party of the Philippines has suffered losses in these attacks.

It is also worth mentioning the organization that has recently declared itself as the “Communist International Union” (ECU) and claims to be the international organization of Marxist Leninist Maoist parties. This organization was declared in an internet newspaper called “Communist International” as the result of the “United Maoist International Conference”. It should be noted that the vast majority of the parties and organizations that declared this organization are disconnected from the masses and moreover, their understanding of MLM is problematic. The “International Union” formed by these organizations and groups with “left” rhetoric, which comprehend MLM with a dogmatic ideological stance, looks like a bad copy of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (DEH). It deserves to be analyzed in a broader framework, especially with its advocacy of strict centralism in its organizational structure, its ideological line that “adventurously” defends the People’s War strategy, which is valid in semi-colonial semi-feudal countries, in imperialist capitalist centers, etc.

Conclusion

All these facts and developments show that the workers and laborers in the imperialist capitalist centers and in the countries dependent on imperialism are facing difficult conditions, but the tendency to struggle to change the conditions is gaining strength. While in the imperialist capitalist centers the workers and laborers generally organize strikes and demonstrations to protect their “living standards” and living and working conditions, in the countries dependent on imperialism the working class and laborers take to the streets, strike and demonstrate to improve their living and working conditions for a number of reasons ranging from rising food and energy prices, deepening hunger and poverty to government corruption.

Internationally, in addition to such actions in individual countries, there are also actions with direct political demands, such as the Israeli massacre attacks on Gaza and the Palestinians. While the working class has stopped work with this demand and refused to load the ships shipping to Israel, the vast majority of the peoples of the world have taken to the streets to protest against Israel and to oppose the policies of “their” governments. After October 7, despite all the media campaigns of Israeli Zionism and imperialism, protests and demonstrations condemning Israel and supporting the Palestinian people took place in more than 80 countries.

What the actions of the people of Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka and most recently the working class of Bangladesh have shown us is this. The working class and the oppressed peoples of the world are revolting and continuing their struggle. While the class struggle continues in various forms and contents around the world, the working class strikes and mass demonstrations rising in the imperialist capitalist centers turn into popular revolts in the countries dependent on imperialism, as in Kazakhstan and Sri Lanka, and the strikes and actions of the working class lasting for days, as in Bangladesh, continue despite the armed intervention and massacres of the state forces.

The popular uprisings, especially in Kazakhstan and Sri Lanka, point to the lack of a genuine communist party to lead these uprisings. Since the revolt of the Kazakh people lacked the leadership of a communist party, it soon ended with the reinforcement of military forces from outside the country and the liquidation of the ruling class cliques. A similar situation occurred in Sri Lanka. The people revolted, seized important centers of state power, especially the presidential palace, and directly targeted the representatives of the ruling classes. Some of those in power resigned and fled abroad. The people’s revolt in Sri Lanka also failed to result in the power of the working class and the people, as it did not develop under the leadership of a communist party.

One of the main lessons of the revolts of the people of Kazakhstan and Sri Lanka for the oppressed peoples of the world is the possibility of revolution through armed popular uprising in semi-colonial countries oppressed by imperialism. The fact that a revolution has not taken place in Kazakhstan and Sri Lanka does not invalidate this lesson. On the contrary, it proves once again that the fundamental issue is the organization of the vanguard. Communists must therefore play their historic role.

In addition to the actions of the working class and the peoples of the world in individual countries, this course of the class struggle at the international level imposes on the advanced workers and laborers, the vanguard of the working class, the communists in each country the task of playing their historical role.

Especially at a time when the danger of an imperialist war of division is on the agenda, it is important to prepare the communist parties and organizations in the imperialist capitalist centers for a war of division. “As for the question of war, the Communist Parties in the capitalist countries oppose imperialist wars waged by their own countries. If such wars break out, the policy of these Parties is to ensure the defeat of the reactionary governments in their own countries. The only war the Communist Parties want to fight is the civil war for which they are preparing.” (Mao Zedong, Selected Works, Vol: II, First Edition: February 1975, Aydınlık Publications)

We are in a process in which the increasing competition of the imperialist monopolies has led to new alliance relations and camps among the spokesperson states of the imperialist monopolies, and the contradiction between the imperialist camps has sharpened. The contradiction between the imperialist monopolies sometimes evolves into military conflicts, as in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The sharpening of the contradiction between the imperialist monopolies also includes the preparation for a new imperialist war of division. Although the balance of power and the extent of competition between the imperialist monopolies prevent the need for a new war of division, the persistence of the economic crisis of capitalism, moreover, the decline in capitalist profit rates and competition mainly for the market, have the potential to trigger a war of division for the market (World War III) between the imperialist monopolies.

As a result, it is possible to define the main contradictions sharpening at the international level as follows:

1- The contradiction between imperialism and oppressed nations and oppressed peoples

2- The contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in imperialist countries

3- Inter-imperialist contradiction

4- The main contradiction worldwide is the contradiction between labor and capital. The main contradiction worldwide arising from this contradiction is the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations and peoples, while in capitalist and imperialist countries the main contradiction is the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

In this context, our 2nd Congress briefly makes the following evaluations:

1- The wave of economic crisis in the world is gradually expanding. Although the crisis that started in 2008 was tried to be managed for a short time, the imperialist system has not been able to overcome the crisis. The struggle for the redistribution of markets is deepening. The competition between the capitalist imperialist countries, the struggle for dominance and superiority continues without losing any momentum.

2- At the present stage, the inter-imperialist blocs and alignments have become even more pronounced. The USA, Britain and the European Union constitute one bloc; Chinese social imperialism and Russian imperialism constitute another bloc.

3- The imperialist countries, unable to solve their protracted crisis, have accelerated their steps towards solving their processes with war. The danger of an imperialist war of division is increasing. The imperialist powers are arming themselves militarily and preparing for war with more emphasis every year. The coming to power of fascist parties, the gradual escalation of racism, the increase in xenophobia and hostility towards foreigners and immigrants, limitations in democratic and social rights, and the successive enactment of anti-democratic laws should be read as preparations for war.

4- Developments in the world and in the Middle East have clearly shown that the main instigator of the war is the US and British imperialism.

5- The establishment of anti-imperialist fronts against the imperialist war worldwide and on continents has become one of the important agendas of communist, revolutionary and all anti-war forces.

SITUATION IN TURKEY

Assessing the situation in Turkey is an important part of determining our tactical policies in line with our new strategy.

The AKP has ruled the country for twenty-two years without interruption. The AKP, which is a ruling party rather than a government, has never lost an election except for the local elections of June 7, 2014, and March 2024. With an average of 35% of the votes across Turkey, it has come back to power single-handedly in every election.

On August 14, 2001, Abdullah Gül, R.T. Erdoğan and his team announced that they had “taken off the shirt of the National Vision” and founded the AKP. The economic crisis that broke out in 1999 opened the door to the establishment of the present order, closing a new era in Turkey. Since the coalition government of the time could not overcome the economic crisis, it lost its ability to govern to some extent. When the MHP, the partner of the coalition government, demanded early elections, the AKP won 34.28% of the votes in the early general elections held on November 3, 2022, and came into government alone.

It soon became clear that the AKP was a “project” of US imperialism. R.T. Erdoğan, who was summoned to the US before the AKP was founded, accepted all the conditions in the bargain with the US and paved the way for him. The US said that it would “bring the AKP into the government” and in return, Turkey would act as the guardian of the US in the Middle East and, most importantly, take part in the US’s Greater Middle East Project. Erdoğan and his team fully accepted all the tasks put before them in exchange for becoming the government. The appointment of R.T. Erdoğan as the head of the BOP after the AKP became the government alone in the first election was another step in the process. With the curtain opened after the AKP came to power, the task assigned to Turkey became more visible.

Although the AKP’s promise to fight against the “3Y” (Poverty, Prohibition and Corruption) has a certain impact on the AKP’s victory in all elections from November 3, 2022 to 2024, it would be incomplete to explain that the AKP came to power only by using the economic crisis without taking into account the effects of the continuation of the movement, whose roots go back to 1969, until today.

The representatives of the second wing of the Turkish ruling classes, which İbrahim Kaypakkaya, in his evaluation of the Kemalist Movement, described as being divided into two main camps, “On the other hand, the other part of the comprador bourgeoisie, which has not yet been completely liquidated, another part of the aghas and big landlords, the clergy, the old ulema class, which are the ideological pillars of feudalism and sultanate” , were first represented in the CHP and then in the Democrat Party. This line defined itself as the “Movement of Independents” or “National Vision” founded by N. Erbakan in 1969. It continued with the National Nizam Party and its successors, the National Salvation Party, the Welfare Party and the Virtue Party. These parties, whose names changed but whose views and ideology remained unchanged, governed the state and some municipalities as partners in government from 1974 to 1997, gained significant experience, and the base of this formation sided with the AKP, which announced that it had “changed its shirt” after 2001.

When the AKP was founded, it had an important cadre. These cadres, who came from the National Vision tradition, brought their experience to the newly established AKP. The AKP also appealed to the National Vision base. It persuaded a significant part of this base to rally around it. In the 1999 general elections, the FP received 15.41% of the vote and a significant portion of its votes shifted to the AKP in the early general elections of November 3, 2002. AKP also received significant votes from other right-wing parties.

When AKP came to power, unemployment rates declined slightly. The economy temporarily recovered. There were two reasons for this: Firstly, there was a certain inflow of foreign capital, and secondly, the construction sector was boosted by the privatizations, which gave the economy a boost.

Since 1986, the total amount of privatizations is 71 billion. The AKP has obtained a total of 63 billion dollars from these privatizations. A significant part of this income obtained by the AKP from these privatizations was given to the debt and interest received from the IMF. Behind R.T. Erdogan’s statement that “we had no debt to the IMF during our period” is the attempt to pay off the debts with the income obtained from privatizations.

In 2008, the world economic crisis hit Turkey as well. Although the AKP said that “the crisis passed us by a tangent”, the economic crisis, which has been felt since 2009, led to a 4.7% shrinkage in the Turkish economy. Since the economies of semi-colonial countries like Turkey are dependent on imperialist capital, economic crises are more frequent in these countries than in other developed countries. The economic crises in Turkey since 1989, 1994, 2000, 2001, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2018, 2022 should be read in this way.

Although each of these crises has arisen for different reasons, the common denominator of these crises is that capital does not feel secure, the domestic currency has depreciated significantly, there is a shortage of cash in banks, domestic demand has contracted, capital has fled the country, unemployment has increased, and purchasing power has decreased.

Leaving aside previous crises, the economic crisis that started in the US in 2008 has affected the whole world. The main reason why the AKP says “it passed us by a tangent” is that after the 2008 crisis, the imperialist monopolies turned to countries with higher incomes and capital inflows flowed to Turkey at a certain level and all these reduced the effects of the crisis.

In 2018, the AKP reached the end of this period that it boasted about and has not been able to escape from the current economic crisis. The 2018 crisis is not independent from the world economic crisis. In 2020, when the Covid-19 pandemic, which started worldwide, was added, the crisis continued with even more dimensions. Although the AKP government tried to overcome the crisis with hikes, by pulling the Turkish lira down against the dollar, by not giving raises to workers and laborers, etc., the economy is no longer holding together. Corruption, bribery, collapse of property, etc. in the country has reached such a state that even the slightest intervention in this situation is not possible because it would lead to the collapse of the chain system. Even if the AKP goes door to door begging for money to replace the fleeing capital, it is not possible to fix the economy. The AKP-MHP government is trying to save many crony companies that are sinking after the economic crisis by giving them huge financial support. Most of the small tradesmen are either going bankrupt or trying to survive on the brink of bankruptcy.

The AKP’s economic policy has brought the peasantry to the brink of bankruptcy. Farmers are unable to sell what they produce, and their crops are rotting in the fields. Production costs are so high that a significant number of peasants have gradually given up production and started to produce only for their own consumption. Since the AKP has cut agricultural subsidies to farmers while transferring huge sums of money to its crony monopolies, production has fallen to the lowest level; this prevents people from accessing food. In addition to the economic crisis, Turkey is at risk of facing an agricultural crisis in the coming years.

During the AKP’s 22 years in power, the policy of carrot and stick has always gone hand in hand. The AKP, which has been an apostle of democracy at every turn, has not hesitated to return to its roots and implement its repressive and prohibitive policies after achieving its goals.

After winning the 2002 elections, AKP won the support of the “West” by claiming that it was eager to become a member of the European Union (EU). It did not adopt the “democratization” steps put before Turkey in the progress reports of the EU imperialists. Because democracy is a question of revolution, and it is obvious that the “democracy” that the EU will bring to our country will not be a real democracy. While the EU’s repressive and forbidding practices in their own countries are obvious, it is known what the democracy they promise is.

With Islamist discourse and practices, the AKP has been able to provide the mass support that the Turkish comprador bourgeoisie needs. By objecting to some aspects of Kemalist fascism’s oppression and violence against the masses of the people, it has been able to back up the aspirations and demands of the masses for democracy behind its own interests. The September 12 Military Fascist Junta’s “Turkish-Islamic Synthesis” has made “Sunni Islam”, the dominant faith, permeate every cell of society. The Diyanet has a budget larger than the budgets of the ministries of Interior, Foreign Affairs, Energy and Natural Resources, Culture and Tourism, Industry and Technology and Trade.

It is not a subjective assessment to say that in its 22 years in power, the AKP has come to terms with the clique that constitutes another front of the counter-revolution and has represented the Kemalist ideology since its foundation. They have been in a constant reckoning with the participation of religious officials in the “War of Independence”, claiming that they provided material and humanitarian participation in the war, and that after the war ended and the Republic was proclaimed, dervish lodges and lodges were closed and the sultanate was ended, claiming that the Kemalists broke their promises. This underlies the Kemalist bourgeois opposition’s occasional discourse that “the founding principles of the Republic must be returned to”.

Although the AKP claims to be uncomfortable with secularism, Turkey has never been a truly secular country since its foundation. Religion has always been an argument used by the ruling classes. The opening of mosques in every village of the country before schools, the appointment of imams, the payment of imams’ salaries by the state, the ban on all religions and beliefs other than Sunni Islam, all these and more prove that the Turkish state is not a secular state.

Keeping nationalism alive in the society and appearing so-called “anti-imperialist” is the direct result of the hypocritical policy implemented by the AKP since its foundation. The AKP was founded and brought to power as a direct US project. In line with US interests, R.T. Erdoğan was appointed co-chair of the Great Middle East Project (BOP).

Turkey is a semi-colony of the US and the EU. Politically and economically Turkey is dependent on both the US and the EU. Turkey’s relationship with Russian imperialism after the Syrian civil war does not mean that Turkey has given up on the US and the EU, that Turkey has broken its economic and political ties with these imperialist powers. The purchase of S-400 missiles from Russia is nothing more than a bluff against the US.

The AKP’s foreign policy is based on a strategy of false threats, blackmail and hypocrisy. We see this most typically in its political attitude towards Israel’s attacks on Palestine since October 7, 2023. Nearly 50,000 Palestinians have been massacred and a million people have been displaced, while the AKP government is the fiercest enemy of Israel on the one hand and continues to trade with Israel on the other. With its “Prayers for Palestine, Ships for Israel” policy, AKP sells jet fuel to the Israeli army, which massacres Palestinians, while crying for the slaughtered Palestinians.

Step by step, the AKP has turned the country into an open prison. Bans have never fallen off the agenda as indispensable practices of the AKP government. Although the AKP signaled a softening before each election and gave the message that the bans would be lifted, immediately after winning the election, it brought new repressions and bans to the agenda that made the previous practices look like the previous ones. Although it promised to abolish the anti-democratic articles of the September 12 constitution with a constitutional amendment in 2010, after passing the “reform” laws it wanted, new legal regulations were introduced that included more repressive practices.

In the 22 years of AKP rule, human rights, workers’ rights and women’s rights have been completely abolished. During the AKP period, every demand was suppressed with repression and violence. Trade unions were rendered dysfunctional. Workers’ rights were shelved. Even its own supporter unions had to publicize what was done from time to time. During its 22 years in power, it left workers alone with hunger. Workers were almost banned from striking. 22 workers’ strikes were banned by the AKP government and thousands of workers were dismissed. The AKP-MHP government has continuously made legal changes in line with the wishes of the bosses by dismissing or threatening to dismiss workers for joining a union. The fact that only 2 million workers out of 16 million workers in Turkey are union members sufficiently explains the AKP policies. The AKP government did not attach importance to workers’ work safety so that it would not bring additional burden to the bosses. At least 30 thousand workers have lost their lives in occupational homicides during the AKP rule. Nearly one hundred of these are child workers.

Throughout its 22 years in power, the AKP has imposed continuous bans on freedom of the press and freedom of opinion. Nearly 150 journalists have been arrested, tried and sentenced to hundreds of years in prison just for reporting news. Nearly 3,000 people have been prosecuted, dozens have been arrested and sentenced to imprisonment just for criticizing R.T. Erdoğan on social media. The AKP has shown its hostility towards the Kurdish people also in the field of the press. Many Kurdish journalists were detained, tortured and arrested by breaking down the doors of their houses and raiding their offices.

AKP developed special policies against revolutionaries, communists and Kurdish people. With the amendments made under the name of “fight against terrorism”, heavy penalties were introduced. It is clear that in a country where there is no justice, the courts will also walk at the helm of power. This is what happened and thousands of revolutionaries and patriots who were put on trial were sentenced to the heaviest penalties. Turkey is one of the countries with the highest number of prisons. In Turkey, where there are 403 prisons in total, the AKP boasts of building new prisons. Prisons in Turkey are torture centers. Thousands of revolutionary and patriotic prisoners and convicts are struggling for life under the most severe conditions. Revolutionaries in solitary isolation cells face arbitrary practices and punishments for not complying with sanctions. The most typical punishments are the ban on family and lawyer visits, the ban on books and “execution burning”, which is becoming increasingly common today. In prisons where health conditions are very bad, more than six hundred revolutionary and patriotic prisoners are neither treated nor released even though they are on the verge of death. Over four thousand people have lost their lives in prisons during the AKP’s 22-year rule. This figure is the official figures announced by the Ministry of Justice itself. Dozens of revolutionary and patriotic prisoners are kept in prison on the grounds that they do not show “good behavior” even though their sentences are over.

One of the biggest hostilities shown during the AKP-MHP rule was against women and LGBTI+ people. A total of 7,600 women were murdered by men during the AKP-MHP rule.

It is necessary to open a parenthesis here and mention the Istanbul Convention. Turkey signed the Istanbul Convention in 2011. The AKP-MHP government was a signatory to the convention and had to take some steps. Although the government signed the Istanbul Convention, 128 women were murdered in 2012 when the law was ratified. Subsequently, the government announced its withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention on March 20, 2021. After this date, the murders of women increased even more. Since the date of withdrawal, 600 women have been murdered. During the AKP-MHP rule, 125 LGBTI+ individuals were killed within the scope of hate crimes, and the fascist government almost blessed these murders.

Against all these developments, the bourgeois opposition remained almost silent in the face of what the AKP did. The society, especially the CHP, was constantly shown the ballot box as salvation. It prevented the masses from taking to the streets, demanding their rights on the streets and holding the AKP to account on the streets. This attitude of the bourgeois opposition benefited the AKP. During the last 22 years of AKP rule, it has become clear that the bourgeois opposition does not have much to give to society. The CHP, which has more power in the bourgeois opposition than the other bourgeois parties, has not only not shown any success during this period, but like the other bourgeois parties, it has always sided with the AKP when it came to the so-called “survival” of the country. The CHP and other bourgeois parties have always given their approval to the AKP in the approval of cross-border operations and the lifting of immunities.

The bourgeois opposition continues to maintain their silence in the face of the AKP, which openly says that they do not recognize their own constitution, when there is so much poverty, when unemployment has increased so much, when human rights violations are rampant. Even though the AKP was defeated in the March 2024 local elections, the fact that the first thing the CHP leader did under the name of “détente” was to run to the palace alone shows the quality of the bourgeois opposition.

No bourgeois opposition party can make the people prosper in this order. This fascist state is the common denominator of all bourgeois parties. There are only nuances between them. It is the essence of bourgeois parties that every bourgeois party reflects democracy when it is in opposition, and a dictatorship when it comes to power. One hundred years of Turkish history has always witnessed this.

One side of these developments is the revolutionary situation. In general, it can be said that the revolutionary situation in our country is at its highest level in the last twenty years. The government is in a crisis of inability to govern. It cannot take any step without using force. The smallest demand for rights and action is violently suppressed. Since 2022, the economic crisis, which has deepened more and more, has led to a great accumulation of anger in society.

There are widespread worker resistances and protests, but they follow a spontaneous course. The conciliatory attitude of the trade unions is backward and passive in taking the class to the streets for their rights and taking their rights by striking. The revolutionary and communist movement’s organization within the class is very weak. This situation negatively affects the class struggle.

In terms of the period ahead, one of the issues that communists should focus on the most is organizing within the working class. It is not possible for the social struggle to advance without organizing the working class.

General Situation of the Working Class

The Gezi Uprising of May-June 2013 and the Serhildan of October 6-8, 2014, increased the contradictions and conflicts within the ruling clique of fascism, and this process left the AKP unable to form a government on its own in the June 7, 2015, General Elections. This process also sharpened the struggle for power between two cliques within the ruling class clique.

In the November 3, 2003, general elections, the AKP formed a government on its own, and then the struggle between the AKP and the Gülen sect, who had aligned their interests in the process of liquidating Kemalist cadres within the state apparatus, which became visible with the “December 17-25 Corruption and Bribery Operation” in 2013, gradually hardened and led to the coup attempt on July 15, 2016.

Although some aspects of the coup attempt are still in the dark, the AKP evaluated the coup attempt as “a blessing from God” and concretely used it as a justification to increase its fascist aggression against the revolutionary and progressive opposition, especially the popular movement. On the grounds of the July 15, 2016, coup attempt, a State of Emergency was declared between 2016-2018 and the fascist dictatorship regime with a parliamentary mask was transformed into a one-party dictatorship and the way was paved for the so-called “presidential regime”.

The July 15, 2016 coup attempt did not only operate as a struggle for power within the ruling class cliques and then only as a process of liquidation. At the same time, capital transfer was also realized within the ruling class cliques. The clique holding the state power realized a significant capital transfer under the name of “FETÖ Exchange”.

The State of Emergency process was mainly used as the realization of a series of comprehensive attacks, especially the disorganization attack against the popular opposition in general and the working class in particular. First of all, a purge was carried out within the state organization. About half a million civil servants were dismissed by Decree Laws (KHK).

But mainly an attack was launched against the revolutionary democratic opposition, especially the Kurdish national movement. All opposition dynamics against fascism were attacked with a heavy fascist terror. Although official figures state that 79,301 people were detained, it is known that the actual number of people subjected to detention is over 160,000. From July 16, 2016, to March 20, 2018, the number of people who were put in prisons with arrest warrants during the State of Emergency is at least 228,137 people.

With the State of Emergency declared after the coup attempt, fascism not only launched arrest attacks on the grounds of “fighting against FETÖ” as a product of its internal struggle for power, but also closed down various institutions and confiscated various commercial enterprises as part of the seizure of capital. The important point here is not only that fascism has entered into a power struggle with the Fetullah Gülen sect as a result of the struggle for power within itself. The power struggle of the two Islamist discursive cliques of the Turkish ruling classes that hold the power of power has been transformed into an attack on the people, the progressive, revolutionary and communist movement. Fascism has also launched an all-out attack on the legal institutions of the revolutionary democratic opposition. In this process, revolutionary democratic publications, associations, foundations and trade unions, most of which were associated with the Fethullah Gülen sect, were also closed down, and various institutions and enterprises were collapsed.

Parallel to imperialism’s reorganization of the international division of labor, the reshaping of the superstructure institutions on the basis of the needs of the semi-colonial economy dependent on imperialist capitalism in the Turkish market, which is a part of the capitalist system, and the reorganization of the state organization according to this need were implemented mainly through attacks against the working class and the working people.

At the same time, this process was shaped as a process in which the struggle for power between the ruling class cliques continued and periodically intensified. After the Islamist discursive clique within the Turkish ruling classes, which expressed itself in the AKP, first purged the Kemalist cadres within the state organization and significantly regressed them, the power struggle of the two cliques in power continued, first implicitly and then with the coup attempt. The AKP, under the leadership of R.T. Erdoğan, emerged from this struggle for power by collaborating with some of the Kemalist cadres it had purged in the past, and by suffering considerable attrition. This process also led to the establishment of the “presidential regime” in the state organization of the Turkish ruling classes, which they have been talking about for years.

The presidential regime has been shaped as a superstructure institution in line with the demands and needs of the semi-colonial economic structure reorganized in line with the regional interests of imperialism. The state organization as the fulfillment of the rules of law, especially the constitution, which existed on paper for the exploitation, plunder and plunder of the imperialist bourgeoisie and comprador capitalism in the Turkish market, according to the needs of the moment (“the state managed like a company”) was reorganized as a “presidential regime” on the basis of the republic.

The important point here is that during the reorganization of the regime, the power struggles within the ruling and opposition cliques of the Turkish ruling classes and moreover within the ruling class clique that holds the power are secondary; as a whole, the attack on the people by the fascist state organization, which the Turkish ruling class cliques use as a power apparatus, is essential. Even while the Turkish ruling classes were struggling for power among themselves, they continued their aggression against the people in the same lane. The target of this aggression has been the Kurdish national movement, the people’s movements independent of the politics of the ruling classes, progressive, revolutionary and communist movements.

While the state organization, which is the power apparatus of the Turkish ruling classes, was mainly reorganized according to the conditions required by the period for the class interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie and comprador capitalism, and the “Presidential Government System” emerged as the product of this change; All the tools of the “strategy of suppressing rebellion” against the people, revolutionary and communist movement continued to be used. While on the one side of this strategy was the dismantling of the organizations of the working class and the people and the backing of the ruling clique; a process was organized in which even the bourgeois opposition that did not back the ruling clique was declared “terrorist”. In such a process, the spontaneous actions of the working class and the people with economic and democratic demands were suppressed with fascist aggression. The dosage of fascist aggression was increased in a line ranging from the Turkish state not obeying even the laws that exist on paper, arresting MPs with immunity and detaining the masses against the possibility of demonstrations.

The Working Class: Tendency to Struggle Under Attack

In the first quarter of the 21st century, the reorganization of the Turkish economy on the basis of imperialism’s international division of labor and the deepening of semi-colonial conditions led to an increase in exploitation for the working class and an increase in attacks on the most basic democratic rights, especially trade union organization. The bourgeoisie’s worldwide abandonment of “welfare state” policies had a deeper impact on semi-colonial markets. The working class became the target of the policies of the imperialist monopolies, called Multinational Corporations, to continue their exploitation and increase their profits in the Turkish market directly or through their comprador companies.

At the current stage, according to official data, it is stated that the number of wage (salaried) workers in Turkey at the beginning of 2024 was 15 million 22 thousand 900 people. 8 million 331 thousand wage earners work in the trade and services sector, 4 million 989 thousand in the industrial sector and 1 million 701 thousand in the construction sector. According to the January 2024 statistics of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security (ÇSGB), the number of workers in all sectors is 16 million 395 thousand 275. On the other hand, according to research conducted by DISK-AR from various sources, the total number of workers in Turkey is 18 million 789 thousand 456 as of October 2023.

