Freedom for Abdullah Ã–calan [Archive]

11th December 2009, 19:21

Is there any substantial refutation of the fact, that the PKK is maneuvering towards being pro-American? Would you consider them still socialist even if they are playing 'reapolitik' in this manner?

The PKK has steered away from Marxist ideology, and has now become heavily pro-American", representatives from the PKK-affiliated Democratic Solution Party told an American magazine. The article claimed that support for the PKK had grown in the region over recent tensions between northern Iraq and Turkey.

Recent developments regarding the Democratic Solutions Party (KDÇP) -founded by the PKK and its side organisation, PJAK - were reported in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

While representatives of the KDÇP denied being a cloak of the PKK, which the USA, the EU and Turkey have accepted as a terrorist organisation, they stated, "We share the same ideology." KDÇP President, Dr. Fayık Muhammed Golpi, told the magazine, "We were a Marxist organisation. Following the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics we re-evaluated Marxism. Abdullah Öcalan wrote a book about this. We cannot ignore the realities of the period of globalisation. We have chosen democracy and federalism. This is not a tactical move.

Excerpt from Article:
Taking the morning sun in the front garden of a small villa on the outskirts of Irbil, northern Iraq, the mustachioed and besuited gentleman from the Kurdistan Democratic Solution Party (KDSP) hardly seemed like a mortal threat to the Turkish Republic.

Yet his party gives its support to Kurdish fighters who have been conducting an armed struggle against Turkey for over 20 years--a struggle in which more than 32,000 people have been killed.

And while the KDSP denies it is a front organization for these fighters--although it admits to a "shared ideology" with them--many of its cadres are also members or seconded-members of the guerrilla Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), deemed a terrorist organization by Turkey, the EU and the U.S.

Nowadays, however, the KDSP is anxious to stress that the PKK is quite different from what the terrorist label might imply. Indeed, its spokesmen say, the PKK has moved far from its original, Marxist revolutionary ideology, and these days is even robustly pro-American.

"We used to consider the U.S. as the greatest of all imperialist powers," noted KDSP President Dr. Fayeq Mohemed Golpy. "We were a Marxist organization dedicated to a socialist future. But after the Soviet Union collapsed we began a process of re-evaluating Marxism, and PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan indeed wrote several books on this subject."

Following a roar of traffic outside, as a small convoy of U.S. humvees headed for Kirkuk passed by, Dr. Golpy continued: "In an era of globalization, you cannot ignore realties. We then went for democracy and federalism instead."

Nor, Dr. Golpy insisted, was this merely a tactical shift. Nevertheless, he acknowledged, "After the liberation of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussain, so many things changed--especially the issue of the USA."

This change of heart may also have affected the U.S. side too--or, at least, this might be one conclusion to draw from the current state of play in Iraq's three Kurdish provinces.

Leo

11th December 2009, 21:24

Because Öcalan is just a nobody, right? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

Because an ordinary young Kurdish proletarian is nobody, right?

It is a matter of class perspective.

Emre

12th December 2009, 08:38

Because an ordinary young Kurdish proletarian is nobody, right?
According to the anarchists and other ultra-leftists on this forum, yes. The murder of a Greek anarchist is somehow more important.

Like it or not, Öcalan is a political prisoner and is recognised by many Kurds as their national leader. He is a very influential person and should be released.

manic expression

12th December 2009, 14:10

On the point, it is telling that the focus of the campaign is still the health concerns of Öcalan while Kurdish boys are murdered in the street by the police.

So political prisoners of a bourgeois state don't matter and don't deserve attention unless no one else is suffering? Does that make any sense?

pastradamus

12th December 2009, 17:21

On the point, it is telling that the focus of the campaign is still the health concerns of Öcalan while Kurdish boys are murdered in the street by the police.

I fail to see the point in this. What the corrupt Government does to the people of Kurdistan is hardly the fault of Öcalan. Its just life when one person recieves more attention due to his/her status, because of the fact that Öcalan is a public figure will, by default mean more media interest.

Leo

13th December 2009, 19:38

According to the anarchists and other ultra-leftists on this forum, yes. The murder of a Greek anarchist is somehow more important.This is ridiculous, I am sorry. I don't think anyone said anything as such.

Like it or not, Öcalan is a political prisoner There are hundreds, even thousands of political prisoners in Turkey, living under much worse conditions, going through torture.

and is recognised by many Kurds as their national leader.And Erdogan is recognized by many Turks as their national leader, and Kemal as a historic national leader.

Do revolutionaries tail the working class?

He is a very influential person All bourgeois politicians are very influential people.

and should be released. And why not struggle for the hundreds of political prisoners from proletarian backgrounds who should be released? Why not struggle against the murder of hundreds of thousands of Kurdish proletarians at the hands of the imperialist Turkish state?

So political prisoners of a bourgeois state don't matter I don't see anyone talking about militants from proletarian backgrounds rotting en masse in Turkish jails.

and don't deserve attention unless no one else is suffering? It is a matter of class, who gets what attention from whom.

As a communist who happens to have kurdish origin, I have shed and still do so enough tears for Kurdish proletarians massacred or imprisoned by the Turkish state. I support no imprisonment, but I have no tears to shed for a bourgeois politicians whose first words upon being captured by the Turks was asking "how may I serve the Turkish state?".

I have no tears to shed for the bourgeois servants of the Turkish state.

Ravachol

13th December 2009, 20:04

This is ridiculous, I am sorry. I don't think anyone said anything as such.

There are hundreds, even thousands of political prisoners in Turkey, living under much worse conditions, going through torture.

And Erdogan is recognized by many Turks as their national leader, and Kemal as a historic national leader.

Do revolutionaries tail the working class?

All bourgeois politicians are very influential people.

And why not struggle for the hundreds of political prisoners from proletarian backgrounds who should be released? Why not struggle against the murder of hundreds of thousands of Kurdish proletarians at the hands of the imperialist Turkish state?

I don't see anyone talking about militants from proletarian backgrounds rotting en masse in Turkish jails.

It is a matter of class, who gets what attention from whom.

As a communist who happens to have kurdish origin, I have shed and still do so enough tears for Kurdish proletarians massacred or imprisoned by the Turkish state. I support no imprisonment, but I have no tears to shed for a bourgeois politicians whose first words upon being captured by the Turks was asking "how may I serve the Turkish state?".

I have no tears to shed for the bourgeois servants of the Turkish state.

Sounds an awefull lot like a struggle of national liberation there. Now, i'm not very well informed on the kurdish matter, but what is your, as a left-communist, position on struggles of national liberation (which is clearly the case here). I'm interested since i've met quite some opposition to my support for national liberation from left-communists in the past.

Emre

13th December 2009, 20:19

This is ridiculous, I am sorry. I don't think anyone said anything as such.People should be judged by what they do. Not by what they say. We have had Kurdish youth murdered time and time again, in conditions more draconian than those in Greece and yet the murder of an Anarchist in Greece and subsequent riots warrants countless threads, news updates, etc. While the murder was absolutely outrageous, why is there such a hierarachy of victimhood?

There are hundreds, even thousands of political prisoners in Turkey, living under much worse conditions, going through torture.No one denies this. You are surely aware there are still people supportive of EMEP's line in the prisons.

And Erdogan is recognized by many Turks as their national leader, and Kemal as a historic national leader.

Do revolutionaries tail the working class?
Öcalan is recognised as a national leader by many Kurds for different reasons. There is no comparasion.

And why not struggle for the hundreds of political prisoners from proletarian backgrounds who should be released?As above. There are people in prison supportive of EMEP's line. How many from your organisation?

Why not struggle against the murder of hundreds of thousands of Kurdish proletarians at the hands of the imperialist Turkish state?By denying the fact there is indeed a national struggle, as your organisation does?

Leo

13th December 2009, 20:51

Sounds an awefull lot like a struggle of national liberation there. Not at all. Being an irreconcilable opponent of national oppression does not mean supporting nationalism. The interests of the Kurdish proletariat are one and same with the interests of the international proletariat, and have got nothing to do with any "national liberation" struggle.

Now, i'm not very well informed on the kurdish matter, but what is your, as a left-communist, position on struggles of national liberation I am for proletarian emancipation, and think that national "liberation" is impossible. This does not mean I am not opposed to the oppression of the Kurds or that I am not against the Turkish state. I think what will destroy the national oppression on the Kurds is not any form of nationalism but the destruction of the Turkish state at the hands of the proletariat.

People should be judged by what they do. And people can't be judged by what they don't know.

Should I accuse you of not caring about the death of a Greek because you are Turkish nationalist?

No one denies this. No one seems to care much about it either.

You are surely aware there are still people supportive of EMEP's line in the prisons.I'm sure there are some, I don't think many and TDKP isn't EMEP.

Öcalan is recognised as a national leader by many Kurds for different reasons. A communist has no sympathy for national leaders no matter the reasons.

There is no comparasion.Oh yes, no comparison at all, of course both of them don't declare themselves in favor of the state ideology (Kemalism) in one way or the another. Nor do they say they want to serve the Turkish state.

There are people in prison supportive of EMEP's line. How many from your organisation?Do you have so little regard as to the political prisoners of your own organization that you want to have a piss-race with a member of another organization on the number of it?

I know people from more serious organizations than EMEP, and have discussed with them and none of them came up with such an embarrassing line. No serious organization brags about the number of political prisoners they have.

By denying the fact there is indeed a national struggle, as your organisation does?We do not deny that there is a "national struggle", we say that the "national struggle" is against the interests of the Kurdish working class.

Sasha

13th December 2009, 22:23

saw on dutch indymedia an (incoherent) raport about an armed (guns, hatchets, knives) atack by fascist greywolves on an kurdish/turkish leftist demo in istanbul, at least one person died (RIR).
anyone has more info (leo, emre?)

bcbm

13th December 2009, 23:35

We have had Kurdish youth murdered time and time again, in conditions more draconian than those in Greece and yet the murder of an Anarchist in Greece and subsequent riots warrants countless threads, news updates, etc. While the murder was absolutely outrageous, why is there such a hierarachy of victimhood?

because alexis was an anarchist, the news has been posted on a lot of anarchist web sites, and of course all anarchists get hard-ons over big riots. there is also less contact with events and organizations in turkey compared with greece, or at least that is my impression. it has nothing to do with valuing the victims less, but just how we get our information. i doubt in turkey you hear much of the countless people murdered by police in the us, but i don't doubt you think it is awful. if something happens you think is disgusting, then post about it.

Emre

14th December 2009, 17:07

Do you have so little regard as to the political prisoners of your own organization that you want to have a piss-race with a member of another organization on the number of it?Who is boasting? More rubbish from you Leo.

You started talking about prison stuggles.
I replied that there were still TDKP prisoners.
You said 'Oh dont boast'.

Didnt you see what I said? The fact is that the THKO, TDKP and subsequently EMEP has been invovled in prison struggles while your organisation has not. Your criticism is absolutely invalid.

Tek Yol Devrim

14th December 2009, 17:15

Leo ingilizcem çok iyi değil ama lütfen öcalan'ın "Marx'ı amerika besledi", "Marx Kapitalizm'e hizmet etti" gibi sözlerinin İngilizcesini yazarmısın..

Öcalan is Chauvinist Murder.

Sasha

14th December 2009, 17:19

hai Tek Yol Devrim (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=25423),
welcome to the board, please try and use english on the main fora.
your more than welcome to discuss in other languages in the international section, i asume it is turkish you are speaking, wich is spoken in this section:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/turkce-f71/index.html

Emre

14th December 2009, 17:26

Leo ingilizcem çok iyi değil ama lütfen öcalan'ın "Marx'ı amerika besledi", "Marx Kapitalizm'e hizmet etti" gibi sözlerinin İngilizcesini yazarmısın..

Öcalan is Chauvinist Murder.
Türkçe konuşabılırız ama burada değil abi.

Türkçe foruma (http://www.revleft.com/vb/turkce-f71/index.html)gir

Sasha

14th December 2009, 18:24

Leo

14th December 2009, 19:12

There were clashed between a gang of Turkish nationalists (incited probably by the Alperen organization rather than the Grey Wolves) armed with guns, hatchets, knives which attacked a group of Kurdish protesters. Someone was injured but no one died I think.

It was a separate event from the large Alevi demo with Kurdish and Turkish groups that did take in Istanbul the same day.

Leo

14th December 2009, 20:51

welcome to the board, please try and use english on the main fora.

He asked me wrote that Öcalan said "Marx was bred by the Americans" and "Marx served capitalism" and asked me to translate it.

Who is boasting? More rubbish from you Leo.

You started talking about prison stuggles.
I replied that there were still TDKP prisoners.
You said 'Oh dont boast'.

What I said was not don't boast, what I said was have some respect for the political prisoners of your own organization, don't use them in order to make petty attacks.

And again, TDKP is not EMEP. That line is represented more by groups like the February Star.

The fact is that the THKO, TDKP and subsequently EMEP has been invovled in prison struggles while your organisation has not.

