Yeni Komünizm
Since Devlet Bahçeli’s statement in Parliament on October 22nd, “If his isolation is lifted, let him come and speak at the DEM Party group meeting and declare the end of terror and the disbandment of the organization”, everyone’s eyes have been fixed on the traffic in İmralı.
The Kurdish Movement Under the Conditions of the “New World Order”
The PKK was founded in 1978. At the time of its founding, even though capitalist restoration had taken place in the two major socialist states – the Soviet Union and China – the influence of revolutionary communism among the masses of oppressed people around the world was still significant. The PKK was also influenced by this political climate and acted with a national revolutionary program, with the motto “independent, socialist Kurdistan”. On the one hand, the PKK was dealing major blows to the reactionary fascist state, and on the other, it was finding a base among the oppressed Kurdish peasants. The fact that the PKK leaned on the peasant masses also gave it a nominally anti-feudal character. Hundreds of thousands of people in the region, who were both suffering under feudalism and being subjected to heavy Turkish chauvinism, began to sympathize with the PKK’s political line. After the 1980 coup d’état, the relentless pressure of the ruling classes on the left and socialist forces and the deep ideological crisis of the communists and the weakening/unravelling of the communists as a result of the crisis of leadership were all factors that led to the PKK’s transformation into an organized force throughout Kurdistan.
In the 1990s, the dissolution of Soviet imperialism, the rise of anti-communism worldwide with the “new world order” and the intense bombardment of postmodern “readings” of the world provided by “globalization”, the prominence of identity politics and “liberation” that put the individual at the center, also started a more negative wave of attacks on revolutionary progressive forces that had already been weakened and marginalized by the 1980 coup. As in the rest of the world, many revolutionary structures in Northern Kurdistan and Turkey have dissolved and the overwhelming majority have ceased to exist or have been transformed into something else. In these new world conditions, the PKK went where its national pragmatic worldview took it. The revisionist, Soviet-admiring Öcalan line – he is notorious for his flattery of Gorbachev – took as its reference the well-known anti-communist theses that “real socialism has collapsed” and that socialism is a “totalitarianism”, a “offspring of capitalist modernity” and therefore the same thing as capitalism. Under the conditions of the unipolar capitalist-imperialist world system, the PKK retreated to the line of seeking the basic democratic rights of the Kurdish nation, taking advantage of the contradictions between imperialists and local reactionaries. It called for a ceasefire against the Turkish Republic and demanded peace talks. But it did not succeed, on the contrary, the Turkish state continued its chauvinist policy of suppression and oppression of the Kurds, which is inherent in its history and structure.
In 1999, Öcalan was imprisoned in an international conspiracy. The Turkish state thus wanted to carry out a decapitation, to destabilize the PKK movement and to repress the Kurdish people anew.
After Öcalan’s capture, the PKK repeatedly declared one-sided ceasefires, but the Turkish state utilised its advantage – Öcalan’s imprisonment – to continue its brutal massacres of PKK guerrillas, using all kinds of weapons, including chemical weapons. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the de facto presence of US forces in Kurdistan further strengthened the Kurdish movement’s line of appearing “moderate” towards Western powers. Even with the thesis of “democratic colonialism” that marked this period – which was later half-heartedly self-criticized by the PKK – the “brilliant” idea that “instead of being a colony of Turkey, let’s be a colony of the US” was defended. Although the PKK wanted to capitalize on the growing presence of the US in the region after the invasion of Iraq and its contradictions with Russian imperialism – and its allied force, the Axis of Resistance – the PKK was not seen as a “profitable alliance element” in this period due to the fact that the Turkish state is a NATO power harbouring NATO’s second largest army and that the US has deep-rooted relations with Turkey. However, both the regime change in Turkey and the escalation of Erdogan’s contradictions with the West, as well as the emergence of jihadist Islamist forces as the main actors in the Middle East after 2011 in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, paved the way for the PKK to further strengthen its relations with the West and come to the fore as a “partner”.
To summarize, the Kurdish movement led by the PKK, in the world conditions that emerged after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in accordance with its national pragmatic line, emerged with new demands in the face of each new situation and tried to respond to the necessities it faced on the basis of its national pragmatic line and was subject to an evolution on this basis. What needs to be understood here is not only that the PKK was driven to such a conclusion by objective circumstances. It was the result of the superposition of PKK’s national pragmatic way of thinking and the objective circumstances – the end determines the means.
