An Interview with the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (MLKP)

    In this exclusive interview, the Kurdistan Organization Secretary of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Turkey and Kurdistan (MLKP) answers a wide range of questions related to the current situation in the Middle East, among them the party's stance on chauvinism within the Turkish left, the contradictions within Rojava (western Kurdistan), the regional role of the United States, the MLKP's relationship to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), and much more. 

    Q: In Turkey, there are many communist parties and leftist organisations that do not support the Kurdish national liberation struggle. What is your perspective on this tendency within the Turkish left? 

     Kurdistan was divided into four as a result of the 1st imperialist war of partition. The area we call Rojava today was allocated to the French colonial administration and Başûr (South Kurdistan) remained in the hands of the British colonial administration. Bakur (Northern Kurdistan) came under Turkish and Rojhilat (Eastern Kurdistan) under Iranian state rule. After the French and British imperialists left Syria and Iraq, Rojava and Başûr were left to the bourgeois Arab rule of these countries. The land of Kurdistan was divided into four different colonies. Bakur is the largest of these colonies and has also suffered the most under colonial rule. The Turkish colonialists denied the Kurdish national identity, banned the Kurdish language, and expelled and assimilated hundreds of thousands of Kurds from their homeland. Thousands of Kurdish villages were burned. Tens of thousands Kurds have fallen victim to genocidal massacres.

Many Kurdish uprisings occurred against colonial rule and the resulting denialist, assimilationist genocidal policies. The guerrilla struggle started by the PKK in 1984 was recorded in Turkish state sources as the 30th Kurdish uprising.

The Kurdish national liberation struggle is an uprising against colonialism and denial. Those who stay away from this just and legitimate struggle are objectively approaching the Turkish state, no matter what political identity they ascribe to themselves. In other words, those who distance themselves from the Kurds are moving towards the bourgeois Turkish colonial state. The bourgeois Turkish colonial state exercises its ideological and political hegemony over the Turkish toiler through the poison of chauvinism. The yoke over Kurdistan is the main reason why basic rights and freedoms, political freedom is suppressed throughout Turkey by the repressions of the fascist state. In Turkey, the naked truth is vısıble clearly that the toilers of the oppressing nation cannot be free until they win the freedom of the oppressed nation. Therefore, the struggle against the colonial yoke over Kurdistan is not only the task of the Kurds, but of the vanguard communists, socialists and revolutionary democrats of the oppressing nation.

However, many parties, organizations or magazine circles acting in the name of socialism and communism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism or anti-imperialism distance themselves from the PKK and the Kurdish national liberation struggle or position themselves against them. It is clear that this attitude is Turkish chauvinism under a socialist mask. Social chauvinism is nothing but water on the mills of Turkish colonialism from the ranks of the Turkish working class and toilers.

Some claim that the Kurdish national struggle is hiding the class struggle. According to this view, it is precisely the Kurdish national liberation struggle that leads to the Turkish state fomenting chauvinism, preventing the Turkish working class from dealing with its own economic democratic demands and dropping the problems of the class from the agenda. Apart from the fact that this view hides a base economism, it also obscures the fact that the struggle against colonialism is the main axis of the class struggle. As long as the working class of Turkey does not unite with the Kurdish national liberation against colonialism, it cannot liberate itself from the Turkish bourgeoisie and its state.

Some claim that the Kurdish national liberation struggle serves the interests of imperialism. According to this view, the imperialists would want to divide the Turkish state and abolish its independence and use the Kurdish national liberation struggle with this intention. This is bottomless social chauvinism. Turkey is one of the guards of imperialism's interests in the region. Under the rule of imperialists, Kurdistan was divided into four colonies. For these reasons, the Kurdish national liberation struggle has an objective anti-imperialist character. This struggle can be advanced by uniting the workers' movement with the Kurdish national liberation movement.

Some others, however, reject the armed forms of the Kurdish national liberation struggle. They think that because of the armed struggle, the state would get the opportunity to exercise repression against the whole society and thus brutally attack the struggles of the workers and toilers. If the weapons were buried, then the state would also no longer have a pretext to attack. In this regard, the armed struggle is not the cause, but the consequence. Otherwise, colonial rule and fascism cannot be abolished. In this respect, the Kurdish national liberation struggle is not an obstacle but an opportunity. Those who are committed to the vanguard of the working class can use this opportunity and thereby take the class struggle to a higher level. The origin of fascism in Turkey today is the colonial yoke over Kurdistan. As long as this yoke is not broken, the fascist dictatorship cannot be broken either. That is why the anti-fascist struggle and the anti-colonial struggle go into each other.

