Are the Kurds really a nation?

[Comrade Hadrian]

There has been a lot of talk about Kobane and Kurds in the mainstream press as of late. The language generally everyone uses to refers to Kurds as a single people, albeit split on political allegiances. But what is a nation, anyway?

Stalin's most important theoretical contribution to Marxism was his "Marxism and the National Question." This work, highly praised by Lenin, was even backhandedly complimented by Trotsky (as Trotsky alleged Lenin ghost-wrote the whole thing).

To quote a particularly important part of it for this discussion:

Thus, a nation is not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration, but a stable community of people.

But not every stable community constitutes a nation. Austria and Russia are also stable communities, but nobody calls them nations. What distinguishes a national community from a state community? The fact, among others, that a national community is inconceivable without a common language, while a state need not have a common language. The Czech nation in Austria and the Polish in Russia would be impossible if each did not have a common language, whereas the integrity of Russia and Austria is not affected by the fact that there are a number of different languages within their borders. We are referring, of course, to the spoken languages of the people and not to the official governmental languages.

Thus, a common language is one of the characteristic features of a nation.

This, of course, does not mean that different nations always and everywhere speak different languages, or that all who speak one language necessarily constitute one nation. A common language for every nation, but not necessarily different languages for different nations! There is no nation which at one and the same time speaks several languages, but this does not mean that there cannot be two nations speaking the same language! Englishmen and Americans speak one language, but they do not constitute one nation. The same is true of the Norwegians and the Danes, the English and the Irish.

Bottom line: two different languages, two different nations.

When we look closer at the 'Kurds', what we find is that 'Kurds' speak several different languages, all mutually unintelligible. Most 'Kurds' speak a language called Kurmanji (Northern Kurdish). These include most of the 'Kurds' in Syria, Turkey, and the most northern part of Iraq. The 'Kurds' of western Iran and most of Iraq speak a language called Sorani (Centeral Kurdish). The 'Kurds' of the most southern part of Iran speak a language called Kermanshahi (Southern Kurdish). These three mutually unintelligible languages all have various dialects too, some of which themselves are almost mutually untintelligible within the language.

It seems pretty straightforward to me that when we speak of 'Kurds' as one unified people, we are in error. Maybe we should support their attempts at the merging of the various nations into one national Kurdish identity, but does such a desire really exist amongst the various nations that think of themselves as 'Kurds'? And even if a 'Kurdish' state were to come into existence, the state itself would comprised of many different nations.

How does the way we refer to 'Kurds' as a unified people reflect on the mainstream discourse in the imperialist West? What about within radical circles?

[Dodo]

does it matter? Nations are not things that exist in nature, nations did not arose out of the ground as Z or Y or Kurd. They are all socially constructed processes.
There are no beyond-human "laws" of being a nation or "conditions for having a country" beyond what we as humans make. Just as the Kurds of today are trying to create a "modern" identity based on social movements in the west from enlightenment to industrial revolution.

I see no theoretical "contribution" here.

Just as every other nation's people, Kurds don't have unified ideas either. Support the ones you feel closer to.

[Sasha]

eeuh, norwegians and danes do not even speak the same language, and whether speaking english is part of the irish national identity is i think hotly contested too. i would at least certainly not try quoting this Stalin dribble in the middle of a republican stronghold in northen ireland, not even at marxist-leninist INLA members.
and on the other hand you will find very little frysians today who do not consider themselves dutch even though frysian is an seperate language (and a recognized official language in the netherlands), they would never say they are from Holland but they are "nederlanders".

or in otherwords Stalin was full of nationalist shit and pulling rethorical gymnastics to excuse his imperialism and his suppression of minorities.

[Comrade Hadrian]

does it matter?

Yes. When people talk about the Right of 'Kurds' to self-determination, they talk as if 'Kurds' are actually a nation. It doesn't appear to be the case that they. Certainly, the various nations that identity as 'Kurds' all still do have the Right to self-determination, but their is no singular 'Kurdish' nation.

Nations are not things that exist in nature...They are all socially constructed processes.