These different figures in the number of workers in Turkey also apply to the organization of the working class. This is clearly seen when we examine the unions, one of the main organizing tools of the Turkish working class, and the unionization rates. For example, according to the January 2024 statistics of the ÇSGB, the number of unionized workers is 2 million 495 thousand 423 out of 16 million 395 thousand 275 total workers. While the official unionization rate based on insured workers is 15.22 percent, the actual unionization rate declines to 13 percent when all registered and unregistered workers are considered. Non-unionized workers account for 87 percent of total workers. As can be seen from the figures announced, officially and de facto, the working class in Turkey is largely unorganized in terms of union organization. Especially in terms of the registered segment of the working class, the vast majority remain outside union organization. When unregistered workers (local and migrant) are included, the extent of disorganization grows even more.

Only 2 million 422 thousand out of 18 million 568 thousand workers in Turkey are unionized. 16 million 146 thousand workers are not union members. The overwhelming majority of the working class in Turkey is deprived of union organization, which is one of the most basic means of organization. Undoubtedly, the main reason for this is the policies implemented against the union organization of the working class. Legally and de facto, the working class is prevented from organizing in trade unions. The fact that the demands for unionization are at the forefront of the actions of the working class confirms this fact. However, despite this, according to official unionization data, there has been a certain increase in both the number of trade unions and the organization of the working class in trade unions. As a matter of fact, while there were 92 trade unions in January 2013, this number was 227 in July 2023.

In January 2013, 68 of the 92 unions were members of the three major labor confederations. The number of independent unions and unions affiliated to other confederations is 24. In July 2023, 74 out of 227 unions are members of the three major labor confederations, while 153 are members of independent or other confederations. However, there is a notable increase in the number of unions that are members of independent and newly established confederations between 2013 and 2023 (from 24 to 153). However, despite this increase, the number of members of unions outside the independent and big three confederations have remained extremely limited. While there has been an increase in the number of labor unions, there has been a slight increase in the number of unions that have passed the work branch threshold.

In January 2013, 44 out of 92 unions passed the threshold, whereas in July 2023, 59 out of 229 unions passed the threshold. This means that the rate of unions passing the threshold has decreased from 48 percent to 26 percent.

Therefore, the right to collective bargaining of a large number of unions is being usurped due to the barrier of the threshold. This, it must be admitted, is an important obstacle for the struggle of the working class in Turkey. The 1 percent threshold system imposed by law is not the only obstacle to the union organization of the working class. In addition, the collective bargaining system limited to the workplace/enterprise also has a negative impact on the organization of the working class. As a matter of fact, the number of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements in Turkey is far below the number of unionized workers. According to ÇSGB data, the number of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements as of October 2023 is 1 million 984 thousand. According to the 3rd quarter data of 2023, the total number of workers is 18 million 789 thousand. In other words, only 10.6 percent of workers are covered by CBAs, while 16 million 806 thousand workers are not covered by CBAs. In proportional terms, 89.4 percent of workers are excluded from the scope of the CBA. Again, in the face of the attacks of the bosses against the working class, especially the hostility of the bosses to trade unions, some major reasons such as the long duration of the courts and the deliberate violations of law by the bosses, the postponement or monetization of the sentences of those who are found to be unlawful even in the bourgeois sense, emerge as obstacles to the organization of the working class. Again, one of the biggest obstacles to the union organization of the working class is related to the nature of comprador capitalism. The employment conditions of the working class (the conditions under which they are engaged in production) reveal an objective picture of the union organization of the working class. Considering that the employment of the working class is mainly carried out in enterprises called SMEs (micro, small and medium-sized enterprises) and moreover, the main weight within SMEs is the enterprises called micro-enterprises where less than 10 employees are employed, the difficulty of union organization of the working class is better understood.

On the other hand, the recklessness of the bosses, impunity and the government’s backing of the bosses by using the security and justice system, make it a deterrent for workers to join unions. Again, the difference in union understandings within the working class and especially the influence of bureaucratic yellow unionism, the ideological and de facto hegemony established by the government over the unions and the loss of trust between workers and unions are among the other factors of disorganization.

In total, with the usurpation of the right to collective bargaining through the work-sector threshold, it is mainly aimed to direct the working class to the union bureaucracy and organize it, and to prevent and break the tendency to struggle through yellow unionism. As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of the unions in the Turkish working class that have passed the threshold are members of the three big confederations. In July 2023, 54 of the 59 unions that exceeded the threshold were members of DİSK (4 unions), Türk-İş (32 unions) and Hak-İş (16 unions). Apart from the three major confederations, only five unions exceeded the threshold.

For the reasons mentioned above, trade unionism in Turkey is centralized through the coercion of the state apparatus. This is done not only through legislation but also through “partisan unionism”. In particular, public sector workers are made members of unions. This is the determining factor in the increase in the membership of unions affiliated to Hak-İş. Due to this centralization, 98 percent of the working class within the union organization has become members of the three major labor confederations.

Türk-İş has 1 million 313 thousand members, Hak-İş has 823 thousand members, DİSK has 236 thousand members, and the number of members of independent unions and other small confederations is 49 thousand. The organization of the working class and the number of members indicate a very unbalanced distribution among confederations. Therefore, out of 2 million 422 thousand unionized workers, 2 million 373 thousand are members of DİSK, Türk-İş or Hak-İş. As of July 2023, Türk-İş remains the largest confederation with a share of 54.2 percent. Hak-İş ranks second with 34 percent, while DİSK is the third confederation with 9.8 percent representation among unionized workers. Undoubtedly, the main reason for this picture is not only the obstacles to the organization of the working class, but also the fact that those who insist on organizing are mainly directed towards yellow and bureaucratic unionism.

However, when we look at the distribution of unionized workers in terms of their parent organizations based on the January 20024 data of the ÇGBS, the share of Türk-İş (1 million 349 thousand 209) in the total is 54.07 percent. This confederation is followed by Hak-İş (845 thousand 512) with 33.88 percent and DİSK (245 thousand 636) with 9.84 percent. The total share of the three confederations of unionized workers reaches 97.80 percent. The remaining unionized workers (2.2 percent) are members of other confederations and independent unions.

An analysis of the recent membership growth of the three confederations shows that the increase in the number of unionized workers in Türk-İş’s member unions has slowed down compared to previous periods. In July 2023, Türk-İş achieved a 43.26 percent increase in the number of unionized workers, while this rate dropped to 36.22 percent in January 2024. A similar situation is observed in Hak-İş, which ranks second in terms of the number of members. While the number of member workers increased by 38.01 percent in the previous period, it decreased to 22.20 percent in January 2024. DİSK, on the other hand, shows a certain progress compared to the other two confederations. While the rate of increase in the number of DİSK members was 5.99 percent in July 2023, it reached 9.15 percent in January 2024. The number of members of other confederations and independent unions also improved compared to the previous period, reaching 5.9 percent.

When we examine the unionization of the working class by sectors, we observe that there is a predominant unionization in the manufacturing industry and in the public sector. As we have pointed out above, some of the public sector-dominated unionization is carried out under the direct guidance of the government. Below is a table on the unionization of the working class by sectors.

Table: Number of Insured and Unionized Workers and Unionization Rates by Line of Business (January 2023)

Source: State of Labor in Turkey Labor Research (2020-2023), DİSK-AR, Page 187

As can be seen from the table, the unionization rates of the working class vary widely across sectors.

Construction, accommodation and entertainment and clerical occupations have the lowest unionization rates, while general works, health and social services and banking, finance and insurance have the highest unionization rates. The three branches with the highest unionization rates of the working class are general works, health and social services and banking, finance and insurance. The unionization rate in health and social services was 39.1 percent in July 2023. The unionization rate in the banking, finance and insurance sector is 34.1 percent. The unionization rate in the general works sector is 57.9 percent.

In the construction industry, which is one of the industries with the highest number of workplace murders, there is a lack of union organization of the working class. While the official unionization rate is 14.8 percent, the unionization rate in the construction sector is only 3.3 percent and the number of unionized workers is only 54,319. The majority of these are in the public sector. While the unionization rate is 4.3 percent in the tourism sector, it is 7.3 percent in the office sector, which is the largest sector with more than 4.2 million workers. Only 306 thousand of the 4.2 million workers in the clerical sector are organized.

According to ÇSGB data, between July 3023 and January 2024, the number of workers in 8 of the 20 branches of labor decreased. The highest decrease compared to the previous period is in Accommodation and Entertainment (- 186 thousand 595), Weaving, Clothing and Leather (- 56 thousand 938), Hunting, Fishing, Agriculture and Forestry (- 20 thousand 574).

The highest increase in employment compared to the previous period is observed in the Trade, Office, Education and Fine Arts (55 thousand 479), Transportation (52 thousand 924) and Food Industry (32 thousand 562).

It is understood that the employment losses in the business sectors also have a negative impact on the number of unionized workers. Therefore, the number of unionized workers decreased in six out of 20 industries. The industries with the highest decrease in the number of unionized workers are Weaving, Clothing and Leather (- 2,929), Banking, Finance and Insurance (- 2,903), Health and Social Services (- 1229) and Accommodation and Entertainment (- 1058).

As mentioned above, the 1 percent threshold affects the membership numbers of the majority of unions. According to the ÇSGB January 2024 data, 103 out of 235 unions lost members in comparison to the previous period. Among the unions that have lost more than a thousand members, the first two unions to lose more than a thousand members are Hak-İş affiliates Öz Sağlık-İş and Öz Finans-İş. These are followed by TEKSİF and Türkiye Haber-İş unions affiliated to Türk-İş. Enerji-Sen is the only union in DİSK to experience this level of membership loss. The most important reason for Enerji-Sen’s loss of members is undoubtedly the attitude of the government and capital. The most obvious applications of this are layoffs and the de facto blocking of collective labor agreements. In terms of membership losses, Öz Sağlık-İş stands out in the statistics. The reason for this is the loss of more than 11 thousand members compared to the previous period. While Türk-İş affiliate Sağlık-İş and DİSK affiliate Dev Sağlık-İş have increased their membership in the same line of work, the fact that Öz Sağlık-İş has lost so many members can be considered as a sign that the union’s understanding and the policies it implements stem from the union’s understanding and policies. Especially DISK member Dev Sağlık-İş attracts attention by increasing its membership by 88 percent compared to the previous period. It is understood that Öz Sağlık-İş’s counterattack with its financial means and government support prevented Dev Sağlık-İş from passing the threshold.

On the other hand, the increase in the number of unions affiliated to independent and newly established confederations between 2013 and 2023 is noteworthy (even though the number of members of these unions is low). The increase in the number of unions in the independent and other categories from 24 to 153 also points to the working class’s search outside the three major trade union confederations and its effort to make a way for itself.

Among the independent unions, it is noteworthy that the Private Sector Teachers’ Union, which continues to grow steadily, continues to increase its membership. According to ÇSGB January 2024 data, the “Teachers’ Union” has reached 8,982 members. It can be said that the union’s campaigns, actions and activities to protect the rights of private sector teachers played an important role in this. Among the independent unions, İnşaat-İş and BİRTEK-SEN have been the center of attention with the actions they organized.

The unorganized state of the Turkish working class in the trade union field has a direct connection with increasing the exploitation of the Turkish market by imperialist monopolies and comprador capitalism and deepening the semi-colonial conditions. The basis of flexible and precarious work, which aims to turn the Turkish market into a haven of cheap labor for the imperialist monopolies and comprador capitalists and thus to increase the exploitation of surplus-value, is the liquidation of the union organization of the working class in the first place, or if not, its organization in collaborationist unions, and thus its consent to the “wage slavery order”.

The reshaping of the Turkish market in line with the interests of imperialist capital and the comprador bourgeoisie, especially the liquidation attack on trade union organization, directly affected the struggle of the working class. For this reason, there has been a serious decline in the tendency of the working class to go on strike. For example, while the average annual number of workers going on strike was 40 thousand 823 in the period 1984-2002, this number decreased to 5 thousand 114 in the period 2003-2021. Similarly, the number of working days spent on strike has also declined. While the average annual number of working days spent on strike was 1 million 208 thousand in the period 1984-2002, this number decreased to 193 thousand 529 between 2003-2021.

Banned by the September 12, 1980, military fascist coup, the right to strike was reintroduced in 1984 and massively exercised in the following years. A total of 863 thousand workers went on strike in Turkey between 1984 and 2021. Of these striking workers, 443 thousand were employed in the public sector and 420 thousand in the private sector. The average annual number of strikers during the period was around 23 thousand. This is not an insignificant number. However, the distribution of the number of striking workers over the period is quite unstable. There were years when the number of strikers dropped below a thousand, and there were also years when this number approached 200 thousand. However, especially in the 2000s, when neo-liberal policies were implemented with determination, there was a marked decline and a prolonged stagnation in the exercise of the right to strike by the working class. The main reason for this is the attack policies against the working class and especially its organized struggle. In the background of the decline and stagnation in the exercise of the right to strike by the working class in these years, it is possible to say that the decline in the number of unionized workers, the number of public workers and the number of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements, de-unionization and strike postponements are behind this decline.

Especially during the AKP governments, the right to strike has been banned under the name of “obstruction” for various reasons. It is indisputable that the banning of strikes under the name of postponement, which is widely used as a tool, de facto serves to usurp the most fundamental right of the working class and plays a role in the decrease in the tendency of the working class to strike.

In the last 20 years, there have been a total of 20 strike-postponements, 7 of which took place during the State of Emergency. Most of the strike postponements were made on the grounds of “national security”. Since 2003, the number of workers covered by strike bans has been 194,949. In short, there are de facto strike bans parallel to the disorganization attack against the working class.

The disorganization of the working class and forcing it to live on a minimum wage below the starvation line is one of the most prominent features of this process. The low level of unionization despite the numerical increase in the working class in parallel with the deepening of the semi-colonial conditions of the Turkish economy over the last quarter century is the product of a conscious and planned attack on the working class. Imperialist monopolies and comprador bosses have used every opportunity to attack for this purpose. For example, with the July 15 coup, which emerged as a product of the power struggle of the Turkish ruling classes, a comprehensive attack on the existing organization of the working class was carried out between 2016-2018 on the grounds of the state of emergency conditions. The power struggle between the ruling class cliques was used to dismantle the organizations of the working class and the people. In particular, strikes were banned on the grounds of postponement.

In the mining, metal, chemistry, energy, etc. industries, which have traditionally been at the forefront of the trade union struggle of the Turkish working class, pressures and attacks such as production coercion, unemployment pressure, banning of union actions at all levels, etc. have been increased and precarious working conditions have been deepened. The unions, which had a certain power in these lines of work, have been significantly reduced due to the loss of rights in the workplaces where they are organized, the trivialization of the CBA difference, the union’s inability to become a center of attraction in the line of work, etc., and the union organization has been completely neutralized. On the other hand, the dismissal, retirement and exile of thousands of public employees (civil servants) with decrees in this process constituted the other pillar of this attack on the working class.

In short, with the implementation of neo-liberal policies, the ongoing attacks on trade union organizations, which are the most basic organization of the working class to struggle and obtain rights, have been further increased under the pretext of the State of Emergency and targeted the most organized section of the working class.

After the State of Emergency, the attacks on the organization of the working class continued without interruption. This attack was implemented especially under the pretext of the Covid-19 pandemic. During the pandemic period, while on the one hand it was said that “life fits at home”, on the other hand, the working class was told to “be in the hospital”, “be at the construction site”, “be in the factory”. The working class was forced to work under the threat of hunger and unemployment, saying that “the wheels must turn”.

The exact number of deaths across the country in this process is not known, nor is it known how many forced laborers were killed due to Covid-19. However, the pandemic was mainly effective within the working class, as workers were forced into production. The pandemic not only led to the massacre of workers, but attacks on the most basic rights of the working class continued to be carried out under the name of “pandemic management”. On the other hand, the fact that 90 percent of those killed due to the pandemic were retired workers, the previous generation of workers, has also emerged as an obstacle to the transfer of the experience and knowledge of the working-class struggle to future generations.

In short, under the name of “pandemic management”, the state and the bosses have carried out the biggest massacre of workers in the history of Turkey, leaving the Turkish working class in the dilemma of “virus or unemployment-hunger”. In this process, sectoral weights have been organized, logistics networks have been developed, unregulated day and night work has been implemented in factories and new forms of work (such as working from home) have become widespread in order to take more place in the international division of labor.

The “pandemic management” has been taken directly as a heavy attack on the working and living conditions of the working class. In summary, the traditional trade union movement, which was significantly downgraded during the SoE period, had difficulties in protecting even its members during the pandemic.

The attacks on the working class have not only continued with de-unionization and strike bans. At the same time, the usurpation of severance pays, one of the vested rights of the working class, and dismissal attacks were also used effectively. Along with the bosses’ de-unionization attack on the working class, there is also the threat of usurping the right to severance pay. Severance pay is the worker’s wage, the payment of which is postponed until later, and is the most important of the protective regulations for the worker. At the current stage, there is a de facto elimination attack against severance pay.

The most effective method of the usurpation of the right to severance pay by the bosses is the practice of dismissal (dismissal for good, resignation and re-employment, etc.). The severance pay of the working class is usurped through the practice of dismissal, which is put into practice with the code application. The system, which is implemented as the bosses reporting the reason for dismissal to the Social Security Institution with various codes, is used to usurp the vested rights of the working class. Because the reason for dismissal or resignation is important in determining whether or not workers can benefit from various rights (such as notice, severance pay and unemployment benefits) due to the termination of the employment contract guaranteed by labor law. It is precisely for this reason that bosses use the code in their dismissal attacks to usurp these rights.

For example, when we look at the distribution of the dismissals reported between 2015 and 2021 according to codes, it is seen that the highest rate is code number 3, “termination of an indefinite-term employment contract by the worker”. Thus, between 2015 and 2021, 46 percent of workers reported resignation as the reason for dismissal (Code-3). The fact that 46 percent of workers are dismissed by resigning in such a way that they do not deserve notice pay, severance pay, and unemployment allowance is in reality a usurpation of these rights of workers. Again, during the Covid-19 pandemic, dismissal codes, known as Code-29, were widely used by the employer to terminate the employment contract of the worker on the grounds of “situations that do not comply with the rules of morality and goodwill and the like” in Article 25-II of the Labor Law, and not only usurped the vested rights of the workers, but also prevented them from working in subsequent jobs.

Another issue that needs to be mentioned in terms of the working class is occupational homicides. There is an increase in occupational homicides because the measures that should be taken by the bosses to gain more profit are not taken. Today, there is literally a “Regime of Work Killings” in Turkey. Between 2002 and 2023, at least 32,478 workers were murdered at work. In addition to daily work murders, hundreds of workers were massacred in mine murders such as Soma and Ermenek as a result of preventable work murders when guaranteed working conditions are created. For the working class in Turkey, the right to secure work has emerged as a right to life.

In the face of the attacks on the working class, it must be stated that the working class is in a certain state of activism. The working class is in a struggle for wages and, in connection with this, for unionization. As a matter of fact, according to the report published by the Labor Studies Society since 2015, the year 2022 was the year with the highest number of worker resistance. Since 2015, 2022 has been the year with the highest number of worker actions and the highest number of workers participating in workplace-based actions.

According to the report based on the data published in the press, 1,556 worker and public laborer actions were identified in 2022. It is stated that approximately 155 thousand workers participated in workplace-based protests. In 2022, especially the first two months of the year were marked by a wave of de facto strikes in which courier workers were at the forefront. The workers’ resort to de facto strikes should also be understood as a message to the union bureaucracy. According to the report, the number of workplace-based actions was 600, the number of general actions in which workers participated was 257 and the number of solidarity actions was 18. These actions were generally of short duration.

It is emphasized that in 2020, after the pandemic period, 26 percent of the protests were of a rights-building nature, while in 2021 this rate increased to 65 percent, and in 2022 it increased even higher to 72 percent. The report states that in 2022, protests were marked by the demand for an increase in wages, which had fallen due to inflation, and says, “While the proportion of low wage-related actions for workplace-based action cases was 14 percent on average between 2015-21, this rate increased to a very high rate of 36 percent in 2022.” According to the report, the working class held press conferences in 44 percent of cases, de facto strikes in 30 percent of cases and permanent resistance in 10 percent of cases. Thirty-six percent of the actions were aimed at raising low wages. Firing played a role in 19 percent, while unionization played a role in 16 percent. Collective bargaining actions accounted for 11 percent of all worker actions.

In 2023, the working class took to the streets to demand their rights in dozens of sectors ranging from energy to textiles, agriculture to metal. Actions took place in more than 400 factories and workplaces in the form of strikes, de facto strikes, resistance and various protest demonstrations demanding wage improvements and improved working conditions. The prominent demand in these actions, which also included demands for unionization, was a wage increase in the face of the decrease in the purchasing power of workers due to the high inflation rates caused by the economic policies implemented by the ruling classes.

In 2023, among the prominent actions of the working class, protests were held, and strike decisions were taken in the metal sector due to the failure to reach an agreement in the collective bargaining process between the labor unions and the boss union MESS. In Urfa, workers organized in BİRTEK-SEN at Özak Tekstil started a strike and were beaten and detained many times by the police. Agrobay workers, who started to resist after being fired for being members of Tarım-Sen, were intervened by the gendarmerie. Pensioners frequently took to the streets with the call of the All-Pensioners’ Union, Pensioners Solidarity Union and DİSK Emekli-Sen. Dersim FEDAŞ workers’ action, Pekintaş resistance, Sputnik strike, workers’ resistance and actions took place.

The actions of the working class continued in 2024. Workers in Agrobay, Trendyol, Antep, Urfa, Seydişehir, Aliağa, Ostim went on strike and continued their protests. The working class, which has difficulty in meeting even the most basic human needs due to high inflation, demands strikes and sometimes actual resistances to demand an increase in wages. Although these strike demands are usually ended with “last minute sales agreements” by the unions, the working class is preparing for new struggles.

It is clear that the working class needs and will need more organized struggle in conditions where the minimum wage has become the average wage for the working class and the minimum wage is even below the hunger limit, where the poverty of those who make a living by selling their labor has increased more than ever, where an increasing number of workers are sacrificed to occupational murders, where the competition between the unregistered and the registered workers intensifies, and where the bosses want to increase their dominance over working conditions by calling for more flexibility.

It is seen that the working class is in a tendency to organize against the attacks against it, albeit slowly, that they force union organizations, especially the struggle for unionization, especially the demand for strikes against the low wages, and that they carry out actual resistances and actions from time to time. The biggest obstacle to these demands and resistances is the bureaucratic yellow unionism. For this reason, the struggle and actual resistance of independent unions come to the fore. Precisely for this reason, despite the scope of the attack on the working class and the negativities experienced, it is necessary to state that the main dynamic of the unions, which are in a certain development, is in their trade union approach and the forms of struggle they wage.

The working class is learning through strikes, resistance and actions and is experiencing in its own practice that there is no other way but to struggle. This experience itself prepares the infrastructure for the struggle of the coming years.

The State of the Revolutionary and Communist Movement

For the reshaping of the Turkish state in line with the interests of imperialist capital and for the chances of success of the policies pursued by the Turkish ruling classes, which naturally received a mediating share of this reshaping, through the AKP years, the most advanced and conscious section of society was targeted first. A “total attack” was launched not only in the economic sphere but also against Turkish society as a whole. In this way, measures were taken against possible “road accidents” in the anti-working class and working people policies of the AKP governments.

F-type prisons, isolation and treatment system were put into operation as a step of a comprehensive liquidation attack against the revolutionary and communist movement, which constitutes the most advanced and conscious sections of the working class and toiling people of Turkey. For this purpose, the Turkish state resorted to massacre attacks against revolutionary and communist prisoners in prisons. Although the revolutionary and communist movement of the period correctly determined that this attack was an “all-out attack” and that its main aim was to liquidate the revolutionary and communist movement and thus to take over the whole society, the picture that has emerged in the intervening quarter century points to an incomplete understanding of the scope of the attack defined as an “all-out attack” and from this point of view, an inadequacy in meeting this attack.

While the revolutionary and communist movement of Turkey is right in its prediction that the Turkish state’s prison-based surrender and liquidation attack is an “all-out attack” and that the main goal is to surrender society, this attack is not only with the policies of the Turkish ruling classes and the aim of realizing the current interests of the imperialists in a way that determines this, The Turkish revolutionary and communist movement has failed to analyze the changes in the role assigned to semi-colonial countries such as Turkey as a result of imperialism’s reorganization of the production process in the international arena and to organize a political-organizational and military orientation accordingly.

This inadequacy has led to the failure of the Turkish revolutionary and communist movement to confront the aggression of the Turkish regime against the working class and working people through the AKP governments and moreover to channel it into the revolutionary struggle for power. Although the actions and resistances of the working class and masses continue in various forms and contents, and moreover the Gezi Rebellion emerged as an important mass action in terms of the centuries-old history of the Turkish regime, it is necessary to point out the inability of the revolutionary communist movement to lead these actions.

Similarly, although the revolutionary communist movement took part in mass actions such as the Kobanê Serhildanı, which took place with the call of the Kurdish national movement against the annihilation attack of the Turkish-backed ISIS gangs against Kobanê, it was insufficient to flow these actions into a channel that would develop its relationship with the masses.

It cannot be said that the revolutionary and communist movement in Turkey, with the exception of the Kurdish national liberation movement, has been successful in responding to the anti-working class and anti-people policies of the Turkish regime through the AKP governments in the first quarter of the 21st century. Although the revolutionary and communist movement responded to the Turkish regime’s prison-centered liquidation attack with the December 19-15, 2000, Prison Resistance and Death Fasts, although important practices of resistance and struggle were put forward in the face of the regime’s attacks in the following years, these practices remained as singular examples. Although there were processes such as the Gezi Rebellion, the Kobanê Serhildan and then the “Metal Storm” of the metal workers, it cannot be said that the revolutionary and communist movement was able to evaluate these processes.

It can be said that despite the mass actions such as the Gezi Rebellion and the Kobanê Serhildan, the revolutionary communist movement’s relationship with the masses continued to lose strength. Undoubtedly, there are various reasons for this. Although the fascist aggression of the Turkish state against the revolutionary communist movement has an impact as an external reason, the determining reason is internal. The reason why the liquidation attack, which is shaped as a product of the threat perception of the Turkish fascism against the revolutionary communist movement, is effective on the revolutionary communist movements is not the aggression of the fascist state. It is mainly the break in the power consciousness of the revolutionary communist movement and, in connection with this, its inability to develop a united revolutionary attitude in confronting the fascist state’s attacks on the working class and working people.

What is decisive in this is the inability of the revolutionary communist movements to correctly analyze the conditions in which the working class and laborers – in the broadest sense, the masses – are living. The most important reason for this is the inability of the revolutionary and communist movements to comprehend the changes and transformations in Turkish society. This situation has gradually caused the revolutionary communist movement to move away from the problems and demands of the masses and to turn inward and to its own agenda. This situation, which caused a break in the revolutionary communist movements’ goal of political power, led to the fact that it was affected by the liquidationist attack.

For example, the putschist liquidationist attack that the communist movement experienced within itself – although it emerged as a product of a counter-revolutionary enemy operation carried out by German imperialism and Turkish fascism in 2015 – cannot be explained only by the enemy operation and liquidationist attack of the counter-revolution in terms of its impact on our ranks. The fact that the putschist liquidationist attack is effective in the ranks of the communist movement and can affect some party power is due to the communist movement’s inability to establish an adequate relationship with the situation and demands of the working class and working people on a revolutionary basis.