Some say: let's make revolution together and create socialism, after the revolution we will solve the national question in one fell swoop. They claim that they will make the revolution by staying away from one of the most burning questions of the class struggle, the Kurdish liberation struggle. However, the most that can be done in this way is syndicalism. We can classify them in the group of coy social-chauvinists.

Specifically, we can list a few interesting examples. The Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) and Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front (DHKP-C) are the most typical examples.

The TKP has declared that the right of self-determination of peoples no longer applies and openly revises Lenin on this point. It has sunk so deeply into social-chauvinism that it is closer to the Turkish bourgeoisie than to the Kurdish national liberation struggle and even claims that the Kurdish national liberation struggle weakens the struggle against imperialism.

The DHKP-C defends the peoples' right to self-determination but accuses the Kurdish national liberation struggle of "nationalism". The revolution will solve the Kurdish national question anyway, but now it is necessary to fight together against imperialism. This statement stems from the lack of understanding and the rejection of the fact that Northern Kurdistan is a colony and the Turkish bourgeois state is a colonial state.

It is a strange reality that both of them do not see that the revolutionary war that the guerrilla has been waging for 40 years against the NATO-affiliated Turkish bourgeoisie and the second largest NATO army is anti-imperialism.

Two revolutionary currents, the former reformist, the latter petty-bourgeois, can dramatically meet in social-chauvinism.

 

    Q: What do you view as being the correct way for a Turkish communist to relate to the Kurdish question? 

 We must emphasize one thing above all: The right way of a Turkish communist's relation to the Kurdish question is generally through his break with the Turkish bourgeoisie. Inevitably, those who do not make this break fall into chauvinism or social-chauvinism. Chauvinism or social-chauvinism cannot be reconciled with either communism or revolution. In all critical situations they only lead to becoming the reserve of one's own bourgeoisie. The experience that caused the collapse of the Second International or numerous other experiences have confirmed this reality.

In very general terms, the first condition and basis for "a correct relationship with the Kurdish question" is the perspective of a "consistent democrat". Necessary for the consistent democratism of a Turkish communist is to recognize all the rights that he recognizes to his own people also to all other nations that have been assimilated and whose national existence has been denied, first of all to the Kurds. Every nation whose existence has been denied and which has been deprived of its rights has the right to defend itself. The armed defense of its own national existence and rights is fully just, legitimate and revolutionary; it is part of self-defense. The guerrillas of Kurdistan are fighting a revolutionary war, a just war. The NATO-backed Turkish bourgeoisie and the TSK (Turkish Armed Forces) are waging an unjust, counter-revolutionary, reactionary and enslaving war. They are waging war to maintain the regional colonization of all four parts of Kurdistan and the imperial regional order. For these reasons, the colonial rulers of the region are supported by NATO, the USA and EU politically, militarily, diplomatically in every way.

In revolutionary terms, the answer to this question is even more striking from the political point of view. The Kurdish people are in the position of the vanguard of the peoples in the region and the regional revolution. For example, it is leading a great uprising against the Turkish bourgeois state, which is the ruling apparatus of the collaborating monopoly bourgeoisie and exploits the working class of Turkey. It has been waging a revolutionary war for decades. The working class of Turkey has never had such a strong revolutionary ally in its entire history. The Kurdish national liberation struggle is the most striking example of a regional revolution, of the actuality of the united revolution of Turkey and Kurdistan. The relationship with the Kurdish national liberation struggle is the safest revolutionary yardstick today. It is not only the surest benchmark of being a revolutionary, but also of being an internationalist revolutionary. These criteria become even more profound and meaningful if we take into account the clear position of the PKK, which is leading the Kurdish national liberation struggle, against bourgeois nationalism, as well as the cooperative relations it is building with Marxist-Leninist communists and revolutionaries, and its internationalist perspective and orientation towards the liberation of Kurdistan with the united revolutionary action of the peoples in the region.

  Q: Can you explain the importance of the Peoples' United Revolutionary Movement (HBDH)? What level of unity do you hope to achieve with the other parties in this alliance?  

 The HBDH was founded by eight revolutionary parties and organizations fighting for the revolution in Turkey and Kurdistan, with the aim of revolutionary unity between the Kurdish national liberation struggle and the workers' movement of Turkey. Only through such unity can fascism be defeated and the colonial yoke broken. The unity of revolutionary vanguards of the working class and oppressed gives confidence and hope to our peoples. Our party hopes through this unity to realize the United Revolutionary Leadership and pursues the goal of forming an even broader anti-fascist front alongside this unity. The United Revolutionary Leadership means to unify strategy and tactics in the struggle against fascism and colonialism under a united leadership and to unite the will of revolutionary organizations into a joint will and make it appear in the struggle.