On the conditions that gave rise to the “Peace Process”
In 2011, the declaration of the Islamic State in the atmosphere created by the effects of the Arab Spring changed many parameters in the region. The global escalation of jihadist Islamism and its contradictions with Western powers pushed the West to find new regional powers and alliances for its “war on terrorism” concept. Factors such as the fight against the jihadists, the dismantling of the Assad regime, the last bastion of Russian imperialism in the region, and the neutralization of Iran for a possible military intervention have made the PYD/YPG forces, which emerged with the weakening of the Assad regime, a significant alliance partner of the US. The PYD is a political entity founded in the early 2000s under the influence and leadership of the PKK. Although it has recently emerged as a separate political entity, it remains under the ideological and political influence and leadership of the PKK – despite its relative autonomy.
The civil war in Syria, which has been going on for more than 10 years, has led to the PYD emerging as an international actor and being recognized by Western imperialist and reactionary powers. This is a highly contradicting situation. These imperialist powers, even though they have deepening contradictions with Erdogan, do not want to give up on Turkey and push it into the ranks of Russian imperialism, on the other hand, they support the PYD as much as possible in order to maintain their own political ambitions in the region. Such a situation has led the Turkish ruling classes to carry out operations against the YPG with the help of the Turkish state-sponsored jihadist Islamist mobs and the Turkish army in order to prevent the PYD from growing and to keep it encircled. The West gave tacit support to these operations in order not to fully confront Turkey. This has strengthened the understanding within the ranks of the PYD/PKK that it needs the support of the imperialist powers.
After October 7, the Aqsa Flood, led by Hamas, changed the parameters in the Middle East. Using the inhumane war crimes of these jihadist forces as an excuse – which pale in comparison to Israel’s war crimes – Israel, with the unlimited help of the United States and the support of the Western imperialists, embarked on a genocide against the Palestinian people. Under the pretext of the “right to self-defense”, Israel attacked all forces aligned with the Axis of Resistance. It has militarily intervened and annexed many places from Lebanon to Iran. The weakening of Russia’s military power in the Ukraine war over the last three years, the inability of the Axis of Resistance to sustain itself in the face of new Israeli and Western attacks, and some internal dynamics in Syria – the decline in support for the regime and its army, the indecision of the fighting forces to continue the war, etc. – led to the overthrow of the regime in 10 days against the Islamic coalition led by HTS. In the last few weeks HTS has been removed from the terrorist list and recognized by the imperialist powers and local reactionaries as the official Syrian government.
Even if HTS has already declared its success, the terrain is very complicated. The PYD/YPG remains the strongest armed group in the region and has a large social base. The Durzi minority, backed by Israel, has declared autonomy. Israel continues to strike Syria and is expanding its annexation zones in southern Syria. These contradictions have also led to new contradictions among HTS’s coalition forces. Even though after Assad’s fall the western powers immediately recognized HTS and said that an era was over, Syria is a minefield and nothing is set in stone yet. And it is clear that despite all the difficulties, the most stable area is where the PYD has autonomy and is able to reassure the Western powers.
Objectives of the regime
In these new conditions emerging in the Middle East – Israel’s attempts to destabilize the region in its favor by unleashing regional terror, the disintegration and weakening of the Axis of Resistance, the daily intensification of the possibility of a war against Iran, the inability to establish a consensus in Syria – the Turkish ruling classes have put into action the plan of “Turkey as one body inside and outside” in order to prevent the status that could be given to the Kurds in Syria or, at worst, to limit it and to keep the possibility of its removal in the future alive. Last October, Erdoğan characterized this approach as “fortifying the home front”. This is the driving force behind the “peace process” between the PKK and the Turkish state. The Turkish state, like other international and regional reactionary forces, is unable to see exactly what could happen in the Middle East and how. The Turkish ruling classes know that a larger war in the region, for example against Iran, could disrupt the entire “balance of security”. That is why plans are on the table to “contain” the Kurds outside Turkey’s borders, to weaken their capacity to act and even to make them take a passive stance in favor of Turkey. In short, the Turkish ruling classes want to mobilize all elements – including peace talks with the PKK in Turkey – to block, narrow and, if possible, eliminate the PYD, which is under the ideological and political leadership of the PKK – although it remains to be analyzed to what extent the world arena and regional developments, and the Kurds’ constant pursuit of their own interests, will allow this “desire”.
