Internationalist communist analysis of geopolitical manoeuvrings, the rise of Islamic State and the nature of the PKK in Syria and the Middle East.
"The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses." (1)
Abstract
The War in Syria moved to a geostrategic and more complex level when the Islamic State (IS) launched its impressive attack in Mosul, Iraq's second largest city after Baghdad. Then, it invaded the Western Kurdistan, Rojava, and keeps Kobani under siege from three sides, making the Turkish border the town's sole connection to the outside world. This later military action has created an unclear political reaction for proletarian masses in the region and worldwide.
Introduction
“We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia. . . . The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize. We have to ensure the fulfilment of the democratic revolution.” (2)
One of the most important criteria for identifying the nature and status of a political force is to review the positions that these forces, in time of great social events and developments in the society, virtually apply. For a proletarian force the criteria are class line, which can be simple, but sometimes very difficult and complex to apply. However, this demands in depth a theoretical-practical ability to avoid entering to the magical and Machiavellian games that are devised and developed by the ruling classes and their dominant ideological, political and state apparatus.
Islamism and the Islamic periphery
The socioeconomic crisis in the Islamic periphery of the capitalist world system initialized an incomplete process of Islamic reaction/movements in the late 1970s; from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Khomeinism in Iran, the AKP in Turkey, the Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Afghan Mujahedin in Afghanistan/Pakistan to the Taliban and Al Qaeda and Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram Islamist faction in Somalia and Nigeria to the Chechens and the Jabhat al-Nusra front and the IS. This Islamic process, apart from certain differences in form and content, have similar political-militaristic functions and all share common ideological-political perspectives; (3)
• An organized approach of ruling classes to manage an economy-political crisis ridden Islamic periphery of the capital.
• An Integrated part of the existing imperialistic power configuration in the region.
• They normally operate as an extended arm of the right wing of capitalistic political apparatus, against the internal left wing, in the context of labor division that is set up within the political structures of capitalist periphery.
• An ideological-political tool of the ruling classes against any potential threat from the proletarian class struggle.
In this context, all conflicts and antagonisms among major imperialist networks, i.e., the US/NATO and Russia-China, in relation to the Islamist forces, must be considered within the imperialist division of the global surface and regions, and as an internal class issue for dominant imperialist powers: The internal power struggle of the capitalist ruling elite for world dominance.
The barbaric ravaged presence of IS in Syria-Iraq (Levant) territory in conjunction with the Syrian war has created a mass refugee crisis in the region, which is an unprecedented organized ethnic cleansing and mass refugee problem since the end of the second World War and the declaration of the state of Israel in the Middle East; 600000-700000 Palestinian forced to leave their homes in connection with establishment of Israeli Sate. Three million registered refugees are registered within and outside the Syrian borders 100000-150000 of them are Kurds, mainly from peasant class or urban proletariat had to leave their home and life behind and taking refuge in a neighboring country, Turkey. (4) The Turkish-state is by historical and objective standard an anti-Kurd by definition; Thus, it is a tragic journey for Kurds to move from one darkness to another one caused by the fear of death.
The Birth of IS
ISIS (IS) is an English acronym for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (sometimes translated “Levant”). In Arabic the acronym is “Daa’esh” for Al-Dawla Al-Islaamiyya Fi-Al-‘Iraaq WA Al-Shaam”. It is aiming to resurrect the now-defunct institution of the caliphate. Its origins are pure Al-Qaeda that are deformed.
Thus, to understand the IS, it requires to understand the Al-Qaede as a political phenomenon with its embedded connection to the Western capitalist world. Any comprehensive and reliable account of al-Qaeda’s history, development, structure and operations leads to its network operating according to a common trajectory, conducive to Western interests:
As one CIA analyst told Swiss television journalist Richard Labévière, chief editor at Radio France International: “The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia.” (5)
Al-Qaeda activity, thus pertained to a new doctrine of covert destabilization, to be implemented in new theatres of operation strategically close to Russian and Chinese influence, namely Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Middle East and Central Asia. During and after the Cold War, al-Qaeda has functioned as a vehicle of Western covert operations in the service of powerful corporate interests, particularly related to the monopolization of global energy resources. And thus achieved through the operations designed to secure destabilization through the creation, multiplication, mobilization and manipulation of disparate Islamist groups.
Al-Qaede derives its geostrategic structure directly from Western interests, mediated through a number of states in strategic regions; Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan and Algeria. Those, and other, states act as regional nodes, providing financial, military and intelligence assistance to Islamist groups, while simultaneously benefiting from Western financial, military and intelligence sponsorship and protection, and further serving as permanent providers of their strategic resources, especially oil and gas, to the west, i.e., the core of the capitalist world. (6)
As the IS (ISIS/ISIL) used to be Al-Qaeda can easily reveal how and where it comes from: The IS as Al-Qaede was created and set in motion by a member-state of the US/NATO (Western) imperialist network; Saudi Arabian. The mostly unimaginative Saudi muttonheads in Riyadh were concerned about the growth of Iranian influence over the Maliki’s Shia Muslim government in Baghdad after the invasion of Iraq. Thus, the IS has its Iraq/al Qaede roots of the 2nd U.S. war in Iraq from 2003 to 2011. Consequently, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdaadi, the present caliph of the IS gained his military/criminal background of the second Iraq war and partly in in the Camp Bucca the United State military detention facility in southern Iraq. (7)
Although, the globally published evidences suggest that the sudden emergence of the IS as a political-military force is directly connected to the imperialist re arrangement of the balance of military forces in the region. The establishment of the IS and its later development to a semi- Islamic state was originated from the belly of the Anti-Syrian opposition’s military involvement in anti-Assad “revolt”. The US/NATO imperialist network created the opposition and the FSA in an attempt for removing the Syrian regime back in the 2011. Member-states of the Western imperialist network, i.e., Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and Jordan, launched, developed and supported Syrian opposition’s military force, Free Syrian Army (FSA), through a system of unlimited financial, military-armistice, training facilities and logistical support and backup. Interestingly: Interestingly the large part of the FSA transformed/joined to the IS forces, when it was evident that Syrian opposition were unable to dislodge the Syrian army from most major Syrian cities from the 2013 onwards.
According to the U.S. State Department, there has been around 12000 fighters (Jihadist/Islamist) from 50 countries since the fighting began in Syria. The contribution of Turkey/AKP is around 3000 of them. Amazingly, recruiting process is still well organized and openly operational in all US/NATO and Western countries which is supposedly trying to stop the IS's military advancement in the area. The West and Saudi Arabian together for a harmonious cultural and religious approach have been establishing the complex vast network of mosque franchises all around the Europe, America in the last 3 decades. The same Saudi Arabia’s network of mosques is utilized as an employment service to recruit young men and women - mainly from the proletarian reserve army- for Al-Qaede, FSA, the IS... for.
“Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar,” John McCain told CNN’s Candy Crowley in January 2014” McCain was pointing out Syrian civil war. Based on the irrationality of imperialist rationality, the IS is a creation of the Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan a capitalist psycho/mass murderer with unsatisfied lust for violence/war: who was Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States from 1983 to 2005. However, as it is coined among the vultures of the civil war in Syria, “ISIS has been a Saudi project.” As one senior Qatari official stated. (8)
The genesis of the IS as a semi state in the Middle East follows the imperialistic roles and standards framework, which is applied routinely throughout the planet: The Western network designs, organizes and set in motion Islamist groups/gangs to advance its own imperialist desire and interest in the given situation and territory, depending on how the network of Imperialist forces are arranged at the time. (9)
Forging processes of the IS
On a higher level, the IS operates as a blind node set up in the structure of the Western imperialistic system. It is only understandable, in relation to demand and desire of the Western interest in the geostrategic region in the Middle East. The Western network’s plan is to replace Assad- regime in Syria, which is allied with the rival imperialist network, i.e., Russia, China, Iran, Lebanon/Hezbollah, and is an opponent of the Israeli regime.
When the IS extended its root in Syrian soil, to fight the Syrian regime in the early 2011, then came the real change: The FSA and Al- Nusra Front (Al-Qaede’s affiliate in Syria) as an armed wing of the anti-Assad coalition played actually as cover up for the Western network with Saudi Arabia in led to forge the IS as a new military force in Syria. Close relation to the Saudi and Turkish state prepared the way: With Saudi’s financing and Turkish-state territory for training-transport hub the IS developed rapidly from an average band of Islamist to a well-organized, heavily armed and large military force in the region. The process of transforming the IS to a semi state organization was formalized when Abu Bakr took his army into Syria by announcing the creation of the IS on the 8th of April, 2013. The IS assaulted Al-Raqqa and ousted both FSA and Al-Nusra groups while imposing a ridiculous regime of stifling Wahhabist “morals” and fabricated “Shari’ah” laws upon a city already depopulated by his predecessors. Its transformation to a power factor characterized with its own infrastructures, i.e., Telecommunication, ammunition fabric, training facilities, barracks and the captured oilfields.
Breaking “free” from the masters
Consequently, the IS has its systematic roots and branches in the imposed Syrian civil war and disintegrated Iraqi and Syrian state organization. It has financially and militaristic evolved by direct guidance and assistance of the West imperialist network in the region; Saudi Arabian, Qatar and Turkey, Jordan... ; free access to military armour, ammunition, weaponry and equipment plus unlimited availability of financial capital/resources led to creation of this fascistic-Islamic force, which developed functions as semi state; at the moment, it runs its own oil production infrastructures and collect revenues form exports the crude oil in the black market particularly in Turkey.
The production and flow of energy resource/oil needs to be both granted and controlled in synchronization with interests of the core of capital, which means re-adapting the new mode of imperialist policies in the region, due to permanent destabilization caused by the West’s intervention in the region. The IS did not fell from sky, the Syrian civil war and Assad regime's opposition gave birth to it. However, Anti-Assad opposition internally/externally forced to realise its disability in defeating the Syrian regime by 2013. In this humiliating standstill situation for Assad's opposition and the Western network, particularly Turkish state, the IS was forged to remap the Syrian and the Iraqi territory: This was of course with inspirational, support and approval of regional petty imperialist such Saudi Arabian, Qatar, Turkey... . The aim was to make an Islamic state with the Sunni-Shia divide as its ideological motivation, while it is also capable to run the oil fields production in accordance with the strategic demands of the Western network. However, an IS armed to teeth without a direct controlled unit connected to the Western imperialist network cannot be reliable: U.S. knows this from the past bitter experiences; Khomeinism in Iran, Mujahdin/Taliban in Afghanistan and to certain degree the AKP in Turkey.
However, the real disaster began to unfold, for the Western imperialist network, when in June, the IS overran much of the Sunni areas of Iraq from its base in eastern Syria; the IS took over and run cities, Mosul, Iraq's second largest city after Baghdad and a commercial/oil hub for the northern part of the country, Samara and Tikrit.
This made the US very nervous at the same time opened a new chapter for the US direct/open involvement in the region: Third Iraq war since the US Forces would ultimately return to Iraq in the summer of 2014: "ISIS does not accept the legitimacy of a number of governments that are close allies to the United States and have important economic relations with the United States from which we obtain valuable resources." (10) In this connection, the IS condemned the house of Saud as a traitor and a “deviant” from the true path, despite the fact that the Saudi state was one of the main found riser/sponsors to the IS while it was in the process of raising in Iraq and Syria.
Contrary to Al-Qaede, which is lose and geographically disestablished organization, the IS succeeds building a semi-state organizational form in controlling cities and land in Syria and Iraq. This has given a militaristic operational capacity to run geographically cross the Syrian and Iraqi borders: This enables the IS to operate without hindrance in performing its military and commercial activities throughout the war zone that the Syrian war has contributed. Although, the IS, as a semi state, bears capabilities to build a regional state structure considering its military, economic and ideological abilities at the moment. In this context, a centrifugal force inherited from Islamism (nation/Islam) ignites the breaking “free” attempts in the IS. The IS, as Al-Qaede, is a brain child and military manifestation of the Western imperialist network’s destabilization project, in managing western oil and gas interests in the region. In attempting to resolve this IS anomaly in the IS breaking away venture set, the Western imperialist network forced to disable the IS from evolving to a full state structure. However, the process of breakaway is taken very serious by the IS and it does not want the Western and Saudi network play like a yo-yo with it any more. In this relation, Abu Bakr began to view himself in somewhat grandiose terms as an angel sent by Allah to establish a Caliphate of Lunacy on Earth. To prove his point, Abu Bakr needs to expands his territorial dominance through invasion of a cross-border territories; Kurdish area.
Expansion in Kurdish area
In summer 2014, the IS swept out of the Syrian desert and into Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city: The IS seizing control of Mosul was accomplished by former Iraqi Ba’athist officers suspiciously abandoning their posts and leaving a 52,000 man military force without any leadership thereby forcing a complete collapse of the city’s defenses. However, this marked a new chapter in the IS geographical presences in the region. In this context, it opened for the Kurds windows of both opportunity and risk. The semi-autonomous Kurdish region, with Masoud Barzani as the President, that occupies the northern part of Iraq started to take over cities from Isis and seized huge tracts of territory that had been claimed by both Kurdistan and the government in Baghdad. This galvanized the old dream of Kurdish nationalism, i.e. establishment of a separate Kurdish state. At the same time, the IS has staged a series of spectacular military advances, seizing large area of territory in Iraq and Syria, over-running much of the western Iraqi province of Anbar and besieging the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani. The expansionism of the IS by seizing and controlling Kurdish areas, jeopardizes the political climate achieved by the Kurdish nationalists through the newly seized land both in Iraq and Syria.
Before the summer 2014, there were local skirmishes between Arab FSA and Kurdish PYD (Democratic Union Party) fighters. Subsequently the IS supplanted the FSA and grew powerful. After it staged a series of stunning military advances in Iraq, effectively erased the border with Syria. Then, it began to threaten to engulf Syrian Kurdish areas held by the PYD, right on Turkey’s doorstep. This is where the Turkey’s involvement in Syrian war crystallizes itself on the Kurdish question related to the west Kurdistan; Rojava.