The fact is that you have no idea about what my organization has been involved with or not. The fact also is that EMEP is not THKO or TDKP, is very legalist and does not have many people in prisons. The fact also is that the focus of the activity of EMEP is not proletarian solidarity, but campaigning to get elected into bureaucratic positions in the trade-unions and for parliamentary elections.

manic expression

14th December 2009, 21:08

I don't see anyone talking about militants from proletarian backgrounds rotting en masse in Turkish jails.

I don't see anyone talking about that, either, and that includes you.

More importantly, how does that change the subject at hand? Talking about one crime of imperialism does not preclude concern for others. If that were the case, then we couldn't talk about anything, for fear of not talking about everything. Your logic, still, makes no sense.

It is a matter of class, who gets what attention from whom.

It's a matter of the crimes of imperialism, it's a matter of leadership in a struggle for national liberation, it's a matter of whether or not you care about supporting progress for the Kurdish nation.

You're right, though, it is about who gets what attention from whom. That says volumes about your (non-)position.

Leo

14th December 2009, 21:30

I don't see anyone talking about that, either, and that includes you.

Not really, since you have no idea what I am involved with in my day-to-day political activities.

More importantly, how does that change the subject at hand? Talking about one crime of imperialism does not preclude concern for others.

It is a matter of where the focus is.

it's a matter of leadership in a struggle for national liberation

Yes, such a glorious leadership, proud to have declared itself the most faithful servant of the Turkish state.

This is national "liberation", this is how rotten nationalism is.

it's a matter of whether or not you care about supporting progress for the Kurdish nation.

Yes, I know that's what the matter is to you, because you have a generally bourgeois perspective and see nations, not classes.

For us, it is a matter of whether you care about the interests, living conditions and struggles of the Kurdish working class. You obviously couldn't care less.

manic expression

14th December 2009, 22:06

Not really, since you have no idea what I am involved with in my day-to-day political activities.

I was talking about RevLeft.

It is a matter of where the focus is.

I would say that the focus of the communist movement has far greater capacities than you'd like to think. If we talk of one thing, it does not stop us from talking of another.

Yes, such a glorious leadership, proud to have declared itself the most faithful servant of the Turkish state.

Like it or not, Ocalan is a symbol for the liberation movement and for Kurds everywhere. The problem here is the gap between what YOU want and what the Kurdish workers want.

This is national "liberation", this is how rotten nationalism is.

Yes, it's so rotten to oppose the ravages and crimes of imperialism. It's unspeakably rotten to demand recognition as a nation. And, of course, it's beyond rotten for Kurdish workers to fight for basic rights. Good to know where you stand on this.

Yes, I know that's what the matter is to you, because you have a generally bourgeois perspective and see nations, not classes.

Once again, you seem to think that it is impossible to see one thing and simultaneously see another. Nations and classes are not so separate as you'd like to think, and if you don't believe me, that's fine, but make sure you admit that you're rejecting the Communist Manifesto, too (because you are). I'm sure Karl Marx would be interested to know that you regard his perspective as "bourgeois".

For us, it is a matter of whether you care about the interests, living conditions and struggles of the Kurdish working class. You obviously couldn't care less.

Right, because you can't even bring yourself to see the value of fighting the crimes of Turkish imperialism, since imperialism and workers have absolutley nothing to do with one another (according to you). Your "focus", it seems, is so specific as to miss the big picture.

Sasha

15th December 2009, 12:41

Emre

15th December 2009, 13:05

The fact also is that EMEP is not THKO or TDKP, is very legalist and does not have many people in prisons.Quite possibly more people in prison than your entire tendency has in total membership. Yet you have the audacity to say 'Why dont you mention prison struggles...' as a sidetrack to actually defending Öcalan, who is a political prisoner.

Devrim

15th December 2009, 14:09

Quite possibly more people in prison than your entire tendency has in total membership. Yet you have the audacity to say 'Why dont you mention prison struggles...' as a sidetrack to actually defending Öcalan, who is a political prisoner.

I presume you mean our tendency in Turkey. If so, I don't know how many members you have got in prison, but I would expect you to be right on this. It shouldn't come as any surprise to anybody though. We are a new tiny tendency, and you are a reasonably big party with a daily paper, and a TV channel (I mention this to give people abroad an idea of how big EMEP is).

None of this has much to do with Öcalan though.

Devrim

Devrim

15th December 2009, 14:38

According to the anarchists and other ultra-leftists on this forum, yes. The murder of a Greek anarchist is somehow more important.

I think that this needs addressing too (I am slowly working through the points on this thread that I think need responding too).

Firstly, it seems very obvious to me that there is not a hierarchy of whose death is more important.

Emre and others on here who live in Turkey will know that it is not exactly uncommon for the Turkish state to murder people especially, but not only, in the Kurdish regions. Not only does the state murder people on a regular basis, but it also goes virtually ignored in the international national media. People in Western European countries are shocked when a policeman murders somebody. They would be probably be amazed if they had heard that in March three and a half years ago at least 13 people were murdered on demonstrations in the South East of Turkey. I don't think I saw it at all in the mainstream foreign media at the time. It is hardly surprising that people don't give importance to things that they don't know about.

Secondly, whilst an individuals death may not have more or less importance, the things that develop from it can. Without making any judgement politically on the events at all, it seems obvious to me that the Irish hunger strikes in 1981 had much more widespread impact than the ones in Turkey have ever had, not just in the attention paid to them in the international media, but also in the resonance they had within the country itself. I am basing this on personal observation as I was living in Ireland at the time of the H-Block struggles, and also was living here at the time of the F-type prisons hunger strikes, but 10 people died in the Irish hunger strikes, and I would bet that most people on here could name one of them. 122 people died in conncetion with the struggle against F-type prisons here, and I would suspect that most people who post here don't even know anything about it. It is not only the international resonance as well. Most people in Turkey didn't seem to care either.

Personally, I don't think that the hunger strike is a useful tactic. That is another discussion though.

To go back to the killing in Greece, I believe that the struggles that came after it did have the potential to mobilise the working class.

Devrim

Sasha

15th December 2009, 15:16

actualy the f-type strugle was an quite big thing here. although by that time the existing ties between the dutch autonomus movement and the ML/national liberation groups like pkk, tamils, dhkc-p, pflp and eta was already almost completly severed the f-type and the similair struggle in spain realy struck a cord.
also greywolves atacked an solidarity hunger strike in den haag killing a young turkish leftist millitant wich brought the greywolves under the atention of dutch antifa.

Ravachol

15th December 2009, 15:20

thanx, cant seem to find any non-turkish info on this organisation, any pointers?

Alperen Ocakları is the youth branch of the Büyük Birlik Partisi (BBP) which split from the MHP over the issue of Islamism. Basically, if i'm correct, the BBP is an ultra-nationalist, fascist movement advocating Islamism as part of the 'Turkish identity' comparable to how some Flemish fascist movements (like the Interbellum movement REX) advocate Catholicism as integral to the 'Flemish Identity'. They're even more hardline than the MHP from what i've heard.

So basically they advocate a more traditionalist, radically conservative strain of fascism as opposed to the MHP which advocates Islam as part of the 'Turkish identity' but not as integral to it.

15th December 2009, 16:56

Isn't it amazing how quickly people bring up identity on these forums? The irony being that most of the time, those being attacked are in fact of the identity they are supposedly treading on.

There has still been no refutement of the point that the PKK is pro-American, so to all those fake trots, fake marxist-leninists and fake anarchists supporting the PKK's struggle regardless, you can stop pretending to be revolutionary now.

manic expression

15th December 2009, 17:07

It would be more amazing if you effectively addressed the arguments of those in favor of Kurdish self-determination, ls. It would be amazing because it's probably not going to happen.

Emre

15th December 2009, 17:07

emre, leo, devrim? anyone?
Two more dead today. :(

15th December 2009, 17:13

Self-determination is what led to the Turkish state and its bloody regime in the first place. If people want to forget so quickly, the conditions that led to Kurdish suffering then really who can help you.

Perhaps if we're lucky in the future, we will see bloody imperialist slaughters between a newly established republic of Kurdistan's army and Turkey's, can't wait.

15th December 2009, 17:17

And I suppose by this absurd logic one would support the Kosovo Liberation Army yet support Slobodan Milosevic too both as great marxist-leninists? I suppose both of them were symbols for imperialist-oppressed and ethnocentrically-oppressed people, therefore we should lend support both to murdering revisionists and also murdering pro-American allied fascists who are fighting each other, with workers in the middle at the same time.

manic expression

15th December 2009, 17:32

So the imperialist suppression of Kurdish self-determination is your argument against Kurdish self-determination?

15th December 2009, 17:47

http://avatar.identi.ca/1765-48-20090311100849.jpeg Yes, comrade MC, that is exactly what I am saying.

manic expression

15th December 2009, 17:54

15th December 2009, 17:56

In the end of the day, if you support measures to unite Turkish and Kurdish workers to fight bourgeois oppression together that is fine, if you support the pro-American PKK you are quite simply, even by ML standards, supporting world imperialism. Does that help?

manic expression

15th December 2009, 18:06

Of course I support Turkish and Kurdish workers united against capitalism. I never stated otherwise. However, you're still dodging the issue at hand: do you or do you not support Kurdish self-determination? Why or why not?

15th December 2009, 19:00

If you mean do I support some joint effort by the pro-American DTP and PKK to form a Kurdistan republic then no, absolutely not, I can guarantee it will lead to an extremely harsh form of pro-American Capitalism as well as possible pogroms - and you will see the Kurdish slums such as in Diyarbakir for instance, will if anything multiply..

On the other hand, there is the internationalist position: the recognition of the oppression of Kurds and the understanding of the need to unite against it, the only thing that could do this is socialism in what is known as Turkey, the recent general strike there is the most progressive thing to happen for some time.

manic expression

15th December 2009, 19:09

So until there is a socialist revolution in Turkey, progress for the Kurdish workers and Kurdistan is impossible?

15th December 2009, 19:19

It's like you can read the minds of most Kurdish workers, they all clearly value the building of another bourgeois Kurdistan 'autonomous' province more than higher wages or the lives of their families.

Until there is a socialist revolution anywhere, the lives of whichever minority is likely to be one of oppression, so yes generally speaking, that's right.

manic expression

15th December 2009, 19:26

So you're saying the Kurdish working class is neutral and/or apathetic when it comes to the imperialist suppression of their nation and basic rights? Further, you're saying that the lives of Kurdish families has nothing to do with imperialist aggression against Kurdistan?

And if there is a socialist revolution in Turkey, which you say will alleviate the oppression of Kurdish workers, what of the Kurdish workers in Iraq, Iran and Syria?

15th December 2009, 22:35

The oppression of Kurdish families doesn't have anything to do with whether a 'Kurdistani republic' is built or not and the two being continuously linked makes no sense at all. The simple fact of the matter is that the only way all the places you consider as 'Kurdistani' will ever be free from oppression, is with a socialist revolution in the countries that currently constitute them.

Also, a socialist revolution in Turkey would clearly spur on workers in the other nearby countries with Kurdish minorities.

So who thinks that Kurds in the supposedly "autonomous" majority Kurdish Iraqi and Iranian provinces are free from oppression? Also, isn't it a fact that American imperialists have established the Iraqi Kurdish province? So the PKK (and DTP) is pro-American too, and will certainly let Coca-Cola enterprises and co into any new Kurdistani republic, so we can see that Iran among the other republics containing Kurdish minorities (who you support on an anti-imperialist basis) will hardly let a Kurdistan be formed without a bloodbath. So really it seems like you want them to fight against each other, you must want to see an even bigger bloodbath and then continuing oppression of Kurds even in a new Kurdistan, because that is what will happen if a Kurdistan republic is established out of the forces that are working to establish it.

manic expression

15th December 2009, 23:26

The oppression of Kurdish families doesn't have anything to do with whether a 'Kurdistani republic' is built or not and the two being continuously linked makes no sense at all.

So you don't think the living conditions and lives of Kurds have anything to do with imperialism? You don't think the blatant denial of the Kurdish nation's existence matters to the lives of Kurdish workers? If you don't, then how do you explain away the deaths and arrests of Kurds who simply expressed their desire to see their nation recognized? Does this matter to the Kurdish working class or not?

In the event of a Turkish revolution, would you oppose the creation of an autonomous republic of Kurdistan? Would you oppose Kurdish self-determination within a socialist society? If not, then why should Kurdish workers have to wait for a socialist revolution in Turkey or Iran or Iraq or Syria to have their nationality (and thus their culture, language, heritage, etc.) recognized with all the basic rights and progress that entails? Do you think it proper that the existence of the Kurdish nation be denied and suppressed?

The "autonomous" Kurdish provinces have been manipulated by American imperialism, and therefore can hardly be deemed products of genuine self-determination. How do you square this reality with your insistence that imperialism has absolutely nothing to do with the lives of Kurdish workers?

16th December 2009, 00:30

I have no idea why someone would come to the conclusion that I think "imperialism has nothing to do with the lives of Kurdish workers" based on what I have written, please re-read what I have said.

