İbrahim Kaypakkaya

[che86]

I'm looking for information on İbrahim Kaypakkaya the Turkish communist, most of what info I'v came across over the net is not in english. So if anyone knows of any sites or has any info on Kaypakkaya that is in english could you please post them up. Thanks :)

[Khalid]

Remember Comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya (http://www.revcom.us/a/v19/950-59/959/kap.htm) (RCP USA)
His Name is Our Pride, His Party is Our Honor, His Doctrine is Our Guide (http://www.bannedthought.net/Turkey/TKP-ML/2013/I-Kaypakkaya-ENG.pdf) (TKP/ML)

[che86]

Thanks for the info it's a great help :)

[Rafiq]

Politically lost, yet personally admirable by any radical.

[Red Commissar]

... a bourgeois socialist called Kemal Atatürk, who inherited most of his ideology from French revolutionaries of the 18th century and based the young Turkish state on the western and modern but capitalist countries like Switzerland.

... but it is also a fact that branding of Kemalism as fascism or violent opposition of the ideology is, likewise, derogatory to revolution - since such claims would be far from reality.

I don't really think there's anything wrong with his ideas with regards to being critical of Kemalism. I don't think it's correct to assess Kemalism or its figurehead as anything remotely socialist, there were a lot of statist policies and "modern" outlook which contributed to its efforts against reactionary forces left over from the Ottoman Empire, but is that enough to give it a pass? We can only go so far with that since by that standard we'd might as well call the US a progressive force because it has enemies like al Qaeda. I mean considering what some minorities suffered under the explanation of "unity" or writing them off as reactionaries, I don't really blame them for being supportive of leftist figures who didn't try to apologize for the excesses of the early Republican government.

You don't think Kaypakkaya and other's opposition to Kemalism and its adherents had something to do with the fact that very force had repressed them from their beginnings in Turkey?

[Rafiq]

It would be foolish to call Kemalism fascist, foolish and bourgeois rationalist at that. The historical phenomena that was fascism arose in very specific social conditions, conditions that were not present in Ottoman Turkey. The characteristics which define fascism are not present in kemalism.

[Rafiq]

Kemal reformed the turkish state to be on par with the interests of the bourgeois class more efficiently, kemalism was NOT a mutation of bourgeois ideology and despite suppression of communists it was not a response to proletarian power, it was like any other bourgeois nation state project, something quite common in europe just a century prior.

[Red Commissar]

I am not a supporter of Kemalism at all, but there is a lot to the man and his government than just Dersim massacre or other bad things. He may have been a nationalist, but he converted an Islam state into a nation state in very short time and tried to educate a people of which only two percent knew how to read and write. Under Kemalist government were formed village institutes, in which farmers could get educated and, once they became literate, they could read works of even Marx. These institutes sought to raise teachers from a mostly illiterate people. It was later closed as per Truman doctrine, of course. And his government also brought up the people's houses, which were meant to help the poorer parts of the country and so on. (Also closed for the same reason.)

Likewise, you can find several leaders in Europe at the time, including fascists, who could be credited with similar achievements of bring their country out of 19th century conditions. Should cut them them slack because of supposed development? Yes these things are laudable but they do not exclude Kemalism from criticism, much like the social democrats of the time.

Yeah sure all these benefits were good, but what if you weren't willing to completely subsume yourself into Turkish identity? I don't really think the benefits of Kemalism extended to those who didn't participate in the construction of a single, Turkish identity. I'm sure those who got butchered in Dersim and had to live under military occupation several times saw the benefits of policies instituted in Ankara.

I mean yeah this is the progressive nature of the Turkish state, a zany practice in social engineering to obliterate their identity through killings or deporting them across the country. For a period in the late 20s and early 30s laws had essentially granted powers to the military to treat the Kurds in something probably like open season hunting, allowing to deal with the population as they wished. Plus you have this kind of mentality that of course would not make people too enamored of these positions even if the Republican government could brag about its improvements.

Source (http://books.google.com/books?id=mXhC8t7TREsC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=Mahmut+Esat+Bozkurt,+slaves&source=bl&ots=BZodsbZh8M&sig=Tu78luWchqKMPIJUkNNfAGTBfjM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7rfdUbb3I4G3ygHQioDYBg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Mahmut%20Esat%20Bozkurt%2C%20slaves&f=false)


"...the master of the country is the Turk. Those who are not genuine Turks can have only one right in the Turkish fatherland, and that is to be a servant, to be a slave"

The last quote as far as I can tell was stated by Mahmut Esat Bozkurt (]http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmut_Esat_Bozkurt).