Another decisive, albeit secondary, element of the process is the AKP’s loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the general public, its continuous erosion, its defeat in the most recent local government elections, and the necessity to rely on Erdoğan’s leadership in order to maintain the regime in the face of this “erosion and loss of power”. While the parties of the regime continue to melt in the eyes of the people, Erdoğan is still popular and therefore has a chance to win the next presidential election as well. However, according to the current constitution, Erdoğan cannot run again. Therefore, a new constitutional debate with the Kurdish movement over “equal citizenship” could bring Erdoğan’s candidacy back on the agenda. The DEM Party has already stated that “the elections are the will of the people and if the people elect Erdoğan again, there is nothing they can do about it, what is decisive for the Kurds is the recognition of the Kurds as equal citizens in the constitution”. Although this is not the main component of the “new process”, it is by no means an insignificant factor for the future of the regime.
Which necessities led to Öcalan’s “manifesto”?
After summarizing the evolution of the Kurdish movement over the last 50 years as briefly as possible, we will elaborate on some points of Öcalan’s 3-page letter, which the PKK has declared a “manifesto”. It should be noted at the outset that this statement is not a call written by “one man” – to another “one man”. Even though Öcalan is the primary representative and determinant of this process, this call represents the political line that the Kurdish movement has been following since the 1990s, seeking its way in the new world order and continuing its existence according to the new conditions. And as can be seen, all sections of the movement, from its legalist reformist representatives to its overseas wing and from there to the wing waging armed struggle, are backing this call. Again, it is worth noting that this does not mean surrendering to the will of “one man”, but the realization of the line represented by Öcalan in the broad part of the Kurdish movement. If it were simply a matter of “being subject to one man”, as the circles calling themselves “left” say, it would be much easier to deal with such a problem. But this situation, as we have explained above, is the product of the Kurdish movement’s evolving line, especially in the last 30 years – from revolutionary nationalism to reformist nationalism, and from there to a pragmatic line that is more and more obliged to the reactionary camp under the name of taking advantage of the contradictions between imperialist and reactionary forces – on the basis of the constant state of flux of the world arena.
The main factor that emerges from Öcalan’s call is that the PKK should lay down its arms and dissolve itself. In fact, this is more than a “peace process”. In the peace talks between 2011 and 2015, the state and the PKK agreed to a ceasefire and the withdrawal of guerrilla forces from Northern Kurdistan. But today there is much more at stake. The PKK is demanded to lay down arms and dissolve itself. So what necessities prompted Öcalan to write such a call?
First, the PKK has waged an armed struggle for 40 years, during which thousands of Kurds have lost their lives, tens of thousands have been tortured, imprisoned and hundreds of thousands have been expelled from their lands and exiled/migrated to the cities from countryside. Until the 2010s, the PKK was in a position to hold the field militarily in Northern Kurdistan, even if it could not establish military bases. However, as a product of its own reformist line, the PKK’s hopes from some forces within the Turkish state and its constant demand for peace have led it to question the legitimacy of the war it is waging in the eyes of the masses. In addition to this, the TSK’s gaining experience after 40 years of war, the new types of outposts it has built in Kurdistan, the expulsion or control of the masses of people who could support the PKK from the region, and the production of technical attack/destruction weapons suitable for the terrain conditions have led to a significant weakening of the PKK’s armed struggle in Northern Kurdistan, to the point that it has been reduced to carrying out only harassment operations. In terms of its objective and subjective situation, the PKK is in no position to wage such a war against the TSK for a long time.
Another factor is that Erdogan’s Islamist Turkist fascist regime has fallen on the Kurdish people like a nightmare. Legal Kurdish parties are being prosecuted and banned one after another. The leaders of the legalist reformist Kurdish parties have been imprisoned and imposed political bans. Deputies have been stripped of their mandates and trustees on behalf of the state have been appointed one after another to the municipalities they won. This situation has made it difficult for Kurds to engage in politics even within the borders of the legal space drawn by the state. Yes, today DEM, the legal party of the Kurdish movement, receives millions of votes. It has a considerable mass in Turkey and Northern Kurdistan. Nevertheless, the state is suppressing it to such an extent that the overwhelming majority of this social base has been pushed to the limit of showing their support for the Kurdish movement at the ballot box. Under all these conditions – the weakening of the armed forces and their confinement to certain areas, the crushing of legal party representatives with political trials and the day by day isolation of the social base of the Kurdish movement – creating the ground that strengthens the understanding that the PKK cannot proceed “as it used to” is an important component.