What is being suppressed is Kurdish culture and heritage, that is different to a 'nation' being suppressed that hasn't ever really existed and when it was proposed, was proposed only by bourgeois imperialists in the first place (treaty of sevres anyone), before that - it wasn't even on the table, it was bourgeois imperialists who wished to split up the region according to their plan for divide and rule that did this.

I'm afraid it comes down to your mentality in the here and now, if you believe that every ethnic people or indeed everyone of a different religion should have their own republic then you can support just about anything, do you think that the Hindustani republican movement was progressive during its time too? On another thread, you wrote that you disagreed with the Bolshevik interpretation of Kemalism, of course what you propose now is exactly what the direct, modern Western imperialists descendants of the old Western bourgeois imperialists want you and everyone else to think; that a Kurdistan republic that buys coca-cola is a good thing and is needed.

You are in effect supporting imperialism with such a mentality.

manic expression

16th December 2009, 00:51

The oppression of Kurdish families doesn't have anything to do with whether a 'Kurdistani republic' is built or not and the two being continuously linked makes no sense at all.

That Kurdistan is, on the one hand, suppressed and denied by imperialism, and on the other, manipulated and enslaved by imperialism, has "no link" with the oppression of Kurdish families. That's what you've been saying. Would you like to amend this, or perhaps change it?

Do not confuse ethnicity or religion with nationality, as you have done in your last post. Nationality is based, basically, on a shared language, a shared history and a shared geographic region. Religion means nothing in this regard, and ethnicity is impossible to define in the first place.

This begs a deeper question: if you cannot define what a nation is, then who are you to tell workers that their nation cannot be recognized until the entire region has a socialist revolution? By your argument, Kurds only deserve self-determination within a socialist society, and until that happens they must endure disenfranchisement in almost every aspect of life. Why do you seek to take initiative and power away from Kurdish workers? Why are you comfortable with the suppression of the Kurdish nation in present conditions?

16th December 2009, 01:03

Kurdistan does not exist quite simply, it didn't exist before the imperialists tried to falsely construct it.

Ethnicity and religion are just about always the determining factors of nations, everyone knows this and anyone who denies this is being extremely petty and pedantic, shared language, region and history is as much a fact of the Kurds with one another as with any other peoples in the region - in fact, one could say in the case of Kurds that they aren't a "race", they are in many ways centered on the identity of the Kurdish languages. There have been and still are oppressed groups in the region based on a common identity, the Kurds are clearly the largest but nonetheless, do you think that a bourgeois republic should be established for them too.

From the arguments presented, I wouldn't be surprised if there was support for 'self-determination' in the case of Kosovo..

My arguments stand perfectly in line with true liberation of Kurds and all oppressed peoples, mine are fully internationalist and they do not in any way back an imperialist force.

manic expression

16th December 2009, 01:14

Kurdistan does not exist quite simply, it didn't exist before the imperialists tried to falsely construct it.

So if Kurdistan doesn't exist, then what do you call the region in which the majority of the Kurdish people live? Turkey/Iran/Iraq/Syria?

Here's the real question: do you or do you not recognize the Kurdish nation?

Since when has religion defined nationality? Last I checked, the (Castillian) Spanish, Polish, Italians, French and Maltese did not belong to the same nation, in spite of having a common religion. Do you deny this? Further, you are aware of the fact that ethnicity cannot be scientifically defined in any meaningful way, right? I'm not talking about "races", I'm talking about nations. See my previous post if you're still unclear.

If your arguments are in line with the "true liberation of Kurds", then why do you refuse to support recognition of their nation? Why call them "Kurds" at all, in that case? Most importantly, why don't Kurdish workers see things your way, and instead support national liberation?

16th December 2009, 04:36

You can call the area what you like - I for one do not mind leftists referring to the area as Kurdish territories or indeed Kurdistan for clarification, however the fact is that none of the territories around there are based on anything solid. Turkey is just as much a false construct as Kurdistan is/would be if it existed as a solid republic.

Religion defined the major difference between Pakistan and India did it not? Religion has always been a defining factor and ethnoreligious struggles are not exactly uncommon, it is false to claim otherwise.

And to finish, Kurdish workers do not all have the same view that a Kurdistan MUST be established, in fact, there is no way of establishing a popular consensus that a new republic should be established - not over the basic demands of workers ie basic rights such as being able to speak your language and being able to have food for your children.....

FSL

16th December 2009, 06:55

The right of self-determination doesn't translate to a right of seccesion in every case. It could very well be the effort to achieve equal rights for people of all nationalities in one nation-state.
We are not necessarily supposed to support each and every nationalist movement for independence, instead we take into account when would the conditions for class struggle improve.

Would the conditions for class struggle be better in a Turkey that recognizes and protects the Kurdish people and their heritage or in an independent Kurdish state? If we took as a given that a Kurdish state at this point would be blatantly pro-american, serving as a base for aggression and turning all the other people of middle east against it, it isn't irrational to think that this would end up being a rather reactionary regime. Moreso than Turkey that thanks to its size can *up to a certain point* afford not being completely subservient, thus avoiding to inspire hatred among the middle-eastern people.

The same question could be applied in the case of Kosovo, which is pretty much a colony now. Was independence in that case the best way out?
I don't think we should support independence for a state when it is going to be serving imperialism, this masks the truth and puts the workers of that nation in the wrong camp. Equal rights in Turkey seem at this point a better demand.

manic expression

16th December 2009, 12:00

So, ls, you don't think Kurdish workers have the right to have their nation recognized? You don't think Kurds are worthy of the basic rights which come from self-determination? You think they should just "deal with it" until a Turkish-Iranian-Iraqi-Syrian socialist revolution occurs?

In addition, do you think a socialist Turkey would respect the Kurdish nation? If so, why should Kurdish workers have to wait for such basic recognition?

India has never been a "Hindu" country, it is based on secular nationalism that seeks to (at least officially) protect the rights of Muslims and other religious communities. Much of the Levant is similarly divided along artificial lines, the British cartographers had little understanding of the scientific definition of nationality, and moreover they didn't really care about peace or the rights of the peoples in the region. Thus, Iraq, for example, is a multi-national country, and the results have not been pretty. Do you or do you not support this status-quo of oppression of nationalities that has been a blight upon the working class in this region for decades?

Of course not all Kurdish workers want to establish self-determination, but one might as well argue against socialism because many American/British workers outright oppose the idea. However, the Kurdish working class has been struggling for progress for decades against tremendous oppression: do you or do you not support their fight?

Devrim

16th December 2009, 12:21

Self-determination is what led to the Turkish state and its bloody regime in the first place. If people want to forget so quickly, the conditions that led to Kurdish suffering then really who can help you.

You're more than welcome to clarify yourself.

The way that I understood this is that the Turkish state was itself founded as a result of a national liberation movement, and that this is where support of these type of movements invariably leads, not just in the long term, but also in the short term, in the massacres and ethnic cleansing of Greeks in the national liberation war and its aftermath and the following suppression of Kurds in the 1920s and 1930s.

The "autonomous" Kurdish provinces have been manipulated by American imperialism, and therefore can hardly be deemed products of genuine self-determination.

I think that this lies at the heart of the problem. I don't think that a 'genuine national liberation' is possible today. All national liberation movements have a tendency to become a proxy for imperialist ambition either of the main powers or the regional or local players.

The Kurdish region of Iraq, and indeed the Kurdish movement as a whole is a good example of this. It is not so long ago that the PUK, and the KDP, the parties now running Northern Iraq were supported by leftists as national liberation movements. Now, they are running parts of the Iraq state under US patronage. This shouldn't surprise us at all. Basically these sort of movements are forced to be subservient to some power.

Nowadays, the Kurdistan Regional Government has its own minority question with Yazidis, Assyrians, Turkmen, and Shabaks all suffering discrimination and murders under the new regime. Of course for the working class as a whole things haven't got much better with a government whose forces have shot dead striking workers on picket lines.

What makes us think that a Kurdish state set up by Turkey would be any different. The overtures that they have already made towards the US show us quite clearly that this would be a state content to play the role of an American puppet. Their past behaviour towards minority groups in Kurdistan including Assyrians and Alevis should at least gives us reason to doubt this, and as for their intentions towards workers, I think the policy of shooting school teachers shows us clearly enough how much concern they have for the lives of working class people. I think we should have some idea of what to expect.

That said it is not only what a Kurdish state would be like, but also what its creation would entail. Let's not fool ourselves in anyway, the Turkish state would not let's the Kurds happily establish their state on 'Turkish soil'. I think that this is quite clear from their attitude to the Kurdish question in general, and the fact that they have threatened to invade, and yes I do think they are serious, if an independent Kurdish state were set up in Northern Iraq. A Kurdish state in my opinion can only appear in two circumstances, either the overthrowing of the present Turkish regime, or full scale regional war probably influenced by a major shift in the international balance of power, possibly both.

I personally fail to see how the intensification of nationalism, and the deepening of the spiral of chaos and ethnic/sectarian/nationalist violence that the whole region is already spiralling into, would be in anyway benifical to the development of class unity in the region.

That is not to say that opposing Kurdish nationalism as a movement, which whatever its stated intentions, acts to increase divisions within the working class, can be done by supporting the Turkish state. Again we have to be very clear. The Turkish state has blood on its hands, and has nothing to offer but further violence and war.

The question of how to build class unity remains. I see the PKK and Kurdish nationalism as having no progressive role to play in it though rather I would say that act in a way which tends to polarise divisions in what is already a very nationalistic and divided society.

Devrim

manic expression

16th December 2009, 12:33

The way that I understood this is that the Turkish state was itself founded as a result of a national liberation movement, and that this is where support of these type of movements invariably leads, not just in the long term, but also in the short term, in the massacres and ethnic cleansing of Greeks in the national liberation war and its aftermath and the following suppression of Kurds in the 1920s and 1930s.

But therein lies the difficulty: it is saying that Turkish national liberation, which then involved the crushing of Kurdish national liberation (among others), makes Kurdish national liberation undesirable. Thus, the denial of Kurdish self-determination is the sole argument against Kurdish self-determination. What is being promoted, however, is not Kurdish self-determination along with the denial of other self-determination, it is Kurdish self-determination. Assuming that Kurdish liberation would inherently entail this or that to buffer an argument is just unreasonable at best.

I think that this lies at the heart of the problem. I don't think that a 'genuine national liberation' is possible today. All national liberation movements have a tendency to become a proxy for imperialist ambition either of the main powers or the regional or local players.

What of the national liberation struggles of Blacks in the United States? What of the Puerto Rican liberation struggle? The Irish in the occupied counties? Western Sahara? Are they proxies of imperialist ambitions?

I would argue that simply because some national liberation movements have been manipulated by imperialists does not mean the goal is less worthy. After all, multiple "revolutionary socialist" organizations became friends of imperialism (the 2nd International in particular), but we are no less determined to carry out revolution because of it. The same should go for recognition of suppressed nationalities.

The question of how to build class unity remains. I see the PKK and Kurdish nationalism as having to progressive role to play in it though rather I would say that act in a way which tends to polarise divisions in what is already a very nationalistic and divided society.

I think this is a sober analysis, I generally agree with what you've said here.

Devrim

16th December 2009, 13:59

But therein lies the difficulty: it is saying that Turkish national liberation, which then involved the crushing of Kurdish national liberation (among others), makes Kurdish national liberation undesirable. Thus, the denial of Kurdish self-determination is the sole argument against Kurdish self-determination. What is being promoted, however, is not Kurdish self-determination along with the denial of other self-determination, it is Kurdish self-determination. Assuming that Kurdish liberation would inherently entail this or that to buffer an argument is just unreasonable at best.

I presume you have got some of the Kurdish and Turkish mixed up there.

The problem is though that they are mutually exclusive as they are both fighting over the same land.

What of the national liberation struggles of Blacks in the United States? What of the Puerto Rican liberation struggle? The Irish in the occupied counties? Western Sahara? Are they proxies of imperialist ambitions?

I talked about a general tendency. The fact that you may be able to find a couple of exceptions that don't comply with the general tendency doesn't really prove anything. The Kurdish parties have been supported at times by all the international and regional players.

To look at one of the examples that you bring up though, it is generally well know that Polisario is a proxy of the Algerian military.

I would argue that simply because some national liberation movements have been manipulated by imperialists does not mean the goal is less worthy.

I think that the general tendency is for national liberation movements to behave like that. They tend to drag workers into proxy wars on behalf of the major imperialist states or local powers. I don't see why that is a worthy goal. You seem to see it as if a somehow 'pure' struggle for national independence is possible. I don't think it is though whether it would desirable then is another question.

Devrim

manic expression

16th December 2009, 14:26

I presume you have got some of the Kurdish and Turkish mixed up there.

The problem is though that they are mutually exclusive as they are both fighting over the same land.

I don't think I mixed anything up. However, who is fighting for the land? Turkish imperialism is on one side and Kurdistan is on the other; the US doesn't really care about Kurdish self-determination, so their manipulation in Iraq and Iran is yet another obstacle for the goal of the Kurdish nation. Communists must stand against imperialism at all costs, and here we see a clear-cut victim of imperialism.