Being "socially constructed" has nothing to do with whether or not things "exist in nature." People and their social relationships don't exist outside of "nature." Nations are distinct communities of people, with the hardest barrier separating nations being the linguistic barrier.

There are no beyond-human "laws" of being a nation or "conditions for having a country" beyond what we as humans make.

"Countries" can and do exist that have multiple nations within them. This can be a voluntary or involuntary relationship. And people have the right to not have their lives determined by people of another nation.

I see no theoretical "contribution" here.

What do you mean? Could you care to answer the question of why the mainstream press speaks of 'Kurds' as if they were actually a nation, when they are in fact multiple different people who speak different languages?

eeuh, norwegians and danes do not even speak the same language

And hence they're not the same nation.

and whether speaking english is part of the irish national identity is i think hotly contested too

By who, exactly?

i would at least certainly not try quoting this Stalin dribble in the middle of a republican stronghold in northen ireland, not even at marxist-leninist INLA members.

Why not? Stalin is clear that speaking the same language doesn't make you part of the same nation. Even the part I quoted, Stalin is clear Ireland is a separate nation from Britain.

This, of course, does not mean that different nations always and everywhere speak different languages, or that all who speak one language necessarily constitute one nation. A common language for every nation, but not necessarily different languages for different nations! There is no nation which at one and the same time speaks several languages, but this does not mean that there cannot be two nations speaking the same language! Englishmen and Americans speak one language, but they do not constitute one nation. The same is true of the Norwegians and the Danes, the English and the Irish.

So exactly why would any Irish Republican have a problem with this?

and on the other hand you will find very little frysians today who do not consider themselves dutch even though frysian is an seperate language

Isn't this like how many French speaking people in Quebec consider themselves Canadians? And if the Frysians changed their minds about their nation being under the rule of other European nations, would it matter at all how they once thought of themselves?

or in otherwords Stalin was full of nationalist shit and pulling rethorical gymnastics to excuse his imperialism and his suppression of minorities

Considering this work was written in 1913, you seem to be pulling comments out of your ass.

On the contrary, it is careful consideration of the national question that eliminates national-chauvinism within 'Left' discourse. Without it, you end up with oppressor nation chauvinism that doesn't consider the rights of smaller nations. And the very basic element to this is simply determining what exactly a nation is.

So Sasha, would you care to answer the question on why the imperialist mass media refers to 'Kurds' as a single people, when it is clear they are not? Is there a hidden agenda here?

[John Nada]

does it matter? Nations are not things that exist in nature, nations did not arose out of the ground as Z or Y or Kurd. They are all socially constructed processes.
There are no beyond-human "laws" of being a nation or "conditions for having a country" beyond what we as humans make. Just as the Kurds of today are trying to create a "modern" identity based on social movements in the west from enlightenment to industrial revolution.

But this is essentially what Stalin argued. It was an attack on Bauer's concept of a cultural-nation based on some criteria and not an actual community. More descriptive rather than prescriptive. http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...s/1913/03a.htm

I see no theoretical "contribution" here.

It did contribute to various theories on national liberation, and did have some influence on black liberation in the US. The PKK itself was Marxist-Leninist in the past, and I can kind of see some vestige in their theories on a democratic confederation.

Just as every other nation's people, Kurds don't have unified ideas either. Support the ones you feel closer to.

Which is why he list a stable community

eeuh, norwegians and danes do not even speak the same language, and whether speaking english is part of the irish national identity is i think hotly contested too.

He said they were all separate nations

i would at least certainly not try quoting this Stalin dribble in the middle of a republican stronghold in northen ireland, not even at marxist-leninist INLA members.

Don't, he said that Ireland was still a separate nation, even if they didn't speak Irish. They'll just end up liking him.

and on the other hand you will find very little frysians today who do not consider themselves dutch even though frysian is an seperate language (and a recognized official language in the netherlands), they would never say they are from Holland but they are "nederlanders".

His concept of a "nation" would be what's commonly called an ethnicity. Netherlands would be called a multinational state, which is what he called Switzerland. Or they could be a national minority within a nation.

or in otherwords Stalin was full of nationalist shit and pulling rethorical gymnastics to excuse his imperialism and his suppression of minorities.