Not engaging with the masses on a revolutionary basis with their current demands and aspirations, and moreover not taking part in the actions of the masses in one way or another, has led to the inability of the communist movement to confront the attack of liquidationism and moreover to prevent this attack from developing in its own ranks and taking on a putschist style.

This process experienced by the communist movement within its own ranks also summarizes the situation of the revolutionary and communist movement. The revolutionary and communist movement has experienced problems within itself under the condition that it could not relate to the demands of the working class and working people -for one reason or another- on a revolutionary basis, moreover, it could not relate to the current movement, actions and resistances of the masses and reproduce this movement on a revolutionary basis within itself. These problems caused the limited relations of the revolutionary communist movements with the masses to regress even further.

The only way for the revolutionary and communist movement to respond to the enemy’s liquidation attacks, especially the annihilation attacks, is the implementation of the line from the masses to the masses. Regardless of the conditions, the main point of departure should be to connect with the spontaneous actions of the masses at the moment, to organize the advanced masses in the ranks of the revolutionary and communist movement, to bring the middle masses closer to the ranks of the revolutionary and communist movement, and to at least neutralize the backward masses.

As long as this mass line is not put into practice, the organization of even the masses who are closest to the revolutionary communist movement, who constitute the “natural mass base” of the revolutionary communist movement, in the ranks of the revolutionary communist movements cannot be achieved. For example, in an environment of increasing poverty, it is a fact that the progressive democratic sections and especially the youth, who constitute the base of the revolutionary movement, are drawn into gang and mafia relations. It can be easily said that especially in the neighborhoods where Alevi and Kurdish laborers live densely, drugs, prostitution and criminalized activities supported by the regime are paved the way, and the masses that will constitute the first-hand base of the revolutionary movement are neutralized in this way and backed up to the system. In addition, the pragmatist approach of some revolutionary organizations towards such relations has also provided the ground for the strengthening of such gang and mafia relations.

The fact that even the masses that constitute the “natural mass base” of the revolutionary communist movement cannot be organized with a correct policy, on the contrary, the fact that these masses have become direct and indirect extensions of fascism by taking part in all kinds of criminalized criminal organizations provides an important data on the relationship of the revolutionary communist movement with the masses. Of course, the “special policies” implemented by the fascist state, especially in the neighborhoods where Alevi and Kurdish youth live, have an impact on the emergence of such gangs and criminal groups. However, it is precisely for this reason that we see that revolutionary and communist organizations have not been able to establish themselves as a revolutionary alternative to these policies.

Among the reasons for this is the loss of cadres experienced due to the effect of fascism’s murder and arrest attacks against revolutionary communist movements, as well as the failure of the revolutionary communist movement to create cadres to respond to the process and to renew itself. An ideological counter stance and a cultural focus of resistance could not be created against the intense ideological attack and cultural hegemony of fascism through mass media by using technological developments.

For example, revolutionary and communist organizations could not develop a counter stance against the system’s propaganda that focuses on criminal organizations through TV series, “heroizing” racist, chauvinist, anti-women and LGBTI+ fascist personalities as role models, or sanctifying the individual and glorifying “turning corners” through soap operas, on the contrary, such propaganda even affected the supporters of the revolutionary movement.

Racism and chauvinism, along with the phenomenon of religion, were widely used in maintaining fascism’s hegemony over the masses of the people and in obtaining the consent of the masses. The Islamist rhetoric of the ruling party paved the way for a significant part of the advanced masses to be subordinated to the system under the name of “secularism”. This situation led even some progressive and revolutionary organizations to back the opposition clique of the ruling classes.

A similar situation was experienced in the general and local election agendas of the Turkish ruling classes. In the name of regressing the “ruling AKP-MHP fascism” and the “Erdogan regime” and “breathing space”, a part of the revolutionary movement, including the Kurdish national movement’s struggle for legal space, has been backed up behind the bourgeois opposition. This has paved the way for reformist understandings that open the door to solutions within the order against the revolutionary and communist line.

In the physical and ideological liquidation attack of fascism against the revolutionary communist movements, reformism and reformist movements should be especially mentioned. The emergence of reformist understandings in the ranks of the revolutionary communist movement goes hand in hand with the emergence of the revolutionary and communist movement. In this sense, for the revolutionary and communist movement, reformism exists as a phenomenon from the beginning. However, the ’71 armed revolutionary breakthrough of the revolutionary movement in Turkey is also the breakthrough of reckoning with the reformist and in-order line. This fact has led to the “support” of reformist movements in the face of revolutionary and communist movements in Turkey and paved the way for them. Under Turkish conditions, reformism and reformist movements emerge as an obstacle to the development of the class struggle and the massification of revolutionary and communist organizations. The ideological and political struggle against reformism must continue uninterruptedly.

A similar situation was experienced in the racist and fascist attacks of fascism against Syrian refugees and immigrants, especially the Kurdish national question. The ruling and opposition cliques of the ruling classes have widely used chauvinism to support the support of the masses. This situation has found a certain response among the advanced masses, even among the supporters of revolutionary organizations. In the ranks of the revolutionary and communist movements, social chauvinism has been effective against the Syrian refugees, especially against the Kurdish national struggle. In some petty bourgeois revolutionary organizations, political positions have emerged under the name of defending the “homeland”, evaluating and propagandizing the Kurdish national movement as a “nationalist movement” rather than an oppressed nation movement. The struggle against social chauvinism, which strengthens the privileges of the dominant nation, especially against the Kurdish nation, continues to maintain its importance and necessity for the revolutionary and communist movement in Turkey.

Another phenomenon that should be noted for the revolutionary communist movements is the views that the Kurdish national liberation movement defends and propagandizes under the name of “paradigm change”. The views that the Kurdish national revolutionary movement defines as “Ecological, Women’s Liberationist and Democratic Nation Paradigm” and propagates as “Democratic Modernity” have an impact on the revolutionary communist movement.

The Kurdish national movement’s competence in guerrilla warfare and the backwardness of the revolutionary and communist movement in Turkey in the face of mass support leads to the ideological domination of the revolutionary movement in Turkey. The communist movement is not free from this ideological domination. Some utopian and anarchist political views of the Kurdish national movement are accepted as “general truths”. There is a need for ideological and political struggle and vigilance in this regard.

It should be noted that this influence is twofold. For example, while the revolutionary and communist movements are positively influenced by some of the discourses and propaganda of the Kurdish national liberation movement, such as the struggle for women and ecology (which should be discussed separately in its own agenda), they are negatively influenced by anarchist and utopian views such as “democratic nation”. It is necessary to be vigilant against this phenomenon and jealously defend the proletariat’s own flag.

On the other hand, under the name of defending the science of the proletariat, one has to respond to new developments and agendas without falling into dogmatism. It is necessary to try to respond to the needs of the moment, not by revising MLM science, but by acting on the concrete analysis of the concrete conditions of MLM science.

The Situation of the Kurdish National Freedom Movement

It is a reality that the struggle of the Kurdish national movement has gone beyond the borders of Turkish Kurdistan and has emerged as a regional power. Especially during the Syrian civil war, the war against ISIS gangs and the Rojava Revolution process led by the Kurdish national movement is an important development. This process has revealed the PKK as a regional power. This is precisely why the Turkish state perceives the gains of the Kurdish national movement as a primary threat to its existence. This situation causes the Turkish state to carry out the attacks against the Kurdish nation inside the borders as well as outside the borders. The invasion attacks carried out by the Turkish fascism in Iraq and Syrian Kurdistan aim to liquidate the gains of the Kurdish national movement, to defeat the guerrilla struggle and moreover to annex the occupied regions. Therefore, acting together with the Kurdish national movement will serve both as an unconditional defense of the Right of Nations to Separate Freely and as an antidote to social chauvinism in the ranks of the revolutionary and communist movement.

In this reality, we must point out that the Kurdish National Freedom Movement (KUÖH) is the most alive within the revolutionary movement. The armed force led by the Kurdish national movement continues to be the fear of the Turkish state. The KUÖH’s persistent struggle to regain some of the positions it lost after it withdrew its armed forces inside the country during the “peace” process continues. During the period of “peace talks” the Turkish state has reorganized itself. It built new outposts (kalekol) in the areas of Turkish Kurdistan where the struggle was the most advanced, installed watchtowers in all border areas and equipped them with advanced technology, increasing its control, as well as focusing on Unmanned and Armed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), which enabled it to successfully use technological superiority in the war.

With the Syrian civil war, the Turkish state turned its attention to Rojava after the revolution in Rojava following the success of the Kurdish national movement in the Kobanê resistance, which observed the course of the war well. The Turkish state, which saw the Kurds gaining an autonomous status as a survival problem, occupied some of the Kurdish lands in Syria. The Turkish state, which settled in the occupied regions, was not satisfied with this and carried out massacres by constantly bombing the settlements in and around Rojava with countless operations. Turkey’s dreams of neo-Ottomanism also began to stir after this date. The claim that Kirkuk and Mosul are Turkish territories was brought to the agenda and it was possible to say that these places could be occupied at every opportunity.

Taking advantage of the weakness of the Syrian central government, the Turkish state does not intend to leave the Kurdish territories it occupies. Although it does not intend to do so, it is clear that this will change in the coming years – evolving into an annexation attempt. It is known that the Turkish state did not take the Assad government as an interlocutor in any way from 2011 until the beginning of 2024, and that it sought various ways and methods to meet Assad in the last six months, despite saying that it would not leave the occupied territories. It is no secret that Russia is behind this negotiation effort. Russia is one of the most influential actors in Syria after the US. The relationship Syria developed with Russia after 2011 and Russia’s deployment on Syrian soil since 2014 have changed the balance in Syria. Russia, which cannot provide enough support to Syria because it is preoccupied with Ukraine, wants the Turkish state to come together with Syria and make a deal. It is clear that a possible Turkey-Syria agreement is in Russia’s favor.

Russia knows that if the talks between Turkey and Syria result in an agreement, it will weaken the US presence in Syria. The status of Rojava may also be on the agenda after a possible Syria-Turkey agreement.

The Syrian state’s response to the Turkish state’s request for talks, “first get out of the occupied territories, then negotiations can be held”, is not welcomed by the Turkish state. The Turkish state wants the Kurds’ status here to be ended and even crushed, no matter what happens first. With the Turkish state sitting at the table with the Syrian state, the “Kurds” can be a subject of bargaining.

After 2011, the Kurdish national liberation movement had to fight on several fronts. One of these fronts is Turkish Kurdistan, one is Rojava, one is Iranian Kurdistan, and one is the Media Defense Areas in Iraq. It has deployed its forces in these areas. The difficulties and disadvantages of fighting on all four fronts are well known. The KUH suffered a significant loss of power during its tremendous resistance against ISIS in Rojava. Despite this, the KUH regrouped its forces in this area in a short time and gained a certain military power. A significant force from Rojava was transferred to the Iraqi Kurdistan front and resisted the attacks of the Turkish state. It is also known to have reactivated its forces in Iran.

Considering all these developments, it can be better understood why the KUÖH is in a relative military decline in Turkish Kurdistan. It would be a more objective assessment to consider the stagnation in the armed struggle on the Turkish Kurdistan front over the last few years in the light of these developments.

Although the KUÖH’s sitting at the table with the state and the developments that followed are a subject of evaluation in themselves, they are full of important lessons in terms of the prominent developments of this period and their consequences.

While the Turkish state did not even think of sitting down with the PKK until 1999, when Abdullah Öcalan was captured, after 1999 it thought that it would liquidate the PKK with some tactical expansions with the captivity of Abdullah Öcalan and Öcalan’s “paradigm change”. Öcalan’s demand for “peace and solution” was taken as an opportunity by the Turkish state. In 2008, the Turkish state sat down with the PKK in Oslo and hid this meeting from the public. In Oslo, he thought he could solve the Kurdish “issue” by giving some crumbs to the Kurds. However, the talks ended on July 14, 2011

The Turkish state saw that the PKK would resume armed struggle after the breakdown of talks. In order to prevent this, albeit temporarily, it put forward its own conditions. With its maneuvers of “peace” and “reconciliation”, the Turkish Republic demanded that the PKK withdraw its armed forces from the country as a first step. The PKK announced that it had withdrawn its armed forces outside the border (to other parts of Kurdistan) as of 2012. The Turkish state took advantage of this situation to impose isolation on Öcalan in order to disable him.

Hunger strikes in prisons for the lifting of the isolation on A.Öcalan yielded results and the isolation and bans on A.Öcalan were lifted. The Turkish state started talks with A.Öcalan in January 2013. As part of these talks, a letter from Öcalan was read at the March 2013 Newroz celebrations. During the peace talks, the “Dolmabahçe Consensus” was reached in a meeting held in Dolmabahçe. R.T.Erdoğan declared that this was done “without his knowledge”, thus frustrating all attempts.

At the longest NSC meeting in 2014, the Turkish state decided to completely destroy the KUH. In 2015, the Turkish state abandoned all negotiations with the PKK and went on the offensive. After the June 7 general elections, the AKP failed to form a government on its own and early general elections were called. Until the early general elections of November 1, 2015, the AKP carried out massacres in the country. On July 20, 2015, 33 revolutionaries were massacred in Suruç and 103 people were massacred at the October 10 Ankara Peace Rally. The AKP gave a clear message that “if you don’t elect us, these massacres will continue”. On November 1, AKP won the early general election by committing massacres and rigging the election. After winning the election, the AKP launched a massive attack across the country.

Another development that should be evaluated within the experiences of the KUH in Turkish Kurdistan is the self-administration resistance that started in July 2015 and continued until March 27, 2016. The resistance started on October 6-7, 2014 during the Kobanê resistance. This resistance first started in Cizre and then expanded with the declaration of “self-administration”.

In 2015, 15 districts such as Sur, the central district of Amed, Derik, Cizre, Nusaybin, Şırnak, Şemdinli, Yüksekova, etc. were bombed from the air and land and destroyed by tank and artillery shelling. Thousands of civilians were killed and injured. The remaining tens of thousands of people were deported to the west and Çukurova. This was a policy of both weakening the mass base of the Kurdish national movement and assimilating it by uprooting it from its roots and scattering it to many regions of Turkey.

This barricade war of the Kurdish national movement lasted 265 days, during which 3,583 resistance fighters were killed. The PKK also declared that it had punished 355 Turkish soldiers and police officers in this war.

In 2015, however, the Turkish state went on the offensive again. Ten thousand people were arrested. Trustees were appointed to all the municipalities that had won. Dozens of villages were bombed in cross-border operations. Guerrilla massacres took place. Bans followed one after another. On November 4, 2016, an arrest attack was carried out against the party of the Kurdish national movement that was working in the legal field. Dozens of deputies and party members, especially the co-chairs, were arrested. In the Kobanê trial, sentences of over 400 years were given.

This process has also shown that the Turkish state’s policy of denial and extermination of the Kurdish national question continues. The KUH made a tactical mistake by resuming the talks that broke down in 2011 and paid a heavy price for it.

The KUH never ended the armed struggle, including when it withdrew its armed forces. It can also be said that it utilized certain aspects of the peace process to recover and prepare for new wars.

Although the democratic struggle of the KUÖH is the subject of a separate evaluation, the following can be summarized. The position created by the KUÖH in the democratic field is very important. In terms of rallying the masses around itself and occasionally taking to the streets, it can be said that this position has been used efficiently from time to time. In terms of democratic legitimate struggle in terms of exposing the state in parliament, voicing the problems and demands of the Kurdish people, making democratic demands, exposing the oppression and torture in prisons, the KUÖH uses this area well.

The fact that the KUÖH relates to reformist movements more than revolutionary movements in the struggle for democratic space is related to its “paradigm” and is not independent of the fact that it is a national movement. On the other hand, the weakness of the revolutionary forces also plays an important role. This attitude of course weakens the struggle of the KUÖH. The fact that it was dragged behind the CHP in the last election, that it acted in a hidden and self-ignoring manner instead of carrying out the alliance as an open and legitimate force, and that it made its legitimacy a matter of debate is another negative.

The fact that the KUÖH’s relationship with the revolutionary movement in the democratic struggle continues as periodic relations rather than a situation based on continuity causes a lack of stability in the relations between the KUÖH and the revolutionary movement in this field. The closest relations have been during election periods. Overcoming this and transforming mutual relations into continuity is of great importance in terms of carrying the struggle forward.

At this point, in 2016, in order to develop a new line of armed struggle in which the communist movement also took part, a new step was taken with a significant part of the TDH’s affiliates, and the United Revolutionary Movement of the Peoples was founded. The United Revolutionary Movement of the Peoples, which the revolutionary and communist movements of Turkey, including the Kurdish national liberation movement, came together on the basis of unity of action, represents the most advanced revolutionary stance in our geography. The United Revolutionary Struggle carried out in various forms and contents by the revolutionary and communist organizations within this organization stands in a decisive place on the course of the class struggle in the coming period.

On the other hand, it should be emphasized that this situation, which is the longest alliance and unity of action in our country, is not progressing at the desired level. Although the revolutionary movement has long emphasized the importance and necessity of this and emphasized its importance, it has still not overcome this disorganized situation. Making the necessary effort for this is very important in terms of carrying the struggle forward.

Click to Download and Read the Document

Turkısh: https://www.tkpml.com/dunyada-genel-durum-gorevlerimiz-ve-turkiyede-durum/?swcfpc=1

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=13880

#iraq #kurdistan #rojava #syria #tikko #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

General Situation in the World, Our Duties, and the Situation in Turkey: TKP-ML

GENERAL SITUATION IN THE WORLD OUR DUTIES

AND

THE SITUATION IN TURKEY

[Explanation: This document is the short decisions of the TKP-ML 2nd Congress ‘Situation in the World and in Turkey’ agenda. The document was published under the title ‘General Situation in the World and Our Tasks’ in the Communist 78th issue, the party organ of the TKP-ML, as ‘Decision: 19’ and again “Situation in Turkey” with the title “Decision: 20” was published as. We publish the document as a brochure. Ed.]

Contents
GENERAL SITUATION IN THE WORLD AND OUR DUTIES
Contradictions between imperialists deepen
General Picture Among Imperialists
Africa in the Fight for the Redistribution of Markets
Ukraine: Unceasing Conflict and Destruction
New searches in the sharing dispute
Bandits at Work in the US ‘Backyard’
Middle East and Caucasus: ‘Divide and Rule!’
Palestinian Resistance Continues
EU’s Competitiveness Weakens
The Danger of War and the EU
The State of the Revolutionary and Communist Movement
Conclusion

SITUATION IN TURKEY

General Situation of the Working Class
The Working Class: Fighting Tendency under Attack
The State of the Revolutionary and Communist Movement
The Situation of the Kurdish National Freedom Movement

The General Situation In The World And Our Tasks

Developments in the world are becoming increasingly complex and conflictual, and the contradictions between the oppressors and the oppressed are deepening. It does not seem possible to prevent this situation from turning into conflicts based on class antagonism. The military, political, economic and social policies implemented by the imperialists and their collaborators to suppress the just and legitimate struggles of the peoples of the world and oppressed nations cannot produce the desired results in the short and long term. Because the periodically deepening crises of imperialist capitalism create an objective ground for class-based conflicts.

Today, a handful of rich people, numbering in the hundreds, hold a significant portion of the world’s wealth. And every time there is a crisis, this parasitic minority adds to their wealth. On the other hand, the purchasing power of workers and laborers is decreasing day by day.

In a world where the gap between the exploiters and the exploited is so deepening, it is inevitable that the slogan “no bread, no peace” will become a current phenomenon. Regional conflicts and spontaneous mass movements in different continents of our globe are the result of this objective picture.

At the First Congress of our Party, the following assessment of the situation in the world was made: “Our world is under the yoke of the imperialist-capitalist system. The imperialists direct the world both through the countries they dominate and through their collaborators in dependent countries. This system as a whole is solely responsible for all internal and regional wars in the world. Likewise, the imperialist system is also responsible for migration in the world, the mass deaths caused by it and all the suffering. Just as it is the only one responsible for hunger, poverty and unemployment. On the other hand, for the sake of profit, the imperialists are rapidly dragging the world towards an ecological disaster. In a rapidly desertifying world, water reserves are being depleted, agricultural land is disappearing, forests are being depleted, marine species are dwindling, bird and animal species are disappearing. In short, the world can only be saved by the radical overthrow of the imperialist system”.

In the intervening period, the politics of aggression has continued along with the deepening crisis of the capitalist-imperialist system. The exploitative-destructive policies in the economic sphere have led to an avalanche of unemployment and deepened poverty.

In order to grasp more accurately the destructive-crushing nature of this exploitative system, let us recall the following historical analysis: “Capitalism has become a universal system of colonial oppression, a system in which a handful of ‘advanced’ countries financially strangle the vast majority of the world’s population. And this ‘booty’ is divided between two or three of the most powerful monsters (America, Britain, Japan), armed to the teeth, dragging the whole world into their wars in order to share their own booty.” (Lenin, Imperialism, Preface, p. 11)

Every moment of the more than a hundred years that have passed confirms these scientific determinations about the nature of the capitalist-imperialist system. Everything is developing and changing. The exploitative system is also changing in itself. But this change is never about its exploitative, destructive essence. During this time, there have been many sold-out pens trying to dress the imperialist monsters in angel shirts. But all these efforts only found a place in the dustbin of history in the face of reality. Of course, in the ongoing rivalry between the imperialist monsters, in the war of redistribution of the “spoils”, there have been those who have fallen back and even lost. But they were replaced by new imperialist monsters.

At the present stage, the world is divided into two main imperialist camps. The US-UK and European imperialists on the one hand, and the Chinese and Russian imperialists on the other. The only thing that has changed is the position of the imperialist monsters. Because the imperialist monsters continue to shed blood in every part of our globe, especially in Asia and Africa, for the redistribution of markets, and to deepen the picture of poverty and misery for the oppressed.

Imperialism and world reaction are responsible for the unjust wars and poverty. The imperialist bandits and the reactionary-fascist states that fight for their interests are the creators of the unjust wars that continue today in different parts of the world, especially in Asia and Africa, and cost the lives of tens of thousands of people. For example, we cannot consider the internal conflicts in Syria and Ukraine independently of the regional interests of the imperialists of the USA, Britain, Europe, China and Russia. Therefore, all those who are in favor of democracy and freedom in the real sense of the word, have to fight against imperialist aggression and their reactionary, fascist and collaborationist governments. Because the freedom of the peoples of the world and the oppressed nations passes through the anti-imperialist anti-fascist struggle.

In the first quarter of the 21st century, the imperialists, who still talk about “peace” and “democracy”, are the creators of two major world wars as well as many regional wars in the 20th century. While these wars waged by the imperialists cost the lives of millions of people, the masses of the people have realized the necessity to struggle against the imperialist policy of aggression and war. Undoubtedly, the imperialists and their ideological extensions within the “left” have struggled to weaken this rising anti-imperialist consciousness through modern revisionists who betrayed the cause of revolution and socialism. At every opportunity, the modern revisionists tried to cover up the policy of imperialist aggression with false “peace” rhetoric. But they did not/cannot succeed in this. Just like in the 20th century, the danger of a new imperialist war continues in the 21st century. No matter how much the imperialists talk about world “peace”, they cannot cover up the fact that they are arsonists of unjust wars.

Today, the communist parties in the capitalist-imperialist centers face the historical duty and responsibility to raise the consciousness of the workers and laborers against all the regional conflicts and occupations that the imperialists create and provoke in different parts of our globe. The mass dimension of the struggle in these centers against this policy of aggression can prevent the policies of occupation and conflict of the imperialists from being limited to regional levels and gaining a more general dimension. In this sense, the establishment of anti-imperialist unions against imperialist aggression at both the general and regional levels is a task that cannot be postponed.

Contradictions between Imperialists Deepen

The crisis of the capitalist-imperialist system continues. The effects of this structural crisis, which continues as a result of overproduction, are deeply felt not only in dependent countries but also in imperialist centers. Mass unemployment, budget deficits, increasing debts, regional invasions and conflicts arising from market competition, etc. In short, the system, which has difficulty in reproducing itself, is looking for a way out by means of force.

First of all, the competition between imperialists and the existing contradictions are based on the fact of dominating the markets. Therefore, in the relations between imperialists, the state of contradiction and conflict is constant. Of course, compromises are also made between some imperialist powers on the basis of blocs. In the 20th century, some of the economic and military alliances formed by the US, UK and EU imperialists against the Soviet Union or the socialist camp in general are still continuing. Despite the disintegration of the socialist camp after the betrayal of the modern revisionists, the IMF and the World Bank economically and NATO militarily still exist. US imperialism, together with Britain, is the main actor of these imperialist powers, although its former hegemonic power has weakened somewhat. It is forming new military and economic alliances on different continents against the Shanghai Cooperation Organization led by the imperialists of Russia and China. The US is resorting to all kinds of measures to narrow the sphere of action of China, which is expanding especially in the Asia Pacific. The “Trilateral Partnership” with Japan and South Korea is a product of this approach. All efforts to expand NATO, a war organization, are also based on this axis.

General Picture Among Imperialists

The US wants to encircle China with a wide arc from India to Japan. However, it has not been able to get India to accept this. Therefore, it is now trying to build a military front stretching from Australia to Japan-South Korea. For this purpose, it wants to expand the AUKUS (Australia, the US and the UK) with New Zealand, to make Japan and South Korea allies, and to establish partnerships that will allow it to build bases in the Pacific Islands as a link between these two clusters.

On the other side, there is India, which “refuses” to be integrated into the US strategy; the US’s refusal to form a trilateral alliance with Japan and South Korea, and instead settling for a trilateral partnership; New Zealand’s refusal to accept the ICCPR; and the opposition of the majority of the Pacific Islands to the transformation of the region into a geo-political force field.

In sum, the US has been making moves in the Asia-Pacific in order to maintain its “colonial order whose rules are written by the US”, but has not been able to achieve the desired results due to its weakening hegemony. However, the US is trying to create new blocs against China, North Korea and Russia at every opportunity. Because it cannot maintain its old hegemonic power in many areas, especially in the Middle East, and wants to encircle China with new alliance forces, especially by putting barriers against China’s economic expansionism. However, the fact that India is not yet part of this US project and the alliance between China and Russia weakens the US moves in the Middle East, Asia Pacific and Africa. All these developments indicate that the rivalry between imperialists and regional conflicts will continue.

In parallel with these developments, expenditures on armament continues to increase. US imperialism leads this race. Undoubtedly, other imperialist powers such as China, Japan, Britain, France etc. are also in the race.

The efforts of the US and its accomplices to gain new members to NATO, a war organization, and to increase its intervention capacity in the military field provide concrete data about the general course. As is well known, NATO is an international militarist organization created by the US, Britain and their allies against the Soviet Union and the socialist camp in a broad sense. This militarist focus, which is claimed to have been established against threats, has continued to commit crimes for the interests of imperialist monopolies since the day it was founded and continues to exist by expanding.

Other prominent imperialist powers in today’s world are Chinese social imperialism and Russia. In the struggle for the redistribution of the world, in addition to China and Russia, the USA, Britain, Germany, France and Japan also stand out as imperialist powers coveting new markets.