As we know, Turkey is a prime NATO member and mighty military force; it is among the top 10 military force. (11) For Turkey the Kurdish question defines its nation state relation internally, i.e., among the different factions of ruling class, and externally with its imperialist allies/enemies. Thus, the resent occupation of Kurdish cities and villages by the IS in Syrian territory must be welcomed by Turkey. To share border with a semi Kurdish state controlled by the PYU, i.e., a Syrian version of the PKK, is a nightmare for the Turkish state led by AKP and Erdogan. Despite the fact that Kurdish refugee crisis is already a potential treat to existing political, and socio-economic status of Turkish capital, which is experiencing its late economic down turn in the context of European economic stagnation since financial crisis in the 2008.
In the political and military turbulence engineered through the Western imperialist network in Syria, furthered development of the IS, as a semi-state, which was in alignment with geostrategic aims of the west and particularly Turkish state: To change Assad-regime in Damascus, Turkey’s regional rival, with an Islamic west and Turkish connected regime. In this regard, there are two standards of facts related to rapidly growth of the IS since the beginning of Syrian war in the 2011I; firstly, that Saudi state’s financial backup of the IS-Syrian “file”, and secondly, that Turkish state’s enormous support of the IS’s operational activities:
• An IS militant camp, training centre in Istanbul
• Able to sell its oil via Turkey: Ankara turning a blind eye to the IS selling smuggled oil.
• Transport military weaponry/equipment into Syria via Turkish borders
• Operation of covert recruiting process of foreign Jihadist (Islamist) fighters crossing from Turkey to Syria
• Treatment of war wounded Islamists, including the IS militias
• Access to Turkish black market to sell smuggled crude oil
Thus, Turkish support of IS, which covered a wide spectrum of activities, accelerated and facilitated the IS dominant role in Syria and Iraq.
In this war-torn atmosphere, the IS military advancing has continued into Kurdish territory in the northern Syria (west Kurdistan). Sieging town of Kobani, near the Turkey-Syria border, began in mid-September has actualized the Kurdish national question in an obscure perspective; defence of semi Kurdish state in Syria.
Kurdish Autonomy & Nationalist Movement
The establishment of a degree of self-government in Rojava (the Western Kurdistan) cantons cannot be unnoticed by Turkey who has been openly in confrontation with the Kurdish nationalist movement inside its boarder since 1970s. Though, PYD and Kurdish National Council (KNC) took the advantage in Syrian army's military withdrawal from the Kurdish dominated territory and set up a Kurdish semi-state structure in summer 2012. The PYD was secretly founded in 2003 by Syrian PKK (the Kurdish Workers Party) remnants, after Syrian state i.e., Hafez Al Assad regime banned the PKK, when he agreed to strategically cooperate with its regional rival Turkey in late 1990s. As consequence of this agreement, PKK’s leader Abdullah Ocalan was expelled from Syria to be later captured in Kenya and send back to Turkey for life time imprisonment in the early 1999.
The PKK had emerged from the political scene in Turkey in the 1970’s and were part of the political analysis of Stalinism of that era from groups looking to the Russian block's (Soviet Union and Warsaw pact) for practical and ideological support or inspiration.
After the 1980 Turkish coup d'état, the PKK organizationally moved to Syria to operate from the safe haven received from Syrian regime. Thus, PKK organized, structured and directed most of its political and military activities, from 1980s to 1990s, basically from Syrian until it was banned in 1998.
Both PYD and its mother organization PKK have adapted to changing reality process in Turkey and other Kurdish territory in the region since the US invasion of Iraq in the 2003. Following the real politic in the region, the PKK with Abdullah Ocalan’s theoretical "findings" moved from Stalinist ideology of the Cold War era towards a blended form of anti-Marxist libertarian communalism, which is acceptable in the capitalist world, including the West, due to its anti-class struggle vision of existing capitalist class society. The trajectory of the PKK from the old Stalinist model of state capitalism to a non-state but democratic society, was essentially linked to socio-political changes that capitalist world has been going through since economic crisis in the early 1970s. The whole capitalist mode of production forced to adapt to disruptions in its cycle of capital accumulation, which in turn had different expressions within the political system. The left of capitalist order and its political elite realized with help of its inward political “genetic” that they needed to see this changes in order to make existential adaptations to the wind of change. PKK’s desire to move forward, upward and inward demanded to follow the changing capitalist world order:
• Decline of the old state-capitalist model that was emerged parallel with the rise of Stalinism/counter revolution in Russia and the rest of the capitalist world after WWI and WWII; The state's central role in planning and projecting the economics in the national arena.
• The exit plan for this Stalinist organization, who intentionally confused state capitalism with Marxian socialist-communist perspective, come from elsewhere: Libertarian -socialism/anarchism, i.e., libertarian municipalism, as it is formulated by Murray Bookchin.
• The profound structural change in the imperialist world order, the total collapse of the Russian Imperialist block in the early 1990s. Leaving the US/NATO alliance as the only dominant supper capitalist power on world scene.
Ocalan’s attempt to reconcile Kurdish question with municipalist revelation
However, Ocalan's ideological changeover happened, interestingly in Turkish detainment in the early 2000s: He was sentenced to death by hanging for high treason, separatism and murder on the 29th June 1999. Under pressure, mainly from the European Union, Turkey abolished the death penalty in 2002, and Ocalan's sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. The AKP came to power the same year.
However, Ocalan’s critic of PKK’s past Stalinism, i.e., the “really existing socialism” took the form of a frontal attack against Marxism as a revolutionary doctrine. Thus, Stalinism/Maoism (Marxism accoridng the PKK) was practically, theoretically and historically responsible for all PKK’s short comings in liberating Kurdish people from shackles of capitalist Turkey. For the PKK and Ocalan Marxism/Stalinism and socialism/state-capitalism were and had to be presented identical. Although, the PKK/Ocalan in search for getting rid of Stalinism (Marxism accordingly) found Murray Bookchin’s Communalism to be the key for all closed doors in his political life cycle and answers to PKK’s political and military failure on the Kurdish question in connection to the changing capitalist world in general and particularly in confronting the Turkish state and its military-machinery, which is one one top 10 military power globally. As a military and mass party organization what the PKK needed was a new ideological construction to keep the party organized on the political and military field. Thus Murray Bookchin’s evolutionist theory, eco-urban municipalism, was adapted to break stalemate the PKK ended up with, after the disappearance of Soviet union/Warsaw pact and Ocalan’s imprisonment. Thus, he began to re-conceptualize his findings from Bookchin’s integrated notional construction i.e., Municipalism and Confederalism, to internalize them later within the party apparatus.