Q: Your Party's relationship with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) is rather close. But you hold different ideologies, with the PKK advocating democratic confederalism. Does this cause any problems between your organisations? 

 The PKK defined itself as Marxist-Leninist in its founding years. Although it still defends socialism today, it is a petty-bourgeois socialism, a mixture of anarchy and utopian socialism far from scientific socialism. The PKK rejects the dictatorship of the proletariat, even more it rejects a state of the working class and oppressed. While the bourgeoisie has a state, the rejection of a state organization of the oppressed means its disarmament. Confederalism can only be realized as a relationship among equals. It is a utopian expectation that autonomous regions under the rule of capital and their various bourgeois states, and within the various borders of those states, can realize a confederal internal unity. Even if this is realizable to a degree, it presupposes the acceptance of the rule of the bourgeois state of the ruling nation. This strategy does not bring national liberation, nor social liberation. Of course, we think differently from the PKK on these issues. But even a national status based on political autonomy represents an achievement for the Kurdish national liberation struggle. Such a status represents a big step in the attainment of political freedom. For this reason, the recognition of a national status based on political autonomy for Kurdistan represents only a limited national sovereignty, but due to the revolutionary-democratic consequences of this, our party supports this demand.

Our party believes that the Kurdish national question can be solved through a "Union of People's Republics", which includes the independent organization of the Kurdish nation as a state. This means a unity of two people's republics that are completely equal. Our party defines itself as "socialist-patriotic" in the Kurdish national liberation struggle. This clarifies the struggle for the national liberation of Kurdistan, at the same time showing the Kurdish workers and toilers the way for socialist liberation. In the struggle against colonialism and fascism, our party takes the cooperation with the PKK, which is fighting for the national liberation of Kurdistan, as a strategic task. Our party sees itself as the communist vanguard of the Kurdistan national liberation struggle. Therefore, our different conceptions of socialism are not an obstacle for the joint struggle with the PKK against fascism and colonialism. For this reason, their defense of democratic confederalism, even if it is a topic of discussion in this stage, is not a problem that makes us go different ways in the struggle against fascism and colonialism.

 

    Q: Why is it important for your Party to take part in the defence of South Kurdistan (northern Iraq)? 

 Our party defines itself as the communist vanguard of Turkey and Kurdistan. In other words, it does not limit itself to Bakur (the north) of Kurdistan, but declares itself as the communist representative of all four parts of Kurdistan. Defending Başûr (the south of) Kurdistan against the colonial Turkish occupation is as much our task as it is the PKK's task. Our party considers it as a natural action of its existence condition to wage war against colonialism in all parts of Kurdistan and to defend achieved positions.

Meanwhile, our party is in the framework of revolutionary preparation in the Medya Defense Zones together with the PKK. The struggle against any attack on these zones also means that our party defends itself.

The Turkish bourgeois colonial state tries to destroy revolutionary positions by the attacks on Haftanin and Gare and to maintain their own colonial existence in Southern Kurdistan. It is one of the tasks of the communists in the struggle against fascism and colonialism both to defend the revolutionary positions and at the same time to prevent that a part of South Kurdistan falls into the rule of the Turkish bourgeoisie.

The Turkish colonial state is trying to destroy the Rojava revolution and cut the connection between Rojava and the guerrillas by abolishing the Medya Defense Zones. That is why the defense of Haftanin is also the defense of the Rojava Revolution.

Therefore, it is important for our party to wage a defensive war against attacks on Haftanin, Gare or any other area of Southern Kurdistan.

 

    Q: Your Party was influential in creating the IFB (International Freedom Battalion) in Rojava. How do you see the situation in Rojava today, more than 8 years after the start of the revolution?

 The Rojava revolution is the result of the popular uprisings in the Middle East. The imperialists and reactionary forces, which are in regional competition with each other, intervened in the popular uprisings according to their interests. The Rojava revolution was the revolutionary intervention in these uprisings.

As is well known, bourgeois publicists have called the collapse of the USSR, which had turned into a rotten shell in the name of socialism, the People's Republics and socialist Albania, as well as the turning of the capitalist road in China and Vietnam, the "end of history" and buried socialism in history forever. According to the postmodern representatives of bourgeois ideology, the "revolution" was only a dream, the end of the "grand narratives" had come. The Rojava revolution, despite all its limitations, was a practical proof that the "grand narratives" and revolution are not a dream.

