Kurdish workers and peasants will be pushed into the embrace of nationalism, and the unity and solidarity between Kurdish and Turkish workers and peasants will be sabotaged.
The Safak Revisionists, by presenting the Kurdish national movement, which has different elements within it, as a homogenous “Kurdish people’s” movement, by portraying this movement as a whole and entirely progressive, and by not indicating until what point and from which aspects it is progressive, and after which points and from which aspects the reactionary ambitions of the bourgeoisie and landlords begin (more correctly, by not differentiating between them), it reaches the above conclusion that benefits the landlords and bourgeoisie. Thus, it is making concessions to the Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords to the detriment, in general, of the proletariat of Turkey and, in particular, to the Kurdish proletariat! We are curious as to what the Safak Revisionists will do in the future when the “positive action” of the Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords makes itself felt more strongly. But it is clear today what they will do! They will unconditionally join the ranks of the Turkish nationalists.
Let us stress this point: Communists always differentiate absolutely between the nationalism of an oppressed nation and that of a dominant nation, between the nationalism of a small nation and that of a large nation.
On this subject Comrade Lenin says:
In respect of the second kind of nationalism we, nationals of a big nation, have nearly always been guilty, in historic practice, of an infinite number of cases of violence furthermore, we commit violence and insult an infinite number of times without noticing it…
That is why internationalism on the part of oppressors or “great” nations, as they are called (though they are great only in their violence, only great as bullies), must consist not only of the observance of the formal equality of nations but even of an inequality of the oppressor nation, the great nation, that must make up for the inequality which obtains in actual practice. Anybody who does not understand this has not grasped the real proletarian attitude to the national question, he is still essentially petit bourgeois in his point of view and is, therefore, sure to descend to the bourgeois point of view.[49]
Comrade Lenin continues:
For nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice “offended” nationals are not sensitive to anything so much as to the feeling of equality and the violation of this equality, if only through negligence or jest – to the violation of that equality by their proletarian comrades. That is why in this case it is better to overdo rather than underdo the concessions and leniency towards the national minorities.[50]
Is what the Safak Revisionists are doing that which is advocated by Comrade Lenin? No, never! The Safak Revisionists are today basically following a Turkish nationalist line, defending the privileges of the Turkish ruling classes. As we shall see, they are trampling upon the Kurdish nation’s right of self-determination in a cowardly way and with a lot of demagogy, choosing representatives of Turkish chauvinism as their standard bearers. What they are doing is something that is entirely different from that advocated by Comrade Lenin. On the one hand they follow a dominant nation nationalist line, on the other they are erasing the line between Kurdish workers and toilers and the Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords, taking a place with the standpoint of the Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords. This is not going to the extreme in making concessions and behaving tolerantly towards national minorities against dominant nation nationalism; it is supporting the nationalist ambitions of the exploiting classes of the minority nation in regards to the dominant nation nationalists against the workers and toilers of the minority nation.
Another point: The Safak Revisionists state that the “Kurdish people” are struggling “against the policy of severe national oppression and assimilation, for democratic rights, the equality of nationalities and for self-determination.”
For the Kurdish people to struggle for self-determination means the Kurdish people are struggling to establish a democratic popular administration by overthrowing the ruling classes, for the people can only determine their own future by carrying out a revolution. To state that the Kurdish people are struggling for a revolution in an article dealing with the national question really necessitates a nimble brain (!). If the Kurdish nation is being alluded to then what the Safak Revisionists are saying is: the Kurdish nation is waging a struggle for secession. For in today’s conditions of forced unity, the Kurdish people struggling for self-determination (take note, it is not the right for self-determination) only implies a struggle for secession.
We have stated before that the general tendency of every national movement is towards the formation of states with national integrity, that these states best meet the needs of material production and the needs of capitalism, and that the most powerful economic factors work in this way. The general tendency of the Kurdish national movement, too, is certainly towards the establishment of a state with national integrity. But the general tendency is one thing, and the concrete demands formalized by a national movement are another. Concrete demands do not disregard this general tendency, and every national movement will opt for this general tendency – that is, establishing a separate state as a concrete goal. There are numerous factors that influence this situation. Power relations at the state level and on the international level, the interests of the bourgeoisie and landlords of different nationalities within the country, the character of national oppression, tactical concerns, etc. All these factors determine the concrete objectives formulated by a national movement. For this reason while the general tendency of national movements is towards the formation of states with national integrity, the concrete demands formulated by national movements vary greatly.
Let us listen to Comrade Stalin:
The content of the national movement, of course, cannot everywhere be the same: it is wholly determined by the diverse demands made by the movement. In Ireland the movement bears an agrarian character in Bohemia it bears a “language” character in one place the demand is for civil equality and religious freedom, in another for the nation’s “own” officials, or its own Diet.[51]
The Kurdish national movement in Turkey has yet to openly formulate a demand for secession. The demands that the Kurdish national movement have formulated today are freedom for the reading, writing and speaking of Kurdish, radio broadcasts in Kurdish, the removal of obstacles that prevent the free dissemination of “national culture” (in reality the culture of the Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords), an end to the policy of assimilation, schools offering instruction in Kurdish, the recognition of the right to self-determination, etc. The various reasons we have cited above prevent the Kurdish national movement openly formulating a demand for secession. To state that not the Kurdish people, but the “Kurdish nation is (struggling) for self-determination,” is for this reason, at least for the present, incorrect. While saying this we are not ignoring the strong desire to secede that exists among the Kurdish bourgeoisie and small landlords. However, we are saying that this wish has not reached the stage of becoming an open demand of the national movement. Today, for instance, the national movement in Northern Ireland has openly formulated a demand for secession. And in the past the Kurdish national movement emerged with a demand for secession, etc. Because today the Kurdish national movement has not openly formulated secession does not mean it will not do so in the future. But various forms of reconciliation between the bourgeoisie and landlords of the two nations are possible. Let us not forget that. In Iraq, the Barzani movement[52] has been content to accept partial autonomy. Moreover, while one wing of the Kurdish national movement advocates secession, another wing may oppose it. For these reasons let us not jump the gun.
49
Lenin,
52
The Barzani Movement refers to an armed uprising led by the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) in Iraqi Kurdistan. Between 1963 and 1975, it controlled a de facto autonomous zone in the northern part of Iraq. Following the Iraq War, during which the KDP forces joined in a coalition with the United States, Iraqi Kurdistan has been officially declared an autonomous region of Iraq.