Ocalan constructs a new perspective of libertarian communalism where he tries to present Bookchin’s vision on Confederalism and theoretically related supporting tool; the social reconstruction. On the idea of Confedralism and social reconstruction he presents them as radical in the sense that he tries to develop the concept of democracy beyond nation and state, and tries to do so in three projects: one for the democratic republic, one for democratic confederalism and one for democratic-autonomy. The projects are a vision of a political system where the power flows from the bottom and up. It rests on an idea of confederated municipalities based on direct democracy on the local level, and councils of re-callable delegates with policy mandates on higher levels. It is also a practical politics that seeks to democratize towns and cities, and transfer state authority and economic resources to such a network of democratized communities.
Escape from Stalinism and taking refuge in Communalism
Thus, the idea of a democratic triangle (republic, confederalism and autonomy) refers indirectly to existentialism of the capitalist civil society; citizenship rights, human rights, civil right… . As we understand it, the process of democratization begins inside the national state framework with capitalism as the really existing socioeconomic platform. This democratization is an “alternative to capitalism” and a replacement for the collapsed model of … ‘really existing socialism’. In following his vision, Ocalan presents an unhistorical outlook on the Kurdish question, which is not just idealist in itself but that is naturally an anti-proletarian in essence: To resolve the Turkish-Kurdish question within the existing capitalist order, which has been originally created after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and building the Turkish national state in the 1920s.
“In the Middle East, democracy cannot be imposed by the capitalist system and its imperial powers which only damage democracy. The propagation of grassroots democracy is elementary. It is the only approach that can cope with diverse ethnic groups, religions, and class differences. It also goes together well with the traditional confederate structure of the society. Democratic confederalism in Kurdistan is an anti-nationalist movement as well. It aims at realizing the right of self-defense of the peoples by the advancement of democracy in all parts of Kurdistan without questioning the existing political borders. Its goal is not the foundation of a Kurdish nation-state.” (12)
“Our first task,” he wrote, “is to push for democratization, for non-state structures, and communal organization.” Instead of focusing solely on changing the Turkish constitution, he advocated that Kurds create organizations at the local level: local town councils, municipal administrations, down to urban districts, townships, and villages. They should form new local political parties and economic cooperatives, civil society organizations, and those that address human rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, animal rights, and all other issues to be addressed.” (13)
As we know, the PKK and Ocalan rejection of Stalinism or Maoism in the late 1990s had no any relevant relation to the proletarian class and its communist perspective. The sketch of minimum program taken from the second international and 3rd International known as democratic revolutionary program, which was attached to the Comintern period and the vision of revolution in the East from Baku Congress in September 1920. As Stalinism raised from the ruins of October revolution, the Comintern and later Soviet Union/Russian Block used this version of the democratic (bourgeoisie) revolutionary program to support the national liberation movements for gaining or defending its own imperialist desires/interest against its rival, i.e., the US led Western imperialist block of Cold War era.
All nationalist movements in the periphery (national liberation, national self-determination, national autonomy…) one way or another where related to the Russian block for gaining support and inspiration as the PKK did.
The Democratic Republic, The Revolutionary Republic, Democratic People's Republic of…, was shared by all the CPs, arm struggle/guerrilla movements around the world with almost the same socioeconomic and political platform/program: a “bourgeoisie” revolutionary plan by maintaining and developing the dominant capitalist system of production. Putting emphasis on how to run the capitalist system of social reproduction after taking the state power in the name of people, proletariat, oppressed or nation. As we understand, the PKK was not exception from this rule. “The revolution in Kurdistan, which is led by our party, is a national and a democratic revolution… “(14)
Originally, the PKK never was an anti-capitalist/proletarian organization back in the 1970s-1990s, it did not become a revolutionary/proletarian organization by constructing a blended doctrine, where it takes libertarian Communalism and at the same time keeps necessary part of the old mass militaristic party from the cold war era. By the end of 1990s, the PKK as a bourgeoisie party was facing challenges both regionally and locally:
• The shifting capitalistic-imperialistic geopolitics in the Middle East and the rise of Turkish state with its own imperialist ambitions.
• The establishment of semi Kurdish state in north of Iraq after dismantling of Iraq's national state structuer.
• A complete stalemate in re-positioning itself against the Turkish state.
In this context, the PKK had no choice to abandon the old and invalid Stalinist model of state capitalism to replace it with a democratic model for running a capitalist stat/government. Although, this democratic state/government model of re-arranging the social fabric, logically contains a class society with antagonistic class relation between the proletariat and the “democratic” ruling class. In this context, the proletarian class, workers, rural laborer and peasants, are supposed to gain some political space to make class advancements “without questioning the existing political borders.”
In addition, the PKK as mass-military organization has been developing permanently through an available financial, military-training facilities and the logistical support available from surrounding military and capitalist states or other capitalist-financial activity at a time.
A proletarian Perspective
The inter capitalistic-imperialistic nature of conflict in the Middle East in relation to Syrian civil war caused a refuge crises of 3 million people who fled or left their home: This statistic only covers registered people. However, the Kurdish refugee crisis just appeared when the IS invaded Rojava and also cut all the ties between the three Kurdish cantons in the area.
Thus, the IS' focus on taking over territory inhabited historically by Kurds
Generated this new wave of refuges crisis among Kurds who are forced to flee from their homes. The PKK reaction as a part of the Kurdish question is understandable when it gets militarily involved against the IS. However this does not mean that the PKK is in the battle field to defend a revolutionary change for the proletarian masses. Of course, the Kurdish proletariat has every right to leave territory or to stay and defend its home, family, life. However, in peace or war time, the proletarian masses has to distinguish its class unity and its antagonism against other classes. This must not mean to get enrolled in the militarism, militia and political activities of the PKK, which has changed from a mass-party armed Stalinist organization to a Communalist mass-party armed organization. It was a reformist organization in sense to democratize the Turkish-Kurdish periphery of capitalist order. It has firm stance on the same Kurdish question: to democratize the Turkish/Kurdish periphery without openly challenging the Turkish state with a century old Kurdish independence/nationalism .
Ironically, those Anarchist as group or individual joining the PKK to fight against the IS are committing fundamentally class line error:
• Joining and participating in an anti-proletarian organization’s political and military adventures; Class collaboration instead of class antagonism/struggle.
• Political misleading of the proletarian masses on the ground and in the whole region on the nature of PKK. This sector of the proletariat is already sufficiently confused after suffering years of unfinished socio-economic crisis and civil wars.
Certainly, the PKK and its aspirant will confront us with a simple truth about how they have move beyond political categories such as nation, state, antagonistic classes…
The tragic but concrete truth is that all these troublesome categories are very real and alive for the proletarian class; it does not matter on which side of the Turkish-Syrian border line one stands. Nation, state and classes, as political categories, are genuine characteristics of really existing capitalism. The only way go beyond them is the proletarian class struggle that has real potential to address the class society and all its attributes.
As Ocalan communicated to his party, the world has changed! However for the proletariat, the capitalistic dominant role of class society has not. Thus, in war or in peace time the proletariat is obliged to be capable of distinguishing reality of class society from fantasy: there is no a bridge between the proletarian and capitalist class; class struggle and a twisted nationalist movement.