I talked about a general tendency. The fact that you may be able to find a couple of exceptions that don't comply with the general tendency doesn't really prove anything. The Kurdish parties have been supported at times by all the international and regional players.

To look at one of the examples that you bring up though, it is generally well know that Polisario is a proxy of the Algerian military.

I think that the general tendency is for national liberation movements to behave like that. They tend to drag workers into proxy wars on behalf of the major imperialist states or local powers. I don't see why that is a worthy goal. You seem to see it as if a somehow 'pure' struggle for national independence is possible. I don't think it is though whether it would desirable then is another question.

And a "general tendency" is not enough to condemn national liberation itself. If it was, then we might as well condemn socialism. Further, national liberation has led to the weakening of or challenge against imperialism: all the movements I mentioned were as such. Do you think British imperialism wanted to lose most of Ireland and then have to fight against Irish workers in the occupied north? No, it went against their interests, and that is precisely what communists should be leading, not opposing.

Algeria is an imperialist power? Do you have any evidence for this?

It's not about a "pure struggle", it's simply about supporting the right of Kurdish workers to have their nationality recognized, it's about supporting the furthering of Kurdish workers' basic rights. Everything else is a strategic, then tactical, concern.

16th December 2009, 14:40

The question of how to build class unity remains. I see the PKK and Kurdish nationalism as having to progressive role to play in it though rather I would say that act in a way which tends to polarise divisions in what is already a very nationalistic and divided society.

You think that the PKK and Kurdish nationalism has a progressive role to play in it? Did you mean 'no progressive role'? ;) Or perhaps I've misunderstood.

o, ls, you don't think Kurdish workers have the right to have their nation recognized? You don't think Kurds are worthy of the basic rights which come from self-determination? You think they should just "deal with it" until a Turkish-Iranian-Iraqi-Syrian socialist revolution occurs?

Now you are trying to paint me out as thinking of Kurds as lesser, which is pretty low, if my record on this forum is anything to go by you will find I have consistently attacked anti-Kurdish chauvinism no matter how subtle its form.

My position is not a matter of moralism, it is one of actually liberating the Kurds, socialist revolutions are not an easy thing that can be achieved by building a new republic, they take time and work and effort over decades and centuries, you seem to think that immediate Kurdistani socialism is possible for some reason, when in fact class-struggle is actually extremely low at the moment and has been for quite a long time throughout the region.

In addition, do you think a socialist Turkey would respect the Kurdish nation? If so, why should Kurdish workers have to wait for such basic recognition?

It would hardly be socialism if it didn't would it. And no, but you are telling Kurds to organise separately, what is the point in this, they can organise better in the constituent countries to turn them socialist instead, it will be a diversion and lead to an imperialist slaughterhouse in a new pro-American Kurdistan, do you not see that? Don't you agree with my perspective?

India has never been a "Hindu" country, it is based on secular nationalism that seeks to (at least officially) protect the rights of Muslims and other religious communities.

This is absolutely ridiculous - do you honestly think that the massive Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian and all other religious minorities and majorities' pogroms and other kinds of slaughtering of each other was justified for yet another set of republics? This is exactly what I am talking about- you refuse to understand that such a sick imperialist-facilitated slaughter that was brought over by the british imperialist pieces of shit is in fact, the direct successor to the kind of struggles you fight for. What about the Hindustan republican movement socialists like "Bhagat Singh" and so on?

Much of the Levant is similarly divided along artificial lines, the British cartographers had little understanding of the scientific definition of nationality, and moreover they didn't really care about peace or the rights of the peoples in the region.

Nationality didn't exist there, nationality is entirely a false construct, do you think that ANY of the empires in that time and just before it were divided into the nations that exist now? Ataturk himself was born in Thessaloniki and not in what is now Turkey, I also believe he was of Jewish origin although I can't remember clearly, it was only on him that the mainstream Turkish identity was founded. Before that, it was also based on imperialist ambitions going back to nomadic imperialism that sought to make everyone think they were subservant.

"any individual within the Republic of Turkey; whatever his/her faith or racial/ethnic background; who speaks Turkish, grows up with Turkish culture and adopts the Turkish ideal, is a Turk."

Thus, Iraq, for example, is a multi-national country, and the results have not been pretty. Do you or do you not support this status-quo of oppression of nationalities that has been a blight upon the working class in this region for decades?

So you are against both multiculturalism (which is fair enough) and revolutionary/anti-assimilationist integrationism too?

Of course not all Kurdish workers want to establish self-determination, but one might as well argue against socialism because many American/British workers outright oppose the idea.

A recent poll found most people think capitalism at least needs serious reform, I don't think that most British, or indeed American workers "outright" oppose the idea of socialism, no.

However, the Kurdish working class has been struggling for progress for decades against tremendous oppression: do you or do you not support their fight?

I support the liberation of all oppressed peoples as I've stated many times before.

What of the national liberation struggles of Blacks in the United States? What of the Puerto Rican liberation struggle? The Irish in the occupied counties? Western Sahara? Are they proxies of imperialist ambitions?

The Irish struggle has largely been coopted by Sinn Fein in Ulster, it was originally messed up by the Free State too obviously but yeah this is national liberation, as for America - the nation of islam decided that they weren't going to have anything too socialist in nature so they decided to assassinate the largest figurehead.. most speculators say, with the blessing of the American government too....

manic expression

16th December 2009, 15:15

16th December 2009, 15:31

If you don't think recognition of the Kurdish nation is a worthwhile struggle, then what conclusion am I supposed to make? How have you given any other impression except that Kurdish workers don't deserve self-determination until the red flag flies over Ankara, Tehran, Damascus and Baghdad at the same time? Why not promote progress for Kurdish workers' rights now?

This just doesn't make much sense, why would self-determination be important when there is socialism in those other places, there would be no need to establish ethno-anything republics in those places, they would ideally be all one.

You admit that socialism would recognize Kurdish self-determination, and yet you refuse to promote as much before then. Why? What makes Kurdish self-determination unworthy now and alternatively necessary under socialism?

If you want to see a nasty slaughter between the Iranian army and the Iranian Kurds who are already oppressed as it is, then that is up to you.

I never said there weren't massacres, but India has never been a "Hindu" country. India itself is a multi-national country: do you really think Parsis share nationality with Tamils or Nagas?

So by this, do you mean that all of those separate 'nationalities' should have another republic each?

You refuse to accept the reality of nations (even though I've already provided a concrete definition), but you still think Kurdish self-determination should be recognized. How do you recognize self-determination for a nation that doesn't really exist? Please square your contradictory assertions. See below.

I don't recognise self-determination for any nation, what you are saying is very strange. There are large numbers of Kurdish (by its definition) people in a number of regions, I simply said you can refer to this as whatever you like, if you want to call it Kurdistan then go ahead. I didn't say that it exists as a republic nor do I think it would be prudent to push for it to exist as a republic, there is a key difference here and it is not really contradictory at all.

I am for the recognition of the rights of all nations, which doesn't inherently necessitate new states. Iraq has been such a bad situation because treatment of the Kurds (and other peoples) has been deplorable at best. Switzerland, on the other hand, isn't a country where Italian-Swiss are gassing French-Swiss villages. To equate the two is the mark of someone who doesn't understand the dynamics of nationality itself.

No one is saying that those of certain identities aren't more oppressed than others, it would be illogical to state such a thing. However, nationality is not as you are making out, it is not based on such concrete differences that constantly necessitate building a new republic, indeed no difference necessitates building a new bourgeois republic no matter what it is.

It's not about "most" workers opposing socialism, but that wasn't your qualification, if you'd be so kind as to review your words. You originally said that "not all" Kurdish workers support national liberation, and I responded that "not all" American/British workers want socialism. What's your point?

You keep claiming to know what "the Kurdish workers want" yes or no? So I thought I'd basically put you straight on that: you can't know that for sure, I am pretty sure for one that they would rather have basic rights and food on the table than have another republic.

On the one hand, you say you support liberation of "peoples", and yet you refuse to recognize nationality itself, or the fact that Irish workers have made progress by defeating British imperialism in the majority of Irish provinces while struggling against British occupation in the occupied north. Do you or do you not support Irish sovereignty from Britain? If you don't think nationality even exists, what's the point in fighting British occupation anyway?

Do you think that the Free State didn't degenerate very quickly into total unashamed Capitalism? Look at what the Irish free state now does to genuine Irish communists, I mean really, look at what happens to disadvantaged Irish youth in Dublin. Don't you think that having the foresight and the opportunity to prevent Capitalism from being strongly established, where Socialism could be instead is pretty much a death knell for our movement?

Whether or not socialism is brought to Ulster now, socialism will still have to be brought to all provinces south of it. Fighting British occupational imperialism can only be done by being an internationalist communist.

manic expression

16th December 2009, 15:50

Devrim

16th December 2009, 15:52

I don't think I mixed anything up. However,...

I reread it. I don't think you did either now. It was a bit of a difficult sentence, and my reply to it probably doesn't make much sense. I will come back to it later.

You think that the PKK and Kurdish nationalism has a progressive role to play in it? Did you mean 'no progressive role'? ;) Or perhaps I've misunderstood.

Oh my God, two mistakes on one page. I think I am going senile.

Devrim

16th December 2009, 16:23

Self-determination is important under socialism because it is fundamental the recognition of distinct traditions, languages, historical experiences and identities. It's not that a socialist society should do this, it's that every socialist society DOES do this. Liberated workers naturally respect the self-determination of other nationalities, as communists always do.

True socialism has always promoted self-determination in the form of workers' self-organisation, this does not mean any organic identity is in conflict with another though.

So you think that Kurdish self-determination is undesirable because the Iranian army would oppose it? Why?

Would you like to see a mass bloodbath just to build a new republic? Do you think that the new republic will be any less exploitative than the current Kurdish province in Iraq?

Yes, of course Nagaland (for example) should be its own republic, just as the USSR had many distinct republics in order to facilitate the self-determination of different nationalities. The Parsis would be more difficult because of geographic distribution, but that's another conversation.

I think it's telling that Chechen rebels don't see it that way, yet they still have their own republic, something is still amiss and the republics have been kept in many ways the same as they were before in Russia. "Self-determination" takes on a very odd course there indeed and if that's self-determination, then god help us all.

So you don't think it "prudent" to promote Kurdish liberation? Does your conception of prudence override the desires of Kurdish workers?

You are attributing to me a false argument, obviously I want Kurdish liberation.

Nationality is based on concrete differences, I've illustrated them above. Why do you talk of "identities" when you reject the concrete basis for these identities? If nationality doesn't exist, then Kurds are just a made-up people and their oppression is just imaginary.

They are indeed a made up people, as are most peoples, their oppression however is not imaginary.

If you have evidence that Kurdish workers are generally against the recognition of Kurdistan, that would be most interesting. Until then, the point is moot, or else it supports national liberation because Kurds have been struggling for it with many bitter losses for decades. You don't think the Kurds who have taken up arms against oppression are all factory-owning capitalists, do you?

No, but I'm sure a sizeable proportion of them have been in the employ of those you describe, Devrim has talked about PKK militants shooting down striking workers before so I think it is quite telling really.

So you don't think Irish workers made progress when they removed the British occupation, a murderous occupation, from most of their land?

Nowhere near enough progress. When there could have been socialism but there is capitalism instead it is simply not good enough.

were that the case, then we wouldn't worry about any issue that wasn't world revolution.

This is a bizarre thing to say, workers' struggles are not world revolution, forming councils and strikes are not world revolution, fighting back against oppression at demonstrations, militant protests and if necessary in armed warfare is not world revolution in and of itself, do I ever talk against those things?

We wouldn't worry about ending apartheid, we wouldn't bother with ending American segregation, we wouldn't care about Hutus murdering Tutsis. After all, South Africa, the American south and Rwanda are still capitalist, so who cares if there's fascism or racism or genocide going on?

There is ethnocide going on in Turkey and previous to that, Saddam who many supported on a really insane "anti-imperialist" basis was the one who was committing a genocide against the Kurds, so I don't really understand your point, I've never argued against ending American segregation ever and nor would I nor against any of those other things.

Communists should be leading the struggle against British occupation in Ireland, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't work with non-communists. James Connolly is a perfect example of this: furthering the struggle of Irish workers by joining forces with those who promote self-determination and sovereignty.

James Connolly joined the forces of reaction and it did not pay off well for him, had he and his comrades formed a party much earlier on and entered with that into the mass trade union struggle that emerged in both North and Southern Ireland, partyist 'ultra-leftism' if you want to be crude about it, there is a huge chance he would've been successful in enacting a socialist revolution in Ireland.

manic expression

16th December 2009, 20:25

Right, and if self-determination of nations is an inherent pillar of socialism, why do you oppose it for the Kurds?

There's a bloodbath going on right now, and the biggest bloodbaths in the region were part of the suppression of self-determination. So long as you oppose that very goal, you will continue to see bloodbaths. Once again, you're using the denial of self-determination to argue against self-determination.