It must be said clearly that the main issue is not whether or not to lay down arms, but what is the line that leads to this. Whether laying down arms will be a matter of discussion for a transformation that will lead to the achievement of the basic democratic demands of the Kurdish people, at least some of them, the regression of Turkish chauvinism and the strengthening of the bonds between oppressed peoples against repression- and only a real revolution can provide this ground – or whether it will be for the extinguishing of the legitimate Kurdish rebellion against the existing repression and perhaps the achievement of a few basic rights.
A final addition is that despite the international legitimacy of the PYD, its ideological and political roots with the PKK have led to the latter being considered “terrorist” by international powers. The PKK is an armed organization that is not recognized by any state. And no state wants to pose in any picture with such an organization. Now, if the PKK disarms and does dissolve itself, the “PKK card” that Turkey is trying to play on the PYD in Rojava will disappear. By entering into a more open “partnership” relationship with the PYD, the Western imperialist powers can strengthen the status that will emerge in Rojava. It should not be forgotten that the biggest factor in the breakdown of the peace talks between the PKK and the state in 2015 was that Rojava was a “red line” for both sides. Now, with the dissolution of the PKK, this red line may be in a position to be “stretched”. In the absence of the PKK, the Turkish ruling classes may temporarily tolerate, if not recognize, the Kurdish status in Rojava after the PYD’s “improved” relations with the collaborationist Barzani and Talabani Kurdish tribes.
“PKK should lay down arms without any conditions,” Devlet Bahçeli said in his October 22 statement, but Öcalan softened the blow by adding the title “Peace and Democratic Society” to this call. And as a final word, he stipulated that democratic and legal steps must be taken in this process. Although the PKK immediately declared a ceasefire after the call, it demanded that Öcalan’s conditions be improved so that he could lead the process. The PKK also added a footnote in its own texts that in order for this process to move forward, “we would like to underline that democratic politics and legal grounds must also be appropriate for success.”
For a long time now, the PKK has stopped voicing the thesis of an “independent Kurdistan”. This is not because the PKK has given up on this thesis, but because it believes that this demand is not possible under the current circumstances. On the other hand, Öcalan’s letter also criticizes federation, autonomy and culturalism. In fashionable terms, Öcalan sees these demands as “contrary to the spirit of the times”. He has also taken a step back from the “local, autonomous, ecologist and culturalist” theses he expressed in his “Democratic Modernity” thesis.
Öcalan’s stepping back does not mean that he has given up these demands “for good”. National movements, due to the nature of the contradiction, always continue to live with the demand for independence. Even if the necessary conditions for this demand do not exist, even if it is not voiced. The “equal citizenship law”, which has also been voiced by the “opposition” bourgeois ruling classes in the last few years, was seen as a “lifeline” in these difficult conditions that the Kurdish movement was going through. Instead of being seen as “separatists and divisionists”, phrases such as “being equal citizens of the Republic of Turkey, lifting the pressure on their legal parties, recognizing those elected through democratic elections, respecting the will of the Kurds” came up a lot. The CHP’s recent similar statements and the formation of “urban consensus” “city councils” with the Kurdish movement in the 2023 local government elections have allowed the Kurdish movement to make a new move. Öcalan is presenting again what has been the Kurdish movement’s orientation for the last few years, namely the demand for “equal citizenship”, as a kind of “democratic society” project.
But can there really be “equal citizenship”? Can the Republic of Turkey, which was built on heavy Turkish chauvinism, the massacre, denial and extermination of the Kurds and the suppression of other minoritized Armenian and Greek minorities, treat the oppressed Kurdish nation “equally”? This is absolutely not possible. If it were not for the systematic suppression of the Kurds, their massacres, the denial of their language and culture, and their restriction by violence, there would be no Republic of Turkey as we know it today. This is a basic and simple truth.