We understand things and world are changed; as the prison changed Ocalan: Ironically, the members and sympathizers of the PKK refer to Abdullah Ocalan, as the sun. Some of them go further and develop an analogy and compare the organization of the party-complex to a planetary system: the sun is Abdullah Ocalan and the planets are the parties, armies and institutions, which are in orbit around a sun. (15)
The proletariat has gained sufficiently experience on danger of crossing the class line principles throughout 20th century: either it becomes the cannon fodder on the battle filed or human robo-labor for production of merely surplus labor/value on the production line for the purpose of variety of national/regional state/craft or establishing some sort of ancient holy land/nation! For the proletariat ironically the capitalist order never changes again through good night, sweat dreams wishes of political figures/organizations; e.g. Stalinist state in Russia/China, Spanish revolution/dilemma of 1930s, Be Gurion in Israel, Fidel Castro in Cuba, Khomeini in Iran, Nelson Mandela in South Africa...
Hamid Moradei
Stockholm October 2014
Footnotes
1. A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel Philosophy of Right: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm)
2. Michael Ledeen,The War against the Terror Masters(New York: St. Martin’s, 2002, 2003).
3. Johannes J. G. Jansen, The Neglected Duty: The Creed of Sadat's Assassins, 2013.
4. The UN refugee agency UNHCR: http://www.unhcr.org/53ff76c99.html
5. Richard Labévière, Dollars for Terror: The United States and Islam, 2000.
6. Paul Zarembka, The Hidden History of 9/11: http://books.google.se/books
7. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/11/how-isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-became-the-worlds-most-powerful-jihadi-leader/
8. http://www.theatlantic.com/
9.
a. Zbigniew Brzezinski: How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen, by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair: JANUARY 15, 1998 ; http://www.counterpunch.org/
b. In a 2004 BBC article entitled "Al-Qaeda's origins and links", the BBC wrote: During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA: Al-Qaeda's origins and links, BBC News, July 20, 2004.
c. Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary in the UK from 1997–2001, believed the CIA had provided arms to the Arab Mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden, writing, "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan." Thestruggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means London: Guardian Unlimited,2005-07-08.
10. http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/26608833/why-is-usa-so-involved-in-fighting-isis
11. http://www.globalfirepower.com/
12. Democratic Confederalism, Abdullah Ocalan, first edition 2011, Translation: International
Initiative Published by Transmedia Publishing Ltd. - London, Cologne)
13. February 3-5, 2012, a conference was organized in Hamburg, Germany. The theme was “Challenging Capitalist Modernity: Alternative concepts and the Kurdish Question.” The following text was delivered as a speech to the conference.)
14. Party Program of The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK); Chapter Three: The Revolution In Kurdistan; January 24, 19955th Congress, Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)
15. Joost Jongerden and Ahmet Hamdi Akkaya; Democratic Confederalism as a Kurdish Spring: the PKK and the quest for radical democracy
Comments
The Tags lists the article as
The Tags lists the article as "The Salmist State and the PKK" is it meant to read "Islamist" instead?
Yes. Thanks!
Yes. Thanks!
This article is confused I
This article is confused I guess: It is critical of Stalinism and PKK as a Stalinist party in the past. However it also condemns its turn to Bookchin as being anti-workerist turn. And because of this it just reduces all the discussion to meaningless ideological accusations. Demanding stuff from concrete movements from an abstract point of view.
I especially loved the conlusion:
Who is this proletariat who learnt such stuff and become free of the chains of nationalism etc? In what ways does this "robo-labor" is related to nomadic and/or peasantry class formations of Kurdish people in 20th Century Turkey? Why is this all conclusions of this article are so apart and moralistic from the rest of the analysis? (It all comes down to "do not forget the golden rule that will open the future for working class" of some sort in last paragraphs.)
It appears to me that: Kurds (in Rojava) not only learnt to be critical of states (but not self-governments) but also of the ideologues and their unending love for the past times .
Hi kurremkarmerruk, Sorry, if
Hi kurremkarmerruk,
Sorry, if I made you confused. The proletariat is a generalization, as a term/concept, of a subordinated class/es (workers: rural or urban laborer…) in a class society. The class that generates the surplus labor/production/value. Those who reject or deny the existence of antagonistic classes in the society deny the class struggle as well: The antagonistic relation between capital and labor is the basic function of the existing order. Those who apply some non-class-society related conceptualization, such as “people”, “democratic country”, “democratic society/state”... this thing, i.e., the proletarian class, would not make any sense.
About the conclusion; For the sake of simplicity, Consider it as a paradox, then the next step is to find out where/how it will end: of course, If we are not already carrying this or that flag!
Municipalism is perhaps for you modern and nice. However, it is another shape of reforms; and the reforms have been the Achilles Heel of proletarian class struggle since the proletariat has historically established itself as a political force in the capitalist (democratic or not democratic) order. The PKK wanted to reform the Turkish state by means of arm struggle (Stalinism/Maoism) to build a Kurdish state (Kurdistan) besides the Turkish one. Now, due to the changes in the real existing capitalistic reality, it wants to build Kurdistan inside the Turkish/Syrian state. The end result is the same: Kurdistan (nation) within the state: government is a derivative/version of the state. The real question comes later: what is the type of accumulation in this state/self-government: capitalistic, anti-capitalistic, non-capitalistic... .These are abstraction question of reality, in order to make it possible for us to grasp the reality, including the coming one.
Ideology belongs to the dominant realm of the ruling capitalist classes. If we enter in the ideological domain of the ruling elite, we will be swallowed like flies. Thus, I don’t ideologize things, but criticize them.
Vauw I really appreciate your
Vauw
I really appreciate your reply. I did not know you were here.(I did not read who post it apparently, sorry) May I ask you where are you from? Where did you make this speech (if it was a speech?) and also may I learn about any of your experience in Rojava or any related place? (If you have you of course)
I know the basics of class war. I am also familiar with critique of reforms (though I do not agree with it in present times)
Does this makes sense to you? I think you give us insufficient reasons to support your claim (which is the only motivation of PKK to change its political principles is the result of "changes in the capitalistic order") What prevents Kurds to organize their own states now? USA seems very sympathic towards them now. Even Russia said yesterday that PKK is an important force in the region. I would actually argue their power to establish their own state is increasing. Of course they should drop Stalinism now, but why adopt a figure so obscure that is nearly irrelevant to mass politics like Bookchin? Why municipalism? Why confederalism all of a sudden? I think formulating the whole change in ideology of PKK in terms of global power structures does not answer the issue.