Chechnya is an example of self-determination not being respected, as far as I know. Just because they have a republic doesn't mean there isn't progress to be made in regard to self-determination; after all, there's an African-American caucus in the US Congress and a Puerto Rican legislature, does that mean Blacks and Boriquas are not oppressed by imperialism?

You are attributing to me a false argument, obviously I want Kurdish liberation.

They are indeed a made up people, as are most peoples, their oppression however is not imaginary.

Why are the Kurds "made up"? How, exactly, does one liberate a "made up people"? If the people are made up, then why do you distinguish between Kurds and Turks, or Kurds and Mexicans for that matter? Have you read any of my explanations on the national question?

Who said the PKK is perfect? Don't run away from the issue at hand: do you or do you not support self-determination for the Kurdish nation?

I'm glad you've finally admitted that the liberation of southern Ireland was progressive for Irish workers. Since you now agree that national liberation entails progress, why do you oppose it in this case?

And how do you regard those non-world revolution actions when they take place, as they often do, under the circumstances of imperialist oppression of disenfranchised nations? Is working-class militancy not worth supporting if it is in response to suppression of their nationality?

I don't support Saddam Hussein, so please stay on topic: if you only think that movements with the goal of revolutionary socialism are worth supporting, why worry about American segregation at all? After all, there's still capitalism in the American south, right? Isn't this your argument against the establishment of a sovereign Kurdistan?

Do you think that the Free State didn't degenerate very quickly into total unashamed Capitalism? Look at what the Irish free state now does to genuine Irish communists, I mean really, look at what happens to disadvantaged Irish youth in Dublin.

There's unashamed capitalism in the American south, and what you described happens there as well. Thus, it would logically follow that defeating segregation wasn't worthwhile, since "unashamed" capitalism still exists. Do you or do you not agree with this?

James Connolly contributed greatly to the liberation of much of Ireland, and he knew full well that it wouldn't "pay off well for him" when he went into the Easter Rising. His actions ultimately led to a defeat of imperialism and, as you say yourself, progress for Irish workers. That's what this is all about: progress, and you've admitted as much yourself.

manic expression

16th December 2009, 20:29

I reread it. I don't think you did either now. It was a bit of a difficult sentence, and my reply to it probably doesn't make much sense. I will come back to it later.

No worries, I actually reviewed it before posting and thought to myself "well, that's likely the most confusing sentence I've written in awhile".

(By the way, I can honestly say that your grasp of English impresses me greatly)

16th December 2009, 21:29

Right, and if self-determination of nations is an inherent pillar of socialism, why do you oppose it for the Kurds?

How is it an inherent pillar of socialism? Self-determination in the form of workers' self-organisation is not building a new bourgeois republic.

There's a bloodbath going on right now, and the biggest bloodbaths in the region were part of the suppression of self-determination. So long as you oppose that very goal, you will continue to see bloodbaths. Once again, you're using the denial of self-determination to argue against self-determination.

..thanks to republics in conflict with each other. What do you say when the 'anti-imperialist nationalists' that you uphold so much slaughter one another?

Chechnya is an example of self-determination not being respected, as far as I know.

That is a very simplistic view to say the least.

Just because they have a republic doesn't mean there isn't progress to be made in regard to self-determination; after all, there's an African-American caucus in the US Congress and a Puerto Rican legislature, does that mean Blacks and Boriquas are not oppressed by imperialism?

Yet according to you, having more rights under a nation that already exists - is worse than people dying to form a new republic.

Why are the Kurds "made up"? How, exactly, does one liberate a "made up people"? If the people are made up, then why do you distinguish between Kurds and Turks, or Kurds and Mexicans for that matter? Have you read any of my explanations on the national question?

Look up ethnolinguism.

Who said the PKK is perfect?

I would like clarification on this: do you support the PKK or not?

Don't run away from the issue at hand: do you or do you not support self-determination for the Kurdish nation?

Forming a new bourgeois republic is simply not good enough, of course I do not support forming a slaughterhouse for the Kurdish people no matter what it is branded as, this is seemingly what you are advocating.

I'm glad you've finally admitted that the liberation of southern Ireland was progressive for Irish workers. Since you now agree that national liberation entails progress, why do you oppose it in this case?

It can (and has) led to worse conditions later on, you can't predict enough of what will transpire to accurately and on a communist basis, support 'liberation' leading to a bourgeois republic on this basis, it is just not good enough.

And how do you regard those non-world revolution actions when they take place, as they often do, under the circumstances of imperialist oppression of disenfranchised nations? Is working-class militancy not worth supporting if it is in response to suppression of their nationality?

It depends in what context, in that of the PKK's it is pure imperialist ambition and you will find, that if the tables were turned they would do exactly the same thing to the people oppressing them.

I don't support Saddam Hussein, so please stay on topic: if you only think that movements with the goal of revolutionary socialism are worth supporting, why worry about American segregation at all? After all, there's still capitalism in the American south, right? Isn't this your argument against the establishment of a sovereign Kurdistan?

As it happens, I would much prefer the idea of Revolutionary Integrationism rather than a separate republic, the same would be true too if any of the countries turned socialist that contain Kurds. The best way to negate nationalism is to remove the want for it after all.

There's unashamed capitalism in the American south, and what you described happens there as well. Thus, it would logically follow that defeating segregation wasn't worthwhile, since "unashamed" capitalism still exists. Do you or do you not agree with this?

This isn't really a good comparison at all, I completely support the ending of segregation because I feel it was a major step in ending racial oppression in the USA, perhaps that is slightly reformist idk but it's my opinion nonetheless. Unashamed Capitalism in Kurdistan will be an immediate reality and it could (mark these words) very easily turn out to be worse for Kurds in this Kurdistan than it could for Kurds living in Iraq and Syria, at least you will probably find it will turn out to be worse than the conditions currently in existence there.

James Connolly contributed greatly to the liberation of much of Ireland, and he knew full well that it wouldn't "pay off well for him" when he went into the Easter Rising. His actions ultimately led to a defeat of imperialism and, as you say yourself, progress for Irish workers. That's what this is all about: progress, and you've admitted as much yourself.

James Connolly did a lot of good as a revolutionary, but it did not lead to the defeat of imperialism unfortunately, I think that is a false claim to make. Imperialism still very much exists in Ulster and indeed in Ireland as a whole, you can find corporations exploiting the land pretty openly and police beating people right now at Rossport in south Ireland, or you can look to the suppression of almost any protest in NI with the PSNI. I think what is to be done here, is to learn from the defeat of the socialist movement in Ireland, we can't just positively measure things in 'progress' when Capitalism still exists and when a monolithic movement fell - leading to the deaths of so many revolutionaries.

manic expression

16th December 2009, 22:33

Self-determination has been a part of every socialist society in human history. Thus, it's part of socialism and the socialist movement. I'm not sure why you don't want to pursue this until every country in the region is firmly socialist.

Was there an Armenian Republic in WWI?

You're confusing country with nation. Countries are defined by borders and states, nations are defined by the factors I illustrated earlier. Until the Black and Boriqua nations have self-determination, they will be under the yoke of imperialism, and that is why the national liberation struggles for these nationalities is so important: workers must make progress in order to march toward revolution, and you have said that national liberation is progress.

OK, ethnolinguism. What about it? You still must contend with the scientific definition of nationality, and the fact that Kurds are not "made up".

My stance on the PKK isn't very clear-cut, as the PKK has a wide range of ideologies and tendencies within in. I think that they have a progressive role to play and deserve support as an anti-imperialist organization, much like other national liberation movements that aren't explicitly revolutionary socialists. That being said, I disagree with more than a few of their policies. By the way, you cannot refer to the PKK as if it's one monolithic organization, the policies of a PKK-led Kurdistan are not known to either of us, and moreover it would be like arguing in 1920 that a Sinn Fein-led Ireland would invade England and lay waste to London...it's just conjecture, really.

Of course bourgeois republics are not "good enough", but if their establishment involves the defeat of imperialism (see Ireland), then that is quite a step forward for workers, and you agree with me on that. And you still haven't answered my question directly, this isn't about forming slaughterhouses and this isn't about assuming this or that when it comes to Kurdish liberation: do you or do you not support the liberation of the Kurdish nation? I understand it might not be a yes-no thing, but it's still important to establish your view on this.

Would you say that Irish workers are better off not being shot at by British soldiers and their Black-and-Tan militias? Would you say Irish workers were better off not being drafted into the British army to be used as cannon fodder by British officers? Why do you not support the defeat of British imperialism in Ireland?

Nationalism is not inherently reactionary. Workers, after all, are to constitute themselves the nation. Workers must become the national character, the national interest, the national government. That is what revolution is all about, trying to negate nationality is absurd and counterproductive, both because nationality isn't something you get rid of and because nationality is something to embrace and celebrate. Lastly, just see the USSR: multiple republics for multiple nations within a larger union of socialist states. That is what we need to remember.

Your logic on segregation does not square with your position on Kurdistan. The end of segregation did not end unashamed capitalism, which is your reason for not supporting Kurdish self-determination. In fact, unashamed capitalism was an immediate reality following the end of John Crow, which is what you fear in the case of Kurdistan (as if unashamed capitalism doesn't exist already). All of your arguments against Kurdish liberation apply quite comfortably to the post-segregation American south. You are applying your logic unevenly. Further, your insistence that Kurdish workers would be worse off without various armies trying to kill them is tenuous to say the least. Again, this is conjecture.

The British retreat from southern Ireland was a defeat for imperialism. Sure, there are corporations in the unoccupied south, I don't deny that, but there is no imperialist occupation threatening the lives of workers and suppressing their basic rights. As a quick example, Catholics were routinely targeted with violence and intimidation, and the British occupiers detained anyone they wanted and jailed them without a trial. Are you still prepared to ignore these crimes against the working class and state there was no difference between unoccupied and occupied Ireland?

16th December 2009, 23:26

Self-determination has been a part of every socialist society in human history. Thus, it's part of socialism and the socialist movement. I'm not sure why you don't want to pursue this until every country in the region is firmly socialist.

If you think so, I think that it has led to slaughter on all sides myself, I say we agree to disagree as the conversation is now going around in circles. We clearly have different definitions and cannot reconcile our differences.

Was there an Armenian Republic in WWI?

Yes, it is also a disastrous example of why building "internationally recognised" official bourgeois republics is wrong. The disputes over land led to numerous slaughters, granted there were times when imperialist forces such as those of the Kemalists attempted to slaughter en-masse the terrified Eastern Armenians and they fought back.

You're confusing country with nation. Countries are defined by borders and states, nations are defined by the factors I illustrated earlier. Until the Black and Boriqua nations have self-determination, they will be under the yoke of imperialism, and that is why the national liberation struggles for these nationalities is so important: workers must make progress in order to march toward revolution, and you have said that national liberation is progress.

What black nations, do you mean a secessionist republic for african-americans in the USA?

OK, ethnolinguism. What about it? You still must contend with the scientific definition of nationality, and the fact that Kurds are not "made up".

No, they are not made up, but there are several definitions of nationality, do you go by the bourgeois definition of nationality and do you consider it to be truly useful to revolutionaries? Or do you consider it to be a bourgeois construct that serves no purpose, no one is saying that oppressed workers shouldn't self-organise, they just shouldn't be organised into creating a new bourgeois republic, it can't be considered progressive in a true Marxist sense.

My stance on the PKK isn't very clear-cut, as the PKK has a wide range of ideologies and tendencies within in. I think that they have a progressive role to play and deserve support as an anti-imperialist organization, much like other national liberation movements that aren't explicitly revolutionary socialists. That being said, I disagree with more than a few of their policies. By the way, you cannot refer to the PKK as if it's one monolithic organization, the policies of a PKK-led Kurdistan are not known to either of us, and moreover it would be like arguing in 1920 that a Sinn Fein-led Ireland would invade England and lay waste to London...it's just conjecture, really.

Ok, so essentially you do support the PKK really. I think I've made my views on what this means in a revolutionary sense quite clear.

Of course bourgeois republics are not "good enough", but if their establishment involves the defeat of imperialism (see Ireland), then that is quite a step forward for workers, and you agree with me on that.

As I said, it is just not good enough, also I've stated that it can always be rolled back, there is no reason to think that these things won't change very quickly with a new administration. So no, I do not really support it.

And you still haven't answered my question directly, this isn't about forming slaughterhouses and this isn't about assuming this or that when it comes to Kurdish liberation: do you or do you not support the liberation of the Kurdish nation? I understand it might not be a yes-no thing, but it's still important to establish your view on this.

I can only answer this in a specific context ie, how are you thinking the Kurdish nation will be liberated? It seems like you mean through the PKK.

I'm sorry, but I would not support the PKK forming a new bourgeois republic, it would be a defeat for workers and another win for imperialism.

Would you say that Irish workers are better off not being shot at by British soldiers and their Black-and-Tan militias? Would you say Irish workers were better off not being drafted into the British army to be used as cannon fodder by British officers? Why do you not support the defeat of British imperialism in Ireland?