China’s influence on Africa and Russia’s increasing influence through BRICS constitute the basis of contradictions. That is why the US, Britain and other imperialist countries see China and Russia as the biggest obstacle in their way. Russia’s declaration of war on Ukraine, which sees Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO as a threat to its sovereignty, the US’s desire to encircle China through Taiwan, etc. all developments are a sign that a possible war will take place between these powers.

Today, two blocs stand out in the inter-imperialist alignments: The first bloc consists of the US, Britain and the EU (though not all of them) and the military alliance organization NATO. The US, which is the main power of this bloc, is backing Canada, Australia and New Zealand along with Britain, and on the other hand, it continues to support some South Asian countries, especially Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. On the other hand, it also continues to draw Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan to its side, to develop relations with Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, to draw Pakistan, which it lost to China, and to pull India out of BRICS and bring it into the war against China.

The main power of the second bloc is China and Russia. Although each of them is trying to draw countries close to them or keep them around, they have aligned themselves as BRICS countries under the leadership of Russia.

However, it should be noted that with the sharpening of the contradictions of the imperialist blocs, these blocs are unions that will show fragility. Under the leadership of Russia and China against the Western imperialists, Korea, Iran and some of the countries they influence may also act together. (Such as Belarus, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen.) Another fact is that as the contradictions between the imperialists sharpen, there is a possibility of differentiation in the ranks of the imperialist blocs.

The world is rapidly drifting towards war. Governments are making arrangements within themselves accordingly, foreign, “defence”, interior and justice ministers and spokespersons are formed from the most reactionary, racist, fascist and aggressive ones. The democratic rights and freedoms of workers and laborers are usurped, and reactionary fascist laws are passed. At the same time, thousands of tanks, armored vehicles and ammunition continue to be stored in Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland for the last two years under the umbrella of NATO, especially the USA. There are more joint exercises within NATO.

In the economic sphere, too, arrangements are being made according to the war, and war ministries are being created. Nationalism, racism, immigrant and xenophobia are on the rise; practices and access to services for immigrants are becoming more and more difficult, and some are even threatened with deportation or being sent to a third country (Africa). In addition, the pressure on progressive, revolutionary, socialist and communist movements continues to increase. Some pennants, some photos, some slogans, some democratic institutions are banned.

Arms factories are working at full capacity; the capacity of war planes, missiles, drones, tanks, cannons, artillery, bullets, and explosives factories are being increased and new ones are being built.

As a result, the leapfrogging and unbalanced development of the imperialist economies, overproduction and concentration of capital, the moves to control new markets, energy and raw material resources and routes and to neutralize their rivals are increasing contradictions and dragging the world towards a new war of division.

Africa in the Fight for Market Redistribution

The struggle for the redistribution of markets between the US-UK and EU imperialist bloc and the social imperialist blocs of Russia and China continues on many continents with different alliance forces. The first bloc, through NATO, wanted to neighbor Russia in Ukraine. Of course this was a strategy of encirclement. It was also a move to drag Russian imperialism into a de facto conflict with its neighbors. As a matter of fact, Russia did not consent to this neighborliness and invaded Ukraine. On the surface, the conflict is between Ukraine and Russia. In essence, it is a struggle for dominance between the two imperialist blocs in different areas of the Middle East. Therefore, the countries and regions where conflicts take place may change, but the aims and objectives of the imperialist powers do not change.

The civil unrest and coups in Africa – and there are usually different imperialist powers behind military coups in dependent countries– create the ground for imperialist invasions. For example, with the coup in Niger, the long-standing struggle for dominance in the continent has evolved into a conflictual process. As a matter of fact, after the military coup in Niger, an African summit was held in Russia. After this summit, the reactions against the Western imperialists in Burkina Faso, Guinea and Mali, which are ruled by military coups and supported by Russia, have become even harsher. Undoubtedly, this anger is mostly directed against the French imperialists who plundered the rich resources of countries like Niger. But the interest of not only the French imperialists but also the US imperialism in this geography is increasing.

As it can be understood from the final declaration of the African summit held in Russia, the Russian imperialists make the best use of this growing anger against the West from Africa for their own interests. In addition to Russia’s moves towards the African continent, China, its alliance partner, is also continuing its activities towards permanence in the region.

This competition between imperialists in the African continent has the potential to lead to new imperialist interventions and military coups. The oil, gas, uranium, gold and diamond deposits in the continent whet the appetite of imperialist monopolies. In this sense, it is not surprising that the US and western imperialist powers confronted the Russian and Chinese imperialists as a result of the military coup in Niger.

Ukraine: Unceasing Conflict and Destruction

The problems between Russia and Ukraine have their roots in a certain historical process. When we look at this and similar wars that have been going on in recent years, we see the imperialist banditry to redistribute markets.

As a matter of fact, the US-led NATO expansion policy has reached the borders of Russia, in other words, NATO’s attempt to make Ukraine a part of NATO has made the Russian imperialists’ invasion plan even easier.

The US and some other imperialist powers foresaw that Ukraine’s NATO membership would limit Russia’s sphere of influence in the region. In addition, they aimed to weaken Russia militarily and economically by creating de facto conflicts with their siege plans. Indeed, all this has happened and continues to happen in Ukraine. First of all, the invasion plan did not turn out the way the Russian ruling classes wanted. And the war is still going on. Moreover, the hesitations of some NATO member countries about the existence of this war organization have disappeared due to these conflicts arising from the rivalry between the imperialist blocs. Some imperialist states, especially in Western Europe, have even increased their economic aid to strengthen NATO. And they became a part of this unjust war due to their class character. While all this is happening, Ukraine is still not a member of NATO. But the Ukrainian ruling classes have reached the level of servitude to imperialism in every respect. There is a complete destruction in the country. The response of their imperialist masters to Zelenski’s statement that “Ukraine deserves respect” was “take the weapons and continue the war”. Undoubtedly, every servant deserves respect as much as his servitude. A pawn like Zelenski seems to have realized this fact only with the destruction of Ukraine(!) Ukraine’s membership in NATO means that the US and its accomplices are de facto involved in the war. But they do not prefer this path now. They favor the continuation of the war with arms aid and sales, diplomatic support. Because keeping the Russian ruling classes in this conflict means keeping them away from the moves for the redistribution of markets in other areas. Behind all the interventions of the imperialists lies the reality of getting out of the crisis they have fallen into by expanding their markets and spheres of influence. In the simplest definition, war means more armament. The occupations and conflicts created in Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, etc. have led not only to the armament of these countries but also to the armament of the countries of the region as a whole. In other words, it has led/is leading to great destructions, migrations, intellectual-moral-cultural degeneration and decay in a multifaceted and comprehensive manner, especially in the economy.

New Searches in the Struggle for Sharing

Of course, the main thing in the relations between imperialist countries in every historical period is competition. The interests of monopolies. In this competition, there are countries that decline and lose their hegemony, as well as imperialist countries that come to the fore economically and militarily. Today, our globe is witnessing such a process. Despite all the efforts of US imperialism and some of its allies, the influence of Chinese imperialism in the world markets is gradually increasing.

Comrade Lenin defines the power struggle between the imperialists as follows: “To answer this question in the negative, it is enough to put the question clearly. For under capitalism, as the basis for the division of interests, spheres of influence, colonies, etc., no other basis can be conceived than the power of the participants in this division, their general economic, financial, military, etc. power, and the power of the participants in the division does not vary equally. For under capitalism the equal development of individual enterprises, trusts, branches of industry and countries is impossible. Compared with the capitalist power of England at that time, Germany half a century ago was a miserable nothing; the position of Japan vis-à-vis Russia is no different. Can it be ‘conceivable’ that the balance of forces between the imperialist powers will remain unchanged after ten or twenty years? Absolutely unthinkable.” (Lenin, Imperialism, Sol Yayınları, p. 133)

Again, from the perspective of the redivision of the world, Comrade Lenin points to the following facts: “…For the first time the world has been completely divided. So much so that from now on there is only a question of redivision, that is, not of the seizure of unclaimed lands, but of the transfer of lands from one “owner” to another. “ (age, p. 87)

Despite all the developments and quantitative changes, our age is still the age of imperialism and proletarian revolutions. Today, the invasions and conflicts, the different blocs formed in different continents of our globe due to the competition between imperialists are the natural result of the moves for the redistribution of markets, just as Comrade Lenin pointed out.

Bandits at Work in the US’s “Backyard”

Latin America is defined as the “backyard” of US imperialism and US imperialism sees it as its “right” to intervene in this “backyard” at every opportunity. It organizes military coups in these countries or, as in Venezuela in 2018, it follows a policy in line with imperialist thuggery by not recognizing the elected head of state (Maduro) and instead recognizing Juan Guaido, who has declared himself president.

Likewise, in our age, the imperialists and their accomplices use the same arguments, almost by rote, to justify their policies of aggression and occupation. While their justification in Venezuela is “anti-democratic elections”, in Iraq it is “chemical weapons” and so on. However, the truth is that whether it is Venezuela or Iraq, the main aim of the US is to hand over the underground and above-ground rich resources of these countries to the imperialist monopolies.

Imperialist contradictions and plunder continue in the “backyard” of the USA. The Russian and Chinese imperialists are offering the same support to Madura as they did to Chavez. Of course, this support is not for the benefit of the Venezuelan people but for the benefit of the Russian and Chinese monopolies. It is to weaken the hegemony of US imperialism in Latin America.

The maximum profit policies of the imperialist monopolies have caused/are causing deep unemployment and poverty in this continent. These consequences have also led to the accumulation of anti-US anger in the continent. While this anger has sometimes turned into massive protests in the streets, in other periods it has led to the rise to power and the formation of governments by personalities such as Chavez, Lula, Madura, etc., who define themselves in the “left”. Undoubtedly, the social opposition in Latin America does not consist of this “left” within the establishment. There are also communist-revolutionary forces that emerge from time to time and create great revolutionary values.

The recent election results in Guatemala, the developments in Ecuador, etc. show that the weakening hegemony of US imperialism will continue, and the economic and political influence of imperialist China and Russia, with which it is in competition, will gradually increase in the region.

In Ecuador, President Guillermo Lasso, supported by US imperialism, has caused a major economic and political crisis in this country with his servility to imperialism and his anti-people policies. The decay of the system has not only led to deep poverty. The increasing drug and human trafficking and gangsterism brought with it internal conflicts, political assassinations, migration, etc.

Middle East and Caucasus: “Divide and Rule!”

The Middle East is a geography where the imperialists’ policies of “divide and rule”, conflict and weaken have been going on for centuries and they want to continue to do so in the future. The strategic location of the region and the abundance of energy resources have made the Middle East the focus of inter-imperialist competitive struggle. The region, which was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire for decades, has been the center of conflict since the British and French imperialists settled in the region after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Britain occupied Palestine, Iraq and Jordan; France occupied Lebanon and Syria. In the Gulf region and Egypt, it was again the British imperialists who dominated. The imperialists first divided the population into small states. Then they aimed to protect their interests through their henchmen with the title of “dictator” specific to the region such as “King”, “Sheikh”, “Emir”, “Prince” etc. All these counter-revolutionary policies were implemented through the politics of “divide and rule”. These governments, shaped on ethnic, religious, sectarian and even tribal basis, were made ready to strangle each other at every opportunity. As a result of these policies, first of all, other non-Arab peoples were oppressed. And again, Kurdistan was divided into four parts by the imperialists. This huge bunch of problems created by the imperialists and regional reactionaries at the beginning of the previous century has become more complicated in the new century.

It is the profit greed, fascist and racist mentality of the imperialist-capitalist system that has displaced the Palestinian people, divided the geography of Kurdistan into four parts, turned Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya into a bloodbath with occupations and internal conflicts, and forced hundreds of thousands of people to migrate. In this historical process of more than a century, the policies of exploitation and oppression implemented by the imperialists and their servant governments have led to deep poverty, destruction and wars. Wherever there is poverty, destruction, denialism and genocide, there is not only suffering. At the same time, the noble resistance of oppressed peoples and nations takes its place in the pages of history. The struggle of the Palestinian people against Israeli Zionism and the struggle of the Kurdish nation against the fascist and reactionary states under their domination has created hope for the struggles of other peoples of the region and oppressed sects and faith groups.

As we have underlined above, the Middle East has been one of the most conflicted regions of our globe throughout its history. Undoubtedly, internal contradictions and conflicts in the region have always facilitated foreign interventions. Religious and sectarian conflicts in particular have both curbed social developments on a modern basis and made the region vulnerable to foreign attacks. On this objective basis, social decay, collaborative relations and the culture of obedience have been transformed into a way of life. Religion plays a major role here. Religious bigotry has hindered all kinds of progressive developments.

Therefore, in order for revolutionaries and socialists to build the united struggle of oppressed peoples and the class-based brotherhood of oppressed peoples on a healthy basis in this region where national, religious-sectarian contradictions exist intensely, they must first take a clear stance against unrealistic ideas such as “brotherhood of religions”, “Islam is a religion of peace”, etc., which have no equivalent in social life. The same applies to other religions and belief groups.

In the current context, we can say that the influence of US imperialism in the region has weakened to a certain extent compared to the past. The US withdrew from Iraq, leaving behind long years of destruction. As of now, it has positioned its military forces in Southern Kurdistan. Again, the reactionary Arab states in the region, especially Qatar, have military bases and forces.

The US and EU imperialists’ organization of the civil war to overthrow the reactionary Assad regime in Syria by using the revolt of the peoples of the region defined as the “Arab Spring” and supporting reactionary jihadist Salafist gang organizations under the name of regime opponents has brought Syria to the brink of destruction. In the face of the US and EU imperialists’ plan to overthrow the Assad regime by using the reactionary Islamist gang organizations in Syria, the Russian imperialists supported the Assad regime. The support offered by the Russian ruling classes to the Assad regime ensured Assad’s survival. Of course, the Iranian regime also plays an important role in Assad’s survival. This is because the Iranian regime realized that with the overthrow of Assad, they would be next in line. Undoubtedly, the situation in Syria will get worse and worse as Russia, which has kept Assad alive until today, has not achieved the quick victory it had hoped for in Ukraine and has been embroiled in this war, while Iran is unable to even take a defensive position in the face of Zionist Israeli attacks on its territory and Iranian-affiliated forces in the countries it calls the “Axis of Resistance”.

And again, we must underline that at the root of these conflicts lies the fact that the US imperialists and their western imperialist allies are weakening the influence of the Russian imperialists in the region. Therefore, it is understandable that the Iranian regime, whose interests periodically coincide with the Russian imperialists, takes an active position on the side of the Assad regime in Syria. As we mentioned above, all these developments disrupt the plan of the US, Britain and their allies and cause US imperialism to improve its relations with various representatives of the Kurdish national movement. In other words, the US imperialism, which offers support to the Kurdish movement in Rojava against jihadist groups such as ISIS etc., which the imperialists created for their periodic interests, has also given a “legitimacy” to its stay in the field by acting in this way. Undoubtedly, this support has led to a partial deterioration of its relations with the fascist Turkish state. While the US is doing this, its closest ally Britain is underhandedly feeding jihadist organizations such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

It should be known that the support offered by US imperialism to the Kurdish national movement and struggle is a support limited to its periodic interests.

In the Middle East, the Palestinian and Kurdish question continues to exist today as it did yesterday. The Zionist state of Israel is not generally accepted by the peoples of the region. However, Israel’s most useful ally in the region is the Turkish state. As it will be remembered, in the attacks against the Armenian people in Artsakh, the Turkish Republic was arm-in-arm with the fascist government of Azerbaijan and Zionist Israel. It is the state of Israel that sells billion-dollar weapons to Azerbaijan and trains its militarist forces. The Turkish ruling classes, on the one hand, claim that they support the Palestinian cause, on the other hand, they continue to commit murders against the Armenian people, arm in arm with Zionism.

The US servitude of the Turkish Republic and its complicity with Israel are not deeply wounded as some claim. Moreover, the Putin-Erdogan “friendship” is not built on opposition to the US. This friendship is a relationship of interest that involves mutual concessions and condemnation, and the place where the Turkish Republic will stand “when the time comes” is clear, next to its master US imperialism.

The multifaceted and comprehensive economic embargoes and attacks imposed on Russia by the US, UK and EU imperialist powers have a heavy cost. The Russian ruling classes are trying to frustrate this siege policy imposed on them, albeit partially, through Azerbaijan and the Turkish Republic. For this reason, the Russian rulers can digest the support offered by the fascist Turkish state indirectly to the Zelenski administration in Ukraine and openly to the jihadist gang groups in Syria.

Likewise, the Putin administration, which got stuck in the mud, so to speak, in Ukraine, has mainly concentrated on the Ukrainian front by withdrawing its forces in Syria, albeit partially. This situation also provides certain advantages to the US allies in the region. This is exactly what the US, Britain and their EU imperialist allies wanted. That is, to render the Russian imperialists “ineffective” in the politics of the region by confronting and weakening them with their henchmen and the jihadist gang groups they support.

Of course, Russia, China and even Iran are not idle. While China is gradually increasing its economic influence in the region, the Shiite militia groups supported by Iran and organized under different names are active parties in the ongoing conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc. under the name of the “Axis of Resistance”. Likewise, compared to the past, the relations between the Gulf countries and the Iranian and Syrian regimes have taken a softer course. All these developments may open the door to new conflicts as well as new periodic alliances. This is the first one.

Secondly, the Artsakh issue will also remain on the agenda to a certain extent. Because the new target of the Turkish and Azerbaijani ruling classes is the Zengezur Corridor. The opening of this corridor is the common desire of the Turkish and Azerbaijani ruling classes. But this move also disturbs the Iranian state. If this move of the Turkish and Azerbaijani rulers becomes a reality, then the land connection between Armenia and the Iranian state will be cut.

In conclusion, the green light given to the occupation of Artsakh by the Russian rulers, partly due to the objective conditions we have tried to underline above, has led to the displacement of the Armenian people, which is a continuation of the 1915 Armenian Genocide.

Again, these attacks have the possibility of further straining the relations between Armenia and the Russian rulers. US imperialism is also trying to turn this situation into an opportunity.

The feeble voice of the Western imperialists against the occupation of Artsakh, that is, against the displacement of the Armenian people, has no meaning. The truth is that their priority is not the Armenian people but Azerbaijani oil and gas. Therefore, adding a new bloody ring to the crimes they have committed against the peoples in history in exchange for getting rid of Russian dependence is quite in line with the moral-conscience of these bandits. It is therefore not surprising that the spokespersons of the western imperialist states shake the bloody hands of Aliyev and Erdogan.

Palestinian Resistance Continues

The Zionist state of Israel, established as the “outpost” of imperialist monopoly capital in the Middle East geography, continues to be a threat to the peoples of the region, especially the Palestinian people. The state of Israel, which was established as an artificial state on Palestinian lands, is increasingly pursuing a policy of occupation and annexation of Palestinian lands as the representative of the Zionist reaction, which defends the interests of imperialism in the Middle East geography. The Zionist state of Israel, in addition to the territories it occupied in wars with reactionary Arab regimes, declares the lands where Palestinians live as “settlement areas” and forces Palestinians to migrate through the terror of massacres, oppression and arrests.

The Zionist state is now building “Jewish settlements” in the Palestinian-dominated West Bank and annexing it step by step. It controls 2.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, in conditions resembling an open-air prison, imposes an embargo and organizes terrorist attacks from time to time.

The Palestinian national resistance responded to these attacks by Zionist Israel on October 7, 2023, with an attack it called the “Aqsa Flood”. Hundreds of Israeli soldiers, including civilians called “Jewish settlers”, were killed or captured in the attack on Israeli-occupied territories from Gaza by 12 parties and organizations, including revolutionary organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), in which Hamas was the main force. This operation of the Palestinian resistance shocked the technologically superior and omnipotent Israeli state and the western imperialist capitalist states that support it. Following this shock, tens of thousands of people were killed, tens of thousands were wounded and hundreds of thousands of people were forcibly displaced from their homes after Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza from the air and land.

While the imperialist capitalist states and reactionary states, especially the Arab regimes in the region, openly or implicitly supported Israel by maintaining all kinds of relations, especially trade, with Israel, the peoples of the world stood by the Palestinian people in the face of the genocidal attacks of Israel, which was unconditionally and unconditionally supported by the western imperialists, especially the US, British and German imperialism, against the Palestinian people in Gaza. The peoples of the world, especially in the imperialist capitalist centers, took to the streets and condemned Israel’s massacre attacks.

Although Israel and its imperialist supporters’ denigration of the resistance based on lies cooked in the Zionist kitchen, such as the Muslim Brotherhood connection in the process of the establishment of Hamas and the “targeting of civilians” for the October 7 attack had a certain effect, it failed to deceive the peoples of the world this time.

The ideological positioning of organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and moreover the extent of their relations with the reactionary states of the region, cannot cast a shadow on the justness and legitimacy of the Palestinian national resistance. Undoubtedly, the Palestinian nation’s revolt, rebellion and resistance to oppression as an oppressed nation is legitimate.

The victory of the Palestinian national resistance depends on the fact that it is based on its own strength and that the policy of exploiting the contradictions between the imperialists and the reactionaries of the region does not become a tool of the policy of the imperialists and the reactionary states of the region to use it for their own interests. In the current situation, there is a danger that the Palestinian national resistance, under the leadership of Hamas, will turn into a Gaza-centered “religious referential” content and, moreover, into a tool of the Iranian reactionary mullah regime’s policy called the “axis of resistance”, which is essentially the product of the strategy of meeting its reactionary policy of preserving its own reactionary power on the “front lines”.

And essentially Iran’s attitude towards the Palestinian national resistance is purely pragmatist. Iran supports the Palestinian national resistance against US imperialism and the Zionist Israeli regime. The reactionary mullah regime of Iran is aware that it is one of the strategic targets of US imperialism. For this reason, it has organized the “axis of resistance” in order to meet any threat to itself outside its borders.

It is no secret that the main target of US imperialism in the region is Iran. The reason why US imperialism is not directly attacking Iran at the moment is because Iran is a “big bite”. Just like in Syria, the US and “western imperialism” will attack Iran when the conditions are created or when they find the opportunity. The reactionary Iranian mullah regime is aware of this reality, which is why it is taking various steps, especially to acquire nuclear weapons. These steps include organizing an “axis of resistance” in the region with an anti-US mission, while deepening its economic and military relations with Russia and China, rivals of US imperialism. Iran’s regional cooperation with Russia as well as its agreements with Chinese social imperialism should be evaluated in this context.

The agreement between Iran and China is a product of the increasing influence of Chinese social imperialism against US imperialism in the Middle East in recent years in the competition between imperialist monopolies. China’s influence has been increasing in the region in recent years. On August 22, 2023, at the BRICS meeting held in South Africa, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia were accepted as new members and at least 40 countries lined up to become members, which was important in terms of showing the influence of Chinese imperialism in the region.

In the coming years, the Caucasus and the Middle East will continue to be the regions where new wars and conflicts will take place in the competition between imperialist monopolies. The steps taken as a result of the competition between the imperialist monopolies point to this fact.

EU’s Competitiveness Weakens

The European Union (EU) is one of the world’s most important geographies with a population of 450 million. Its economic capacity and market union stand in an important place. However, it is also a fact that not all member states within the 27-member EU have the same level of capitalist development. The motor power of the EU is Germany, France, the Netherlands and Italy. The rest of the member states are dependent on the EU, are semi-colonial countries or their economies are not sufficiently developed.

The world economic crisis has engulfed the EU. The real estate crisis that erupted in the US in 2008 affected the whole world in waves, and the EU was no exception. Although the EU has entered a period of partial recovery after the economic crisis that increased with the pandemic, the economic crisis continues to move at a rapid pace as of 2022. The figures show that the EU’s economic growth trend is steadily declining, weakening its competitiveness with other imperialist powers.

On the one hand, the EU is trying to minimize the impact of the world economic crisis on the continent, on the other hand, it is trying to overcome its internal economic problems in a struggle with its rivals.

One of the biggest structural problems of the EU is the gradual decline in investment. Stagnation in the domestic market, high inflation and the decline in purchasing power are among the reasons for the decline in the growth rate. The deteriorating economic situation in countries such as Germany and France, the engine of the EU, naturally has a negative impact on other EU countries, which in turn exacerbates the crisis. While this summarizes the overall situation in the EU, the economic crisis continues to grow in Germany, France, the Netherlands and Italy, which represent the engine of the union.

For example, the German economy continues to shrink. German Economy Minister Robert Habeck announced that the German economy will shrink by 0.2 percent by the end of 2024. The European Center for Economic Research (ZEW) announced in its report that “The Current Situation Index in Germany fell by 7.2 points in September compared to the previous month and became minus 84.5. Theindex fell to its lowest level since May 2020“in September. Moreover, studies show that economic development in the Eurozone has declined by 8.6 percentage points.

The budget deficit of the French state is increasing every year. In 2023, it is emphasized that the budget deficit is 5.5%, and it is predicted that this deficit will increase further in 2024.

The UK, which is not a member of the EU but is located on the European continent, is also the subject of a separate evaluation. The UK economy is also experiencing the worst period of the last 14 years. In the OECD report on the UK economy, it is emphasized that the country’s economy grew by only 1.1% in 2023 and this will not change in 2024.

The Danger of War and the EU

Britain is one of the main instigators of a third imperialist war. The British monopoly bourgeoisie, acting together with the USA, is among the main instigators of the war. Britain is one of the forces that plays the most active role in the anti-Russia bloc formed against Russia in the creation of regional wars.

Within the EU, German imperialism does not consider itself ready for war for the time being. Germany, whose weapons and army are not ready for war, has declared through its Chief of General Staff that it will be ready for war only in five years. Of course, this does not mean that German imperialism is “peaceful”. As a country that directly caused the First and Second Imperialist Wars, Germany will not hold back in its efforts to take its share in the redivision of the world.

All European countries allocate huge budgets for armaments. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Germany allocated 100 billion dollars for armament in a single move. Other countries followed suit.

The rapid rise of internal fascism in the European Union countries also shows with which forces the imperialists will secure their own backyards in the event of a war. In Italy, the Netherlands, Hungary, Greece and Spain, fascist parties directly became governments. In Germany, Sweden, France, Denmark and Poland, racist fascist parties are increasing their votes in every election. In addition, democratic rights are being scaled back at every opportunity. Police laws are being expanded, marches and demonstrations are being restricted, while repression against revolutionaries and progressives is expanding.

The class struggle against the developing crisis, the impoverishment of the masses, repression, bans and increasing internal fascistization is in a backward position. The absence of class-led parties across Europe, and the very limited influence of those that exist, must be seen as the reason for the backwardness of the social struggle.

The State of the Revolutionary and Communist Movement

In the late 20th century, after the reversals of socialism and the modern revisionists threw off the socialist mask and openly switched to capitalism, the imperialist capitalist system propagandized that the “class struggle” was over and claimed that the “end of history” had arrived. US imperialism, as the spokesperson of the imperialist monopolies, was declared the “sole ruler of the world”.

Along with this process, a purge attack against the revolutionary and communist movement was launched internationally. Ideologically, this process, which was continued with the propaganda that “ideologies are dead”, was also continued as a complete counter-revolutionary attack in every field such as cultural, military, etc.

However, what was called “the victory of capitalism” was not possible due to the inner workings of capitalism itself. The “peace” of the imperialist monopolies and the “unipolar world” proclaimed under the leadership of the USA, with the emergence of imperialist states such as China and Russia, imperialist monopolies and their spokesmen, ended with the emergence of imperialist states such as China and Russia. The late 20th century “unipolar world” was replaced by a “multipolar world” based on the imperialist capitalist system. This determined the movement of the imperialist capitalist system in the international arena. Imperialist camps took shape under the leadership of various imperialist states. These camps, formed by states that were the spokespersons of the imperialist monopolies, struggled against each other.