The Pangs of the Call of the “Century” and the Kurdish Question
Following Öcalan’s call, AKP spokesperson Ömer Çelik stated that laying down arms involves all forces and includes the PYD and Rojava. Both PYD and PKK representatives then responded that Rojava was “outside the scope of the process”. DEM co-chair Tülay Hatimoğulları also stated that Çelik made statements that would harm the process and put it in a difficult situation. But Erdoğan made it clear in his last speech. “If the promises are not kept, we will continue our operations until no stone is left unturned and not a single terrorist remains,” he said, raising the bar if Kurdish forces do not lay down their arms in every part of Kurdistan. Even less than 24 hours after Öcalan’s statement, it shows that the discussions between the parties are continuing and that they are playing games to raise their hand at the table. And frankly, this is the nature of all “peace negotiations”; on the one hand, to sit down at the table to ensure a “ceasefire” and on the other hand, to continue to pressure each other and to leave the table in the “most profitable” way.
This table between the Turkish ruling classes and the PKK is not new, nor are the conditions the same as before. On the one hand, Erdogan is very uncomfortable with the status that could be granted to the Kurds in Rojava under the guarantees of Western powers. This is because if the Kurds get a status there, it could morale and mobilize the Kurdish masses in Northern Kurdistan and pose a “security threat” to Turkey in the destabilized Middle East. That is why Erdoğan wants to be a determinant in the nature of the status to be given to the Kurds in Rojava and for this he is playing the “equal citizenship” card. Thus, he wants to be the giver in Turkey and the taker in Rojava. The PKK, on the other hand, despite the Turkish ruling classes’ threats of “war until no terrorist remains” against Rojava – which the Turkish ruling classes would do if they had the means – seems ready to step back in order to cope with the challenges they face in Turkey, albeit relatively. The “peace talks”, which first started in March 1993, are moving forward despite the difference in time and context, with both sides trying to get the maximum out of each other.
While talking about the “peace” negotiations and the “new process”, it would be useful to go back to the essence of the problem and understand its scope. The problem is not a problem of terrorism as the Turkish ruling classes say. The problem is not “equal citizenship” and “democratization” as Öcalan states. And again, as Öcalan expresses in his “manifesto”, its character has not changed. The problem is the Kurdish problem; the Kurds as a nation have been violently suppressed and their basic democratic rights have been usurped since the foundation of the Turkish Republic. And again, it must be clearly stated that the most fundamental democratic right of the oppressed nation is the right to self-determination. And now, under the criticism of “nationalist drift”, the re-established “peace” table suspends the fundamental democratic right of the oppressed nation against the chauvinism of the oppressor nation. The point we criticize here is not “why the Kurds do not demand a separate state”, but the fact that it takes a step back in the face of the oppressor nation’s chauvinism, and that the Kurdish nation is again being brutalized, drawn further into the framework of the system, and the dominant nation chauvinism – hence the ruling classes – is strengthened.
Celebration of Rulers
After Öcalan’s call, the media close to the AKP was in a festive mood. The regime, which had previously declared any coverage of the Kurdish movement in the bourgeois opposition media as “terror-related” , tipped off its own news channels in advance and announced that the PKK would lay down its arms and dissolve itself. The entire ruling media, from A Haber to CNN Türk, reintroduced the slogan “Turkey without terror”, which had helped Erdogan win the 2022 elections. Contrary to the “peace and democratization” claimed by Öcalan, the headlines “terror is over”, “they surrendered”, “Erdoğan is the leader who ended terror” appeared in all the ruling media. And so the regime, which was one of the parties to the table, once again injected into society the reactionary idea that the problem is not the Kurdish problem but the terrorism problem.
In the “opposition” bourgeois media, the decision for the PKK to lay down arms and dissolve itself was greeted with enthusiasm, accompanied by theories that “Erdoğan’s presidential story is behind it”. Even though these forces, led by the CHP, have sharp contradictions with the regime represented by Erdoğan, they are aligned for the suppression of the Kurdish nation’s right to self-determination and the preservation of the “national pact”. It must be repeated that the suppression, denial and extermination of the Kurds is in the genetics of this republic and both ruling class cliques are the representatives of this “tradition”.
While Devlet Bahçeli is content with expressing his satisfaction after Öcalan and the PKK’s statements, Erdoğan’s hands on the sheath and his constant threats to put them in their place rouse strong satisfaction among the masses in which Turkish chauvinism holds effect. The regime uses this new trump card to repeat its promise that “the second century of the Republic will continue without terrorism”. Citing the massacres, oppression and terror they have practiced in the last 10 years as an example, Erdoğan is actually shouting at the top of his lungs that they can get results in the same way.