You are simply putting things into black-and-white categorical views, I don't believe any of what you said.

Nationalism is not inherently reactionary.

I've got to disagree here.

Workers, after all, are to constitute themselves the nation. Workers must become the national character, the national interest, the national government. That is what revolution is all about, trying to negate nationality is absurd and counterproductive, both because nationality isn't something you get rid of and because nationality is something to embrace and celebrate. Lastly, just see the USSR: multiple republics for multiple nations within a larger union of socialist states. That is what we need to remember.

Didn't Lenin talk about a "world federative socialist republic"? That is completely different from a union of republics, I don't think the USSR was the right thing and I think one only need look to the current state of affairs and the problem of nations in the current successor: the Russian Federation. Now, I am not saying that Lenin didn't support the formation of the USSR (albeit his view changed several times over a course of time), but nonetheless I think his original ideas were vastly different to that carried out in practice.

Your logic on segregation does not square with your position on Kurdistan.

Perhaps not, I did state this before though..

The end of segregation did not end unashamed capitalism, which is your reason for not supporting Kurdish self-determination. In fact, unashamed capitalism was an immediate reality following the end of John Crow, which is what you fear in the case of Kurdistan (as if unashamed capitalism doesn't exist already). All of your arguments against Kurdish liberation apply quite comfortably to the post-segregation American south. You are applying your logic unevenly. Further, your insistence that Kurdish workers would be worse off without various armies trying to kill them is tenuous to say the least. Again, this is conjecture.

They don't apply at all, destroying segregation to me seems like a completely progressive move for enhancing class unity to the highest level possible at the time in America, whereas a Kurdistan in fact divides more than it unites. I think that makes quite a lot of sense myself.

The British retreat from southern Ireland was a defeat for imperialism. Sure, there are corporations in the unoccupied south, I don't deny that, but there is no imperialist occupation threatening the lives of workers and suppressing their basic rights. As a quick example, Catholics were routinely targeted with violence and intimidation, and the British occupiers detained anyone they wanted and jailed them without a trial. Are you still prepared to ignore these crimes against the working class and state there was no difference between unoccupied and occupied Ireland?

Catholics are still routinely targeted with violence and intimidation in the North, of course there is a difference between an occupied set of counties but your definition of "the defeat of imperialism" is not really good enough. You can never defeat imperialism to the fullest extent unless you properly establish socialism, even if in a tiny territory as a struggle continuing with the possibility of it spreading quickly.

Devrim

17th December 2009, 08:11

Was there an Armenian Republic in WWI?

Yes;

In Caucasia a Transcaucasian republic was formed, and its tutelage was fought over between Turkey, Germany and Great Britain. This caused it to break up into 3 'independent' republics (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan), which fiercely confronted each other, urged on in turn by each of the contesting powers. The three republics supported with all their forces the British troops in their battle against the Baku workers' Soviet, which from 1917-20 suffered bombardment and massacres by the British;

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/066_natlib_01.html

My stance on the PKK isn't very clear-cut, as the PKK has a wide range of ideologies and tendencies within in. I think that they have a progressive role to play and deserve support as an anti-imperialist organization, much like other national liberation movements that aren't explicitly revolutionary socialists. That being said, I disagree with more than a few of their policies. By the way, you cannot refer to the PKK as if it's one monolithic organization, the policies of a PKK-led Kurdistan are not known to either of us,...it's just conjecture, really.

No, but it is not unreasonable to make assumptions based on the PKK statements, actions, and the actions of similar groups once they were in power. As I said earlier in the thread:

The Kurdish region of Iraq, and indeed the Kurdish movement as a whole is a good example of this. It is not so long ago that the PUK, and the KDP, the parties now running Northern Iraq were supported by leftists as national liberation movements. Now, they are running parts of the Iraq state under US patronage. This shouldn't surprise us at all. Basically these sort of movements are forced to be subservient to some power.

Nowadays, the Kurdistan Regional Government has its own minority question with Yazidis, Assyrians, Turkmen, and Shabaks all suffering discrimination and murders under the new regime. Of course for the working class as a whole things haven't got much better with a government whose forces have shot dead striking workers on picket lines.

What makes us think that a Kurdish state set up by Turkey would be any different. The overtures that they have already made towards the US show us quite clearly that this would be a state content to play the role of an American puppet. Their past behaviour towards minority groups in Kurdistan including Assyrians and Alevis should at least gives us reason to doubt this, and as for their intentions towards workers, I think the policy of shooting school teachers shows us clearly enough how much concern they have for the lives of working class people. I think we should have some idea of what to expect.

Your logic on segregation does not square with your position on Kurdistan. The end of segregation did not end unashamed capitalism, which is your reason for not supporting Kurdish self-determination. In fact, unashamed capitalism was an immediate reality following the end of John Crow, which is what you fear in the case of Kurdistan (as if unashamed capitalism doesn't exist already). All of your arguments against Kurdish liberation apply quite comfortably to the post-segregation American south. You are applying your logic unevenly. Further, your insistence that Kurdish workers would be worse off without various armies trying to kill them is tenuous to say the least. Again, this is conjecture.

What I fear is that the entire region will be plunged deeper and deeper into ethnic/sectarian/national conflict. I think that the creation of a state of Kurdistan implies that as I don't believe that it can be achieved without a major change in the balance of power, and large scale proxy conflicts. Basically, I think we would be talking about regional war, in which workers will line up behind the backs of their 'own' bourgeoisie and massacre each other.

I don't think this is the way to build class unity in the region. I think that the first steps on the way could be seen in the last Turkish war in Northern Iraq. Despite being called traitors all across the media for striking during a time of war, Türk Telekom workers didn't go back to work. Even though union statements were made, and many individual workers were shown on TV claiming to be patriotic, putting the struggle for class interests above the interests of the nation has to be a positive sign.

Devrim

Leo

17th December 2009, 08:52

My stance on the PKK isn't very clear-cutWe can see that.

as the PKK has a wide range of ideologies and tendencies within in.Oh do tell, what are these ideologies and tendencies within the PKK?

By the way, you cannot refer to the PKK as if it's one monolithic organizationBut it is a monolithic organization for the most part, even if there has been personal rivalries involved between its members at times, and has been a completely monolithic organization since 1982. An organization with an unbelievably immense cult of personality, an organization is which the slightest expression of dissidence is rewarded only with execution can only be monolithic.

That being said, I disagree with more than a few of their policies. , the policies of a PKK-led Kurdistan are not known to either of us,...it's just conjecture, really. They don't even aim to lead Kurdistan, you don't know what you are talking about. The PKK aims being an official autonomous force which is integrated into the Turkish state structure in the Turkish Kurdistan only. They have no demand of Kurdish independence, they only demand the Kurdish regions to be more autonomous within the Turkish state. Of course we can more or less figure out how that would work out, considering the fact that the (former) DTP controls nearly all the major municipalities in the Kurdish regions of Turkey.

And the internal regime of their organization, the policies they use in the camps they run, the way they treat workers and peasants now is well known.

manic expression

17th December 2009, 13:01

If you think so, I think that it has led to slaughter on all sides myself, I say we agree to disagree as the conversation is now going around in circles. We clearly have different definitions and cannot reconcile our differences.

Fair enough. However, I still think there are points worth discussing. I've skipped the points in which we've agreed to disagree in order to facilitate this.

Yes, it is also a disastrous example of why building "internationally recognised" official bourgeois republics is wrong. The disputes over land led to numerous slaughters, granted there were times when imperialist forces such as those of the Kemalists attempted to slaughter en-masse the terrified Eastern Armenians and they fought back.So what's wrong with the Armenians trying to defend themselves from this denial of self-determination?

What black nations, do you mean a secessionist republic for african-americans in the USA?I mean the Black nation, commonly known as African-Americans. I support self-determination for this nation, which means Black workers figuring out what's best for their communities. If that means "secession", who am I to tell Black workers otherwise? More to the point: a socialist America WILL see self-determination for Blacks in one form or another.

No, they are not made up, but there are several definitions of nationality, do you go by the bourgeois definition of nationality and do you consider it to be truly useful to revolutionaries? Or do you consider it to be a bourgeois construct that serves no purpose, no one is saying that oppressed workers shouldn't self-organise, they just shouldn't be organised into creating a new bourgeois republic, it can't be considered progressive in a true Marxist sense.Fair questions. I'm not sure what "the" bourgeois definition of nationality is, but if it differs at all from the Leninist interpretation, then I strongly disagree with it and find it less than helpful for revolutionaries. Nationality, again, is not based on borders, and in the case of the Kurds and many other nations it is contrary to borders; nationality is based on concrete factors such as shared historical experience, shared language and shared geographic region.

If "a new bourgeois republic" inherently entails the defeat of imperialism, then it is a step forward for workers. Just as the end of slavery and the establishment of bourgeois rule in the American south was progressive, and no less a Marxist than Karl Marx himself promoted this view.

As I said, it is just not good enough, also I've stated that it can always be rolled back, there is no reason to think that these things won't change very quickly with a new administration. So no, I do not really support it.I never said it as good enough, I said it was a step forward, and it is. Just because something can be "rolled back" doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting for. By that logic, we shouldn't fight for socialism because it can be "rolled back", Paris Commune-style.

I can only answer this in a specific context ie, how are you thinking the Kurdish nation will be liberated? It seems like you mean through the PKK.That's for the Kurdish nation to answer, I simply support their right to do so.

Didn't Lenin talk about a "world federative socialist republic"? That is completely different from a union of republics, I don't think the USSR was the right thing and I think one only need look to the current state of affairs and the problem of nations in the current successor: the Russian Federation. Now, I am not saying that Lenin didn't support the formation of the USSR (albeit his view changed several times over a course of time), but nonetheless I think his original ideas were vastly different to that carried out in practice.Yes, but that's the ultimate goal. After 1922, when it was clear that socialism wasn't springing up elsewhere in Europe, a union of socialist republics was just what the doctor ordered, and that's what the USSR was until its fall.

They don't apply at all, destroying segregation to me seems like a completely progressive move for enhancing class unity to the highest level possible at the time in America, whereas a Kurdistan in fact divides more than it unites. I think that makes quite a lot of sense myself.So you admit that capitalism after working-class victories (such as the end of segregation) isn't a good reason to oppose such a campaign? Since you think the end of segregation was a good thing, even though capitalism existed after that event, you must agree that campaigns which do not necessarily lead to socialism can be worth fighting for, yes? This is important to establish.

Now as for your new qualification (Kurdistan divides workers whereas civil rights united them), I don't think it's that simple. The civil rights movement did unite many workers across national lines, but we can't forget how tensions were actually aggravated in other cases. Many southern workers objected strongly to federal troops forcing de-segregation at gunpoint, or how their states' governments were brought to the heel of the federal government. It is wishful thinking to believe that the civil rights movement didn't cause any disunity.

Returning to Kurdistan, it's natural for rifts to show in such controversial and difficult issues. However, if Turkey recognizes a Kurdish state, much like the British did with Ireland, it is hard to argue against the fact that it will be a step forward for solidarity between Turks and Kurds. If you don't trust me, then at least listen to Marx's reasoning:

What I want to show-and what even those Englishmen who side with the Irish, who concede them the right to secession, do not see-is that the regime since 1846, though less barbarian in form, is in effect destructive, leaving no alternative but Ireland’s voluntary emancipation by England or life-and-death struggle.

Does Marx qualify this with visions of red flags flying over London and Dublin? Does he say that Ireland's emancipation can only come through socialist revolution and nothing less?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867/12/16.htm

In fact, he puts it far clearer here:

The English should demand separation and leave it to the Irish themselves to decide the question of landownership. Everything else would be useless.

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1867/irish-speech.htm

Catholics are still routinely targeted with violence and intimidation in the North, of course there is a difference between an occupied set of counties but your definition of "the defeat of imperialism" is not really good enough. You can never defeat imperialism to the fullest extent unless you properly establish socialism, even if in a tiny territory as a struggle continuing with the possibility of it spreading quickly.That is precisely what I mean: Catholics in the occupied counties are subject to terror and intimidation, whereas the south sees rights for both Catholics and Protestants to a degree that those in the north can only wish for. This, really, is a clear step forward for workers in unoccupied Ireland.

Surely enough, we cannot defeat imperialism entirely until socialism is established, and even then imperialism has still methods to defend itself. However, that is not what this is about, this is about establishing the fact that national liberation is a progressive victory for workers of oppressed nations. The contrasting situations that you illustrated in Ireland support this claim. Thus, the importance of national liberation is shown not only by the founder of modern socialism, but by history as well.

manic expression

17th December 2009, 13:21

We can see that.

I'm glad to have made myself clear.

Oh do tell, what are these ideologies and tendencies within the PKK?

Kurdish nationalism (non-socialist) and revolutionary socialism are two prominent examples.

But it is a monolithic organization for the most part, even if there has been personal rivalries involved between its members at times, and has been a completely monolithic organization since 1982. An organization with an unbelievably immense cult of personality, an organization is which the slightest expression of dissidence is rewarded only with execution can only be monolithic.