I also do not agree with you here. I am fine with abstracting but lets not lose the sight of the concrete here. I can agree with you on the economic level I guess: Rojava will not be totally anti-or-non-capitalist in the result. (I would also be very surprised if it turns out to be so, because frankly I never saw one and do not know one, that works in mass scale and is a good one to live) However is this all there is to support a people's movement? Are all politics (besides explicitly (abstract)working class politics) forbidden for communists? For example of people's defense of themselves in face of massacres? What is the situation of people's demand for speaking in thier own native language mean for communists? I think all these questions are relevant to us and should be. (They are as material as mode of production and has objective affects over people's lives)
I do not think we can get rid of ideology this easy. As you know many claimed to be so but history proved them wrong. However I guess I should wait for your reply before commenting more on these issues... (By the way I was trying to emphasize difference between political criticism and ideological one, I think yours fall into category of ideological one)
Hi again
Hi again kurremkarmerruk,
Changes and adaptation to the existing order is what the ruling class and its political elite do whole the time; in more visible way we know how the whole political spectrum of capitalist ideological-political apparatus, from its far right to far left, has been adapting themselves to the iron hand demand of so called liberalism and “free market”, i.e. different privatization schemes of the old style state centered/controlled welfare structure.
The Stalinist model, as the rest of capitalist system’s political-ideological structures, was obliged to adaption to economics and cycle of capital accumulation: rise and sustainment of profitability.
However, the main reason for appearance of the Stalinist model of state capitalism, which was more ideological and politically determined, had already disappeared from face of the earth; the Soviet-block. Moreover, to seek acceptability inside the power corridors of US/EU (the WEST) the PKK knows this well that there is no any space left for a démodé, useless and at least ideologically hated Stalinism. Besides, it needed to distances itself from the past dark history of murder, assignation… which is considered to be a PKK X-files for the Turkish-state with an eternal preservation in the archives.
Due to unresolved Assad-regime issue for the Western imperialist network in particular the Turkish state, the establishment of any Kurdish standalone state in Iraq/Syria is suspended by the West network at the moment. Of course the West imperialist networks like Kurds but not that much to lose a watch dog like the Turkish-state. Of course Barzani and Talabani tribes are more reliable for the west at the moment, but reality can be changed as the PKK is entering into west’s political power game.
Ability to live and die with our native attributes is very basic for human species; free access to what/how we speak/communicate as social being is grant for our open development. As it was a clause in the second/third International’s program, the cultural, linguistic freedom was to be included for any revolutionary transformation of the society. Cultural/linguistic divergences and dis divergences has to integrated, which is impossible in a capitalistic class divided society, which is basically runs on disunity of the proletariat, workers urban/rural; the catchword is the competition not the completion; living examples where the capitalist system has mange to resolve this kind of issues are plenty but the US with white and black question and Israeli state with the Jewish question are shining and eternal examples, in this regard. Of course we have to defend our life, home, families, friends and workplace when we are under attack by any force, under the given circumstances. To leave or to stay in battle field is part of a class unity. However we reject strongly any participation or enrolment in an organized political-military activity/action of anti-proletarian forces; PKK is a reformist anti-proletarian organization.
Ok I agree with you on
Ok I agree with you on everything you said I guess, except the last two sentences. I think it is still stays rather superficial and mostly depend on a very abstract reading of situation.
Let's try to get concrete again: For example "free markets" lets criticize commercialization of everyday life. Is this a reality in Rojava for example? Do we know anything on this? I think if we approach this question on this abstract level we will be left unable to act in any way politically. Our theory will demand from us not to give any compromise at all. However in concrete political situation there is need for certain need of practicality. I am sure this is something you are also familiar with. Then the question should be: whether PKK is currently a capitalizing force (that not only accepts some sort of money usage, private property on practicality basis, but goes on beyond that and integrate masses into capitalist relations, forming enterpreneural subjects etc...) or not? I think Janeth Biel (published by AK press) has a good book on it especially related to Turkey. I would answer this question in negative for present time.
Yeah but who gives a shit what Turkey wishes? Turkey tried to implement its foreign policy, It failed miserably. Now Turkey seems to change its position and comply with USA (Peshmerga stuff etc.) I think also Syrian civil war gives a good opportunity for Kurds to establish their own state. However the question is will they take it? I bet they will not and they will stick to their Bookchinian ideology as PKK is a social and political organization. Let's leave this for time to settle this.
Yeah and they are pretty much naturally part of communist programme for me (just as LGBTQ issues etc...) I guess you agree with me here.I want to emphasize that these above mentioned issues are part of POLITICAL solidarity. It is something beyond "communists should be anti-racist" etc. Communist should defend politically people's right to speak their own language, their right to be recognised as first class "people" in the wider society (or working class) etc. This is part of communist politics.
Yeah but I do not get your overall point here. Do you think for example PKK is dividing working class? If so because of what?
You did not mention why you consider PKK anti-proleterian in your latest comment but I assume you consider it so because it does not organize based on class unity. This is fine I would not name them as anti-proleterian but their ideology of course calls for democratization and citizenship now so I understand your point. But the question now transforms itself to this: in light of their progressive politics (on gender issues, ecology, direct democracy, federalism, communalistic economy -these are implemented policies by the way you can find examples of in appropriate sites and not empty rhetoric- ) can not communists/anarchists give their political support to them? (I mind you again this is not a question of ideological or theoretical support, it is political support.) On this I would like to share here also DAF's new response (to another text) here: http://libcom.org/library/response-article-rojava-anarcho-syndicalist-perspective I especially emphasize the parts which mentions the possible effects of "mostly" social revolution of Rojava in wider politics in region.
You are updating your article
You are updating your article a lot. But I don't know what you are changing (By the way above the subtitle starting with Ocalan there is an unnecessary "listing dot". You might want to remove it.)
Hi again
Hi again kurremkarmerruk,
Sorry about my long intervals: I’m not good at this comment thing! You are right updated some typing errors not the content. Anyhow, I think our agreement/disagreement (trouble) is on the question of the PKK’s nature from a class point of view; proletarian or anti-proletarian. For me, it's simple: any socio-political, organizational form which prolongs the life cycle of the existing class society is on the other side of class line: capitalist-class.
And the PKK has always been and is on the capitalist side: Due to its anti-proletarian nature, it can’t address the main question in the class society, regardless in the center or the periphery of the capital; the relation between the proletarian and bourgeoisie class, which is a political issue from a practical point of view for subordinated class. For instance, what to do with the dominant class who has lived on behave of the surplus labor generated by the subordinated class for millenniums. However, this becomes complicated, especially when we swap the dominant class and the state relation; when one applies the chicken or the egg causality dilemma, i.e., which came first. The state, regardless of you like it, hate it, smashed it by revolution and reform or ignore it is a product of class society and handicraft/”work” of the dominant class and not vice versa. So, the PKK’s Communalism/reform (democratization) or ignoring/Inattention of the state (leaving partly it to be Turkish or Syrian) can only be understood if one realizes its anti-proletarian character, i.e., not able to question the dominance role of ruling class/es (Aga, bourgeoisie...).
My point about the US and Israeli state was to clarify that the capitalist system, which evolved on top of the previous class society is basically developed on the division labor. For me this historic accident, division of labor, is the source of all divisions in the class society; gender, older, spices, culture, religious and ethnical/national (in the capitalist era)…. Thus the existing order is never able to resolve in peaceful and revolutionary way, i.e., to integrate and create a totality without embedded antagonisms. And the proof this is a world so savagely, but refined ideologically, divided, which is called civilization- of class society.