Stalin wasn't in power at the time, and he wasn't a Georgian nationalist. Marxism and the National Question was a call for greater rights for oppressed nations and minorities, and against imperialism. The national question was part of a big debate in Marxist circles at the time over what to do with colonies and oppressed minorities. Stalin, hard to believe now, was an oppressed nationality. He gave his opinion, which was shared by many on the left wing of the 2nd International. This is why Stalin had appeal to people like Che or Ho Chi Minh.

[Sandy Becker]

There has been a lot of talk about Kobane and Kurds in the mainstream press as of late. The language generally everyone uses to refers to Kurds as a single people, albeit split on political allegiances. But what is a nation, anyway?

Stalin's most important theoretical contribution to Marxism was his "Marxism and the National Question." This work, highly praised by Lenin, was even backhandedly complimented by Trotsky (as Trotsky alleged Lenin ghost-wrote the whole thing).

To quote a particularly important part of it for this discussion:



Bottom line: two different languages, two different nations.

When we look closer at the 'Kurds', what we find is that 'Kurds' speak several different languages, all mutually unintelligible. Most 'Kurds' speak a language called Kurmanji (Northern Kurdish). These include most of the 'Kurds' in Syria, Turkey, and the most northern part of Iraq. The 'Kurds' of western Iran and most of Iraq speak a language called Sorani (Centeral Kurdish). The 'Kurds' of the most southern part of Iran speak a language called Kermanshahi (Southern Kurdish). These three mutually unintelligible languages all have various dialects too, some of which themselves are almost mutually untintelligible within the language.

It seems pretty straightforward to me that when we speak of 'Kurds' as one unified people, we are in error. Maybe we should support their attempts at the merging of the various nations into one national Kurdish identity, but does such a desire really exist amongst the various nations that think of themselves as 'Kurds'? And even if a 'Kurdish' state were to come into existence, the state itself would comprised of many different nations.

How does the way we refer to 'Kurds' as a unified people reflect on the mainstream discourse in the imperialist West? What about within radical circles?

The short form for what constitutes a nation is common language, separate economy, separate culture. I think you could get into trouble by being too categorical about these issues. For example, in Finland 6% of the population speaks Swedish as a first language. I don't think this means Finland is not a nation. If, in fact, these "separate Kurdish nations" really exist independent of the imperialist carving up of what constitutes Kurdistan, then you have a point. The Kurds have been really screwed by the imperialists and their junior partners in the region (oh, and by Stalin, too). However, their current role (for at least some Kurdish entities) as conveyors of Washington's program in the region is a pernicious one.

[John Nada]

Esteemed Comrade Sanzheyev,

I am replying to your letter with considerable delay, for it was only yesterday forwarded to me from the apparatus of the Central Committee.

Your interpretation of my standpoint on the question of dialects is absolutely correct.

"Class" dialects, which it would be more correct to call jargons, do not serve the mass of the people, but a narrow social upper crust. Moreover, they do not have a grammatical system or basic word stock of their own. In view of this, they cannot possibly develop into independent languages.

Local ("territorial") dialects, on the other hand, serve the mass of the people and have a grammatical system and basic word stock of their own. In view of this, some local dialects, in the process of formation of nations, may become the basis of national languages and develop into independent national languages. This was the case, for instance, with the Kursk-Orel dialect (the Kursk-Orel "speech") of the Russian language, which formed the basis of the Russian national language. The same must be said of the Poltava-Kiev dialect of the Ukrainian language, which formed the basis of the Ukrainian national language. As for the other dialects of such languages, they lose their originality, merge with those languages and disappear in them.

Reverse processes also occur, when the single language of a nationality, which has not yet become a nation owing to the absence of the necessary economic conditions of development, collapses as a result of the disintegration of the state of that nationality, and the local dialects, which have not yet had time to be fully uniformized in the single language, revive and give rise to the formation of separate independent languages. Possibly, this was the case, for example, with the single Mongolian language.