That is why, of course, it could not be only the task of the peoples of Rojava to defend and develop the revolution. The Kurdish freedom movement led the revolution in Rojava, but it is a revolution of all progressive humanity, an outcry of the oppressed against imperialism and any kind of reaction. That is why all those who call themselves progressive, revolutionary, socialist, anarchist and communist had to defend this revolution. It was also very important to show that the international unity between the oppressed is not just history.

Meanwhile, the IS has emerged as a product of the reactionary intervention of the imperialists and regional reactionaries in the popular uprising of Syria. If the Rojava revolution is the progressive expression of the anger of the oppressed, the IS is the reactionary embodiment of that anger through the influence of the imperialists and their stooges.

The IS saw the Rojava Revolution as the main obstacle to the establishment of their own reactionary rule and therefore attacked it. The IS was not only a plague for Rojava but for the whole humanity. This attack and the resistance against it did not stem from a conflict between Kurds and Arabs, it was a revolutionary war against reaction. For this reason, all progressive humanity had to take its place alongside the Rojava revolution against the IS. The revolutionary defense against the IS attack on Kobanê has characterized our party as today's "Stalingrad". The defense of Kobanê has also been defined as a contemporary version of the Republicans' struggle against fascism in Spain. With the same resilience, determination and international consciousness as the communists fought against Hitler's fascism in Stalingrad and defended Spain from fascism, Kobanê had to be defended. As a requirement of this internationalist perspective, all progressive humanity was called to defend Kobanê, just as the communists called for international battalions in the fight against fascism in Spain. The IFB in Rojava has embodied this call.

As described, our party defines itself as the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Turkey and Kurdistan. For the part of our party that stands for Kurdistan, our participation in the Rojava revolution and its defense is not solidarity, but its very task. For the part of our party that represents Turkey, participation in the Rojava revolution is at the same time an internationalist task. There are many progressive, revolutionary and socialist parties in Turkey that define themselves only as representatives of the labouring people in Turkey. The IFB also had a great importance in the sense that these parties participated in the defense of the Rojava revolution and thus fulfilled their internationalist tasks.

These are the most important reasons why our party has played such an active role in building the IFB.

 

    Q: Many leftists and communists in the west have been disappointed by some events in Rojava. For example, the oil deal between the SDF and a U.S. oil company Delta Crescent, caused much confusion and came as shock to many. How do you respond to these events? 

 The IS attack on Kobanê was met with a great revolutionary resistance. This revolutionary resistance has resonated with the peoples of the world. All over the world, millions of people took to the streets for Kobanê. Dozens of countries formed an anti-IS coalition that could not do anything against the advance of IS, whereas the resistance of Kurdish revolutionaries has won a great sympathy of the peoples of the world. There were calls everywhere to support the Kurdish revolutionaries. The U.S. and the international coalition were forced to respond to this call, otherwise their anti-IS goals would have completely come to naught.

From a certain stage, the U.S. joined in the defense from the air. For both sides, this was a military-tactical alliance. At no time did this alliance take on a political character. Thus, the Autonomous Administration, which controls a third of Syria, was not even invited to the Geneva summit.

The USA, besides defeating IS, also wants to encircle Iran, limit Russia's influence and protect Israel, therefore they want to maintain their existence in Syria and the only force they can lean on is the SDF. The revolutionary administration of Rojava felt the need for a military-tactical alliance with the U.S. to maintain the revolution against the attacks of Turkey and the Assad regime. The deal with the oil company is a consequence of this forced tactical alliance. This deal has no political side and only a limited economic sphere of influence.

   Q: Do you think the administration of the Autonomous Administration in Rojava pays too much attention to dealings with the U.S. government? 

     The alliance between the Autonomous Administration and the US does not have a stable foundation because both sides are forced to act together with limited goals. On the one hand, the U.S. needs the SDF, and on the other hand, it sets limits to the attacks of the Turkish state to destroy the Rojava Autonomous Administration. It should not be forgotten that Turkey is a NATO member under the command of the US. The relationship between Turkey and the U.S. is not military-tactical, but strategic. The USA wants to control the Autonomous Administration as well as to appease Turkey. That is why they want to make the Rojava Autonomous Administration "acceptable" for the Turkish state. This means that the U.S. is mainly turning towards emptying the revolutionary content of the Autonomous Administration, cutting its ties with the guerrillas, and turning it into a kind of Başûr. If the Autonomous Administration does not demonstrate the necessary vigilance, it will be threatened with liquidation. It must always be kept in mind that the U.S. is an imperialist country and it would drop the Autonomous Administration at any time for its imperialist interests. In this respect, the Autonomous Administration has not lost its revolutionary-democratic orientation. In other words, it cannot be said that it is committed to US imperialism. But this danger always exists. Against this danger it is necessary to stabilize the revolutionary front and develop the democratic organization of the people. While the communists fighting in Rojava participate in the defense, they also participate in the construction work of the revolution on the and expose the policies of imperialism in order to educate the people about the possible dangers.