The imperialist monopolies reorganized the international division of labour in this process in which they declared relative victory. The capitalist states took steps to change step by step the policies they implemented in the face of the existence of the socialist system and the struggle of the working class, which they called the “social state”, and to usurp the gains of the working class and the working people. Under the name of “neo-liberal” policies, they wanted to solve the capitalist crises produced by the nature of capitalism itself and the decline in profit rates by shifting production processes to countries dependent on imperialism. In this way, in countries dependent on imperialism, it was aimed to get rid of a series of costs that caused loss of profit for itself, especially the intensive exploitation of surplus-value.

With the “neo-liberal” policies of imperialism, the semi-colonial, semi-colonial semi-feudal countries dependent on imperialism were subjected to the complete plunder of imperialist capital. The underground and above-ground resources of these countries have been plundered more and more in order for imperialist capital to gain more profit. This situation led to the further impoverishment of the peoples of the countries dependent on imperialism.

With this “new” orientation of the imperialist monopolies in the imperialist capitalist centers, the step-by-step change of “social state” policies, the usurpation of the gains of the working class and the working people for the sake of the interests of the bourgeoisie, led to the emergence of various “anti-capitalist” movements called “anti-globalization” in the imperialist capitalist centers. In reality, these movements objected not to the capitalist system itself but to its consequences. The weakness and disorganization of the communist parties in the imperialist capitalist centers prevented these movements from being organized on the right basis within the class struggle.

Meanwhile, in the semi-colonial and semi-feudal semi-colonial countries dependent on imperialism, the changes and transformations in these countries, parallel to imperialism’s reorganization of the international division of labour, led to the struggles of representatives of various classes. It should be noted that in addition to the struggle of petty bourgeois revolutionary organizations in some countries, struggles were also waged under the leadership of the communist parties of the international working class organized in every country.

At the same time, the oppressed nations continued their struggles in various forms and contents. From the Zapatistas in Mexico to the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and from the Palestinian National Movement to the Kurdish National Movement in the Middle East, a series of anarchist, reformist and revolutionary organizations continued their struggles.

For MLM movements, although this process was answered by the People’s War raised by the Communist Party of Peru, it was interrupted by the imprisonment of the leader of the SEP, President Gonzalo, and the subsequent defeat of the Peruvian revolution. The Nepalese revolution, which followed the Peruvian revolution, shifted to a class collaborationist line with the betrayal of its leadership at the stage of taking power, which was recorded as a failure of the communist movement. Despite these negativities, the communist movement continued its struggle for power through people’s war in semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries dependent on imperialism. In India, the communist movement united in the early 21st century and consolidated its organization among the masses, especially in rural areas. In the Philippines, the communist movement continued its struggle steadily.

After the defeat of the Nepalese revolution, the communist movement there is in the process of reorganization. Most recently, the communist movement in Nepal announced its unification as the Nepal Revolutionary Communist Party (NDKP). The Communist Party of India (Maoist), in its struggle to lead the class struggle and raise the People’s War in India, has successfully responded to the counter-revolutionary attacks of the Indian state under the guise of various campaigns, even though it has suffered significant losses, and has maintained its positions.

In line with the Indian reaction’s policy of confining the communist movement to the countryside, counter-revolutionary attacks on the urban activities of the HKP (Maoist) were increased and many arrests were made.

In the Philippines, there are increasing counter-revolutionary attacks by the Philippine state against the Communist Party of the Philippines. Parallel to the growing contradiction between the US and Chinese imperialists, the geo-strategic importance of the Philippines in the US imperialism’s policy of containment of China has led to the establishment of US military bases in the Philippines and, moreover, to the further subordination of the Philippine reaction to the US imperialists. The increasing influence of the US on the Philippines has further increased the attacks of the Philippine state on the communist movement. The Communist Party of the Philippines has suffered losses in these attacks.

It is also worth mentioning the organization that has recently declared itself as the “Communist International Union” (ECU) and claims to be the international organization of Marxist Leninist Maoist parties. This organization was declared in an internet newspaper called “Communist International” as the result of the “United Maoist International Conference”. It should be noted that the vast majority of the parties and organizations that declared this organization are disconnected from the masses and moreover, their understanding of MLM is problematic. The “International Union” formed by these organizations and groups with “left” rhetoric, which comprehend MLM with a dogmatic ideological stance, looks like a bad copy of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (DEH). It deserves to be analyzed in a broader framework, especially with its advocacy of strict centralism in its organizational structure, its ideological line that “adventurously” defends the People’s War strategy, which is valid in semi-colonial semi-feudal countries, in imperialist capitalist centers, etc.

Conclusion

All these facts and developments show that the workers and laborers in the imperialist capitalist centers and in the countries dependent on imperialism are facing difficult conditions, but the tendency to struggle to change the conditions is gaining strength. While in the imperialist capitalist centers the workers and laborers generally organize strikes and demonstrations to protect their “living standards” and living and working conditions, in the countries dependent on imperialism the working class and laborers take to the streets, strike and demonstrate to improve their living and working conditions for a number of reasons ranging from rising food and energy prices, deepening hunger and poverty to government corruption.

Internationally, in addition to such actions in individual countries, there are also actions with direct political demands, such as the Israeli massacre attacks on Gaza and the Palestinians. While the working class has stopped work with this demand and refused to load the ships shipping to Israel, the vast majority of the peoples of the world have taken to the streets to protest against Israel and to oppose the policies of “their” governments. After October 7, despite all the media campaigns of Israeli Zionism and imperialism, protests and demonstrations condemning Israel and supporting the Palestinian people took place in more than 80 countries.

What the actions of the people of Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka and most recently the working class of Bangladesh have shown us is this. The working class and the oppressed peoples of the world are revolting and continuing their struggle. While the class struggle continues in various forms and contents around the world, the working class strikes and mass demonstrations rising in the imperialist capitalist centers turn into popular revolts in the countries dependent on imperialism, as in Kazakhstan and Sri Lanka, and the strikes and actions of the working class lasting for days, as in Bangladesh, continue despite the armed intervention and massacres of the state forces.

The popular uprisings, especially in Kazakhstan and Sri Lanka, point to the lack of a genuine communist party to lead these uprisings. Since the revolt of the Kazakh people lacked the leadership of a communist party, it soon ended with the reinforcement of military forces from outside the country and the liquidation of the ruling class cliques. A similar situation occurred in Sri Lanka. The people revolted, seized important centers of state power, especially the presidential palace, and directly targeted the representatives of the ruling classes. Some of those in power resigned and fled abroad. The people’s revolt in Sri Lanka also failed to result in the power of the working class and the people, as it did not develop under the leadership of a communist party.

One of the main lessons of the revolts of the people of Kazakhstan and Sri Lanka for the oppressed peoples of the world is the possibility of revolution through armed popular uprising in semi-colonial countries oppressed by imperialism. The fact that a revolution has not taken place in Kazakhstan and Sri Lanka does not invalidate this lesson. On the contrary, it proves once again that the fundamental issue is the organization of the vanguard. Communists must therefore play their historic role.

In addition to the actions of the working class and the peoples of the world in individual countries, this course of the class struggle at the international level imposes on the advanced workers and laborers, the vanguard of the working class, the communists in each country the task of playing their historical role.

Especially at a time when the danger of an imperialist war of division is on the agenda, it is important to prepare the communist parties and organizations in the imperialist capitalist centers for a war of division. “As for the question of war, the Communist Parties in the capitalist countries oppose imperialist wars waged by their own countries. If such wars break out, the policy of these Parties is to ensure the defeat of the reactionary governments in their own countries. The only war the Communist Parties want to fight is the civil war for which they are preparing.” (Mao Zedong, Selected Works, Vol: II, First Edition: February 1975, Aydınlık Publications)

We are in a process in which the increasing competition of the imperialist monopolies has led to new alliance relations and camps among the spokesperson states of the imperialist monopolies, and the contradiction between the imperialist camps has sharpened. The contradiction between the imperialist monopolies sometimes evolves into military conflicts, as in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The sharpening of the contradiction between the imperialist monopolies also includes the preparation for a new imperialist war of division. Although the balance of power and the extent of competition between the imperialist monopolies prevent the need for a new war of division, the persistence of the economic crisis of capitalism, moreover, the decline in capitalist profit rates and competition mainly for the market, have the potential to trigger a war of division for the market (World War III) between the imperialist monopolies.

As a result, it is possible to define the main contradictions sharpening at the international level as follows:

1- The contradiction between imperialism and oppressed nations and oppressed peoples

2- The contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in imperialist countries

3- Inter-imperialist contradiction

4- The main contradiction worldwide is the contradiction between labor and capital. The main contradiction worldwide arising from this contradiction is the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations and peoples, while in capitalist and imperialist countries the main contradiction is the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

In this context, our 2nd Congress briefly makes the following evaluations:

1- The wave of economic crisis in the world is gradually expanding. Although the crisis that started in 2008 was tried to be managed for a short time, the imperialist system has not been able to overcome the crisis. The struggle for the redistribution of markets is deepening. The competition between the capitalist imperialist countries, the struggle for dominance and superiority continues without losing any momentum.

2- At the present stage, the inter-imperialist blocs and alignments have become even more pronounced. The USA, Britain and the European Union constitute one bloc; Chinese social imperialism and Russian imperialism constitute another bloc.

3- The imperialist countries, unable to solve their protracted crisis, have accelerated their steps towards solving their processes with war. The danger of an imperialist war of division is increasing. The imperialist powers are arming themselves militarily and preparing for war with more emphasis every year. The coming to power of fascist parties, the gradual escalation of racism, the increase in xenophobia and hostility towards foreigners and immigrants, limitations in democratic and social rights, and the successive enactment of anti-democratic laws should be read as preparations for war.

4- Developments in the world and in the Middle East have clearly shown that the main instigator of the war is the US and British imperialism.

5- The establishment of anti-imperialist fronts against the imperialist war worldwide and on continents has become one of the important agendas of communist, revolutionary and all anti-war forces.

SITUATION IN TURKEY

Assessing the situation in Turkey is an important part of determining our tactical policies in line with our new strategy.

The AKP has ruled the country for twenty-two years without interruption. The AKP, which is a ruling party rather than a government, has never lost an election except for the local elections of June 7, 2014, and March 2024. With an average of 35% of the votes across Turkey, it has come back to power single-handedly in every election.

On August 14, 2001, Abdullah Gül, R.T. Erdoğan and his team announced that they had “taken off the shirt of the National Vision” and founded the AKP. The economic crisis that broke out in 1999 opened the door to the establishment of the present order, closing a new era in Turkey. Since the coalition government of the time could not overcome the economic crisis, it lost its ability to govern to some extent. When the MHP, the partner of the coalition government, demanded early elections, the AKP won 34.28% of the votes in the early general elections held on November 3, 2022, and came into government alone.

It soon became clear that the AKP was a “project” of US imperialism. R.T. Erdoğan, who was summoned to the US before the AKP was founded, accepted all the conditions in the bargain with the US and paved the way for him. The US said that it would “bring the AKP into the government” and in return, Turkey would act as the guardian of the US in the Middle East and, most importantly, take part in the US’s Greater Middle East Project. Erdoğan and his team fully accepted all the tasks put before them in exchange for becoming the government. The appointment of R.T. Erdoğan as the head of the BOP after the AKP became the government alone in the first election was another step in the process. With the curtain opened after the AKP came to power, the task assigned to Turkey became more visible.

Although the AKP’s promise to fight against the “3Y” (Poverty, Prohibition and Corruption) has a certain impact on the AKP’s victory in all elections from November 3, 2022 to 2024, it would be incomplete to explain that the AKP came to power only by using the economic crisis without taking into account the effects of the continuation of the movement, whose roots go back to 1969, until today.

The representatives of the second wing of the Turkish ruling classes, which İbrahim Kaypakkaya, in his evaluation of the Kemalist Movement, described as being divided into two main camps, “On the other hand, the other part of the comprador bourgeoisie, which has not yet been completely liquidated, another part of the aghas and big landlords, the clergy, the old ulema class, which are the ideological pillars of feudalism and sultanate” , were first represented in the CHP and then in the Democrat Party. This line defined itself as the “Movement of Independents” or “National Vision” founded by N. Erbakan in 1969. It continued with the National Nizam Party and its successors, the National Salvation Party, the Welfare Party and the Virtue Party. These parties, whose names changed but whose views and ideology remained unchanged, governed the state and some municipalities as partners in government from 1974 to 1997, gained significant experience, and the base of this formation sided with the AKP, which announced that it had “changed its shirt” after 2001.

When the AKP was founded, it had an important cadre. These cadres, who came from the National Vision tradition, brought their experience to the newly established AKP. The AKP also appealed to the National Vision base. It persuaded a significant part of this base to rally around it. In the 1999 general elections, the FP received 15.41% of the vote and a significant portion of its votes shifted to the AKP in the early general elections of November 3, 2002. AKP also received significant votes from other right-wing parties.

When AKP came to power, unemployment rates declined slightly. The economy temporarily recovered. There were two reasons for this: Firstly, there was a certain inflow of foreign capital, and secondly, the construction sector was boosted by the privatizations, which gave the economy a boost.

Since 1986, the total amount of privatizations is 71 billion. The AKP has obtained a total of 63 billion dollars from these privatizations. A significant part of this income obtained by the AKP from these privatizations was given to the debt and interest received from the IMF. Behind R.T. Erdogan’s statement that “we had no debt to the IMF during our period” is the attempt to pay off the debts with the income obtained from privatizations.

In 2008, the world economic crisis hit Turkey as well. Although the AKP said that “the crisis passed us by a tangent”, the economic crisis, which has been felt since 2009, led to a 4.7% shrinkage in the Turkish economy. Since the economies of semi-colonial countries like Turkey are dependent on imperialist capital, economic crises are more frequent in these countries than in other developed countries. The economic crises in Turkey since 1989, 1994, 2000, 2001, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2018, 2022 should be read in this way.

Although each of these crises has arisen for different reasons, the common denominator of these crises is that capital does not feel secure, the domestic currency has depreciated significantly, there is a shortage of cash in banks, domestic demand has contracted, capital has fled the country, unemployment has increased, and purchasing power has decreased.

Leaving aside previous crises, the economic crisis that started in the US in 2008 has affected the whole world. The main reason why the AKP says “it passed us by a tangent” is that after the 2008 crisis, the imperialist monopolies turned to countries with higher incomes and capital inflows flowed to Turkey at a certain level and all these reduced the effects of the crisis.

In 2018, the AKP reached the end of this period that it boasted about and has not been able to escape from the current economic crisis. The 2018 crisis is not independent from the world economic crisis. In 2020, when the Covid-19 pandemic, which started worldwide, was added, the crisis continued with even more dimensions. Although the AKP government tried to overcome the crisis with hikes, by pulling the Turkish lira down against the dollar, by not giving raises to workers and laborers, etc., the economy is no longer holding together. Corruption, bribery, collapse of property, etc. in the country has reached such a state that even the slightest intervention in this situation is not possible because it would lead to the collapse of the chain system. Even if the AKP goes door to door begging for money to replace the fleeing capital, it is not possible to fix the economy. The AKP-MHP government is trying to save many crony companies that are sinking after the economic crisis by giving them huge financial support. Most of the small tradesmen are either going bankrupt or trying to survive on the brink of bankruptcy.

The AKP’s economic policy has brought the peasantry to the brink of bankruptcy. Farmers are unable to sell what they produce, and their crops are rotting in the fields. Production costs are so high that a significant number of peasants have gradually given up production and started to produce only for their own consumption. Since the AKP has cut agricultural subsidies to farmers while transferring huge sums of money to its crony monopolies, production has fallen to the lowest level; this prevents people from accessing food. In addition to the economic crisis, Turkey is at risk of facing an agricultural crisis in the coming years.

During the AKP’s 22 years in power, the policy of carrot and stick has always gone hand in hand. The AKP, which has been an apostle of democracy at every turn, has not hesitated to return to its roots and implement its repressive and prohibitive policies after achieving its goals.

After winning the 2002 elections, AKP won the support of the “West” by claiming that it was eager to become a member of the European Union (EU). It did not adopt the “democratization” steps put before Turkey in the progress reports of the EU imperialists. Because democracy is a question of revolution, and it is obvious that the “democracy” that the EU will bring to our country will not be a real democracy. While the EU’s repressive and forbidding practices in their own countries are obvious, it is known what the democracy they promise is.

With Islamist discourse and practices, the AKP has been able to provide the mass support that the Turkish comprador bourgeoisie needs. By objecting to some aspects of Kemalist fascism’s oppression and violence against the masses of the people, it has been able to back up the aspirations and demands of the masses for democracy behind its own interests. The September 12 Military Fascist Junta’s “Turkish-Islamic Synthesis” has made “Sunni Islam”, the dominant faith, permeate every cell of society. The Diyanet has a budget larger than the budgets of the ministries of Interior, Foreign Affairs, Energy and Natural Resources, Culture and Tourism, Industry and Technology and Trade.

It is not a subjective assessment to say that in its 22 years in power, the AKP has come to terms with the clique that constitutes another front of the counter-revolution and has represented the Kemalist ideology since its foundation. They have been in a constant reckoning with the participation of religious officials in the “War of Independence”, claiming that they provided material and humanitarian participation in the war, and that after the war ended and the Republic was proclaimed, dervish lodges and lodges were closed and the sultanate was ended, claiming that the Kemalists broke their promises. This underlies the Kemalist bourgeois opposition’s occasional discourse that “the founding principles of the Republic must be returned to”.

Although the AKP claims to be uncomfortable with secularism, Turkey has never been a truly secular country since its foundation. Religion has always been an argument used by the ruling classes. The opening of mosques in every village of the country before schools, the appointment of imams, the payment of imams’ salaries by the state, the ban on all religions and beliefs other than Sunni Islam, all these and more prove that the Turkish state is not a secular state.

Keeping nationalism alive in the society and appearing so-called “anti-imperialist” is the direct result of the hypocritical policy implemented by the AKP since its foundation. The AKP was founded and brought to power as a direct US project. In line with US interests, R.T. Erdoğan was appointed co-chair of the Great Middle East Project (BOP).

Turkey is a semi-colony of the US and the EU. Politically and economically Turkey is dependent on both the US and the EU. Turkey’s relationship with Russian imperialism after the Syrian civil war does not mean that Turkey has given up on the US and the EU, that Turkey has broken its economic and political ties with these imperialist powers. The purchase of S-400 missiles from Russia is nothing more than a bluff against the US.

The AKP’s foreign policy is based on a strategy of false threats, blackmail and hypocrisy. We see this most typically in its political attitude towards Israel’s attacks on Palestine since October 7, 2023. Nearly 50,000 Palestinians have been massacred and a million people have been displaced, while the AKP government is the fiercest enemy of Israel on the one hand and continues to trade with Israel on the other. With its “Prayers for Palestine, Ships for Israel” policy, AKP sells jet fuel to the Israeli army, which massacres Palestinians, while crying for the slaughtered Palestinians.

Step by step, the AKP has turned the country into an open prison. Bans have never fallen off the agenda as indispensable practices of the AKP government. Although the AKP signaled a softening before each election and gave the message that the bans would be lifted, immediately after winning the election, it brought new repressions and bans to the agenda that made the previous practices look like the previous ones. Although it promised to abolish the anti-democratic articles of the September 12 constitution with a constitutional amendment in 2010, after passing the “reform” laws it wanted, new legal regulations were introduced that included more repressive practices.

In the 22 years of AKP rule, human rights, workers’ rights and women’s rights have been completely abolished. During the AKP period, every demand was suppressed with repression and violence. Trade unions were rendered dysfunctional. Workers’ rights were shelved. Even its own supporter unions had to publicize what was done from time to time. During its 22 years in power, it left workers alone with hunger. Workers were almost banned from striking. 22 workers’ strikes were banned by the AKP government and thousands of workers were dismissed. The AKP-MHP government has continuously made legal changes in line with the wishes of the bosses by dismissing or threatening to dismiss workers for joining a union. The fact that only 2 million workers out of 16 million workers in Turkey are union members sufficiently explains the AKP policies. The AKP government did not attach importance to workers’ work safety so that it would not bring additional burden to the bosses. At least 30 thousand workers have lost their lives in occupational homicides during the AKP rule. Nearly one hundred of these are child workers.

Throughout its 22 years in power, the AKP has imposed continuous bans on freedom of the press and freedom of opinion. Nearly 150 journalists have been arrested, tried and sentenced to hundreds of years in prison just for reporting news. Nearly 3,000 people have been prosecuted, dozens have been arrested and sentenced to imprisonment just for criticizing R.T. Erdoğan on social media. The AKP has shown its hostility towards the Kurdish people also in the field of the press. Many Kurdish journalists were detained, tortured and arrested by breaking down the doors of their houses and raiding their offices.

AKP developed special policies against revolutionaries, communists and Kurdish people. With the amendments made under the name of “fight against terrorism”, heavy penalties were introduced. It is clear that in a country where there is no justice, the courts will also walk at the helm of power. This is what happened and thousands of revolutionaries and patriots who were put on trial were sentenced to the heaviest penalties. Turkey is one of the countries with the highest number of prisons. In Turkey, where there are 403 prisons in total, the AKP boasts of building new prisons. Prisons in Turkey are torture centers. Thousands of revolutionary and patriotic prisoners and convicts are struggling for life under the most severe conditions. Revolutionaries in solitary isolation cells face arbitrary practices and punishments for not complying with sanctions. The most typical punishments are the ban on family and lawyer visits, the ban on books and “execution burning”, which is becoming increasingly common today. In prisons where health conditions are very bad, more than six hundred revolutionary and patriotic prisoners are neither treated nor released even though they are on the verge of death. Over four thousand people have lost their lives in prisons during the AKP’s 22-year rule. This figure is the official figures announced by the Ministry of Justice itself. Dozens of revolutionary and patriotic prisoners are kept in prison on the grounds that they do not show “good behavior” even though their sentences are over.

One of the biggest hostilities shown during the AKP-MHP rule was against women and LGBTI+ people. A total of 7,600 women were murdered by men during the AKP-MHP rule.

It is necessary to open a parenthesis here and mention the Istanbul Convention. Turkey signed the Istanbul Convention in 2011. The AKP-MHP government was a signatory to the convention and had to take some steps. Although the government signed the Istanbul Convention, 128 women were murdered in 2012 when the law was ratified. Subsequently, the government announced its withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention on March 20, 2021. After this date, the murders of women increased even more. Since the date of withdrawal, 600 women have been murdered. During the AKP-MHP rule, 125 LGBTI+ individuals were killed within the scope of hate crimes, and the fascist government almost blessed these murders.

Against all these developments, the bourgeois opposition remained almost silent in the face of what the AKP did. The society, especially the CHP, was constantly shown the ballot box as salvation. It prevented the masses from taking to the streets, demanding their rights on the streets and holding the AKP to account on the streets. This attitude of the bourgeois opposition benefited the AKP. During the last 22 years of AKP rule, it has become clear that the bourgeois opposition does not have much to give to society. The CHP, which has more power in the bourgeois opposition than the other bourgeois parties, has not only not shown any success during this period, but like the other bourgeois parties, it has always sided with the AKP when it came to the so-called “survival” of the country. The CHP and other bourgeois parties have always given their approval to the AKP in the approval of cross-border operations and the lifting of immunities.

The bourgeois opposition continues to maintain their silence in the face of the AKP, which openly says that they do not recognize their own constitution, when there is so much poverty, when unemployment has increased so much, when human rights violations are rampant. Even though the AKP was defeated in the March 2024 local elections, the fact that the first thing the CHP leader did under the name of “détente” was to run to the palace alone shows the quality of the bourgeois opposition.

No bourgeois opposition party can make the people prosper in this order. This fascist state is the common denominator of all bourgeois parties. There are only nuances between them. It is the essence of bourgeois parties that every bourgeois party reflects democracy when it is in opposition, and a dictatorship when it comes to power. One hundred years of Turkish history has always witnessed this.

One side of these developments is the revolutionary situation. In general, it can be said that the revolutionary situation in our country is at its highest level in the last twenty years. The government is in a crisis of inability to govern. It cannot take any step without using force. The smallest demand for rights and action is violently suppressed. Since 2022, the economic crisis, which has deepened more and more, has led to a great accumulation of anger in society.

There are widespread worker resistances and protests, but they follow a spontaneous course. The conciliatory attitude of the trade unions is backward and passive in taking the class to the streets for their rights and taking their rights by striking. The revolutionary and communist movement’s organization within the class is very weak. This situation negatively affects the class struggle.

In terms of the period ahead, one of the issues that communists should focus on the most is organizing within the working class. It is not possible for the social struggle to advance without organizing the working class.

General Situation of the Working Class

The Gezi Uprising of May-June 2013 and the Serhildan of October 6-8, 2014, increased the contradictions and conflicts within the ruling clique of fascism, and this process left the AKP unable to form a government on its own in the June 7, 2015, General Elections. This process also sharpened the struggle for power between two cliques within the ruling class clique.

In the November 3, 2003, general elections, the AKP formed a government on its own, and then the struggle between the AKP and the Gülen sect, who had aligned their interests in the process of liquidating Kemalist cadres within the state apparatus, which became visible with the “December 17-25 Corruption and Bribery Operation” in 2013, gradually hardened and led to the coup attempt on July 15, 2016.

Although some aspects of the coup attempt are still in the dark, the AKP evaluated the coup attempt as “a blessing from God” and concretely used it as a justification to increase its fascist aggression against the revolutionary and progressive opposition, especially the popular movement. On the grounds of the July 15, 2016, coup attempt, a State of Emergency was declared between 2016-2018 and the fascist dictatorship regime with a parliamentary mask was transformed into a one-party dictatorship and the way was paved for the so-called “presidential regime”.

The July 15, 2016 coup attempt did not only operate as a struggle for power within the ruling class cliques and then only as a process of liquidation. At the same time, capital transfer was also realized within the ruling class cliques. The clique holding the state power realized a significant capital transfer under the name of “FETÖ Exchange”.

The State of Emergency process was mainly used as the realization of a series of comprehensive attacks, especially the disorganization attack against the popular opposition in general and the working class in particular. First of all, a purge was carried out within the state organization. About half a million civil servants were dismissed by Decree Laws (KHK).

But mainly an attack was launched against the revolutionary democratic opposition, especially the Kurdish national movement. All opposition dynamics against fascism were attacked with a heavy fascist terror. Although official figures state that 79,301 people were detained, it is known that the actual number of people subjected to detention is over 160,000. From July 16, 2016, to March 20, 2018, the number of people who were put in prisons with arrest warrants during the State of Emergency is at least 228,137 people.

With the State of Emergency declared after the coup attempt, fascism not only launched arrest attacks on the grounds of “fighting against FETÖ” as a product of its internal struggle for power, but also closed down various institutions and confiscated various commercial enterprises as part of the seizure of capital. The important point here is not only that fascism has entered into a power struggle with the Fetullah Gülen sect as a result of the struggle for power within itself. The power struggle of the two Islamist discursive cliques of the Turkish ruling classes that hold the power of power has been transformed into an attack on the people, the progressive, revolutionary and communist movement. Fascism has also launched an all-out attack on the legal institutions of the revolutionary democratic opposition. In this process, revolutionary democratic publications, associations, foundations and trade unions, most of which were associated with the Fethullah Gülen sect, were also closed down, and various institutions and enterprises were collapsed.