Pravda, August 2, 1950

Source:http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...950/jun/20.htm

Dialects are not separate languages.

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

The Kurdish people seem to have the characteristics of a nation. Even if their dialects supposedly aren't mutually intelligible(according to Wikipedia?), the Kurdish nation(s) have the right to self-determination.

[Rurkel]

And if the Frysians changed their minds about their nation being under the rule of other European nations, would it matter at all how they once thought of themselves?

Isn't this the point - that people's own self-perception is the primary determining factor of a nation? Suppose the grand majority of people referred to as Kurds think themselves the same nation, despite being separated by these languages (it may be true, it may be not - there's nothing illogical in the concept itself). Do we tell them that they're wrong, or do we draw the conclusion from it that Stalin's definition ought to be modified? And if Stalin's definition is at odds with the way masses of people perceive themselves, than how useful it really is for basing policies on? It certainly is quite arrogant to tell people that you know better than these people themselves to what "nation" they belong to.

Or do you understand Stalin's concept as an assertion that no two masses of people with different languages can think of themselves as consisting a single "nation" at all?

[Dodo]

Yes. When people talk about the Right of 'Kurds' to self-determination, they talk as if 'Kurds' are actually a nation. It doesn't appear to be the case that they. Certainly, the various nations that identity as 'Kurds' all still do have the Right to self-determination, but their is no singular 'Kurdish' nation.

You have no idea how much that does not matter. For me to obsess myself with Kurds being a nation or not, I have to believe that a nation is a thing-in itself that exists objectively. Whether Kurds are a nation or not means nothing. Nor Lenin's words on "right to self-determination"...if there is a bunch of people struggling for independence, thats their path. I don't see any point in arguing whether they deserve it or not once they establish a majority in their areas.

What we call nations exists today and maybe not tomorrow, or were not there yesterday but formed over the last decade. It is not a static thing. If some Kurds establish a state, next thing you know they became more of a nation.
The problem with the Kurdish movement is the tribal connections. There is a bunch that is trying to establish a Kurdish identity in the modern sense and then there are the tribal types that have sympathy for the issue.

Being "socially constructed" has nothing to do with whether or not things "exist in nature." People and their social relationships don't exist outside of "nature." Nations are distinct communities of people, with the hardest barrier separating nations being the linguistic barrier.

Nations are not necessarily "distinct" communities beyond the language.

"Countries" can and do exist that have multiple nations within them. This can be a voluntary or involuntary relationship. And people have the right to not have their lives determined by people of another nation.

Is this countering what I say?

What do you mean? Could you care to answer the question of why the mainstream press speaks of 'Kurds' as if they were actually a nation, when they are in fact multiple different people who speak different languages?

You quote something and say something else;
I said I don't see much theoretical contribution because its not a discovery. I don't see it as a theory, it is quiet straightforward and scientific that nations are social constructs.

As for your question; I don't bother myself with media of any sorts tbh.
I am not an expert on Kurdish language either, but from what I have seen they do have an Iranic language which I tried to learn somewhat. They have different dialects however, but they do communicate with each other. Those distinct communities all have sent people to Kobani today from Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
A lot of the militant in Turkey had Iraqi or Syrian origins.
Syrian and Turkey's Kurds have similar leadership and ideology. The difference is in Iraq due to more tribal relations and people like Barzani.
Their distinction is more "ideological" than national.
But they do cooperate even then, especially recently, which combined with the improved social media and communication to establish a united identity faster than ever.
Not that I care whether they have a united sense of nation or not.
In any independent movement, there are always those who counter it.
Its never a completely united movement that is in agreement.

I don't see where you are trying to get at....

[Devrim]

I don't see where you are trying to get at....

I think that we all know what kind of people spend their time arguing that the Kurds are not a nation.

All nations are artificial constructs. In the middle ages, the majority of inhabitants of the French state were not native French speakers. What has molded the various dialects spoken in France into one language has been the creation of a state. It could be said that the state created this single linguistic group, not that the single linguistic group created the state.

The Kurds are as much of an artificial creation as any other nation. Yet for some it seems very important that the Kurds are not a nation. You never hear them having these conversations about Germans.