Of course, the Communists/Anarchist can support general improvements of living standard, however this does not mean that we join or support the ruling class elite/organizations who normally integrate these socioeconomic and political issues into their organizational and political programs.
That is why we don’t support or join the enemy class’ organizations, e.g., SDPs, CP, Greens or any traditional bourgeoisie party that can easily adapt this kind of “right”, which are very effective from an ideological point of view to deceive the proletarian class, particularly during election periods. And you know this.
Now to your question about supporting issues related to class struggle: gender, cultural… questions.
Communist/anarchist has to participate where ever, the proletarian masses are struggling for better life. However, we need to connect this issue to the main issue of the class struggle, i.e., antagonism of classes. Why/how we have to revolutionary change the order of the social fabric. This brings us back again to the question of the class nature of the PKK: just for a sake argument, DO YOU REALLY THINK they allow me/you to raise our voice about the party’s role and nature in a neighborhood, workplace, city or barricade that is controlled by the PKK/PYD! Life for me is a better teacher than anything/anyone else and next is the history. Theory is need to connect these 2 to each other.
Thanks for sharing DAF’s path with me. I think I need to study more about what is going on in the field (Rojava). I need to learn more...
Thanks/hamid
abc
abc
Thank you for your kind
Thank you for your kind words. I am also very new to this commenting thing. I know how time killing it is. By the way you posted the same response twice, you might one to delete one. I think this post will be long please try to read till the end and do not just focus on our ideological differences wish will be much more apparent in the following paragraphs (I am saying this because it is not my intention to discuss ideology with you as you will see in later paragraphs)
I think our real disagreement comes from somewhere else. (our superficial disagreement is on rhetorics, in other words what can be legitimately termed "capitalist" or "anti-poleterian" etc...) I agree with you if you look at from the view of only abstract class politics (that we do not see any concrete workers tainted by different economical variations, races, history, ethnicity, different forms of power, gender etc.) I whole heatedly agree with you that PKK is not a proletarian organization and it will not solve the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society. Moreover Rojava will not be the end of class society that has a history of thousands of years. ( I would as surprised as you: if it can even open a way out of the current capitalist domination) I think we all agree here right?
I think it is exactly the vise versa and Marxist theory still wishes it not to be so. The conception of state as secondary basically comes from Marxist anthropology (which is essentially a philosophical anthropology, full of Hegelian speculations). However there is a more contemporary and more empirically based anthropology on the emergence of state and "the political" itself. We can start it with Clastres. In his book "Society against The State". He challenges the dominant conception that state is the product of economic relations (and subsequent emergence of one class with surplus value and other with nothing but its labor power) He rather argues "the political principle" (that is at the heart of the state) is obedience (to authority) and it is not automatic to emerge out primitive societies or it is in any way superior to stateless societies. His account is based on Native American societies. Foucault and Deleuze have their own essays that put politicio-social motivations at the basis of emergence of class society itself. There is also current anarchist antropology that provied emprirical oriented research on this mater like: the works of Greaber and James C. Scott. I basically think this Marxist view is obsolete in the emergence of new evidence. I should also add that (a separate body of works) there is also very interesting analysis of emergence of class society from the first fundamental division of labor that is "division of labor" based on gender. These socialist feminist works show for example the basis of state (and also capitalist society itself) can not be reduced to economical relations alone.
I think this is again another myth that it is possible to reach "a totality without antagonisms" on one day, it is basically the worst part of Hegelian philosophy. I again do not accept this dialectical (or should I say non-dialectical point) I just refuse to base my politics on this super abstract idea.
I do not think we can judge and decide on behalf of all communists on this issue from a far, what do you think? Would we condemn for example any anarchist or communist with the lack of better option who joins the Resistance against Nazi invasion of France? Would you condemn and say "you are anti-proleterian" to a Kurdish anarchist just because he defend his home alongside YPG ? (Here we are starting to leave the abstract area of ideology to concrete political conditions) I definitely would not do so.
Yeah you are right but do we automatically against all these groups? For example if there is a nuclear plant is under construction I as an anarchist would like it to stop why would not I agree with bare minimum of political solidarity with green forces (organizing demonstrations etc)? Or better, why not create alliances with the more radical parts of ecologists? Should I require everyone to be one hundred percent to be anti-capitalist before I can make political alliance with them?
But what you argue here is not related to class basis of PYD/PKK. Any organization needs to eliminate any serious threat as much as it could to continue to exist. Also historically communist/anarchist organizations themselves were never paradises for free speech at all. The political struggle in themselves continue endlessly and sometimes this result in very bad endings (for example collapse of First International as a huge historical failure that resulted in separation of working class movement.) On more concrete level I can not say I know all of the Kurdish Movement but the folks I know are pretty normal people as long as you do not make Turkish propaganda they wont harm you at all. They would love to discuss Marxism, gender etc... with you. And they are actually much more literate on Marxism and revolutionary history then a normal Turkish guy.
So I think we do not disagree on the class basis of PKK in capitalist world. I think we disagree on two thinks
1) We disagree on ideological level. However I think this is not very important. It is impossible to reach a consensus on it on an internet forum. It is also unnecessary. Change in the life views of people is like a change in paradigm it never happens in seconds and it wont happen because you read a comment I wrote (or vice versa) It needs a different experince of life, a failure in expectations, a change in socio-economic conditions, knowing other people in struggle who has belief in this or that ideology etc... For example I am very critical of this idea that antagonisms will be dealt with "solved". I also think there is no fundamental economical relation in the contemporary world solution of which will bring a solution to all else etc. You also do not agree with me a lot of points. I say no problem, it is not important. Let's not get lost in ideological discussion.
2) The second disagreement is I think "political solidarity is possible" (and even necessary in complex world of ours) however you deny its possibility (You argue we should not support any political power that does not share the ideological principles we adhere)
Let me put it into concrete again: For example I would support the Algerian resistance to French rule in anyway. If it was leaded by a totally reactionary organization, I would aid them only on a humanitarian basis (I would see responsible the French and their colonial rule as development of this reactionary group and hope that Algerian working class (and all opressed groups) will rise in the future to establish a better society . However if it was leaded by an organization that has a lot of progressive political ideals I would politically support them and see them as my ally for the time being. Hoping that this political closeness between us will further radicalize its progressive politics. (I think PYD is in this category, Also anarchist/communists historically established such political solidarity relations with the oppressed and/or indigenous people)
So I say let's not get lost in ideology discussion because political questions can not and never be totally solved by ideological judgement. that would be solving the puzzle of life and existential conditions of human being by just thought experiments. It is impossible. I do not want to blur the ideological lines. Bu anti-capitalist revolutionaries can never be only ideologues, they must be political militants forming alliances with concrete social forces to increase the changes of development of anti-capitalist (and pro-oppressed) forces in a social formation.
So basically I think political solidarity is a duty for anarchists/communists to support the struggles of the oppressed people. Wanting people (who live in a very undeveloped portion of the world divided by religious and ethnic powers) to solve what we consider as the fundamental contradictions of class society is at best asking for the impossible and at worst just dishonest at this stage of crisis of global anti-capitalism.