Parallel to imperialism’s reorganization of the international division of labor, the reshaping of the superstructure institutions on the basis of the needs of the semi-colonial economy dependent on imperialist capitalism in the Turkish market, which is a part of the capitalist system, and the reorganization of the state organization according to this need were implemented mainly through attacks against the working class and the working people.

At the same time, this process was shaped as a process in which the struggle for power between the ruling class cliques continued and periodically intensified. After the Islamist discursive clique within the Turkish ruling classes, which expressed itself in the AKP, first purged the Kemalist cadres within the state organization and significantly regressed them, the power struggle of the two cliques in power continued, first implicitly and then with the coup attempt. The AKP, under the leadership of R.T. Erdoğan, emerged from this struggle for power by collaborating with some of the Kemalist cadres it had purged in the past, and by suffering considerable attrition. This process also led to the establishment of the “presidential regime” in the state organization of the Turkish ruling classes, which they have been talking about for years.

The presidential regime has been shaped as a superstructure institution in line with the demands and needs of the semi-colonial economic structure reorganized in line with the regional interests of imperialism. The state organization as the fulfillment of the rules of law, especially the constitution, which existed on paper for the exploitation, plunder and plunder of the imperialist bourgeoisie and comprador capitalism in the Turkish market, according to the needs of the moment (“the state managed like a company”) was reorganized as a “presidential regime” on the basis of the republic.

The important point here is that during the reorganization of the regime, the power struggles within the ruling and opposition cliques of the Turkish ruling classes and moreover within the ruling class clique that holds the power are secondary; as a whole, the attack on the people by the fascist state organization, which the Turkish ruling class cliques use as a power apparatus, is essential. Even while the Turkish ruling classes were struggling for power among themselves, they continued their aggression against the people in the same lane. The target of this aggression has been the Kurdish national movement, the people’s movements independent of the politics of the ruling classes, progressive, revolutionary and communist movements.

While the state organization, which is the power apparatus of the Turkish ruling classes, was mainly reorganized according to the conditions required by the period for the class interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie and comprador capitalism, and the “Presidential Government System” emerged as the product of this change; All the tools of the “strategy of suppressing rebellion” against the people, revolutionary and communist movement continued to be used. While on the one side of this strategy was the dismantling of the organizations of the working class and the people and the backing of the ruling clique; a process was organized in which even the bourgeois opposition that did not back the ruling clique was declared “terrorist”. In such a process, the spontaneous actions of the working class and the people with economic and democratic demands were suppressed with fascist aggression. The dosage of fascist aggression was increased in a line ranging from the Turkish state not obeying even the laws that exist on paper, arresting MPs with immunity and detaining the masses against the possibility of demonstrations.

The Working Class: Tendency to Struggle Under Attack

In the first quarter of the 21st century, the reorganization of the Turkish economy on the basis of imperialism’s international division of labor and the deepening of semi-colonial conditions led to an increase in exploitation for the working class and an increase in attacks on the most basic democratic rights, especially trade union organization. The bourgeoisie’s worldwide abandonment of “welfare state” policies had a deeper impact on semi-colonial markets. The working class became the target of the policies of the imperialist monopolies, called Multinational Corporations, to continue their exploitation and increase their profits in the Turkish market directly or through their comprador companies.

At the current stage, according to official data, it is stated that the number of wage (salaried) workers in Turkey at the beginning of 2024 was 15 million 22 thousand 900 people. 8 million 331 thousand wage earners work in the trade and services sector, 4 million 989 thousand in the industrial sector and 1 million 701 thousand in the construction sector. According to the January 2024 statistics of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security (ÇSGB), the number of workers in all sectors is 16 million 395 thousand 275. On the other hand, according to research conducted by DISK-AR from various sources, the total number of workers in Turkey is 18 million 789 thousand 456 as of October 2023.

These different figures in the number of workers in Turkey also apply to the organization of the working class. This is clearly seen when we examine the unions, one of the main organizing tools of the Turkish working class, and the unionization rates. For example, according to the January 2024 statistics of the ÇSGB, the number of unionized workers is 2 million 495 thousand 423 out of 16 million 395 thousand 275 total workers. While the official unionization rate based on insured workers is 15.22 percent, the actual unionization rate declines to 13 percent when all registered and unregistered workers are considered. Non-unionized workers account for 87 percent of total workers. As can be seen from the figures announced, officially and de facto, the working class in Turkey is largely unorganized in terms of union organization. Especially in terms of the registered segment of the working class, the vast majority remain outside union organization. When unregistered workers (local and migrant) are included, the extent of disorganization grows even more.

Only 2 million 422 thousand out of 18 million 568 thousand workers in Turkey are unionized. 16 million 146 thousand workers are not union members. The overwhelming majority of the working class in Turkey is deprived of union organization, which is one of the most basic means of organization. Undoubtedly, the main reason for this is the policies implemented against the union organization of the working class. Legally and de facto, the working class is prevented from organizing in trade unions. The fact that the demands for unionization are at the forefront of the actions of the working class confirms this fact. However, despite this, according to official unionization data, there has been a certain increase in both the number of trade unions and the organization of the working class in trade unions. As a matter of fact, while there were 92 trade unions in January 2013, this number was 227 in July 2023.

In January 2013, 68 of the 92 unions were members of the three major labor confederations. The number of independent unions and unions affiliated to other confederations is 24. In July 2023, 74 out of 227 unions are members of the three major labor confederations, while 153 are members of independent or other confederations. However, there is a notable increase in the number of unions that are members of independent and newly established confederations between 2013 and 2023 (from 24 to 153). However, despite this increase, the number of members of unions outside the independent and big three confederations have remained extremely limited. While there has been an increase in the number of labor unions, there has been a slight increase in the number of unions that have passed the work branch threshold.

In January 2013, 44 out of 92 unions passed the threshold, whereas in July 2023, 59 out of 229 unions passed the threshold. This means that the rate of unions passing the threshold has decreased from 48 percent to 26 percent.

Therefore, the right to collective bargaining of a large number of unions is being usurped due to the barrier of the threshold. This, it must be admitted, is an important obstacle for the struggle of the working class in Turkey. The 1 percent threshold system imposed by law is not the only obstacle to the union organization of the working class. In addition, the collective bargaining system limited to the workplace/enterprise also has a negative impact on the organization of the working class. As a matter of fact, the number of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements in Turkey is far below the number of unionized workers. According to ÇSGB data, the number of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements as of October 2023 is 1 million 984 thousand. According to the 3rd quarter data of 2023, the total number of workers is 18 million 789 thousand. In other words, only 10.6 percent of workers are covered by CBAs, while 16 million 806 thousand workers are not covered by CBAs. In proportional terms, 89.4 percent of workers are excluded from the scope of the CBA. Again, in the face of the attacks of the bosses against the working class, especially the hostility of the bosses to trade unions, some major reasons such as the long duration of the courts and the deliberate violations of law by the bosses, the postponement or monetization of the sentences of those who are found to be unlawful even in the bourgeois sense, emerge as obstacles to the organization of the working class. Again, one of the biggest obstacles to the union organization of the working class is related to the nature of comprador capitalism. The employment conditions of the working class (the conditions under which they are engaged in production) reveal an objective picture of the union organization of the working class. Considering that the employment of the working class is mainly carried out in enterprises called SMEs (micro, small and medium-sized enterprises) and moreover, the main weight within SMEs is the enterprises called micro-enterprises where less than 10 employees are employed, the difficulty of union organization of the working class is better understood.

On the other hand, the recklessness of the bosses, impunity and the government’s backing of the bosses by using the security and justice system, make it a deterrent for workers to join unions. Again, the difference in union understandings within the working class and especially the influence of bureaucratic yellow unionism, the ideological and de facto hegemony established by the government over the unions and the loss of trust between workers and unions are among the other factors of disorganization.

In total, with the usurpation of the right to collective bargaining through the work-sector threshold, it is mainly aimed to direct the working class to the union bureaucracy and organize it, and to prevent and break the tendency to struggle through yellow unionism. As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of the unions in the Turkish working class that have passed the threshold are members of the three big confederations. In July 2023, 54 of the 59 unions that exceeded the threshold were members of DİSK (4 unions), Türk-İş (32 unions) and Hak-İş (16 unions). Apart from the three major confederations, only five unions exceeded the threshold.

For the reasons mentioned above, trade unionism in Turkey is centralized through the coercion of the state apparatus. This is done not only through legislation but also through “partisan unionism”. In particular, public sector workers are made members of unions. This is the determining factor in the increase in the membership of unions affiliated to Hak-İş. Due to this centralization, 98 percent of the working class within the union organization has become members of the three major labor confederations.

Türk-İş has 1 million 313 thousand members, Hak-İş has 823 thousand members, DİSK has 236 thousand members, and the number of members of independent unions and other small confederations is 49 thousand. The organization of the working class and the number of members indicate a very unbalanced distribution among confederations. Therefore, out of 2 million 422 thousand unionized workers, 2 million 373 thousand are members of DİSK, Türk-İş or Hak-İş. As of July 2023, Türk-İş remains the largest confederation with a share of 54.2 percent. Hak-İş ranks second with 34 percent, while DİSK is the third confederation with 9.8 percent representation among unionized workers. Undoubtedly, the main reason for this picture is not only the obstacles to the organization of the working class, but also the fact that those who insist on organizing are mainly directed towards yellow and bureaucratic unionism.

However, when we look at the distribution of unionized workers in terms of their parent organizations based on the January 20024 data of the ÇGBS, the share of Türk-İş (1 million 349 thousand 209) in the total is 54.07 percent. This confederation is followed by Hak-İş (845 thousand 512) with 33.88 percent and DİSK (245 thousand 636) with 9.84 percent. The total share of the three confederations of unionized workers reaches 97.80 percent. The remaining unionized workers (2.2 percent) are members of other confederations and independent unions.

An analysis of the recent membership growth of the three confederations shows that the increase in the number of unionized workers in Türk-İş’s member unions has slowed down compared to previous periods. In July 2023, Türk-İş achieved a 43.26 percent increase in the number of unionized workers, while this rate dropped to 36.22 percent in January 2024. A similar situation is observed in Hak-İş, which ranks second in terms of the number of members. While the number of member workers increased by 38.01 percent in the previous period, it decreased to 22.20 percent in January 2024. DİSK, on the other hand, shows a certain progress compared to the other two confederations. While the rate of increase in the number of DİSK members was 5.99 percent in July 2023, it reached 9.15 percent in January 2024. The number of members of other confederations and independent unions also improved compared to the previous period, reaching 5.9 percent.

When we examine the unionization of the working class by sectors, we observe that there is a predominant unionization in the manufacturing industry and in the public sector. As we have pointed out above, some of the public sector-dominated unionization is carried out under the direct guidance of the government. Below is a table on the unionization of the working class by sectors.

Table: Number of Insured and Unionized Workers and Unionization Rates by Line of Business (January 2023)

Source: State of Labor in Turkey Labor Research (2020-2023), DİSK-AR, Page 187

As can be seen from the table, the unionization rates of the working class vary widely across sectors.

Construction, accommodation and entertainment and clerical occupations have the lowest unionization rates, while general works, health and social services and banking, finance and insurance have the highest unionization rates. The three branches with the highest unionization rates of the working class are general works, health and social services and banking, finance and insurance. The unionization rate in health and social services was 39.1 percent in July 2023. The unionization rate in the banking, finance and insurance sector is 34.1 percent. The unionization rate in the general works sector is 57.9 percent.

In the construction industry, which is one of the industries with the highest number of workplace murders, there is a lack of union organization of the working class. While the official unionization rate is 14.8 percent, the unionization rate in the construction sector is only 3.3 percent and the number of unionized workers is only 54,319. The majority of these are in the public sector. While the unionization rate is 4.3 percent in the tourism sector, it is 7.3 percent in the office sector, which is the largest sector with more than 4.2 million workers. Only 306 thousand of the 4.2 million workers in the clerical sector are organized.

According to ÇSGB data, between July 3023 and January 2024, the number of workers in 8 of the 20 branches of labor decreased. The highest decrease compared to the previous period is in Accommodation and Entertainment (- 186 thousand 595), Weaving, Clothing and Leather (- 56 thousand 938), Hunting, Fishing, Agriculture and Forestry (- 20 thousand 574).

The highest increase in employment compared to the previous period is observed in the Trade, Office, Education and Fine Arts (55 thousand 479), Transportation (52 thousand 924) and Food Industry (32 thousand 562).

It is understood that the employment losses in the business sectors also have a negative impact on the number of unionized workers. Therefore, the number of unionized workers decreased in six out of 20 industries. The industries with the highest decrease in the number of unionized workers are Weaving, Clothing and Leather (- 2,929), Banking, Finance and Insurance (- 2,903), Health and Social Services (- 1229) and Accommodation and Entertainment (- 1058).

As mentioned above, the 1 percent threshold affects the membership numbers of the majority of unions. According to the ÇSGB January 2024 data, 103 out of 235 unions lost members in comparison to the previous period. Among the unions that have lost more than a thousand members, the first two unions to lose more than a thousand members are Hak-İş affiliates Öz Sağlık-İş and Öz Finans-İş. These are followed by TEKSİF and Türkiye Haber-İş unions affiliated to Türk-İş. Enerji-Sen is the only union in DİSK to experience this level of membership loss. The most important reason for Enerji-Sen’s loss of members is undoubtedly the attitude of the government and capital. The most obvious applications of this are layoffs and the de facto blocking of collective labor agreements. In terms of membership losses, Öz Sağlık-İş stands out in the statistics. The reason for this is the loss of more than 11 thousand members compared to the previous period. While Türk-İş affiliate Sağlık-İş and DİSK affiliate Dev Sağlık-İş have increased their membership in the same line of work, the fact that Öz Sağlık-İş has lost so many members can be considered as a sign that the union’s understanding and the policies it implements stem from the union’s understanding and policies. Especially DISK member Dev Sağlık-İş attracts attention by increasing its membership by 88 percent compared to the previous period. It is understood that Öz Sağlık-İş’s counterattack with its financial means and government support prevented Dev Sağlık-İş from passing the threshold.

On the other hand, the increase in the number of unions affiliated to independent and newly established confederations between 2013 and 2023 is noteworthy (even though the number of members of these unions is low). The increase in the number of unions in the independent and other categories from 24 to 153 also points to the working class’s search outside the three major trade union confederations and its effort to make a way for itself.

Among the independent unions, it is noteworthy that the Private Sector Teachers’ Union, which continues to grow steadily, continues to increase its membership. According to ÇSGB January 2024 data, the “Teachers’ Union” has reached 8,982 members. It can be said that the union’s campaigns, actions and activities to protect the rights of private sector teachers played an important role in this. Among the independent unions, İnşaat-İş and BİRTEK-SEN have been the center of attention with the actions they organized.

The unorganized state of the Turkish working class in the trade union field has a direct connection with increasing the exploitation of the Turkish market by imperialist monopolies and comprador capitalism and deepening the semi-colonial conditions. The basis of flexible and precarious work, which aims to turn the Turkish market into a haven of cheap labor for the imperialist monopolies and comprador capitalists and thus to increase the exploitation of surplus-value, is the liquidation of the union organization of the working class in the first place, or if not, its organization in collaborationist unions, and thus its consent to the “wage slavery order”.

The reshaping of the Turkish market in line with the interests of imperialist capital and the comprador bourgeoisie, especially the liquidation attack on trade union organization, directly affected the struggle of the working class. For this reason, there has been a serious decline in the tendency of the working class to go on strike. For example, while the average annual number of workers going on strike was 40 thousand 823 in the period 1984-2002, this number decreased to 5 thousand 114 in the period 2003-2021. Similarly, the number of working days spent on strike has also declined. While the average annual number of working days spent on strike was 1 million 208 thousand in the period 1984-2002, this number decreased to 193 thousand 529 between 2003-2021.

Banned by the September 12, 1980, military fascist coup, the right to strike was reintroduced in 1984 and massively exercised in the following years. A total of 863 thousand workers went on strike in Turkey between 1984 and 2021. Of these striking workers, 443 thousand were employed in the public sector and 420 thousand in the private sector. The average annual number of strikers during the period was around 23 thousand. This is not an insignificant number. However, the distribution of the number of striking workers over the period is quite unstable. There were years when the number of strikers dropped below a thousand, and there were also years when this number approached 200 thousand. However, especially in the 2000s, when neo-liberal policies were implemented with determination, there was a marked decline and a prolonged stagnation in the exercise of the right to strike by the working class. The main reason for this is the attack policies against the working class and especially its organized struggle. In the background of the decline and stagnation in the exercise of the right to strike by the working class in these years, it is possible to say that the decline in the number of unionized workers, the number of public workers and the number of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements, de-unionization and strike postponements are behind this decline.

Especially during the AKP governments, the right to strike has been banned under the name of “obstruction” for various reasons. It is indisputable that the banning of strikes under the name of postponement, which is widely used as a tool, de facto serves to usurp the most fundamental right of the working class and plays a role in the decrease in the tendency of the working class to strike.

In the last 20 years, there have been a total of 20 strike-postponements, 7 of which took place during the State of Emergency. Most of the strike postponements were made on the grounds of “national security”. Since 2003, the number of workers covered by strike bans has been 194,949. In short, there are de facto strike bans parallel to the disorganization attack against the working class.

The disorganization of the working class and forcing it to live on a minimum wage below the starvation line is one of the most prominent features of this process. The low level of unionization despite the numerical increase in the working class in parallel with the deepening of the semi-colonial conditions of the Turkish economy over the last quarter century is the product of a conscious and planned attack on the working class. Imperialist monopolies and comprador bosses have used every opportunity to attack for this purpose. For example, with the July 15 coup, which emerged as a product of the power struggle of the Turkish ruling classes, a comprehensive attack on the existing organization of the working class was carried out between 2016-2018 on the grounds of the state of emergency conditions. The power struggle between the ruling class cliques was used to dismantle the organizations of the working class and the people. In particular, strikes were banned on the grounds of postponement.

In the mining, metal, chemistry, energy, etc. industries, which have traditionally been at the forefront of the trade union struggle of the Turkish working class, pressures and attacks such as production coercion, unemployment pressure, banning of union actions at all levels, etc. have been increased and precarious working conditions have been deepened. The unions, which had a certain power in these lines of work, have been significantly reduced due to the loss of rights in the workplaces where they are organized, the trivialization of the CBA difference, the union’s inability to become a center of attraction in the line of work, etc., and the union organization has been completely neutralized. On the other hand, the dismissal, retirement and exile of thousands of public employees (civil servants) with decrees in this process constituted the other pillar of this attack on the working class.

In short, with the implementation of neo-liberal policies, the ongoing attacks on trade union organizations, which are the most basic organization of the working class to struggle and obtain rights, have been further increased under the pretext of the State of Emergency and targeted the most organized section of the working class.

After the State of Emergency, the attacks on the organization of the working class continued without interruption. This attack was implemented especially under the pretext of the Covid-19 pandemic. During the pandemic period, while on the one hand it was said that “life fits at home”, on the other hand, the working class was told to “be in the hospital”, “be at the construction site”, “be in the factory”. The working class was forced to work under the threat of hunger and unemployment, saying that “the wheels must turn”.

The exact number of deaths across the country in this process is not known, nor is it known how many forced laborers were killed due to Covid-19. However, the pandemic was mainly effective within the working class, as workers were forced into production. The pandemic not only led to the massacre of workers, but attacks on the most basic rights of the working class continued to be carried out under the name of “pandemic management”. On the other hand, the fact that 90 percent of those killed due to the pandemic were retired workers, the previous generation of workers, has also emerged as an obstacle to the transfer of the experience and knowledge of the working-class struggle to future generations.

In short, under the name of “pandemic management”, the state and the bosses have carried out the biggest massacre of workers in the history of Turkey, leaving the Turkish working class in the dilemma of “virus or unemployment-hunger”. In this process, sectoral weights have been organized, logistics networks have been developed, unregulated day and night work has been implemented in factories and new forms of work (such as working from home) have become widespread in order to take more place in the international division of labor.

The “pandemic management” has been taken directly as a heavy attack on the working and living conditions of the working class. In summary, the traditional trade union movement, which was significantly downgraded during the SoE period, had difficulties in protecting even its members during the pandemic.

The attacks on the working class have not only continued with de-unionization and strike bans. At the same time, the usurpation of severance pays, one of the vested rights of the working class, and dismissal attacks were also used effectively. Along with the bosses’ de-unionization attack on the working class, there is also the threat of usurping the right to severance pay. Severance pay is the worker’s wage, the payment of which is postponed until later, and is the most important of the protective regulations for the worker. At the current stage, there is a de facto elimination attack against severance pay.

The most effective method of the usurpation of the right to severance pay by the bosses is the practice of dismissal (dismissal for good, resignation and re-employment, etc.). The severance pay of the working class is usurped through the practice of dismissal, which is put into practice with the code application. The system, which is implemented as the bosses reporting the reason for dismissal to the Social Security Institution with various codes, is used to usurp the vested rights of the working class. Because the reason for dismissal or resignation is important in determining whether or not workers can benefit from various rights (such as notice, severance pay and unemployment benefits) due to the termination of the employment contract guaranteed by labor law. It is precisely for this reason that bosses use the code in their dismissal attacks to usurp these rights.

For example, when we look at the distribution of the dismissals reported between 2015 and 2021 according to codes, it is seen that the highest rate is code number 3, “termination of an indefinite-term employment contract by the worker”. Thus, between 2015 and 2021, 46 percent of workers reported resignation as the reason for dismissal (Code-3). The fact that 46 percent of workers are dismissed by resigning in such a way that they do not deserve notice pay, severance pay, and unemployment allowance is in reality a usurpation of these rights of workers. Again, during the Covid-19 pandemic, dismissal codes, known as Code-29, were widely used by the employer to terminate the employment contract of the worker on the grounds of “situations that do not comply with the rules of morality and goodwill and the like” in Article 25-II of the Labor Law, and not only usurped the vested rights of the workers, but also prevented them from working in subsequent jobs.

Another issue that needs to be mentioned in terms of the working class is occupational homicides. There is an increase in occupational homicides because the measures that should be taken by the bosses to gain more profit are not taken. Today, there is literally a “Regime of Work Killings” in Turkey. Between 2002 and 2023, at least 32,478 workers were murdered at work. In addition to daily work murders, hundreds of workers were massacred in mine murders such as Soma and Ermenek as a result of preventable work murders when guaranteed working conditions are created. For the working class in Turkey, the right to secure work has emerged as a right to life.

In the face of the attacks on the working class, it must be stated that the working class is in a certain state of activism. The working class is in a struggle for wages and, in connection with this, for unionization. As a matter of fact, according to the report published by the Labor Studies Society since 2015, the year 2022 was the year with the highest number of worker resistance. Since 2015, 2022 has been the year with the highest number of worker actions and the highest number of workers participating in workplace-based actions.

According to the report based on the data published in the press, 1,556 worker and public laborer actions were identified in 2022. It is stated that approximately 155 thousand workers participated in workplace-based protests. In 2022, especially the first two months of the year were marked by a wave of de facto strikes in which courier workers were at the forefront. The workers’ resort to de facto strikes should also be understood as a message to the union bureaucracy. According to the report, the number of workplace-based actions was 600, the number of general actions in which workers participated was 257 and the number of solidarity actions was 18. These actions were generally of short duration.

It is emphasized that in 2020, after the pandemic period, 26 percent of the protests were of a rights-building nature, while in 2021 this rate increased to 65 percent, and in 2022 it increased even higher to 72 percent. The report states that in 2022, protests were marked by the demand for an increase in wages, which had fallen due to inflation, and says, “While the proportion of low wage-related actions for workplace-based action cases was 14 percent on average between 2015-21, this rate increased to a very high rate of 36 percent in 2022.” According to the report, the working class held press conferences in 44 percent of cases, de facto strikes in 30 percent of cases and permanent resistance in 10 percent of cases. Thirty-six percent of the actions were aimed at raising low wages. Firing played a role in 19 percent, while unionization played a role in 16 percent. Collective bargaining actions accounted for 11 percent of all worker actions.

In 2023, the working class took to the streets to demand their rights in dozens of sectors ranging from energy to textiles, agriculture to metal. Actions took place in more than 400 factories and workplaces in the form of strikes, de facto strikes, resistance and various protest demonstrations demanding wage improvements and improved working conditions. The prominent demand in these actions, which also included demands for unionization, was a wage increase in the face of the decrease in the purchasing power of workers due to the high inflation rates caused by the economic policies implemented by the ruling classes.

In 2023, among the prominent actions of the working class, protests were held, and strike decisions were taken in the metal sector due to the failure to reach an agreement in the collective bargaining process between the labor unions and the boss union MESS. In Urfa, workers organized in BİRTEK-SEN at Özak Tekstil started a strike and were beaten and detained many times by the police. Agrobay workers, who started to resist after being fired for being members of Tarım-Sen, were intervened by the gendarmerie. Pensioners frequently took to the streets with the call of the All-Pensioners’ Union, Pensioners Solidarity Union and DİSK Emekli-Sen. Dersim FEDAŞ workers’ action, Pekintaş resistance, Sputnik strike, workers’ resistance and actions took place.

The actions of the working class continued in 2024. Workers in Agrobay, Trendyol, Antep, Urfa, Seydişehir, Aliağa, Ostim went on strike and continued their protests. The working class, which has difficulty in meeting even the most basic human needs due to high inflation, demands strikes and sometimes actual resistances to demand an increase in wages. Although these strike demands are usually ended with “last minute sales agreements” by the unions, the working class is preparing for new struggles.

It is clear that the working class needs and will need more organized struggle in conditions where the minimum wage has become the average wage for the working class and the minimum wage is even below the hunger limit, where the poverty of those who make a living by selling their labor has increased more than ever, where an increasing number of workers are sacrificed to occupational murders, where the competition between the unregistered and the registered workers intensifies, and where the bosses want to increase their dominance over working conditions by calling for more flexibility.

It is seen that the working class is in a tendency to organize against the attacks against it, albeit slowly, that they force union organizations, especially the struggle for unionization, especially the demand for strikes against the low wages, and that they carry out actual resistances and actions from time to time. The biggest obstacle to these demands and resistances is the bureaucratic yellow unionism. For this reason, the struggle and actual resistance of independent unions come to the fore. Precisely for this reason, despite the scope of the attack on the working class and the negativities experienced, it is necessary to state that the main dynamic of the unions, which are in a certain development, is in their trade union approach and the forms of struggle they wage.

The working class is learning through strikes, resistance and actions and is experiencing in its own practice that there is no other way but to struggle. This experience itself prepares the infrastructure for the struggle of the coming years.

The State of the Revolutionary and Communist Movement

For the reshaping of the Turkish state in line with the interests of imperialist capital and for the chances of success of the policies pursued by the Turkish ruling classes, which naturally received a mediating share of this reshaping, through the AKP years, the most advanced and conscious section of society was targeted first. A “total attack” was launched not only in the economic sphere but also against Turkish society as a whole. In this way, measures were taken against possible “road accidents” in the anti-working class and working people policies of the AKP governments.