Established leadership does not equal an ideological monolithic quality. By that standard, no one in the IRA disagrees about anything.

They don't even aim to lead Kurdistan, you don't know what you are talking about. The PKK aims being an official autonomous force which is integrated into the Turkish state structure in the Turkish Kurdistan only. They have no demand of Kurdish independence, they only demand the Kurdish regions to be more autonomous within the Turkish state. Of course we can more or less figure out how that would work out, considering the fact that the (former) DTP controls nearly all the major municipalities in the Kurdish regions of Turkey.

The immediate demands of the PKK are dependent upon the situation they face. I know this may be difficult for you to understand, but national liberation movements oftentimes move forward their nation's agenda through such measures. The Irish Free State, which wasn't officially a sovereign country for some time (which sparked the Irish Civil War) is a good example of this.

And if they are not leading the national liberation struggle of Kurdistan, then I'd love to know who is.

And the internal regime of their organization, the policies they use in the camps they run, the way they treat workers and peasants now is well known.

Where, exactly, did I say the PKK was perfect or undeserving of criticism? On the contrary, I said the exact opposite multiple times. You can continue to argue with your perception of my position, or you can deal with what I've written. Your choice.

Devrim, I'll try to respond to your points in the near future.

Leo

17th December 2009, 14:03

Kurdish nationalism (non-socialist) and revolutionary socialism are two prominent examples.

This is a myth, no such tendencies or varying ideologies exist within the PKK. Individuals can have their sympathies, but the PKK has only one line, the official line which at the moment is "democratic confederalism".

Established leadership does not equal an ideological monolithic quality.

Yes, executing people who dare to voice their disagreements is "established leadership". An organization in which dissidence is suppressed, and only such organization can be ideologically monolithic. The PKK is an organization like that.

By that standard, no one in the IRA disagrees about anything.

Well, they tend to resolve their problems by splitting and shooting each other rather than through internal criticism from what I know, but I am not as much knowledgeable about the methods and internal structure of the IRA as much as I am of that of the PKK.

The immediate demands of the PKK are dependent upon the situation they face.

These are not their immediate demands, nor were they made up just based on a single situation they face. The demand for autonomy and "democratic confederalism" has been, in a consistent way the ultimate demand of the PKK for years, and since the beginning of the 90s, the PKK didn't put forward a demand for an independent Kurdistan.

Not that an independent Kurdistan would solve the problem of national oppression on Kurds, considering the fact that not Diyarbakir or even Suleymaniyah but Constantinople is today the city with the largest Kurdish population, but nor is trying to find an agreement with the Turkish state, blood of all the minorities and workers it massacred still dripping from its teeth and claws.

I know this may be difficult for you to understand, but national liberation movements oftentimes move forward their nation's agenda through such measures. The Irish Free State, which wasn't officially a sovereign country for some time (which sparked the Irish Civil War) is a good example of this.

You have no idea what you are talking about, and comparing the situation the PKK is in at the moment with the Irish Free State clearly demonstrates this. I don't want to be insulting but your patronizing attitude makes you look like an idiot.

And if they are not leading the national liberation struggle of Kurdistan, then I'd love to know who is.

This is national "liberation". Did you really think that the PKK opposed the Turkish state or any national liberation movement has got actually anything against the imperialist state they are claiming to be fighting with? In an overwhelming majority of the cases, all these movements are interested in is getting to police the area on behalf of the interests of the imperialist state they claim to be fighting against.

Where, exactly, did I say the PKK was perfect or undeserving of criticism? On the contrary, I said the exact opposite multiple times. You can continue to argue with your perception of my position, or you can deal with what I've written. Your choice.

Maybe you can try to read what I wrote and what it was regarding before you start screaming about how your position is distorted. You can look at my post to see whether I say you think the PKK is perfect. If you are capable of reading, I'm sure that you'll see that I don't.

You said we don't know what the PKK is going to do once it is in power. I said we already know it, based on what it is doing now, based on its internal regime, how they deal with those who come up with the slightest criticism in their organization, based on the policies they use in the camps they run, based on the way they treat the Kurdish workers and peasant.

manic expression

17th December 2009, 17:47

You say individual members have a range of views, and yet you refuse the idea that multiple ideologies exist within the group. How, exactly, do you square the two statements? They are contradictory.

Executions happen under many circumstances. They don't prove your point at all, although I'm sure you'd like to think as much.

Are you denying that the IRA displays some of the behavior you've attributed to the PKK? No IRA groups have entrenched leadership?

Right, since the early 90's. Are you blind enough to ignore the dramatic shift in conditions in that time? You're supporting my point, whether or not you admit it: the PKK's line on this is determined by the situation they face.

1/3 of all El Salvadoreans live outside of El Salvador. Los Angeles is the second-largest population of El Salvadoreans in the world. Should El Salvadorean self-determination not matter because of this? Your logic makes no sense.

I wasn't comparing the situation the PKK is in now to the Irish Free State, but keep arguing against your perception of what I'm saying instead of what I'm saying. Go back and read my post again.

Really? National liberation just forms another police for the same government? So Ireland is now policed under British auspices? Turkey is today run by the British, French and Greeks? South Africa is still run by apartheid? National liberation does deal a blow to imperialism, and your plain refusal to admit this just underlines your shortsightedness.

Right, Leo, I didn't say the PKK was perfect, so why is every imperfection now brought to light as though each one, in and of itself, impeaches the cause of Kurdish self-determination? Try thinking about that before you give an answer.

I'm glad you think you have a crystal ball that illuminates every aspect of a PKK-run Kurdistan, but for those of us who are concerned with promoting working-class interests, it is history and Marxism itself that teaches us the importance of national liberation. You can see my reply to ls if you're unclear on this. Instead of concentrating on this, however, you display a few imperfections and expect it to constitute some sort of argument against Kurdish self-determination.

Leo

17th December 2009, 19:43

Manic Expression, you really have a problem with your reading skills.

You say individual members have a range of views, and yet you refuse the idea that multiple ideologies exist within the group. How, exactly, do you square the two statements? They are contradictory.No, what I said was that individual members may have differing views, as well as doubts about the organization itself of course, but they can't express them or discuss them even among themselves because the punishment for dissidence is very serious.

Obviously when people can't discuss their ideas even if they have them, there can't be multiple ideologies collectively held within the organization, there can't be tendencies and so forth. People who put forward criticism and managed to live in the past did so by getting away first and criticizing afterwards.

Are you denying that the IRA displays some of the behavior you've attributed to the PKK? No, what I said was that they too tend to resolve their problems by shooting each other rather than through internal criticism from what I know.

Right, since the early 90's. Are you blind enough to ignore the dramatic shift in conditions in that time? You're supporting my point, whether or not you admit it: the PKK's line on this is determined by the situation they face.The PKK is an organization which was formed in 1978. Of their 31 years of existence, they defended an independent Kurdistan for about 12-13 years and a compromise with the Turkish state for about 18-19 years. Yes, very circumstantial indeed.

On the main point, you are not entirely correct. The policy of the day is not really determined entirely by the situation, but more accurate what plan seems most likely to benefit the interests of the leadership of the nationalist organizations. It is a matter of practical calculation of interests, similar to the calculations of CEOs for the plans of their companies.

1/3 of all El Salvadoreans live outside of El Salvador. Los Angeles is the second-largest population of El Salvadoreans in the world. Should El Salvadorean self-determination not matter because of this?El Salvador is an independent state. Had El Salvador been a state occupied by the US in our current epoch, had this been a historical issue, then El Salvadorians would have been systematically and specifically targeted, oppressed, murdered and so forth in the United States as well as living under the yoke of the Americans in El Salvador. The government, just as it was burning the villages of El Salvadorians in El Salvador, would be shooting the El Salvadorians in the US soil on the streets. Then there would be an actual national question. Then, an independent El Salvador would not contribute to the solution of the problems of the El Salvadorians in the US, and to be honest it wouldn't really contribute much to the solution of the problems of the El Salvadorians in El Salvador because, first of all the new El Salvadorian state, like the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraqi Kurdistan or the Fatah government in the West Bank, would be brutally oppressive, especially against the workering class, and secondly it would be policing El Salvador on behalf of a great imperialist power, in the case of El Salvador most probably on behalf of the US itself again, similar to Fatah's example.

The national question, that is the question of national oppression, on the other hand, has got nothing to do with "national self-determination" since as Rosa Luxemburg said "in a class society each class of the nation strives to “determine itself” in a different fashion, and ... for the bourgeois classes, the standpoint of national freedom is fully subordinated to that of class rule."

I wasn't comparing the situation the PKK is in now to the Irish Free State, You said: "The immediate demands of the PKK are dependent upon the situation they face. I know this may be difficult for you to understand, but national liberation movements oftentimes move forward their nation's agenda through such measures. The Irish Free State, which wasn't officially a sovereign country for some time (which sparked the Irish Civil War) is a good example of this."

Hence you drew similarity between the examples.

Really? National liberation just forms another police for the same government? So Ireland is now policed under British auspices?Well, here's what James Connolly who you idolize and we criticize says about this:
If you remove the English army to-morrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs. England would still rule you to your ruin, even while your lips offered hypocritical homage at the shrine of that Freedom whose cause you had betrayed.

What a shameful ultra-leftist!

Turkey is today run by the British, French and Greeks? I don't remember Turkey being occupied and colonized for long years by any of these forces in the first place. An imperialist country defeated, Turkey faced the same treatment German or Austrian governments faced. There never was a Turkish question even remotely comparably to the Irisih question, Polish question or Kurdish question. Again, you are expressing your ignorance of the situation, which of course is understandalbe. Your ridiculous patronizing attitude however makes you look really funny.

National liberation does deal a blow to imperialismIt is nothing but a tool of imperialism, adding only more to the misery of the workers who are nationally oppressed: it deals no blow but demands the blood of these workers.

Of course it is easy for you to scream about national liberation struggles: you aren't among those who are called upon to die.

Right, Leo, I didn't say the PKK was perfectNot even the PKK says PKK is perfect.

so why is every imperfection now brought to light as though each one, in and of itself, impeaches the cause of Kurdish self-determination?No Manic, you are still failing to understand, what I am said about "imperfection" of the PKK, such as them punishing every expression of the slightest criticism with imprisonment and death, that they executed militants of their own en masse, that they use means of internal torture, imprisonment, confessions and so forth, that they have murdered lots of workers and peasants in Kurdistan, that they have a history of getting involved in blood feuds with other left-wing groups operating in the Turkish Kurdistan among other similarly "minor" things which shows that they are "imperfect" sort of point out to what they would do if they had more power than they have now. I am not talking about self-determination, I am talking about the PKK and its relation to the national question, which is not a question of self-determination.

I'm glad you think you have a crystal ball that illuminates every aspect of a PKK-run KurdistanYou don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

but for those of us who are concerned with promoting working-class interestsA category which does not include yourself.

it is history and Marxism itself that teaches us the importance of national liberation. “Anyone who today refers to Marx’s attitude towards the wars of the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie, and forgets Marx’s statement that the ‘workingmen have no country’ – a statement that applies precisely to the period of the reactionary and outmoded bourgeoisie, to the epoch of the socialist revolution, is shamelessly distorting Marx, and is substituting the bourgeois point of view for the socialist.” - Lenin, Socialism and War
Instead of concentrating on this, however, you display a few imperfections and expect it to constitute some sort of argument against Kurdish self-determination.Until now I did not even say a word about self-determination. I merely pointed out how ridiculously uninformed and ignorant you were on this issue on which you are acting as if the sole authority, and how uninterested you were in the actual problems of the national question. Here's a statement about "self-determination": far from being a solution to the national question, it is a dogmatic formula and like all dogmatic formulations a meaningless and empty phrase which the bourgeoisie pushes to the faces of nationally oppressed workers every time they try to find a real solution to their real problems.

manic expression

17th December 2009, 20:43

So you're saying that promoting different ideas is treated as dissent in the PKK? Expressing, say, Marxism, is dissent? Any evidence for this other than "I said so"?

Right, and the IRA played and plays a progressive role in the cause of the working class. But I'm sure you'd rather condemn them because they're not as pure as you'd like them to be. Typical.

So it's the PKK's fault that the Soviet Union fell and they had to adapt to the circumstances at hand? You're blaming them for shifting their goals, but you still refuse to accept how large the shifts in geopolitics were at the time. Once again, you're supporting my position (the PKK's demands are made with the understanding of present circumstances), even if you're too narrow-minded to admit it.

Again you seem to think you have a crystal ball, without any evidence other than your own puritanical ideas. The FACT of the matter is that if El Salvador was occupied and its sovereignty violated, every communist would oppose that act. Imperialism has tried and is trying to subjugate El Salvadoreans, and self-determination and the defeat of imperialism (which has been carried forth by FMLN) is the goal of the workers of El Salvador. You, on the other hand, think that the existence of El Salvador itself doesn't matter, because you apparently don't care about the well-being of the El Salvadorean workers unless it fits your narrow-minded agenda. It's not a surprise that this has not, and will not, catch on in any working-class movement.