I wounder why.

Devrim

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think that we all know what kind of people spend their time arguing that the Kurds are not a nation.

All nations are artificial constructs. In the middle ages, the majority of inhabitants of the French state were not native French speakers. What has molded the various dialects spoken in France into one language has been the creation of a state. It could be said that the state created this single linguistic group, not that the single linguistic group created the state.

The Kurds are as much of an artificial creation as any other nation. Yet for some it seems very important that the Kurds are not a nation. You never hear them having these conversations about Germans.

I wounder why.

Devrim

All social formations, it seems to me, are "artificial constructs" in this sense. Now, of course, this is a legitimate point against those who think nations are "natural" or that they have always existed. But Leninists do not claim this - in fact we specifically link the formation of nations to the birth of bourgeois society.

I understand the skepticism - I would have the same sort of skepticism for someone who claimed the Montenegrins or Belorussians are not a nation - but it does raise some interesting questions. Is there widespread bilingualism in the Kurdish areas, for example? Are Kurmanji speakers in Iraqi Kurdistan provided with sufficient access to public services and so on? I don't have the answers to this as I haven't done any research on the situation, but I don't think these questions are irrelevant or uninteresting. Of course the chief political point remains - we are against any oppression on grounds of language or perceived national affiliation. In addition, Leninists are for national self-determination as a democratic demand, subject to certain conditions etc.

[Leo]

When we look closer at the 'Kurds', what we find is that 'Kurds' speak several different languages, all mutually unintelligible. Most 'Kurds' speak a language called Kurmanji (Northern Kurdish). These include most of the 'Kurds' in Syria, Turkey, and the most northern part of Iraq. The 'Kurds' of western Iran and most of Iraq speak a language called Sorani (Centeral Kurdish). The 'Kurds' of the most southern part of Iran speak a language called Kermanshahi (Southern Kurdish). These three mutually unintelligible languages all have various dialects too, some of which themselves are almost mutually untintelligible within the language.

Actually, it is not true that Kurmanci and Sorani are mutually unintelligible languages. Kurmanci speakers can at least partially understand Sorani and vice versa. They are linguistically considered dialects of the same language, this is not even disputed by anyone.

In any case, the standardization of languages always took place after, not earlier than the formation of nation states. I can add another example to Devrim's: that of Turkish which was standardized in the early 20th century. Nevertheless, there still remains dialects of Turkish in Turkey which are as mutually unintelligible as Kurmanci and Sorani if not more. A Thracian or a rural Aegean would have a hard time having a conversation with a Central Anatolian or a Cypriot. In fact an Azeri and someone who speaks standard Istanbul Turkish can communicate easier than they would.

Of course in the general sense it is true that all nations are constructs which emerged with the rise of capitalism, however we shouldn't be blind to the fact that they tended to have a broad historical basis in the language groups of the populations they regrouped among other aspects of the pre-capitalist relations prevailing among these populations - otherwise there wouldn't be a Kurdish question in Turkey.

Now, it may well be that the Zazaki-Gorani is a separate language than the Kurmanci-Sorani Kurdish and the Zaza are a different ethnic group than the Kurds. There is an actual linguistic discussion going on in there. For the Kurdish nationalists, of course, claiming that the Zaza people are not Kurds is little short of a sinister conspiracy to divide the Kurds. This line of arguement reminds me too much of the propaganda of the Turkish state about the Kurds themselves though. Being a Kurd myself, however, I'd be hesitant to declare that a member of this or that ethnic group is in fact a Kurd who is not aware of it.

Of course, as a communist I am for the joint struggle of workers from all national backgrounds and the eventual abolution of all nations and do not support Kurdish nationalism anyway, as I am opposed to national liberation struggles in general.

[Comrade Hadrian]

Isn't this the point - that people's own self-perception is the primary determining factor of a nation? Suppose the grand majority of people referred to as Kurds think themselves the same nation, despite being separated by these languages (it may be true, it may be not - there's nothing illogical in the concept itself). Do we tell them that they're wrong, or do we draw the conclusion from it that Stalin's definition ought to be modified?

