The Safak Revisionists say:
“Our movement… works for the determination of the Kurdish people’s destiny in the interests of the Kurdish workers and peasants.” [my emphasis]
From whichever perspective you look, it is a sentence full of errors! Let us repeat once again, first and foremost, it should be the “Kurdish nation,” not the “Kurdish people,” as the question of Kurdish people’s self-determination is not related to the national question, and is something with no connection to the subject we are discussing. Also, if the Kurdish people determine their own future, it will certainly be “in the interests of the Kurdish workers and peasants.” It would not be possible to be otherwise, as a people determining its own future means a people establishing its own revolutionary state. A people will found its own revolutionary state, that is, determine its own destiny and this might not be “in the interests of the workers and peasants (!).” This is utter nonsense.
“The determination… of the Kurdish people’s destiny” is mentioned. This expression is more erroneous from another viewpoint. Rather than “the determination of its destiny,” it should be “they themselves determining their own destiny.” It is abundantly clear that the expression “the determining of the Kurdish people’s destiny” implies that the determining will be carried out from outside. It means an external force drawing the Kurdish people’s destiny. The Safak Revisionists have turned the national question into a confusion. They have violated whatever is progressive, revolutionary and correct in the concept “nations’ right of self-determination.” They have made unbelievable distortions to this concept, turning it into a form that serves the interests of the dominant nation bourgeoisie and landlords.
If in the above expression “nation,” had taken the place of the word “people” the following two errors would still have been perpetuated in the sentence: “our movement works for the determination of the Kurdish [nation’s] destiny towards the interests of Kurdish workers and peasants.” In this case, too, the fate of the Kurdish people would be determined by “our movement” not by the Kurdish people themselves. Therefore, the most important aspect of the national question, a nation’s right of self-determination, would be taken away from the nation and this fundamental right trampled upon. The above sentence would mean: “Our movement works for a ‘separate Kurdish national state’ in the interests of Kurdish workers and peasants.” It is abundantly clear that this expression takes the right to establish a state away from the nation and gives it to the thing called “our movement.” Secondly, a communist movement never includes the question of whether or not a national state should be established in its program.
It never makes an advance judgment regarding the founding of a separate national state. A communist movement, as we have pointed out above, gives a guarantee of “a nation’s right of self-determination” and puts this in its program. On the question of whether or not to secede, it makes a decision according to concrete conditions.
The Safak Revisionists, as a result, have, in general, destroyed the right of self-determination of nations and, in particular, that of the Kurdish nation. If you destroy this, then nothing will be left of the principle of “equality of nations.” You will not only have extended your hand in friendship to the bourgeoisie of the dominant nation, but also to its police chiefs and fascist generals.
16. When will and when won’t the Turkey’s class-conscious proletariat support the secessionof the Kurdish nation?
Regardless of nationality, the class-conscious proletariat of Turkey will address the question of the Kurdish nation founding a separate state from the standpoint of the development of the revolution. If the Kurdish nation’s establishing a state will increase the possibility of the development and success of a democratic popular revolution under the leadership of the proletariat in Kurdistan of Turkey, the class-conscious proletariat of Turkey will support secession. If secession will delay and hinder the development and success of such a democratic popular revolution, then the class-conscious proletariat of Turkey will not support secession. Let us suppose that the communist movement developing in our country rapidly puts down roots among the peasantry in Kurdistan – that the struggle for land reform rapidly spreads and the revolutionary movement develops faster in Kurdistan than it does in the Western region. Under these conditions, the Kurdish region remaining within the borders of Turkey will only lead to the hobbling of the revolution by obstructions set up by the State of the dominant Turkish nation’s bourgeoisie and landlords. Or let us assume that red political administrations have emerged in various areas of the Kurdish region and that the revolution in the West is developing more slowly. Under these conditions, again, the Turkish ruling classes and their State’s oppression would delay and hinder the development of the revolution in the East. In this case the secession of the East would speed up and strengthen the development of the revolution. This would also add momentum to the revolution in both West and East and certainly positively affect the development of the revolution in other countries in the Middle East. In such a situation the class-conscious proletariat of Turkey, regardless of nationality, would want and advocate for the secession of the Kurdish nation and for the rapidly developing revolution in Kurdistan to attain the possibility of progressing at a faster rate.
On the other hand, if the revolution in Turkey’s other regions were to develop at a more rapid rate than in the Kurdish region, and if the secession of Kurdistan were to slow the development of the revolution in this region and consolidate the dominance of feudal lords, sheikhs, mullahs etc. – and if the revolutionary struggle in the East were to be weakened by being deprived of Western support – then in this case the class-conscious proletariat of Turkey, regardless of nationality, would not support secession. If after the success of the revolution in Turkey, a movement for secession under the leadership of the Kurdish bourgeoisie began, the proletariat of Turkey would not support secession, etc.
What we are saying is obviously based on hypotheses but there is great benefit in dwelling on these suppositions in regards to the attitude to be taken by the communist movement: in which conditions it would support secession and in which conditions it would oppose it. Moreover, these hypotheses relate to real, feasible things, not unreal, impossible things.
17. If the Kurdish nationdecides to secede, howwill the class-conscious proletariat of Turkey react?
In the event of secession two situations are possible:
First, as mentioned above, in the event of secession favorably affecting the development of the revolution then it is a simple matter. The proletariat of Turkey would definitely advocate for and support secession.
Second, in the event of a negative effect of secession on the development of the revolution, if in such a situation the Kurdish nation wished to secede, what would the class-conscious proletariat of Turkey do? The answer given by the Safak Revisionists to this question in verbal discussions is this: to prevent secession by all means, including force. The answer our movement gives to the same question: communists would absolutely reject the use of force in such a situation. While disseminating propaganda in favor of “unity” among Kurdish workers and toilers, they would never use force in opposing the desire for secession. To recognize “nations’ right of self-determination” means to never oppose when a nation wishes to exercise this right, that is, to secede. Communists will entirely and absolutely leave the decision as to whether the Kurdish nation founds a separate state to the Kurdish nation itself. If the Kurdish nation wishes it will establish a separate state, if it doesn’t, it won’t. It is the Kurdish nation that will make this decision, not others. Just as communists will not obstruct a nation’s desire to secede, they will also actively struggle against the efforts of the government of the bourgeoisie and landlords to forcibly prevent this. They will also struggle against all manner of external intervention. If the Kurdish proletariat and toilers were aware that secession would undermine the revolution, they would do all they could to ensure unity. Even if they were not aware, no one has the right to intervene externally on their behalf. External intervention, the use of force, obstructing the desire for secession on whatever grounds, are all in violation of “the right of self-determination of nations.” Such a violation would sabotage the unity of workers and toilers, shake their confidence in each other, stoke national enmity, and in the long term do great harm to the cause of the proletariat as a result.