F-type prisons, isolation and treatment system were put into operation as a step of a comprehensive liquidation attack against the revolutionary and communist movement, which constitutes the most advanced and conscious sections of the working class and toiling people of Turkey. For this purpose, the Turkish state resorted to massacre attacks against revolutionary and communist prisoners in prisons. Although the revolutionary and communist movement of the period correctly determined that this attack was an “all-out attack” and that its main aim was to liquidate the revolutionary and communist movement and thus to take over the whole society, the picture that has emerged in the intervening quarter century points to an incomplete understanding of the scope of the attack defined as an “all-out attack” and from this point of view, an inadequacy in meeting this attack.

While the revolutionary and communist movement of Turkey is right in its prediction that the Turkish state’s prison-based surrender and liquidation attack is an “all-out attack” and that the main goal is to surrender society, this attack is not only with the policies of the Turkish ruling classes and the aim of realizing the current interests of the imperialists in a way that determines this, The Turkish revolutionary and communist movement has failed to analyze the changes in the role assigned to semi-colonial countries such as Turkey as a result of imperialism’s reorganization of the production process in the international arena and to organize a political-organizational and military orientation accordingly.

This inadequacy has led to the failure of the Turkish revolutionary and communist movement to confront the aggression of the Turkish regime against the working class and working people through the AKP governments and moreover to channel it into the revolutionary struggle for power. Although the actions and resistances of the working class and masses continue in various forms and contents, and moreover the Gezi Rebellion emerged as an important mass action in terms of the centuries-old history of the Turkish regime, it is necessary to point out the inability of the revolutionary communist movement to lead these actions.

Similarly, although the revolutionary communist movement took part in mass actions such as the Kobanê Serhildanı, which took place with the call of the Kurdish national movement against the annihilation attack of the Turkish-backed ISIS gangs against Kobanê, it was insufficient to flow these actions into a channel that would develop its relationship with the masses.

It cannot be said that the revolutionary and communist movement in Turkey, with the exception of the Kurdish national liberation movement, has been successful in responding to the anti-working class and anti-people policies of the Turkish regime through the AKP governments in the first quarter of the 21st century. Although the revolutionary and communist movement responded to the Turkish regime’s prison-centered liquidation attack with the December 19-15, 2000, Prison Resistance and Death Fasts, although important practices of resistance and struggle were put forward in the face of the regime’s attacks in the following years, these practices remained as singular examples. Although there were processes such as the Gezi Rebellion, the Kobanê Serhildan and then the “Metal Storm” of the metal workers, it cannot be said that the revolutionary and communist movement was able to evaluate these processes.

It can be said that despite the mass actions such as the Gezi Rebellion and the Kobanê Serhildan, the revolutionary communist movement’s relationship with the masses continued to lose strength. Undoubtedly, there are various reasons for this. Although the fascist aggression of the Turkish state against the revolutionary communist movement has an impact as an external reason, the determining reason is internal. The reason why the liquidation attack, which is shaped as a product of the threat perception of the Turkish fascism against the revolutionary communist movement, is effective on the revolutionary communist movements is not the aggression of the fascist state. It is mainly the break in the power consciousness of the revolutionary communist movement and, in connection with this, its inability to develop a united revolutionary attitude in confronting the fascist state’s attacks on the working class and working people.

What is decisive in this is the inability of the revolutionary communist movements to correctly analyze the conditions in which the working class and laborers – in the broadest sense, the masses – are living. The most important reason for this is the inability of the revolutionary and communist movements to comprehend the changes and transformations in Turkish society. This situation has gradually caused the revolutionary communist movement to move away from the problems and demands of the masses and to turn inward and to its own agenda. This situation, which caused a break in the revolutionary communist movements’ goal of political power, led to the fact that it was affected by the liquidationist attack.

For example, the putschist liquidationist attack that the communist movement experienced within itself – although it emerged as a product of a counter-revolutionary enemy operation carried out by German imperialism and Turkish fascism in 2015 – cannot be explained only by the enemy operation and liquidationist attack of the counter-revolution in terms of its impact on our ranks. The fact that the putschist liquidationist attack is effective in the ranks of the communist movement and can affect some party power is due to the communist movement’s inability to establish an adequate relationship with the situation and demands of the working class and working people on a revolutionary basis.

Not engaging with the masses on a revolutionary basis with their current demands and aspirations, and moreover not taking part in the actions of the masses in one way or another, has led to the inability of the communist movement to confront the attack of liquidationism and moreover to prevent this attack from developing in its own ranks and taking on a putschist style.

This process experienced by the communist movement within its own ranks also summarizes the situation of the revolutionary and communist movement. The revolutionary and communist movement has experienced problems within itself under the condition that it could not relate to the demands of the working class and working people -for one reason or another- on a revolutionary basis, moreover, it could not relate to the current movement, actions and resistances of the masses and reproduce this movement on a revolutionary basis within itself. These problems caused the limited relations of the revolutionary communist movements with the masses to regress even further.

The only way for the revolutionary and communist movement to respond to the enemy’s liquidation attacks, especially the annihilation attacks, is the implementation of the line from the masses to the masses. Regardless of the conditions, the main point of departure should be to connect with the spontaneous actions of the masses at the moment, to organize the advanced masses in the ranks of the revolutionary and communist movement, to bring the middle masses closer to the ranks of the revolutionary and communist movement, and to at least neutralize the backward masses.

As long as this mass line is not put into practice, the organization of even the masses who are closest to the revolutionary communist movement, who constitute the “natural mass base” of the revolutionary communist movement, in the ranks of the revolutionary communist movements cannot be achieved. For example, in an environment of increasing poverty, it is a fact that the progressive democratic sections and especially the youth, who constitute the base of the revolutionary movement, are drawn into gang and mafia relations. It can be easily said that especially in the neighborhoods where Alevi and Kurdish laborers live densely, drugs, prostitution and criminalized activities supported by the regime are paved the way, and the masses that will constitute the first-hand base of the revolutionary movement are neutralized in this way and backed up to the system. In addition, the pragmatist approach of some revolutionary organizations towards such relations has also provided the ground for the strengthening of such gang and mafia relations.

The fact that even the masses that constitute the “natural mass base” of the revolutionary communist movement cannot be organized with a correct policy, on the contrary, the fact that these masses have become direct and indirect extensions of fascism by taking part in all kinds of criminalized criminal organizations provides an important data on the relationship of the revolutionary communist movement with the masses. Of course, the “special policies” implemented by the fascist state, especially in the neighborhoods where Alevi and Kurdish youth live, have an impact on the emergence of such gangs and criminal groups. However, it is precisely for this reason that we see that revolutionary and communist organizations have not been able to establish themselves as a revolutionary alternative to these policies.

Among the reasons for this is the loss of cadres experienced due to the effect of fascism’s murder and arrest attacks against revolutionary communist movements, as well as the failure of the revolutionary communist movement to create cadres to respond to the process and to renew itself. An ideological counter stance and a cultural focus of resistance could not be created against the intense ideological attack and cultural hegemony of fascism through mass media by using technological developments.

For example, revolutionary and communist organizations could not develop a counter stance against the system’s propaganda that focuses on criminal organizations through TV series, “heroizing” racist, chauvinist, anti-women and LGBTI+ fascist personalities as role models, or sanctifying the individual and glorifying “turning corners” through soap operas, on the contrary, such propaganda even affected the supporters of the revolutionary movement.

Racism and chauvinism, along with the phenomenon of religion, were widely used in maintaining fascism’s hegemony over the masses of the people and in obtaining the consent of the masses. The Islamist rhetoric of the ruling party paved the way for a significant part of the advanced masses to be subordinated to the system under the name of “secularism”. This situation led even some progressive and revolutionary organizations to back the opposition clique of the ruling classes.

A similar situation was experienced in the general and local election agendas of the Turkish ruling classes. In the name of regressing the “ruling AKP-MHP fascism” and the “Erdogan regime” and “breathing space”, a part of the revolutionary movement, including the Kurdish national movement’s struggle for legal space, has been backed up behind the bourgeois opposition. This has paved the way for reformist understandings that open the door to solutions within the order against the revolutionary and communist line.

In the physical and ideological liquidation attack of fascism against the revolutionary communist movements, reformism and reformist movements should be especially mentioned. The emergence of reformist understandings in the ranks of the revolutionary communist movement goes hand in hand with the emergence of the revolutionary and communist movement. In this sense, for the revolutionary and communist movement, reformism exists as a phenomenon from the beginning. However, the ’71 armed revolutionary breakthrough of the revolutionary movement in Turkey is also the breakthrough of reckoning with the reformist and in-order line. This fact has led to the “support” of reformist movements in the face of revolutionary and communist movements in Turkey and paved the way for them. Under Turkish conditions, reformism and reformist movements emerge as an obstacle to the development of the class struggle and the massification of revolutionary and communist organizations. The ideological and political struggle against reformism must continue uninterruptedly.

A similar situation was experienced in the racist and fascist attacks of fascism against Syrian refugees and immigrants, especially the Kurdish national question. The ruling and opposition cliques of the ruling classes have widely used chauvinism to support the support of the masses. This situation has found a certain response among the advanced masses, even among the supporters of revolutionary organizations. In the ranks of the revolutionary and communist movements, social chauvinism has been effective against the Syrian refugees, especially against the Kurdish national struggle. In some petty bourgeois revolutionary organizations, political positions have emerged under the name of defending the “homeland”, evaluating and propagandizing the Kurdish national movement as a “nationalist movement” rather than an oppressed nation movement. The struggle against social chauvinism, which strengthens the privileges of the dominant nation, especially against the Kurdish nation, continues to maintain its importance and necessity for the revolutionary and communist movement in Turkey.

Another phenomenon that should be noted for the revolutionary communist movements is the views that the Kurdish national liberation movement defends and propagandizes under the name of “paradigm change”. The views that the Kurdish national revolutionary movement defines as “Ecological, Women’s Liberationist and Democratic Nation Paradigm” and propagates as “Democratic Modernity” have an impact on the revolutionary communist movement.

The Kurdish national movement’s competence in guerrilla warfare and the backwardness of the revolutionary and communist movement in Turkey in the face of mass support leads to the ideological domination of the revolutionary movement in Turkey. The communist movement is not free from this ideological domination. Some utopian and anarchist political views of the Kurdish national movement are accepted as “general truths”. There is a need for ideological and political struggle and vigilance in this regard.

It should be noted that this influence is twofold. For example, while the revolutionary and communist movements are positively influenced by some of the discourses and propaganda of the Kurdish national liberation movement, such as the struggle for women and ecology (which should be discussed separately in its own agenda), they are negatively influenced by anarchist and utopian views such as “democratic nation”. It is necessary to be vigilant against this phenomenon and jealously defend the proletariat’s own flag.

On the other hand, under the name of defending the science of the proletariat, one has to respond to new developments and agendas without falling into dogmatism. It is necessary to try to respond to the needs of the moment, not by revising MLM science, but by acting on the concrete analysis of the concrete conditions of MLM science.

The Situation of the Kurdish National Freedom Movement

It is a reality that the struggle of the Kurdish national movement has gone beyond the borders of Turkish Kurdistan and has emerged as a regional power. Especially during the Syrian civil war, the war against ISIS gangs and the Rojava Revolution process led by the Kurdish national movement is an important development. This process has revealed the PKK as a regional power. This is precisely why the Turkish state perceives the gains of the Kurdish national movement as a primary threat to its existence. This situation causes the Turkish state to carry out the attacks against the Kurdish nation inside the borders as well as outside the borders. The invasion attacks carried out by the Turkish fascism in Iraq and Syrian Kurdistan aim to liquidate the gains of the Kurdish national movement, to defeat the guerrilla struggle and moreover to annex the occupied regions. Therefore, acting together with the Kurdish national movement will serve both as an unconditional defense of the Right of Nations to Separate Freely and as an antidote to social chauvinism in the ranks of the revolutionary and communist movement.

In this reality, we must point out that the Kurdish National Freedom Movement (KUÖH) is the most alive within the revolutionary movement. The armed force led by the Kurdish national movement continues to be the fear of the Turkish state. The KUÖH’s persistent struggle to regain some of the positions it lost after it withdrew its armed forces inside the country during the “peace” process continues. During the period of “peace talks” the Turkish state has reorganized itself. It built new outposts (kalekol) in the areas of Turkish Kurdistan where the struggle was the most advanced, installed watchtowers in all border areas and equipped them with advanced technology, increasing its control, as well as focusing on Unmanned and Armed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), which enabled it to successfully use technological superiority in the war.

With the Syrian civil war, the Turkish state turned its attention to Rojava after the revolution in Rojava following the success of the Kurdish national movement in the Kobanê resistance, which observed the course of the war well. The Turkish state, which saw the Kurds gaining an autonomous status as a survival problem, occupied some of the Kurdish lands in Syria. The Turkish state, which settled in the occupied regions, was not satisfied with this and carried out massacres by constantly bombing the settlements in and around Rojava with countless operations. Turkey’s dreams of neo-Ottomanism also began to stir after this date. The claim that Kirkuk and Mosul are Turkish territories was brought to the agenda and it was possible to say that these places could be occupied at every opportunity.

Taking advantage of the weakness of the Syrian central government, the Turkish state does not intend to leave the Kurdish territories it occupies. Although it does not intend to do so, it is clear that this will change in the coming years – evolving into an annexation attempt. It is known that the Turkish state did not take the Assad government as an interlocutor in any way from 2011 until the beginning of 2024, and that it sought various ways and methods to meet Assad in the last six months, despite saying that it would not leave the occupied territories. It is no secret that Russia is behind this negotiation effort. Russia is one of the most influential actors in Syria after the US. The relationship Syria developed with Russia after 2011 and Russia’s deployment on Syrian soil since 2014 have changed the balance in Syria. Russia, which cannot provide enough support to Syria because it is preoccupied with Ukraine, wants the Turkish state to come together with Syria and make a deal. It is clear that a possible Turkey-Syria agreement is in Russia’s favor.

Russia knows that if the talks between Turkey and Syria result in an agreement, it will weaken the US presence in Syria. The status of Rojava may also be on the agenda after a possible Syria-Turkey agreement.

The Syrian state’s response to the Turkish state’s request for talks, “first get out of the occupied territories, then negotiations can be held”, is not welcomed by the Turkish state. The Turkish state wants the Kurds’ status here to be ended and even crushed, no matter what happens first. With the Turkish state sitting at the table with the Syrian state, the “Kurds” can be a subject of bargaining.

After 2011, the Kurdish national liberation movement had to fight on several fronts. One of these fronts is Turkish Kurdistan, one is Rojava, one is Iranian Kurdistan, and one is the Media Defense Areas in Iraq. It has deployed its forces in these areas. The difficulties and disadvantages of fighting on all four fronts are well known. The KUH suffered a significant loss of power during its tremendous resistance against ISIS in Rojava. Despite this, the KUH regrouped its forces in this area in a short time and gained a certain military power. A significant force from Rojava was transferred to the Iraqi Kurdistan front and resisted the attacks of the Turkish state. It is also known to have reactivated its forces in Iran.

Considering all these developments, it can be better understood why the KUÖH is in a relative military decline in Turkish Kurdistan. It would be a more objective assessment to consider the stagnation in the armed struggle on the Turkish Kurdistan front over the last few years in the light of these developments.

Although the KUÖH’s sitting at the table with the state and the developments that followed are a subject of evaluation in themselves, they are full of important lessons in terms of the prominent developments of this period and their consequences.

While the Turkish state did not even think of sitting down with the PKK until 1999, when Abdullah Öcalan was captured, after 1999 it thought that it would liquidate the PKK with some tactical expansions with the captivity of Abdullah Öcalan and Öcalan’s “paradigm change”. Öcalan’s demand for “peace and solution” was taken as an opportunity by the Turkish state. In 2008, the Turkish state sat down with the PKK in Oslo and hid this meeting from the public. In Oslo, he thought he could solve the Kurdish “issue” by giving some crumbs to the Kurds. However, the talks ended on July 14, 2011

The Turkish state saw that the PKK would resume armed struggle after the breakdown of talks. In order to prevent this, albeit temporarily, it put forward its own conditions. With its maneuvers of “peace” and “reconciliation”, the Turkish Republic demanded that the PKK withdraw its armed forces from the country as a first step. The PKK announced that it had withdrawn its armed forces outside the border (to other parts of Kurdistan) as of 2012. The Turkish state took advantage of this situation to impose isolation on Öcalan in order to disable him.

Hunger strikes in prisons for the lifting of the isolation on A.Öcalan yielded results and the isolation and bans on A.Öcalan were lifted. The Turkish state started talks with A.Öcalan in January 2013. As part of these talks, a letter from Öcalan was read at the March 2013 Newroz celebrations. During the peace talks, the “Dolmabahçe Consensus” was reached in a meeting held in Dolmabahçe. R.T.Erdoğan declared that this was done “without his knowledge”, thus frustrating all attempts.

At the longest NSC meeting in 2014, the Turkish state decided to completely destroy the KUH. In 2015, the Turkish state abandoned all negotiations with the PKK and went on the offensive. After the June 7 general elections, the AKP failed to form a government on its own and early general elections were called. Until the early general elections of November 1, 2015, the AKP carried out massacres in the country. On July 20, 2015, 33 revolutionaries were massacred in Suruç and 103 people were massacred at the October 10 Ankara Peace Rally. The AKP gave a clear message that “if you don’t elect us, these massacres will continue”. On November 1, AKP won the early general election by committing massacres and rigging the election. After winning the election, the AKP launched a massive attack across the country.

Another development that should be evaluated within the experiences of the KUH in Turkish Kurdistan is the self-administration resistance that started in July 2015 and continued until March 27, 2016. The resistance started on October 6-7, 2014 during the Kobanê resistance. This resistance first started in Cizre and then expanded with the declaration of “self-administration”.

In 2015, 15 districts such as Sur, the central district of Amed, Derik, Cizre, Nusaybin, Şırnak, Şemdinli, Yüksekova, etc. were bombed from the air and land and destroyed by tank and artillery shelling. Thousands of civilians were killed and injured. The remaining tens of thousands of people were deported to the west and Çukurova. This was a policy of both weakening the mass base of the Kurdish national movement and assimilating it by uprooting it from its roots and scattering it to many regions of Turkey.

This barricade war of the Kurdish national movement lasted 265 days, during which 3,583 resistance fighters were killed. The PKK also declared that it had punished 355 Turkish soldiers and police officers in this war.

In 2015, however, the Turkish state went on the offensive again. Ten thousand people were arrested. Trustees were appointed to all the municipalities that had won. Dozens of villages were bombed in cross-border operations. Guerrilla massacres took place. Bans followed one after another. On November 4, 2016, an arrest attack was carried out against the party of the Kurdish national movement that was working in the legal field. Dozens of deputies and party members, especially the co-chairs, were arrested. In the Kobanê trial, sentences of over 400 years were given.

This process has also shown that the Turkish state’s policy of denial and extermination of the Kurdish national question continues. The KUH made a tactical mistake by resuming the talks that broke down in 2011 and paid a heavy price for it.

The KUH never ended the armed struggle, including when it withdrew its armed forces. It can also be said that it utilized certain aspects of the peace process to recover and prepare for new wars.

Although the democratic struggle of the KUÖH is the subject of a separate evaluation, the following can be summarized. The position created by the KUÖH in the democratic field is very important. In terms of rallying the masses around itself and occasionally taking to the streets, it can be said that this position has been used efficiently from time to time. In terms of democratic legitimate struggle in terms of exposing the state in parliament, voicing the problems and demands of the Kurdish people, making democratic demands, exposing the oppression and torture in prisons, the KUÖH uses this area well.

The fact that the KUÖH relates to reformist movements more than revolutionary movements in the struggle for democratic space is related to its “paradigm” and is not independent of the fact that it is a national movement. On the other hand, the weakness of the revolutionary forces also plays an important role. This attitude of course weakens the struggle of the KUÖH. The fact that it was dragged behind the CHP in the last election, that it acted in a hidden and self-ignoring manner instead of carrying out the alliance as an open and legitimate force, and that it made its legitimacy a matter of debate is another negative.

The fact that the KUÖH’s relationship with the revolutionary movement in the democratic struggle continues as periodic relations rather than a situation based on continuity causes a lack of stability in the relations between the KUÖH and the revolutionary movement in this field. The closest relations have been during election periods. Overcoming this and transforming mutual relations into continuity is of great importance in terms of carrying the struggle forward.

At this point, in 2016, in order to develop a new line of armed struggle in which the communist movement also took part, a new step was taken with a significant part of the TDH’s affiliates, and the United Revolutionary Movement of the Peoples was founded. The United Revolutionary Movement of the Peoples, which the revolutionary and communist movements of Turkey, including the Kurdish national liberation movement, came together on the basis of unity of action, represents the most advanced revolutionary stance in our geography. The United Revolutionary Struggle carried out in various forms and contents by the revolutionary and communist organizations within this organization stands in a decisive place on the course of the class struggle in the coming period.

On the other hand, it should be emphasized that this situation, which is the longest alliance and unity of action in our country, is not progressing at the desired level. Although the revolutionary movement has long emphasized the importance and necessity of this and emphasized its importance, it has still not overcome this disorganized situation. Making the necessary effort for this is very important in terms of carrying the struggle forward.

Click to Download and Read the Document

Turkısh: https://www.tkpml.com/dunyada-genel-durum-gorevlerimiz-ve-turkiyede-durum/?swcfpc=1

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=13880

#iraq #kurdistan #rojava #syria #tikko #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

Let’s Defend the Syrian People and the Rojava Revolution Against Imperialist Aggression, Occupation, Attacks and Massacres!

In general, the Syrian people in particular,  and the Rojava Revolution, are under the threat of massacres once again by the imperialists, fascist and reactionary states, and by the gangs of Daesh. In parallel with the Zionist regime’s ceasefire agreement in Lebanon, the Daesh army based in Idlib, Syria, Tahrir al–Sham (HTS) and the fascist Syrian National Army (SMA) and other gangs have launched attacks and occupied the city of Aleppo. Close to a million people from Aleppo have been displaced. The Kurdish people displaced from Aleppo and its surrounding areas are under threat of massacre. Also in Aleppo, the Christian and Yazidi people are under threat of massacre by ISIS–affiliated gangs, particularly in Kurdish neighborhoods.

The occupation attack on Aleppo cannot be evaluated independently of the regional policies of the Turkish state, which is a NATO member, US imperialism and Zionist Israel. Although this attack includes the elements of inter-imperialist power struggle and bargaining that are dominant in the region, concretely, it aims to topple the Assad regime, cut off the supply route for Hezbollah from Iran to Lebanon, push back Iran, and force Russia to detach forces from Ukraine to defend its positions in Syria. The US and EU imperialists have provided “consultants” to ISIS remnant gangs through Ukraine, including the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. The Turkish state provided all kinds of logistical support to the gangs and, moreover, directed and managed the attack. Zionist Israel, on the other hand, apparently applied the explosive pager/radio attack to Syria as well, disrupting the tactical command and control of the Assad regime in the attack of ISIS remnant gangs.

The fascist Turkish state, which condemns Israel at every opportunity and propagandizes that it is on the side of the Palestinian people, on the one hand, continues all kinds of trade, especially oil shipments, with Israel, and on the other hand, it wants to invade Aleppo and strengthen its hand through the gangs it has trained, equipped and protected in Idlib. This move also means indirect support for Zionist Israel by unleashing the strings of ISIS remnant gangs.

The fact that the attack of these gangs on Aleppo was carried out directly with the partnership of the USA-Israel and the Republic of Turkey is understood from both the posts of the gang elements and the propaganda broadcasts of the Turkish media. While Western imperialism propagandizes the ISIS remnants as “opponents of the Assad regime”, the Turkish state is collaborating with HTS, which it also defines as a “terrorist organization,” in the Aleppo attack. Accompanied by the propaganda that “Aleppo is a Turkish homeland”, the partisan media markets the ISIS remnant gangs as “opponents of the Assad regime”. Although the coordinated action of Turkish fascism with gangs is not a secret, the recent occupation attack on Aleppo has once again confirmed this fact.

Another goal of the occupation attacks of the Turkish state in Syria is the liquidation of the Northeast Regional Autonomous Administration. From the point of view of Turkish fascism, the liquidation of the Rojava Revolution and the gains of the Kurdish national movement is a strategic goal. In other words, one of the targets of the attack of the ISIS remnant gangs trained, equipped, directed and managed by Turkish fascism is the Rojava Revolution. As a matter of fact, the Turkish-controlled fascist gangs called the SNA launched an offensive against the areas under the control of the Autonomous Administration, which they called “Dawn of Freedom”. The Rojava Revolution is facing a new ISIS-like danger. The NATO axis led by the USA and the UK; They want to create ISIS from gang groups such as HTS and SNA and establish dominance in the whole of Syria through it. On the other hand, Turkish fascism, which is an active actor in the field of this scenario, has also invaded Rojava’s land by gangs and has actually started this on the Şehba Til Rıfat line. Tens of thousands of people in this region are under the threat of massacre by ISIS remnant gangs under the direct direction of Turkish fascism.

All democratic, patriotic, revolutionary and progressive sectors should stand with the oppressed Syrian people and heed the call for mobilization to defend the gains of Rojava and the Kurdish nation.

Down with All Kinds of Imperialist Aggression, Occupation and Annexation Policies

Let’s Defend the Syrian People and the Rojava Revolution!

Long live the Rojava Revolution!

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=12861

#guerrilla #kurdistan #rojava #syria #tikko #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

Let’s Defend the Syrian People and the Rojava Revolution Against Imperialist Aggression, Occupation, Attacks and Massacres!

In general, the Syrian people in particular,  and the Rojava Revolution, are under the threat of massacres once again by the imperialists, fascist and reactionary states, and by the gangs of Daesh. In parallel with the Zionist regime’s ceasefire agreement in Lebanon, the Daesh army based in Idlib, Syria, Tahrir al–Sham (HTS) and the fascist Syrian National Army (SMA) and other gangs have launched attacks and occupied the city of Aleppo. Close to a million people from Aleppo have been displaced. The Kurdish people displaced from Aleppo and its surrounding areas are under threat of massacre. Also in Aleppo, the Christian and Yazidi people are under threat of massacre by ISIS–affiliated gangs, particularly in Kurdish neighborhoods.

The occupation attack on Aleppo cannot be evaluated independently of the regional policies of the Turkish state, which is a NATO member, US imperialism and Zionist Israel. Although this attack includes the elements of inter-imperialist power struggle and bargaining that are dominant in the region, concretely, it aims to topple the Assad regime, cut off the supply route for Hezbollah from Iran to Lebanon, push back Iran, and force Russia to detach forces from Ukraine to defend its positions in Syria. The US and EU imperialists have provided “consultants” to ISIS remnant gangs through Ukraine, including the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. The Turkish state provided all kinds of logistical support to the gangs and, moreover, directed and managed the attack. Zionist Israel, on the other hand, apparently applied the explosive pager/radio attack to Syria as well, disrupting the tactical command and control of the Assad regime in the attack of ISIS remnant gangs.

The fascist Turkish state, which condemns Israel at every opportunity and propagandizes that it is on the side of the Palestinian people, on the one hand, continues all kinds of trade, especially oil shipments, with Israel, and on the other hand, it wants to invade Aleppo and strengthen its hand through the gangs it has trained, equipped and protected in Idlib. This move also means indirect support for Zionist Israel by unleashing the strings of ISIS remnant gangs.