Expectations and Challenges
The successive visits of the DEM delegation to İmralı and the letters they took to Southern Kurdistan caused an expectation among the oppressed Kurdish masses after a long time. Just like in the 2011-2015 period, they were expecting a relatively liberal atmosphere and a meeting where Kurdish demands would be at the center, but it did not turn out as they had hoped. The regime continues to show its “ state wisdom” and does not give up on the “terror problem” motto. It continues to set the political parameters of the Kurdish problem in terms of “terrorism” rather than the basic democratic rights of the Kurds, and this is leading to a demoralization of the Kurdish masses. The mood among the thousands of people in Van and Diyarbakir who came to listen to the Öcalan call was one of great disappointment.
Kurds are an important part of this country’s history of struggle. Their resistance against the tyrannical state, even if it is interrupted at times, gives morale to all those who struggle for the good and the beautiful in this country. Breaking this Kurdish culture of resistance and dissolving it within the system will create a rupture not only on the front of the Kurdish oppressed, but for all social struggles. At the same time, there will be people who will be outraged by such a process, who will not accept the parameters set by the regime, and who will raise objections to the Turkish state’s “new era” of suppressing the Kurds. Nevertheless, the emergence of positive elements within this negativity may not be able to halt and reverse this negative process in the short term.
It must be stated once again that the process we are facing is not new in essence, but it is a qualitatively higher level of liquidationism. This liquidationism, orchestrated by the Kurdish movement, started with the swing to the right in the 1990s, accelerated with the capture of Öcalan in 1999, found social ground in 2011-2015, and has reached a peak since 2015 due to the regime’s attacks, the regression of the Kurdish movement in the face of the regime’s attacks, and the fact that it faces a series of new challenges in the new Middle East conditions. And once again, it is clear that this liquidationist wave will have an impact on all progressive and revolutionary forces.
To summarize;
- Developments in the international arena over the last few decades have led to some radical changes in the Middle East. The deadly rivalry between imperialists and their irrational relations with their local collaborators – each group exacerbating contradictions to the point of burning everything to protect its own interests – has led to the disintegration of many countries in the Middle East, the deepening of sectarian wars and the emergence of fragmented governments. In this atmosphere, the civil war that erupted in Syria, the Kurds, led by the PKK, were able to declare an “autonomy” and emerged as a “reassuring” partner in the region as a result of their partnership with the US and Western imperialist powers.
- Under these new Middle Eastern conditions, the Turkish ruling classes have resorted to all means to prevent the Kurds from gaining status. First it ended the “peace process” with the Kurds in Turkey, then it carried out military operations in many regions of Kurdistan, and annexed the regions it entered in Rojava with the jihadist forces it trained and included. While declaring an all-out war against the Kurds outside the “borders”, inside the “borders” it has mobilized all the repressive apparatuses of the state, suspended all democratic rights, brutally suppressed any possible “resistance”, arrested thousands of people operating in the legal field with fabricated proceedings, deputies have been deposed, trustees of the state have been appointed to municipalities that resemble colonial governors, and even the most basic democratic rights of the Kurds have been brutally suppressed by the rulers.
- The “Rojava Revolution” that emerged in the war against the jihadist forces allowed the Kurds to gain international recognition and legitimacy. On the other hand, this new situation has faced the threat of being suppressed by the military moves of many regional reactionaries. The Kurds have long been raising the concern that the autonomy in Rojava could not be sustained for a very long time in the face of the military and diplomatic pressure, operations and conflicting tensions that have been perpetuated by Turkey, Iran, Syria and the large and small jihadist forces in the region, with the risk and tension that the support provided by the imperialists according to their interests could end at any moment. Under the conditions of the fall of the Assad regime and the rapid recognition of HTS by the West, caused the Kurdish movement, again on the basis of the international and regional contradictions explained above, to act to prevent the Kurds from having a status in the “new Syria”.