Again, although I don't see the ideology of Kemalism as having much of a value today for us, communists, I don't see it as anything near fascism as Kaypakkaya claimed either - I see it simply as a form of conservatism today. Although it was one of his principles that his revolution would never die and always progress the people forward, he failed to realise what keeps people from progressing is actually nationalism. Conclusively, his government was progressive and anti-imperialist, hence I believe it to be mostly benevolent.

Ataturk a progressive government? I guess we should see what all those Kurds in the east suffered under the pretext of "modernization" as merely the end justifies the means. Mind you even after the Dersim Massacre which was under the pretext of wiping out troublesome landlords and religious obscurantists, Tunceli remained for several years undeveloped and virtually unchanged despite promises to do otherwise.



Regardless of all he did, I would be at fault, however, if I did not mention as well that Kemal Atatürk was opposed to 'communism,' since he claimed it to be an unconditional dependence on the Soviet Union. However, when asked by Soviet generals what kind of a government he was going to form in Turkey, he called it a "state-socialism."

You don't think that such a pronouncement wasn't meant to butter up his new neighbors? I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Ataturk was more pragmatic in his viewpoints rather than ideological- the Soviet Union desired stability in the Caucasus and Ataturk was looking for recognition from abroad. Starting from one of your largest neighbors is a good start. Of course Ataturk's government was preferable to the Ottoman Empire or some similar successor, but that is more a matter of diplomacy more than anything. The Soviet Union knew the communist movement in Turkey at the time was too disorganized and scattered, and thought the Republican regime would be the best bet at the time for it to develop more rather than allowing western powers to prop up a friendly government there.

Plus, from Ataturk's perspective, getting control of the Kars province back in exchange for mutual recognition and non-interference in the Caucasus was a pretty good deal for the country after being unable to bring Azerbaijan into the fold. The Soviet Union also saw the benefit in frustrating the efforts of western powers who were likewise also attempting to crush their revolution.

Likewise the Republican government then also supported similar movements in neighboring Iran during its instabilities, then cut them dry once it became obvious that a new government was emerging and to instead hedge bets with the new Shah and cooperate on regional stability.

Really though slapping socialism on something doesn't mean anything. The Nazi's had it in their party name, Mussolini in his early years tried to compare his movement to a form of socialism, it was all their attempts to try and present their movement as forward looking rather than backwards.

I think an example of a better revolutionary with nationalist inclinations during this time would be Sun Yat-Sun more than Ataturk to be honest. As a statesman of course Ataturk is much more of a laudable figure because he was able to achieve his goals unlike Sun.



As for Kaypakkaya's opposition: It stems from his Leninist thought that every nation has a right for national determination. He argued Kemalism was fascism because it denied such right from the Kurdish people. I don't comment as to whether the thought is right or wrong, but I believe calling it fascism is far from reality.

And why is working against all Kemalists wrong? Because there is quite the number of people who embrace Kemal and some of them actually are revolutionaries. To oppose Kemalists but not the elites specifically only makes us, revolutionaries, oppose the people that we ought to help. Whether we like it or not, although we would be at fault if we called ourselves devoted to Kemalism at all, a lot of working people in Turkey are Kemalists and we can't oppose them.

How can you be "revolutionary" and yet promote such measures towards minorities like the Kurds? Maybe it's because I'm an outsider, but the form of Turkish nationalism I've observed that was promoted from the Kemalist years seems to be one not too dissimilar from other ultranationalist movements at the time, promoting a "legendary" past of its people and denying the existence of minorities within its borders (or as imperialist inventions at least). In this sense a very exclusive nationalism was created based on the idea of the inherent superiority of their people.

I agree that calling Kemalism as "fascist" is incorrect because Republican Turkey did not share many of the characteristics of regimes in Italy or Germany, but to say that dislike towards Kemalism is unfounded, I don't see why that is the case. Considering the years of repression the Kemalist regime unleashed on communist parties and minorities, the skepticism of Kemalism or its inheritors as anything revolutionary is not surprising. I mean it's not a coincidence that the current CHP trying to soften its overtly nationalist positions has helped with reaching out to Kurdish communities in the western cities.

[Tek Yol Devrim]

Kaypakkaya was Maoist Communist leader in Turkey.

İf you want to discuss Kemalism, you'll open new topic.

P.S :

- Dersim isnt Kurdish land. There is Zazaish land.

- Dersim riot was Feudalist and Religious. And they wasnt only riot, Turks rebelled and all of them executed. ( Menemen Riot )