The fact that the attack of these gangs on Aleppo was carried out directly with the partnership of the USA-Israel and the Republic of Turkey is understood from both the posts of the gang elements and the propaganda broadcasts of the Turkish media. While Western imperialism propagandizes the ISIS remnants as “opponents of the Assad regime”, the Turkish state is collaborating with HTS, which it also defines as a “terrorist organization,” in the Aleppo attack. Accompanied by the propaganda that “Aleppo is a Turkish homeland”, the partisan media markets the ISIS remnant gangs as “opponents of the Assad regime”. Although the coordinated action of Turkish fascism with gangs is not a secret, the recent occupation attack on Aleppo has once again confirmed this fact.

Another goal of the occupation attacks of the Turkish state in Syria is the liquidation of the Northeast Regional Autonomous Administration. From the point of view of Turkish fascism, the liquidation of the Rojava Revolution and the gains of the Kurdish national movement is a strategic goal. In other words, one of the targets of the attack of the ISIS remnant gangs trained, equipped, directed and managed by Turkish fascism is the Rojava Revolution. As a matter of fact, the Turkish-controlled fascist gangs called the SNA launched an offensive against the areas under the control of the Autonomous Administration, which they called “Dawn of Freedom”. The Rojava Revolution is facing a new ISIS-like danger. The NATO axis led by the USA and the UK; They want to create ISIS from gang groups such as HTS and SNA and establish dominance in the whole of Syria through it. On the other hand, Turkish fascism, which is an active actor in the field of this scenario, has also invaded Rojava’s land by gangs and has actually started this on the Şehba Til Rıfat line. Tens of thousands of people in this region are under the threat of massacre by ISIS remnant gangs under the direct direction of Turkish fascism.

All democratic, patriotic, revolutionary and progressive sectors should stand with the oppressed Syrian people and heed the call for mobilization to defend the gains of Rojava and the Kurdish nation.

Down with All Kinds of Imperialist Aggression, Occupation and Annexation Policies

Let’s Defend the Syrian People and the Rojava Revolution!

Long live the Rojava Revolution!

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=12861

#guerrilla #kurdistan #rojava #syria #tikko #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

TIKKO: This Revolution Can Only Be Realized Through Armed Struggle

TKP-ML held their second Congress this summer and the articulated their new direction going into the future.

They noted that the Congress was “convened under conditions where the signs of the Third Imperialist War” are increasingly becoming evident and could reach “full intensity” in the near future.

The organization noted “that the revolution in Turkey is at the stage of the People’s Democratic Revolution and that this revolution can only be realized through armed struggle. It affirmed that the revolution in Turkey will not follow the same line with as the successful revolutions of the international proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the world, and that it has its own specificities.”

Particularly since Turkey plays a specific role in the international capitalist system, has a large comprador class, and still has elements of feudal society.

TIKKO deduced that “work within the cities and the working class is primary; that work in the countryside and among the poor peasants has become secondary; that the revolutionary struggle will rise on the basis of armed struggle from the beginning to the end; that the guerrilla struggle, which aims at armed popular uprising but on the basis of ‘small groups, great daring,’ is applicable from the beginning to the end of the revolution.”

Importantly, the Congress affirmed the importance of the HBDH and KBDH alliance stating that the coalitions are of “are utmost important struggle fronts.”

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=12538

#guerrilla #kurdistan #tikko #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

TIKKO: This Revolution Can Only Be Realized Through Armed Struggle

TKP-ML held their second Congress this summer and the articulated their new direction going into the future.

They noted that the Congress was “convened under conditions where the signs of the Third Imperialist War” are increasingly becoming evident and could reach “full intensity” in the near future.

The organization noted “that the revolution in Turkey is at the stage of the People’s Democratic Revolution and that this revolution can only be realized through armed struggle. It affirmed that the revolution in Turkey will not follow the same line with as the successful revolutions of the international proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the world, and that it has its own specificities.”

Particularly since Turkey plays a specific role in the international capitalist system, has a large comprador class, and still has elements of feudal society.

TIKKO deduced that “work within the cities and the working class is primary; that work in the countryside and among the poor peasants has become secondary; that the revolutionary struggle will rise on the basis of armed struggle from the beginning to the end; that the guerrilla struggle, which aims at armed popular uprising but on the basis of ‘small groups, great daring,’ is applicable from the beginning to the end of the revolution.”

Importantly, the Congress affirmed the importance of the HBDH and KBDH alliance stating that the coalitions are of “are utmost important struggle fronts.”

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=12538

#guerrilla #kurdistan #tikko #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

Against the massacres and genocide of the Zionist state of Israel
We stand with the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples!

In the heavy attacks of the Zionist state of Israel against Lebanon, Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, and many members of the Hezbollah command have been killed. This loss is also a heavy loss for the resistance front against Israeli Zionism. Hassan Nasrallah has become an example of resistance against Israel’s brutality, attacks and occupations. In 2000 and 2006, he successfully led the resistance of the Lebanese people against the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

The Zionist state of Israel, which assassinated Nasrallah, has killed 42,000 Palestinians in a year of atrocities. Israel has now set its sights on Lebanon. It aims to occupy the south of Lebanon by expelling its people. Hundreds of Lebanese have lost their lives so far. The people of South Lebanon are being displaced and uprooted.

All attacks of the Israeli state are clearly targeting the civilian population. Civilian residential areas are bombed. It carries out cyber-attacks, destroys the livelihoods of the people and deprives them of their right to life. All these are flagrant war crimes. Finally, the murderer Netanyahu, gave the order for the massacre of Hassan Nasrallah and civilians, during his speech at the United Nations. In full view of the whole world, the Netanyahu government continues to commit atrocities and take lives, and no significant objection is voiced except by a few states of the world. The imperialist states of the US, Britain and the EU openly approve and encourage these massacres and war crimes. This is because they want to expand their sphere of dominance in the Middle East against other imperialist powers. The great disasters experienced during the first and second imperialist wars of division are wanted to be repeated once again.

All these events are part of imperialism’s attacks on the peoples of the world. The state of Israel uses the suffering of the genocide (Holocaust) inflicted on the Jewish people by the Nazis for its Zionist interests. It imposes genocide on the peoples of the Middle East, especially the Palestinian people. Like all oppressed peoples, the Jewish people, in essence, do not approve of the genocides of the state of Israel.

The imperialist powers and the servant states of the Middle East are complicit in the genocide in Palestine and Lebanon. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, Jordan, Azerbaijan, etc. are states that provide direct or indirect aid to the state of Israel. Deep cooperation has been exposed between the fascist Turkish and Azerbaijani states and the Zionist state of Israel. However, the hearts of the oppressed peoples in all these countries are with the Palestinian people. The oppressed around the world are in solidarity with the Palestinian people. Anger is rising against imperialism and the murderous Israeli state. The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah has sharpened this anger even more.

These attacks are a result of the general policy of imperialism. In this situation, hoping for help from the imperialists, called “great powers”, is a pipe dream. The oppressed peoples of the Middle East; all identity, religion, sect, etc. will learn to fight together, leaving aside their differences. They will bring the struggle together. Because imperialism is a system that aims only at its own profit and exploits and destroys everything for this purpose. The only remedy for the oppressed against this system is to unite in a common line of resistance and to strenghten solidarity networks with the oppressed peoples of the world. There is no other way other than this.

We condemn the genocides of Zionism in the strongest terms. We call on all peoples to take a stand against genocide and to actively solidarize with the Palestinian and Lebanese people.

The Palestinian and Lebanese peoples will not be defeated.
Long live the common resistance of oppressed peoples.
Down with imperialism, Zionism and fascism!
Free Palestine from the river to the sea!

Martyr Nubar Ozanyan Brigade
Martyr Nubar Ozanyan Cultural Center
29.09.2024

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/10/06/tkp-ml-we-stand-with-palestine-lebanon/

#alAqsaFlood #kurdistan #lebanon #nasrallah #palestine #resistance #rojava #tikko #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

Against the massacres and genocide of the Zionist state of Israel
We stand with the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples!

In the heavy attacks of the Zionist state of Israel against Lebanon, Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, and many members of the Hezbollah command have been killed. This loss is also a heavy loss for the resistance front against Israeli Zionism. Hassan Nasrallah has become an example of resistance against Israel’s brutality, attacks and occupations. In 2000 and 2006, he successfully led the resistance of the Lebanese people against the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

The Zionist state of Israel, which assassinated Nasrallah, has killed 42,000 Palestinians in a year of atrocities. Israel has now set its sights on Lebanon. It aims to occupy the south of Lebanon by expelling its people. Hundreds of Lebanese have lost their lives so far. The people of South Lebanon are being displaced and uprooted.

All attacks of the Israeli state are clearly targeting the civilian population. Civilian residential areas are bombed. It carries out cyber-attacks, destroys the livelihoods of the people and deprives them of their right to life. All these are flagrant war crimes. Finally, the murderer Netanyahu, gave the order for the massacre of Hassan Nasrallah and civilians, during his speech at the United Nations. In full view of the whole world, the Netanyahu government continues to commit atrocities and take lives, and no significant objection is voiced except by a few states of the world. The imperialist states of the US, Britain and the EU openly approve and encourage these massacres and war crimes. This is because they want to expand their sphere of dominance in the Middle East against other imperialist powers. The great disasters experienced during the first and second imperialist wars of division are wanted to be repeated once again.

All these events are part of imperialism’s attacks on the peoples of the world. The state of Israel uses the suffering of the genocide (Holocaust) inflicted on the Jewish people by the Nazis for its Zionist interests. It imposes genocide on the peoples of the Middle East, especially the Palestinian people. Like all oppressed peoples, the Jewish people, in essence, do not approve of the genocides of the state of Israel.

The imperialist powers and the servant states of the Middle East are complicit in the genocide in Palestine and Lebanon. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, Jordan, Azerbaijan, etc. are states that provide direct or indirect aid to the state of Israel. Deep cooperation has been exposed between the fascist Turkish and Azerbaijani states and the Zionist state of Israel. However, the hearts of the oppressed peoples in all these countries are with the Palestinian people. The oppressed around the world are in solidarity with the Palestinian people. Anger is rising against imperialism and the murderous Israeli state. The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah has sharpened this anger even more.

These attacks are a result of the general policy of imperialism. In this situation, hoping for help from the imperialists, called “great powers”, is a pipe dream. The oppressed peoples of the Middle East; all identity, religion, sect, etc. will learn to fight together, leaving aside their differences. They will bring the struggle together. Because imperialism is a system that aims only at its own profit and exploits and destroys everything for this purpose. The only remedy for the oppressed against this system is to unite in a common line of resistance and to strenghten solidarity networks with the oppressed peoples of the world. There is no other way other than this.

We condemn the genocides of Zionism in the strongest terms. We call on all peoples to take a stand against genocide and to actively solidarize with the Palestinian and Lebanese people.

The Palestinian and Lebanese peoples will not be defeated.
Long live the common resistance of oppressed peoples.
Down with imperialism, Zionism and fascism!
Free Palestine from the river to the sea!

Martyr Nubar Ozanyan Brigade
Martyr Nubar Ozanyan Cultural Center
29.09.2024

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/10/06/tkp-ml-we-stand-with-palestine-lebanon/

#alAqsaFlood #kurdistan #lebanon #nasrallah #palestine #resistance #rojava #tikko #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

Intensify actions and make the militant, mass movement in support to Palestinian struggle advance in an increasingly powerful way!

 A new joint declaration for Palestine has  launched and continues to have signatures and support in the world from Europe Asie Latin America Usa Australia China etc-

We call all parties and organisations for supporting and signature

This JD calls for an international week of action for 7th october (7-13 october)

Intensify actions and make the militant, mass movement in support to Palestinian struggle advance in an increasingly powerful way!

More than 11 months have passed since the beginning of the criminal offensive by the terrorist state of Israel against the Palestinian people. More 40,000 Palestinians have been murdered, including women and children, and more 100,000 have been injured.

The Zionists have forced more than a million Palestinians to move towards the south of Gaza during their bombings, massacres and invasions. Without a doubt the Zionist genocides are carrying out an operation to occupy the south of the Gaza Strip. The Zionists want to annihilate the Palestinian people, take over their territory and resources, trying to push the Palestinians into the Sinai desert in Egypt, an old plan of forced displacement that leaves the path clear for the ultimate occupation of the entire territory of Palestine.

Rafah, south of Gaza, became a refuge for Palestinians, concentrating nearly one and a half million people in a small area, where they live under bombings while Israeli forces prevent humanitarian aid from arriving.

This exacerbates the humanitarian crisis as the Palestinian population in Rafah is suffering from infectious diseases caused by the lack of drinking water, lack of hygiene facilities, food insecurity, lack of hospitals and shelters in good condition as results of the continuous offensive of the Zionists. Many children who die not only under the bombs but because the lack of care and food. According to reports from a UN health agency itself, approximately 80% of Palestinian children under the age of 5 are unable to eat every day.

This combines with the Zionists’ attempt to also morally attack the Palestinian people with violent acts beyond the massacre of civilians. The premeditated destruction of temples, houses, schools, universities, hospitals, combined with the deprivation of water and energy, fiercely hits the lives of Palestinians, destroys hopes, exposes them to slow death.

Hospital sieges violate the fundamental rules of war, causing severe effects by destroying infrastructure to care for the sick and wounded, murdering medical personnel and besieging nearby areas. The Palestinian people have to suffer soldiers of the Zionist forces who mock and scorn their sorrow, dance on the ruins of their homes and grab despicable scenes to glorify their actions, added to grotesque TV spots. Their videos on social media are full of anti-Palestinian speeches, combined with racist statements by the Israeli rulers and violent education of children, teaching them to hate Palestinians from childhood.

The genocide against the Palestinian people is not just the work of Israeli Zionism. The imperialist states that provide support are responsible, especially the United States, Great Britain with other European imperialist governments, Germany, France, Italy, etc. as accomplices.

The US imperialists unconditionally support their watchdog in the Middle East. They use their veto power in the UN Security Council to block any measure for peace initiative, they send weapons and money to the Zionists to strengthen their military power, and recently, with a move that many consider historic, the US Congress has approved a bill to sanction the International Criminal Court for having ordered the arrest of Zionist political leaders.

Facing of all this, the Palestinian people and the organizations of their Resistance provide a heroic resistance in the given conditions, continuing to deal blows to the troops of occupation and genocidal invasion. We express our maximum support for this Resistance.

The genocide against the Palestinian people sparked international solidarity which has never stopped since October. The proletarians and peoples of the world have kept the cause of the liberation of Palestine high, condemning the ferocious Zionist offensive.

Withstanding the repression by the reactionary states, the masses held meetings and large demonstrations, demanding a stop to the aggression, developing a boycott of Israeli companies and those that support the Zionists, demanding the breaking of relations and treaties with Israel; up to the extraordinary development in recent months of the student movement which has set fire to the universities, the streets, from the US to Europe and throughout the world, recalling the movement of solidarity with the cause of the Vietnamese people of the 60s and 70s.

Under pressure from the masses, some governments have broken their relationships with Israel and some international bodies have been forced to take legal action. The International Court of Justice has accepted the request presented by South Africa and supported by other states ordering the Zionists to immediately cease military operations against the Gaza Strip. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest orders against Minister Netanyahu and his Defense Minister, Gallant. But, at the same time, they ordered the detention of Hamas leaders. The latter shows the bourgeois character of the ICC in equating the violence of the oppressors and that of the oppressed.

Faced with this situation, it is now more necessary than ever to intensify actions and make the mass militant movement in support of the Palestinian cause advance in an increasingly powerful way. Popular pressure must rise to solidarity strikes, to increasingly harsh actions against governments that support Israel and Israeli Embassies in every corner of the world.

Marxist-Leninist-Maoist communist parties and organizations must play an increasingly front-line role in this movement, around shared mass demands:
demand that Israeli troops abandon the Gaza Strip and the West Bank;
demand that the imperialist troops abandon the region and cease their military actions in the Middle East in support of the state of Israel and against the forces in solidarity with the Palestinian people, in the Red Sea, in Lebanon, etc.;
demand the severing of diplomatic, commercial and military relations with Israel;
demand that Zionist rulers be tried for war crimes and genocide.

At the same time, in the demonstrations of solidarity with the people of Palestine and condemning the Zionist genocide, we call that there should also be a denunciation of the action carried out in India by the fascist Hindutva state of Modi, great supporter of Netanyahu’s government, backed by US imperialism, against the indigenous, tribal peoples in that country. A genocidal campaign, called ‘Operation Kagaar’, in the midst of which massacres and forced deportations are perpetrated, civilians and leaders of tribal peoples, social activists and revolutionary leaders are murdered; just as journalists and human rights defenders who oppose are persecuted. An operation that aims to suffocate the liberation struggle of the Indian masses, the anti-imperialist people’s war of the masses.

The workers and peoples of the world must support the resistance and the war of national liberation of the Palestinian people, within the struggle for the definitive liberation of the peoples from capitalist, imperialist exploitation and oppression, which will be possible with the triumph of the revolutions in every country and the advance of the world proletarian revolution, to unroot every form of oppression and exploitation from the face of the earth.

Proletarians and peoples of the world let’s unite against imperialism!

Long live the liberation struggle of the Palestinian people!

Free Palestine!

list open of signatures

International Commitee Support People’s War India

Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan

Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist)

Communist Party of Turkey – Marxist Leninist (TKP-ML)*

Communist Worker Union (mlm) Colombia

Construction Committee of the Maoist Communist Party of Galicia

Maoist Communist Party – Italy

Proletarian Party Of Purbo Bangla(PBSP)/Bangladesh*

Red Road of Iran (Maoist group)

Revolutionary Study Group (USA)

Revolutionary Communist Party of Uruguay

Chinese Proletarian Alliance Communist Party*

for text and signature write to 

 ICSPWI [email protected] 

 Lal Salaam

*with note 

Turkısh: https://www.tkpml.com/filistin-icin-uluslararasi-ortak-deklarasyon/?swcfpc=1

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/09/09/international-joint-declaration-for-palestine/

#guerrilla #kurdistan #palestine #Solidarity #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

Intensify actions and make the militant, mass movement in support to Palestinian struggle advance in an increasingly powerful way!

 A new joint declaration for Palestine has  launched and continues to have signatures and support in the world from Europe Asie Latin America Usa Australia China etc-

We call all parties and organisations for supporting and signature

This JD calls for an international week of action for 7th october (7-13 october)

Intensify actions and make the militant, mass movement in support to Palestinian struggle advance in an increasingly powerful way!

More than 11 months have passed since the beginning of the criminal offensive by the terrorist state of Israel against the Palestinian people. More 40,000 Palestinians have been murdered, including women and children, and more 100,000 have been injured.

The Zionists have forced more than a million Palestinians to move towards the south of Gaza during their bombings, massacres and invasions. Without a doubt the Zionist genocides are carrying out an operation to occupy the south of the Gaza Strip. The Zionists want to annihilate the Palestinian people, take over their territory and resources, trying to push the Palestinians into the Sinai desert in Egypt, an old plan of forced displacement that leaves the path clear for the ultimate occupation of the entire territory of Palestine.

Rafah, south of Gaza, became a refuge for Palestinians, concentrating nearly one and a half million people in a small area, where they live under bombings while Israeli forces prevent humanitarian aid from arriving.

This exacerbates the humanitarian crisis as the Palestinian population in Rafah is suffering from infectious diseases caused by the lack of drinking water, lack of hygiene facilities, food insecurity, lack of hospitals and shelters in good condition as results of the continuous offensive of the Zionists. Many children who die not only under the bombs but because the lack of care and food. According to reports from a UN health agency itself, approximately 80% of Palestinian children under the age of 5 are unable to eat every day.

This combines with the Zionists’ attempt to also morally attack the Palestinian people with violent acts beyond the massacre of civilians. The premeditated destruction of temples, houses, schools, universities, hospitals, combined with the deprivation of water and energy, fiercely hits the lives of Palestinians, destroys hopes, exposes them to slow death.

Hospital sieges violate the fundamental rules of war, causing severe effects by destroying infrastructure to care for the sick and wounded, murdering medical personnel and besieging nearby areas. The Palestinian people have to suffer soldiers of the Zionist forces who mock and scorn their sorrow, dance on the ruins of their homes and grab despicable scenes to glorify their actions, added to grotesque TV spots. Their videos on social media are full of anti-Palestinian speeches, combined with racist statements by the Israeli rulers and violent education of children, teaching them to hate Palestinians from childhood.

The genocide against the Palestinian people is not just the work of Israeli Zionism. The imperialist states that provide support are responsible, especially the United States, Great Britain with other European imperialist governments, Germany, France, Italy, etc. as accomplices.

The US imperialists unconditionally support their watchdog in the Middle East. They use their veto power in the UN Security Council to block any measure for peace initiative, they send weapons and money to the Zionists to strengthen their military power, and recently, with a move that many consider historic, the US Congress has approved a bill to sanction the International Criminal Court for having ordered the arrest of Zionist political leaders.

Facing of all this, the Palestinian people and the organizations of their Resistance provide a heroic resistance in the given conditions, continuing to deal blows to the troops of occupation and genocidal invasion. We express our maximum support for this Resistance.

The genocide against the Palestinian people sparked international solidarity which has never stopped since October. The proletarians and peoples of the world have kept the cause of the liberation of Palestine high, condemning the ferocious Zionist offensive.

Withstanding the repression by the reactionary states, the masses held meetings and large demonstrations, demanding a stop to the aggression, developing a boycott of Israeli companies and those that support the Zionists, demanding the breaking of relations and treaties with Israel; up to the extraordinary development in recent months of the student movement which has set fire to the universities, the streets, from the US to Europe and throughout the world, recalling the movement of solidarity with the cause of the Vietnamese people of the 60s and 70s.

Under pressure from the masses, some governments have broken their relationships with Israel and some international bodies have been forced to take legal action. The International Court of Justice has accepted the request presented by South Africa and supported by other states ordering the Zionists to immediately cease military operations against the Gaza Strip. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest orders against Minister Netanyahu and his Defense Minister, Gallant. But, at the same time, they ordered the detention of Hamas leaders. The latter shows the bourgeois character of the ICC in equating the violence of the oppressors and that of the oppressed.

Faced with this situation, it is now more necessary than ever to intensify actions and make the mass militant movement in support of the Palestinian cause advance in an increasingly powerful way. Popular pressure must rise to solidarity strikes, to increasingly harsh actions against governments that support Israel and Israeli Embassies in every corner of the world.

Marxist-Leninist-Maoist communist parties and organizations must play an increasingly front-line role in this movement, around shared mass demands:
demand that Israeli troops abandon the Gaza Strip and the West Bank;
demand that the imperialist troops abandon the region and cease their military actions in the Middle East in support of the state of Israel and against the forces in solidarity with the Palestinian people, in the Red Sea, in Lebanon, etc.;
demand the severing of diplomatic, commercial and military relations with Israel;
demand that Zionist rulers be tried for war crimes and genocide.

At the same time, in the demonstrations of solidarity with the people of Palestine and condemning the Zionist genocide, we call that there should also be a denunciation of the action carried out in India by the fascist Hindutva state of Modi, great supporter of Netanyahu’s government, backed by US imperialism, against the indigenous, tribal peoples in that country. A genocidal campaign, called ‘Operation Kagaar’, in the midst of which massacres and forced deportations are perpetrated, civilians and leaders of tribal peoples, social activists and revolutionary leaders are murdered; just as journalists and human rights defenders who oppose are persecuted. An operation that aims to suffocate the liberation struggle of the Indian masses, the anti-imperialist people’s war of the masses.

The workers and peoples of the world must support the resistance and the war of national liberation of the Palestinian people, within the struggle for the definitive liberation of the peoples from capitalist, imperialist exploitation and oppression, which will be possible with the triumph of the revolutions in every country and the advance of the world proletarian revolution, to unroot every form of oppression and exploitation from the face of the earth.

Proletarians and peoples of the world let’s unite against imperialism!

Long live the liberation struggle of the Palestinian people!

Free Palestine!

list open of signatures

International Commitee Support People’s War India

Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan

Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist)

Communist Party of Turkey – Marxist Leninist (TKP-ML)*

Communist Worker Union (mlm) Colombia

Construction Committee of the Maoist Communist Party of Galicia

Maoist Communist Party – Italy

Proletarian Party Of Purbo Bangla(PBSP)/Bangladesh*

Red Road of Iran (Maoist group)

Revolutionary Study Group (USA)

Revolutionary Communist Party of Uruguay

Chinese Proletarian Alliance Communist Party*

for text and signature write to 

 ICSPWI [email protected] 

 Lal Salaam

*with note 

Turkısh: https://www.tkpml.com/filistin-icin-uluslararasi-ortak-deklarasyon/?swcfpc=1

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/09/09/international-joint-declaration-for-palestine/

#guerrilla #kurdistan #palestine #Solidarity #tkpMl #turkey #westAsia

The Martyr Nubar Ozanyan Battalion in Rojava held a commemoration event in memory of Şehid Nubar Ozanyan. Ozanyan was a Communist Armenian revolutionary who fell in combat fighting ISIS.

He joined TKP/ML in Turkey in the 80’s and joined their military wing, TIKKO, in the late 80s. In 1988 he traveled to Palestine and fought with the PFLP against the Zionist regime during the first Intifada. He later spent considerable time in the Bekaa Valley training with other revolutionaries.

In 1991–92, he fought in the First Nagorno-Karabakh War against Azerbaijan. He returned to Turkey’s Tunceli Province in 1992 and thereafter participated in the local Maoist insurgency. At this time, Ozanyan began to rise in the ranks of the TKP/ML, and became an important organizer, ideologist, recruiter, trainer and frontline commander for the party.

In 2015 he was integral in the establishment of the International Freedom Battalion in Rojava, becoming one of the top commanders in the organzation. TIKKO, under his influence, was instrumental in the anarchist formation in Rojava — the IRPGF — operating with a degree of political autonomy. He died fighting in Raqqa.

The battalion named in his honor commemorated him at the Cultural Center in Rojava.

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/08/13/10326/

#guerrilla #kurdistan #orhan #rojava #tikko #tkpMl #westAsia

The Martyr Nubar Ozanyan Battalion in Rojava held a commemoration event in memory of Şehid Nubar Ozanyan. Ozanyan was a Communist Armenian revolutionary who fell in combat fighting ISIS.

He joined TKP/ML in Turkey in the 80’s and joined their military wing, TIKKO, in the late 80s. In 1988 he traveled to Palestine and fought with the PFLP against the Zionist regime during the first Intifada. He later spent considerable time in the Bekaa Valley training with other revolutionaries.

In 1991–92, he fought in the First Nagorno-Karabakh War against Azerbaijan. He returned to Turkey’s Tunceli Province in 1992 and thereafter participated in the local Maoist insurgency. At this time, Ozanyan began to rise in the ranks of the TKP/ML, and became an important organizer, ideologist, recruiter, trainer and frontline commander for the party.

In 2015 he was integral in the establishment of the International Freedom Battalion in Rojava, becoming one of the top commanders in the organzation. TIKKO, under his influence, was instrumental in the anarchist formation in Rojava — the IRPGF — operating with a degree of political autonomy. He died fighting in Raqqa.

The battalion named in his honor commemorated him at the Cultural Center in Rojava.

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/08/13/10326/

#guerrilla #kurdistan #orhan #rojava #tikko #tkpMl #westAsia