After the revolution succeeded in the Soviet Union, the Bolsheviks unhesitatingly agreed to the secession of the Finns at their request (December 31, 1917). If the Finnish people hadn’t wanted to secede and if Finland had organized as a people’s republic in the USSR this, of course, would have been better, but the Finnish nation wanted to secede. In this situation it was necessary to either agree to secession or to adopt a harmful policy of suppressing the aspiration by force. The Bolsheviks agreed to secession, not placing the smallest obstacle in the way of the desire for secession. That attitude was to the benefit of both the Finnish people and the revolution in the Soviet Union. That attitude consolidated the trust of the Finnish workers and peasants in the Soviet proletariat. In the years 1918-20 when the civil war continued in the Soviet Union, the imperialists’ plans to attack the Soviet Union through Finland met with the resistance of the Finnish people. If the secession of the Finnish nation had been prevented despite their wish to do so, that attitude would have only created a deep-rooted hostility between the peoples of the two countries.
At Smolny Comrade Lenin said:
I very well recall the scene when, at Smolny, I handed the act to Svinhufvud[61] which in Russian means “pighead” – the representative of the Finnish bourgeoisie, who played the part of a hangman. He amiably shook my hand, we exchanged compliments. How unpleasant that was! But it had to be done, because at that time the bourgeoisie were deceiving the people, were deceiving the working people by alleging that the Muscovites, the chauvinists, the Great Russians, wanted to crush the Finns. It had to be done.[62]
Comrade Lenin’s attitude on the Finnish question is a thoroughly instructive example. The attitude of the Safak Revisionists is diametrically opposite to that of Comrade Lenin. Our attitude is in complete accordance with that of Comrade Lenin.
18. “Divisiveness” Demagogy
The Safak Revisionists say: “Our movement struggles against the ruling classes of every nationality that is hostile to the revolutionary unity and fraternity of the Turkish and Kurdish people, and their divisive policy.” [my emphasis] Their term “divisive policy” has been borrowed from the political dictionary of chauvinistic nationalists and feudalists of the Turkish ruling classes. The ruling classes attach the label of “divisive” to everyone who opposes their nationalist policies. They not only call Kurds who wish to secede, but also all those who defend the right of secession or oppose national oppression to this or that degree, “divisive.” The meaning of divisiveness in Turkey is the “division of territory,” the “division of the State’s unity and its integrity.” In this sense, to say that the ruling classes and, even while being a little more progressive politically, the middle bourgeoisie, who (openly) extend one hand to democracy and the other (from behind) to the ruling classes, are “divisive,” is absurd. What divisiveness? They are the merciless enemies of “divisiveness.” Morning to night they curse “divisiveness.” They are in favor of the State’s unity and opposed to the division of its territorial integrity at any price! That is, they are in favor of forcibly keeping the Kurdish nation and other minority nationalities within the borders of Turkey. Whereas communists are opposed to such a “unity,” communists defend the union of workers and toilers from all nationalities. When it is in the interests of the revolution, they defend non-separation of territories and organization in a single state (and even when defending this their fundamental goal is the unity of workers and toilers). When it is not in the interests of the revolution, they advocate the division of territory and the State and secession. The slogans “unity of territory” or “unity of the State” are slogans of the bourgeoisie and landlords of the dominant nation. Communists have to distinguish with firm lines between their slogan “the unity of workers and toilers from all nationalities” and the slogan “unity of territory and State.” To attack “divisiveness” with the language of the bourgeoisie and landlords of the dominant nation instead of taking the above position will only confuse minds and make it easier for the Turkish ruling classes. You cannot oppose national injustice in a frighteningly demagogic manner saying “they are the real divisive ones,” attributing a meaning to the concept of “divisiveness” that in reality does not exist. People still remember how in the newspaper “Worker-Peasant,” among a load of such demagogy and sophistry, under the headline “Who is Divisive?” the Kurdish nation’s right to secession was ruined and how the ruling classes’ slogan of “unity of State and territory” was insidiously supported. The Safak Revisionists in reality defend the “unity of territory and the State” in an indirect way, by attacking the “divisive policy” with the vocabulary of the ruling classes that is, they adopt the official view of the State. The slogan of the class-conscious proletariat, regardless of nationality, is this:
Complete equality of rights for all nations; the right of nations to self-determination; the unity of the workers [and oppressed people] of all nations.[63]
19. Safak Revisionism Makes M. Kemal and I. Inonu’s Dominant NationNationalism aCornerstone
The Safak Revisionists approve of the national oppression inflicted on the Kurdish nation and other minority nationalities in history. They applaud the fact that M. Kemal said: “In Turkey there are Turks and Kurds.” They greet fervently the fact that at Lausanne, Ismet Inonu[64] said: “I am the representative of the Turks and Kurds,” and base their own views on this. It is as if they are saying to the Turkish ruling classes: “Look, Atatürk and Inonu recognized the existence of the Kurds. This is what we are doing! What is there to be angry about this?”
61
Pehr Evind Svinhufvud was the 3rd president of Finland. He was conservative and rabidly anti-communist. At the end of his life, his views were close to those of Mussolini and Hitler.
64
İsmet İnönü was the 2nd president of Turkey and leader of CHP from 1938 to 1972. Ironically, while he was of Kurdish descent, he was in charge of “Turkifying the Kurds” during the time of Mustafa Kemal. During his presidency, he continued to uphold the Kemalist ideas of a “Great Turkey.”