 

    Q: Do you think there will be a significant change in the region because of Joe Biden's presidency? 

 A change of president in the U.S. does not lead to any significant changes in terms of protecting imperialist interests, but it may lead to changes in terms of the choice of political means used for those interests. It is well known that the relationship between NATO member Turkey and Russia has led to contradictions between the U.S. and Turkey. The Biden administration will try to pressure Turkey to move away from Russia and fit firmly into NATO. Nevertheless, this will not change the policy of U.S. imperialism for its basic interests in the region. The U.S. wants to shape Turkey as the guardian of the region once again and at a new level. Along with this, no important change in the policy of U.S. imperialism in the region can be expected, which can be summarized with the goals of weakening Russia's influence, encircling Iran and protecting Israel.

In terms of the relationship with the Rojava Autonomous Administration, it can be said that the U.S. wants to empty the content of the revolution and continue to turn Rojava into a Başûr. It looks like the Biden administration, unlike Trump who has pursued a policy of appeasement and reconciliation with Turkey, is taking a path of taming. The U.S. policy of limiting Russia and taming Turkey may provide the Autonomous Administration with a larger space for maneuvering compared to the past. This maneuvering space contains as many risks as it offers opportunities. US imperialism, under its military umbrella, will pursue an extortionist policy against the revolutionary contents. The Autonomous Administration must know how to use the contradictions between all imperialists and reactionary powers in the region for the revolution, relying not on maneuvers but on the organized power of the people. It must expand the sphere of common property to strengthen the social base of the revolution.

 

    Q: How do you see revolution in the Middle East in general? Does your Party have a perspective beyond Turkey and Kurdistan? 

    The Middle East is in a deep political crisis due to its dependence on imperialism, lack of political freedom, unresolved national questions and religious/confessional conflicts. During the stage of imperialist globalization growing exploitation, accelerated dispossession of the petty bourgeoisie, increasing participation of women in the labor force, growing urbanization and student population, other elements of the crisis have emerged. The popular uprisings in the Middle East were an indicator that these same new elements of crisis were transforming into a revolutionary crisis.

As the socioeconomic base becomes more and more equalized in the stage of imperialist globalization, an uprising that began in Tunisia could suddenly spread throughout the Middle East. This shows that it is possible for the Middle East revolution to develop as a united revolution.

Nevertheless, a popular uprising without revolutionary leadership can flare up and die out like a steppe fire. It can fall under the control of competing imperialists as a result of imperialist interference, or under the control of political Islamic organizations like the IS or the Muslim Brotherhood. That is why we must talk about the formation of a revolutionary-democratic leadership before anything else when we talk about the revolution of the Middle East. Certainly, this is a practical question and will be solved by each revolutionary party in the Middle East mastering the revolutionary tasks of their countries.

In the stage of imperialist globalization, the struggle against imperialism goes hand in hand with the struggle against capitalism. The liberation of the Middle East from imperialism becomes possible only through the liberation from capitalism. Without doubt, any country can take steps in this direction, as is the case in Rojava, but in order for the revolution to be sustained, regional cooperation among the peoples of the Middle East is needed. The surest way for this to happen is that instead of the existence of individual countries, a revolutionary democratic federation of the Middle East, with the goal of establishing socialism, is built.

Also, considering the accumulated national questions, a revolutionary-democratic federation of the Middle East is the right direction. The solution of the Kurdish national question is the clearest proof of this. The unity of Kurdistan, which is divided into four, inevitably requires that the states of Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria are broken up and new states are created on the basis of national equality. A federal union of these new revolutionary democratic states will change the whole picture of the Middle East. This alone would be a very important stage of the Middle East revolution.

Our party believes that regional revolutions are possible not only in the Middle East, but in many places around the world, and that regional federations can emerge as a product of this. As in the Middle East, regional revolutions and federations are possible in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Latin America, etc. Our party has included in its program a revolutionary-democratic federation of the Middle East with the goal of socialism, and also generally sees regional revolutions and federations as a development toward world revolution.