- In the new Middle Eastern conditions that emerged after the October 7 Aqsa Flood, the Turkish ruling classes identified the dangers that could arise for their state. Despite Turkey’s active presence in the region, both international contradictions and regional turmoil make it possible to grant a status to the Kurds. It was precisely at this point that the Turkish ruling classes both continued to increase their pressure on Rojava and mobilized the repressive apparatus from the Turkish side in order to prevent this status and, at worst, to define its borders. But because things often move in limbo, the theocratic fascist regime led by Erdogan has once again initiated talks with Öcalan. The regime’s aim in doing so is to control the situation in Rojava as much as possible and to find the grounds for future suppression, while at the same time suppressing and pacifying the Kurds living in Turkey in the process and cutting off in advance the way for them to come forward with a demand for status like the Kurds in Rojava. The regime’s secondary expectation is that when the “process” with the Kurds resumes, it will draw them into discussions on a new constitution and prepare the legal and social grounds for Erdoğan’s re-election.
- Öcalan, recognizing the difficulties the Kurds face in the region and in order to overcome some of these difficulties – so that the gains in Rojava could be relatively preserved- after negotiations with the ruling classes, decided that the PKK should lay down its arms and dissolve. Öcalan thus seems to have entered into such a process both in order to give the Kurds a status in Rojava, albeit a relative one, and in order to make a new way in Turkey. This “process” is proceeding and both sides are doing their best to strengthen “their own hand” and the Kurds are not in a position to determine this “balance of power” because they are disadvantaged. As some “left” circles say, this is not a matter of “betrayal” or “selling out”, but the path they have taken in the face of necessity.
- The correct definition also plays a leading role in its correct solution. The Kurdish movement looks at the world through “Kurdish imperatives” and on this basis it is extremely pragmatic and, contrary to what it claims, follows a narrow nationalist line. And thus, for its “own interests”, it acts on the basis of the parameters set by the theocratic fascist regime at the table with the ruling classes – even if it has some objections to the conclusions drawn by these parameters.
- The Islamic Turkic fascist regime defines this process as “Turkey without terror” and escalates Turkish chauvinism accompanied by “Erdogan, the leader who ended terror” and tries to draw the coordinates for the “Second Century of the Republic” under the leadership of Erdogan. On the other hand, the Kurdish movement causes a great confusion in the Kurdish ranks in general and in all progressive masses in general on the basic issues of the nature of the ruling classes and the nature of the state, and mentally disarms the progressive and revolutionary masses against the tyrannical state and its power organs.
- This “new” process is characterized ideologically and politically by liquidationism. What we mean by liquidationism is not a matter of betrayal, of selling out, as some so-called “left” organizations – in fact those heavily influenced by Turkish chauvinism – claim. It is not in the form of a path of liberation or at least a positive contribution to the path of liberation in order to uproot this capitalist-imperialism that produces horror upon horror for the planet and the creatures/animals living on it, but on the contrary, it causes a heavy demoralization, hopelessness and disorientation on the oppressed, especially the oppressed Kurdish nation, who are negatively affected in this process.
- The main orientation to be followed in this process should be against the chauvinist wave of the Turkish ruling classes, against the reactionary politics of “we have ended terrorism” by criminalizing the Kurds. The heavy negative line pursued by the Kurdish movement must be criticized, the damages they cause for a real liberation must be shown, and a struggle must be waged to raise a new hope among the progressive masses. This struggle must be extremely sensitive, it must not push the Kurds into a sense of “guilt”, it must not turn its back on the possible democratic gains that may emerge in the process, and it must be carried out on the basis of the truth of why the main direction of the “peace process” is not liberating, but rather damaging.
Our Only Hope is a Real Revolution!
If people want to get rid of the heavy Turkish chauvinism, its poisonous mindset and political consequences, and if they do not want any oppressed nation or oppressed masses of a dominant nation, in short any and all oppressed people to be subjected to such a nightmare ever again, they must uproot this system. Revolution is an extremely radical and profound upheaval that is very difficult and requires a great price to be paid. But unless this system, which has created all kinds of reactionary ideas and its networks of political oppression, is uprooted, people will continue to suffer these pains and worse, generation after generation. Now, in the face of this negative picture, instead of falling into despair, “shutting down” or “letting it go”, we are obliged to understand this new situation better, to fight for others to understand it too, to understand more deeply that a real revolution is essential to build tomorrow in the struggle against reactionism. As Avakian has repeatedly said, revolution is possible, necessary and desirable. Now, to make this revolution a reality, we must learn more of the new communism, the science of revolution for a free world, in a more determined way, follow closely its architect and leader Bob Avakian, and mobilize others to do the same.