You said: "The immediate demands of the PKK are dependent upon the situation they face. I know this may be difficult for you to understand, but national liberation movements oftentimes move forward their nation's agenda through such measures. The Irish Free State, which wasn't officially a sovereign country for some time (which sparked the Irish Civil War) is a good example of this."

Hence you drew similarity between the examples.

Oh, right, because your crystal ball told you so. If you laid off the tarot cards for five seconds you wouldn't make such elementary errors to cover your nonexistent argument.

The Irish Free State was essentially a stepping-block to full Irish sovereignty in unoccupied Ireland. It removed the imperialist presence over southern Ireland, but Ireland was not constituted as a proper country. This, however, is not where the PKK stands today, the Kurdish nation has not achieved this as of yet. Therefore, I was alluding to the PKK's stated goals (autonomy within other countries), not to the PKK's present situation. If you read my posts with a modicum of honesty, you would have realized this. Instead, you argued with your perception of my arguments and nothing more.

Have fun trying to make more crap up.

Well, here's what James Connolly who you idolize and we criticize says about this:

And yet he fought and died with Irish nationalists who weren't socialists and definitely weren't Marxists. He fought and died with non-socialist nationalists, while encouraging revolutionary socialism as the way forward. That is what revolutionaries do: they take part in the furthering of working-class interests while constantly pushing to the fore the principles and program of communism. That is what Marx proposed. That is what you oppose. Do the math.

It is nothing but a tool of imperialism, adding only more to the misery of the workers who are nationally oppressed: it deals no blow but demands the blood of these workers.

Yeah, cause there's absolutely no difference between Ireland today and Ireland in 1916. :laugh: Obviously you don't have a problem with conscripting Irish workers to die for British imperialism, since you're unwilling to support the movement that put a stop to that crime.

Oh, and on your little charge about me not being on the front lines, you obviously don't listen to Kurdish workers who HAVE put their lives on the line for national liberation, so it doesn't bother me that you'd be desperate enough to resort to personal attacks. In fact, I think it's quite fitting for you to be as politically bankrupt as you're proving right now.

Right, the PKK doesn't say it's perfect, because it isn't. The only thing this proves is that you're looking for perfection, not for revolutionary progress. You bring up imperfections and hope it constitutes an argument against Kurdish liberation, but this has been shown to be incorrect. Doubtlessly, you'll continue pushing this impossible contradiction in spite of how mistaken you are (and how little you've been able to defend yourself).

Is class struggle a dinner party, Leo? Answer me that before lecturing me about how impure the PKK is in your eyes.

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Which makes you about as relevant as the weathermen (SDS). Not only are you incapable of telling the future, but you can't even learn the lessons of the past. Well done.

A category which does not include yourself.

:laugh: More absurd guessing games from our resident fortune-teller, (C)Leo.

On that Lenin quote, you're missing one important thing: national liberation became MORE important in the epoch of imperialism. Self-determination was a key part of Lenin's revolutionary platform, so what you're doing is twisting the words of Lenin to serve your own anti-materialist worldview.

I didn't act as though I was the sole authority, that's just more make-believe from your over-active imagination. But now that we've finally established that you oppose self-determination for Kurdish workers, that you have no interest in furthering their struggle, we can look at the problem therein. Self-determination is certainly not an empty phrase, as it has signaled progress for countless workers across the globe. If you truly believe it to be an empty phrase, then perhaps you'd like to explain how Irish workers are no better off than they were under the British occupation (and in the trenches of the European front as well). Perhaps you'd like to illustrate how South African workers have seen nothing significant happen in the past few decades. Most importantly, maybe you could enlighten us as to why the Kurds should simply endure imperialism's ravages until the red flag flies over Ankara, Tehran, Damascus and Baghdad at the same time. That's basically what you're arguing: Kurdish workers have no place furthering their interests against imperialism because you're not comfortable with the morals of the thing.

Leo

17th December 2009, 21:55

So you're saying that promoting different ideas is treated as dissent in the PKK? Expressing, say, Marxism, is dissent? Any evidence for this other than "I said so"?

Marxism of course is included, considering the fact that Öcalan is claiming that he has transcended Marxism, and that Marx was a servant of capitalism. The last split with a Marxist rhetoric from the PKK took place in 99, following the capture of Öcalan, the fact that the great leader wasn't around made dissent possible, and that he said he wanted to serve the Turkish state and kissed the Turkish flag gave some people the crazy idea that he betrayed. Nevertheless, the splitters of 1999 started using a more "Marxist" rhetoric sometime after they split from the PKK, when they merged with "Red Flag".

There are lots of books written by ex-militants of the PKK who didn't confess to the state but instead moved towards different positions within Kurdish nationalist or leftist politics. These books obviously are not available in English, although they are all available in Turkish and I know that one is available in German called Die Diktatur des Abdullah Öcalan by Çürükkaya, a member of the Apoist group since 1974 and of the PKK since its formation to 1993, and a survivor of the Diyarbakir dungeons.

So it's the PKK's fault that the Soviet Union fell

You are truly illiterate. I see no point in talking to you any further, since you have proven yourself incapable of comprehending anything the person you are exchanging posts with says.

manic expression

18th December 2009, 11:43

The PKK is an organization which was formed in 1978. Of their 31 years of existence, they defended an independent Kurdistan for about 12-13 years and a compromise with the Turkish state for about 18-19 years. Yes, very circumstantial indeed.

Yeah, it's totally the PKK's fault that circumstances drastically changed in the late 80's and early 90's. That's what you're clearly implying. However, when confronted on the consequences of your rhetoric, you claim I'm illiterate. Stay classy, Leo.

So again, the PKK isn't perfect, so it is therefore terrible and moreover Kurdish self-determination is bad. This, of course, is coming from the person who can't admit that there's a difference between British-occupied Ireland and unoccupied Ireland, or that workers are better off if they're not being murdered because they're Catholic and not being conscripted to be slaughtered in the trenches of imperialist war. Sure, no difference between unoccupied and occupied Ireland, right? Self-determination has nothing to do with workers' lives, right?

20th December 2009, 18:09

So what's wrong with the Armenians trying to defend themselves from this denial of self-determination?

Nothing obviously, it's quite a blur between different Armenian forms of self-determination in the region, there were basically progressive tendencies and those not so much. Nationalism always pushes tendencies to the right.

I mean the Black nation, commonly known as African-Americans. I support self-determination for this nation, which means Black workers figuring out what's best for their communities. If that means "secession", who am I to tell Black workers otherwise? More to the point: a socialist America WILL see self-determination for Blacks in one form or another.

Does it mean secession? That's usually leaders and not the people coming to decisions about what should happen, I highly doubt that black and white workers uniting and deciding what they really want together would mean black secession. Do you believe that most white Americans are unworthy or something?

Fair questions. I'm not sure what "the" bourgeois definition of nationality is, but if it differs at all from the Leninist interpretation, then I strongly disagree with it and find it less than helpful for revolutionaries. Nationality, again, is not based on borders, and in the case of the Kurds and many other nations it is contrary to borders; nationality is based on concrete factors such as shared historical experience, shared language and shared geographic region.

I would like you to tell me what my 'nationality' is, seeing as you believe everyone has one and that it factors into their politics totally, completely and inseparably. I've grown up here but am of multiple races, indian caribbean and english/scottish, does this make me a "British Indian" as it says on all the official nationality forms? Because I just put "mixed" or "other" on all of them, they ask you to state which one you are you see, it really doesn't matter to me though. Suppose you would say "mixed-British" but that's problematic as I don't consider myself "British" really.

If "a new bourgeois republic" inherently entails the defeat of imperialism

But it does not, it inherently can not.

Just as the end of slavery and the establishment of bourgeois rule in the American south was progressive, and no less a Marxist than Karl Marx himself promoted this view.

The ending of both slavery and segregation is so incomparable to the other things that you are talking about; slavery at least, was in a completely different epoch to the one we're in today.

I never said it as good enough, I said it was a step forward, and it is. Just because something can be "rolled back" doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting for. By that logic, we shouldn't fight for socialism because it can be "rolled back", Paris Commune-style.

Nope, a null comparison, where there is any truly revolutionary struggle beginning, whether as the smallest strike of cleaners or as a proletarian protest against gang violence by a few mothers in a faceless neighbourhood, it is worth fighting for.

That's for the Kurdish nation to answer, I simply support their right to do so.

Ah nation you say, not workers, massive difference there tbh, it includes the Kurdish p- and bourgeois proper.

Yes, but that's the ultimate goal. After 1922, when it was clear that socialism wasn't springing up elsewhere in Europe, a union of socialist republics was just what the doctor ordered, and that's what the USSR was until its fall.

This defeatist and isolational view is and always has been totally and utterly detrimental to the left.

So you admit that capitalism after working-class victories (such as the end of segregation) isn't a good reason to oppose such a campaign? Since you think the end of segregation was a good thing, even though capitalism existed after that event, you must agree that campaigns which do not necessarily lead to socialism can be worth fighting for, yes? This is important to establish.

Capitalism exists after monumental historical reforms, it exists after strikes? What is your point? Where there is an inherently correct movement there is hope, where there is a movement that's inherently flawed, it will lead to a greater defeat for workers.

Now as for your new qualification (Kurdistan divides workers whereas civil rights united them), I don't think it's that simple. The civil rights movement did unite many workers across national lines, but we can't forget how tensions were actually aggravated in other cases. Many southern workers objected strongly to federal troops forcing de-segregation at gunpoint, or how their states' governments were brought to the heel of the federal government. It is wishful thinking to believe that the civil rights movement didn't cause any disunity.

Well fuck those racist southern workers for starters, secondly, I think there were many who you are writing off who fought the worst kind of oppression in their native southern states, not to pay homage to them is sickening to say the least. The civil rights movement caused workers' unity from below, because some racist turds opposed it with guns with help from the bourgeois (which is to be expected anyway) is no reason at all to say it wasn't worthy and uniting force for workers.

I've pointed out before that it ended in defeat for workers, that is because it should have transcended the bourgeois's boundaries for accepting some pressure from workers. But it was inherently a workers' movement.

Returning to Kurdistan, it's natural for rifts to show in such controversial and difficult issues. However, if Turkey recognizes a Kurdish state, much like the British did with Ireland, it is hard to argue against the fact that it will be a step forward for solidarity between Turks and Kurds. If you don't trust me, then at least listen to Marx's reasoning:

What I want to show-and what even those Englishmen who side with the Irish, who concede them the right to secession, do not see-is that the regime since 1846, though less barbarian in form, is in effect destructive, leaving no alternative but Ireland’s voluntary emancipation by England or life-and-death struggle.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867/12/16.htm

..

In fact, he puts it far clearer here:

The English should demand separation and leave it to the Irish themselves to decide the question of landownership. Everything else would be useless.

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1867/irish-speech.htm

What do you want me to say, Marx got a lot right and he got some wrong, his views on the Irish question were quite incredible in some cases, ComradeOm has a quite amazing quote from Engels in his signature re the Irish, I think that shows both of their occasional simplistic and nationalistic views about certain others at times.

That is precisely what I mean: Catholics in the occupied counties are subject to terror and intimidation, whereas the south sees rights for both Catholics and Protestants to a degree that those in the north can only wish for. This, really, is a clear step forward for workers in unoccupied Ireland.

You will find most Protestants fled the new Irish free state once it was established, you will also find that rights for Protestants at first were not particularly good at all, you'll find the whole recent issues about divorce and abortion in the "free state" quite sickening too no doubt.

Surely enough, we cannot defeat imperialism entirely until socialism is established, and even then imperialism has still methods to defend itself. However, that is not what this is about, this is about establishing the fact that national liberation is a progressive victory for workers of oppressed nations. The contrasting situations that you illustrated in Ireland support this claim. Thus, the importance of national liberation is shown not only by the founder of modern socialism, but by history as well.

Of course we can't defeat capitalism-imperialism until socialism is established, national liberation isn't a 'victory for workers', only liberatory practices no matter how small are.

The contrasting situation in Ireland should show to socialists, that the only defeat for imperialism is a win for the workers. We can see that the most successful times for workers have been when the struggle is 'ultra-left' in nature, we can see that syndicalism in Ireland had a massive effect against the capitalists - more than any other struggle since has had, we can see that a better more left-marxian socialist partyist approach could have led the workers in the north AND south to victory.

Even the civil rights movement in Derry was a movement from below, you will find it was workers deciding what they wanted that had the strongest and most moving effect against those capitalist slaughterers and it still lives on today in our memories as it should.

I'm not impressed with some parts of your reply to Leo, I have only one thing to say re:

Self-determination has nothing to do with workers' lives, right?

Leo is a Kurd in Turkey himself, you are talking to a "Kurdish worker", he has a lot of understanding of the PKK and he said before he found his way out of Kurdish left-nationalism through an organisation with much better perspective than the usual Turkish-Kurdish nationalist garbage. I think it's important to understand that when you keep bashing him for not knowing what Kurds want among other things......