Yes, we tell them they're wrong. In the same way that a lot of "white" people in North America see all Europeans as some sort of race-nation, they are absolutely mistaken. In the same way the Zionists claimed (and still claim) Jews are a nation, we say this is absolutely mistaken. "White" isn't a nation, "Jewish" isn't a nation, and it seems "Kurdish" isn't a nation either. This is important because if the majority Kurmanji speaking 'Kurds' ever formed a state, we would have to recognize in principle the right of 'Kurds' who speak other languages their right to self-determination.

And if Stalin's definition is at odds with the way masses of people perceive themselves, than how useful it really is for basing policies on?

Because things can change very quickly.

[Comrade Hadrian]

I think that we all know what kind of people spend their time arguing that the Kurds are not a nation.

I'd like to know who and where these discussions are taking place, because I haven't seen this discussion take place anywhere at all. If you're trying to insinuate Stormfront-types are concerned with this question, they seem more enamoured with whether or not Armenians are "white" people, based on a quick google search of their forum I just did. I can't find a single discussion on that website about whether or not Kurds are really a nation.

All nations are artificial constructs. In the middle ages, the majority of inhabitants of the French state were not native French speakers.

France also currently contains people who are not native French speakers, namely the people of Occitania, which the French governments have actively tried to suppress.

The Kurds are as much of an artificial creation as any other nation. Yet for some it seems very important that the Kurds are not a nation. You never hear them having these conversations about Germans.

Please point me in the direction of this group of people and where they are having their discussions about whether or not Kurds are not a nation. I'd very much like to see it.

I'd also be interested in discussing with them the formation of the modern German nation, which obviously is a product of the 19th century. Do you think those who speak 'Low' German are members of a separate nation?

[Comrade Hadrian]

Actually, it is not true that Kurmanci and Sorani are mutually unintelligible languages. Kurmanci speakers can at least partially understand Sorani and vice versa. They are linguistically considered dialects of the same language, this is not even disputed by anyone.

I'd like to see some evidence of this, because my impression is that the exact opposite of what you say is true. What does "partially understand" mean? Spanish speakers can "partially understand" Portuguese, that doesn't mean they are the same language. Not by a long shot.

[Leo]

I'd like to know who and where these discussions are taking place, because I haven't seen this discussion take place anywhere at all. If you're trying to insinuate Stormfront-types are concerned with this question, they seem more enamoured with whether or not Armenians are "white" people, based on a quick google search of their forum I just did. I can't find a single discussion on that website about whether or not Kurds are really a nation.

I think Devrim was referring to the discussion on whether the Kurds are or aren't a nation by the Turkish nationalists. You may not know but until recently the Turkish government denied the existance of a Kurdish identity and claimed all Kurds were in fact mountain Turks. Though there are far less people who voice these views publically, they nevertheless still exist. I think Devrim thought you were one of them.

Since apparently you are not;

Please point me in the direction of this group of people and where they are having their discussions about whether or not Kurds are not a nation. I'd very much like to see it.

I seriously doubt that. Turkish nationalists don't tend to be very entertaining.

I'd like to see some evidence of this, because my impression is that the exact opposite of what you say is true. What does "partially understand" mean? Spanish speakers can "partially understand" Portuguese, that doesn't mean they are the same language. Not by a long shot.

Sure: http://www.kurdishacademy.org/?q=node/50

"Speakers of the two dialects do communicate, with difficulty, in normal conversational situations. It is, however, appropriate to state that, until they have had considerable previous contact, the speakers of Kurmanji and Sorani are not able to communicate effectively in all contexts."

I can add that I remember my grandparents, native Kurmanci speakers, used to watch Sorani television and understand some of it.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

There are a bunch of different dialects of German and Chinese. I guess they're not real nations too.

"nation" is such an arbitrary category - making it about language makes no sense as there are plenty of nationalities with multiple language groups. Nationality is just a vague, historically contingent category with no fixed reference. Kurds are a nation because they have national institutions which many Kurds feel reflect their interests. That's really the only distinction with any actual weight in the world.