If, in our political agitation, we fail to advance and advocate the slogan of the right to secession, we shall play into the hands, not only of the bourgeoisie, but also of the feudal landlords and the absolutism of the oppressor nation.[23]
Our medium national bourgeoisie and social opportunists, while on the one hand give the impression of being opposed to privileges, on the other insidiously and jealously embrace the existing privileges that are in favor of the Turkish bourgeoisie. These hypocritical merchants, while extending an open hand towards democracy, reach out with their other hand (behind their backs) to reactionaries and police agents, with ferocious and fanatical Turks nationalism and feudal racism abetting their crimes.
In the same way that it is erroneous to suggest that national oppression is only perpetrated on the Kurdish people, it is also incorrect to state that national oppression is only applied by the government of the comprador bourgeoisie and landlords. The Turkish medium bourgeoisie and their representatives of a national character (Dogan Avcioglu, the Ilhan Selcuk[24], and Turkish nationalists in general following in their footsteps) and opportunists who are not in the least different (M. Belli, H. Kivilcimli, Aren-Boran[25] opportunists and more insidiously the Safak Revisionists) are accomplices to the enactment of national oppression by the Turkish comprador bourgeoisie and landlords. Without a struggle with the insidious nationalism of these people, without eradicating the traces of this nationalism, reciprocal confidence, unity and solidarity between workers and toilers belonging to various nationalities cannot be achieved.
6. “Popular Movement” and National Movement
The Safak Revisionists, who claim that national oppression is only applied to the Kurdish people, and that the objective of national oppression is to intimidate the Kurdish people, view the Kurdish national movement developing against national oppression as a popular movement. [my emphasis] “The Kurdish people have raised the flag of struggle against the policy of severe national oppression and assimilation.” “The Kurdish people’s struggle for democratic rights, the equality of nationalities and self-determination…” [my emphasis]
However, popular movements and national movements are two entirely different things. A popular movement is the name given to struggles waged in every historical period by oppressed classes against higher classes that oppress them, both for partial demands and in order to overthrow these governing classes. A popular movement is a class movement of the oppressed masses. There have been popular movements since the first epochs of history. In the age of imperialism and in our age when “imperialism is headed for wholesale collapse and socialism is moving towards victory throughout the world,” popular movements are uniting with the politically aware leadership of the proletariat and progressing towards the definite liberation of the masses from exploitation and oppression. However, a national movement is firstly based within a historical area with clear boundaries.
As Comrade Lenin indicated, national movements in Western Europe cover a rather clear period, roughly between 1789 and 1871. “It is this period which is the period of national movements and the formation of national states.” As for Eastern Europe and Asia, national movements only commenced in 1905.
Secondly, the natural tendency of national movements is towards the formation of national states. Towards the end of the 1789-1871 period, Western Europe had been transformed into a system of established bourgeois states, and these states (except Ireland) as a rule are states with a national integrity (Lenin). The natural tendency of the national movements beginning in Eastern Europe and Asia around 1905 was also towards the formation of national states.
The revolutions in Russia, Persia, Turkey and China, the Balkan wars—such is the chain of world events of our period in our “Orient”. And only a blind man could fail to see in this chain of events the awakening of a whole series of bourgeois-democratic national movements which strive to create nationally independent and nationally uniform states.[26]
Why is the natural tendency of national movements towards the formation of national states?
Because national movements emerged together with the development of capitalism. And they moved towards meeting the needs of capitalism.
Throughout the world, the period of the final victory of capitalism over feudalism has been linked with national movements. For the complete victory of commodity production, the bourgeoisie must capture the home market, and there must be politically united territories whose population speaks a single language, with all obstacles to the development of that language and to its consolidation in literature eliminated. Therein is the economic foundation of national movements. Language is the most important means of human intercourse. Unity and unimpeded development of language are the most important conditions for genuinely free and extensive commerce on a scale commensurate with modern capitalism, for a free and broad grouping of the population in all its various classes and, lastly, for the establishment of a close connection between the market and each and every proprietor, big or little, and between seller and buyer.
Therefore, the tendency of every national movement is towards the formation of national states, under which these requirements of modern capitalism are best satisfied. The most profound economic factors drive towards this goal, and, therefore, for the whole of Western Europe, nay, for the entire civilized world, the national state is typical and normal for the capitalist period.
[…] States of mixed national composition (known as multi-national states, as distinct from national states) are “always those whose internal constitution has for some reason or other remained abnormal or underdeveloped.[27]
Thirdly, “…[I]n its essence it, a national movement, is always a bourgeois struggle, one that is to the advantage and profit mainly of the bourgeoisie.”[28]
Comrade Stalin also said:
The bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation, repressed on every hand, is naturally stirred into movement. It appeals to its “native folk” and begins to shout about the “fatherland,” claiming that its own cause is the cause of the nation as a whole. It recruits itself an army from among its “countrymen” in the interests of… the “fatherland.” Nor do the “folk” always remain unresponsive to its appeals they rally around its banner: the repression from above affects them too and provokes their discontent. Thus, the national movement begins.
24
İlhan Selçuk was a journalist of Cumhuriyet (Republic), one of the main Turkish newspapers. He took part in the 1971 coup attempt, supporting the ideas of a national democratic revolution through a military coup.
25
Sadun Aren and Behice Boran were two of the top leaders of TIP. Their faction supported a reformist line of a slow transition to socialism. In the TIP’s 1966 congress, they strongly opposed the national democratic revolution faction led by Mihri Belli and Doğu Perinçek and expelled them, making them the majority in TIP.