I would love to speak more on political solidarity or any related issue. On ideology level (if you excuse me) I do not wish to speak more, as it will be time consuming.
In solidarity
kurremkarmerruk, Hamid can a
kurremkarmerruk,
Hamid can a speak for himself but for someone who persistently claims not to argue ideologically your posts here do exactly that in presenting an approach based on a fundamentally anti-marxist ideology. Given your 6 plus years on the site I have not noticed any extensive participation in the various threads discussing either interpretations of Marxist theory or the views of those you wish to site whether Graeber, Bookchin, Deleuze or others. You seem also to persistently and deliberately confuse the immediate dilema of how Syrian Kurds should respond to the genocidal threat of the ISIS advance - whether and how to fight or flee, on which both the anarchist and marxist communist critics here have generally and correctly avoided offering advice, with the more fundamental critique made of the relationship between the PKK and Kurdish nationalism (whether ethnic or democratic), the local and global imperialist powers, the underlying social and economic realities of capitalism, or the nature of the relationship between 'democracy' and 'dictatorship' in capitalist society, signing off various of your contributions with unjustified sarcastic or emotionally laden accusations against your critics. For the record anarchist and marxist influenced communists do engage practically in the class struggle whever they can but from a clear communist perspective and not a nationalist or democratic one.
Spikymike What you wrote is
Spikymike
What you wrote is your own opinion. There is nothing forcing me to accept it. There is a history of anarchists and communists that dealt with issues related not just of class but also of social, political and other forms of inequalities. Being unaware of them, and defending your class reductionist account does not make them disappear.
I never said I have no ideology. I am trying to discuss with people ideology and politics are not the same thing. Just as having and ideological connection with CNT in Spain is not the same thing as having a "political solidarity" with a progressive group. and Political solidarity is I am sorry but is part of real politics whether you like it or not. (I do not like discussing ideology because of the reasons I counted in my previous comment. However thanks to you and others I am always called for to do so, to admit my nationalism, to admit my third-worldism.)
There is a LGBTQ slogan in Turkey. That is aimed at leftist groups: "It is not LGBTQ people that divide the class, it is being homophobic that divides the class!" I believe this wholeheartedly. I think people can have theories that focus on class relations in capitalism. I never argued against it (despite what you read in my lines) However in context of Kurds, it is fundamentally wrong for a "workerist" to argue that Kurdish movement that mobilized a huge proportion of Kurds is "just and solely a nationalist organization". Yes it is a national organization however it is a national organization that is born out Turkish working class movement, thanks to latter's inability to defend the rights of oppressed Kurdish populations (this s also related to state repression of course). Kurdish population (or its political parties) can not be judged on the ground that they divide class (this is position of Turkish Communist Party for example whish is very othodox as you can imagine). They can only be celebrated that despite all the insensitivity of leftists towards their fundamental demands for recognition of their ethnic rights (their language etc...) they still try to pursue at least a relatively leftist programme that is at least democratically beyond any alternative currently available in region including those of communists.
There is nothing emotional about it, as there is nothing emotional about establishing "a political solidarity with an oppressed people's movement (just as DAF did).That is a fact that is felt in nearly all Turkish left but you are just unaware of its context (and avoid to learn it). I am sorry spikymike but life is much more complex then just bolding the class struggle as a solution to every fucking problem and as a universal answer to everything. I will not continue, I do not enjoy discussing with you and we had enough already I guess.
kurremkarmerruk wrote: class
kurremkarmerruk
Serge
Serge Forward:
blah blah... class struggle... blah blah...
NOTE: hamid.moradei by the way I am sorry for being trolled. Please ignore my comments that I give to other persons. I would still like to discuss any political issue with you.
EDIT: By the way Serge if you have read my comment I used "workerist" not as a pejorative or critical term at all. I actually include myself to it, in the sense I use it in the sentence above.
Whether you used it
Whether you used it perjoratively or not, 'workerism' is shit politics. The term 'class reductionism' is also perjorative.
Are you fucking can not read
Are you fucking can not read Serge? I used it not as the name of an political ideology or movement (which has nothing to do with anything here - But thanks we now know Serge thinks they are shit, hurray!- ) I used it to signify everyone including me who support a worker's revolution (in other words essentially communist/anarchist) If you were not just a troll and fucking read what I say you could have clearly understand what I meant by it. And you would not need to post another text (to save your ass and act like you understand it all along) that is again irrelevant to any discussion going on here. Why do you write stuff here, anyway? Do you have any purpose other than trolling ?
Yeah I used class
Yeah I used class reductionism as a critical sense. I did not know it was a sin!
kurremkarmerruk, If you had
kurremkarmerruk,
If you had followed any of the other discussions on here regarding class and class struggle and interpretations of marxism other than crude stalinism you would appreciate that I and others are well aware of the need to address and assist in overcomming forms of oppression and other social divisions as part of a process of the working class (broadly defined) becoming a 'class for itself ' and uniting against capitalism, but this is a practical process not assisted by compromise with nationalist and democratic political ideologies and organisations, even if they are presented out of necessity in todays world with a more 'progressive' image. Please stop swearing it only results in causing more irritated responses from others.
Aye. I'm proper upset now.
Aye. I'm proper upset now. Kurremkaremerruk, you need to remember it's nice to be nice and just because somone criticises you doesn't make them a troll. It would also help if you understood the term you are bandying about, in this case workerism, and you should not get too upset when people read that word according to its definition. You should know that, much as I am critical of the DAF and am sceptical of the PKK's recent charm offensive, I do give those closer to what is happening in Syria and the Turkish border a bit more understanding than I do for groups like the WSM and other PKK groupies.
Quote: Serge
What sort of criticism is this? Did you wrote till now anything related to article under discussion? If this is not trolling nothing is trolling
Spike you and Serge are just
Spike you and Serge are just bullying me. I did not do the same to you. I won't answer to you. You people even did not write anything till now related to above article. At least have some respect to writer. All you want to do is to silence me. I quit speaking with you it is pointless.
OK, have it your way.
OK, have it your way.
Kurrem... so for the record I
Kurrem... so for the record I think so far that Hamid has made a great deal more sense than your goodself in these discussions and whilst we may have some differences I felt no need to engage in any detailed criticism of their contribution at this stage.
Spikymike If I acted like
Spikymike
If I acted like you, I would just go and wrote what I believe to be true under http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/mdf-mtg-islamismimperialismmiddle-east-15th-nov-15102014#new Just to sabotage your discussion. However I do not do it, because I try not to be a troll, I do not see discussions as matches with winners or losers, and above else I do not try to silence people or stop them from arguing. Instead I try to speak with people and represent my point as clear as possible (of course as far as I am not pissed of - by the way sorry Serge, for slag words) and have a discussion. I think this issue was (in many of the discussions I had in this forums) much more important than discussion of political ideologies (because discussion itself is not possible without basic recognition of each other as "some form of progressives (or workerists :D )")
I actually do not like to write what I consider everyone already knows (or should know), but in this case I made an exception.