“Humans gain in value when they understand that animals and plants
are only entrusted to them. A social ‘consciousness’ that lacks
ecological consciousness will inevitably corrupt and disintegrate”.
Just as the system has led the social crisis into chaos, so has the
environment begun to send out S.O.S. signals in the form of
life-threatening catastrophes. Cancer-like cities, polluted air, the
perforated ozone layer, the rapidly accelerating extinction of animal
and plant species, the destruction of forests, the pollution of water by
waste, piling up mountains of rubbish and unnatural population growth
have driven the environment into chaos and insurrection. It’s all about
maximum profit, regardless of how many cities, people, factories,
transportation, synthetic materials, polluted air and water our planet
can handle. This negative development is not fate. It is the result of
an unbalanced use of science and technology in the hands of power. It
would be wrong to hold science and technology responsible for this
process. Science and technology in themselves are not to blame. They
function according to the forces of the social system. Just as they can
destroy nature, they can heal it. The problem is exclusively a social
one. There is a great contradiction between the level of science and
technology and the standard of living of the overwhelming majority of
people. This situation is the result of the interests of a minority that
has control over science and technology. In a democratic and free
society, however, science and technology will play an ecological role.
Ecology itself is also a science. It examines the relationship of
society to its environment. Although it is still a very young science,
it will play a leading role in overcoming the contradiction between
society and nature together with all other sciences. The environmental
consciousness that has already been developed in places will make a
revolutionary leap forward through ecology understood in this way. The
bond between the communal primitive society and nature is like the bond
between child and mother. Nature is understood as something alive. The
golden rule of the religion of this time was not to do anything against
it in order not to be punished by it. The natural religion is the
religion of the communal primitive society. There is no contradiction to
nature, no anomaly in the emergence of society. Philosophy itself
defines the human being as “nature becoming aware of itself”. The human
being is basically the most developed part of nature. This proves the
unnaturalness and anomaly of this social system, which puts the most
developed part of nature in contradiction to it. The fact that this
social system has turned the human, who enthusiastically united himself
with nature in feasts, into such a plague for nature shows that it is
itself the plague. The holistic nature of human and the natural
environment does not only refer to economic and social issues. It is
also an indispensable philosophical passion to understand nature. This
is actually based on reciprocity. Nature proves its great curiosity and
creative power by becoming human. The human being, on the other hand,
recognizes itself by understanding nature. It is remarkable that the
Sumerian word for freedom, “Amargi”, means return to the mother –
nature. Between human being and nature there is a quasi love
relationship. This is a great love story. To destroy this love is,
religiously speaking, a mortal sin. Because you cannot create a greater
sense of meaning than this one. In this context, the remarkable
significance of our interpretation of the female bleeding is shown once
again. It is both a sign of the distance from nature and of its origin.
The woman’s naturalness stems from her closeness to nature. This is also
the real meaning of her mysterious attraction.
No social system
that is not in harmony with nature can claim rationality and morality
for itself. Therefore, the system that is most at odds with nature will
also be overcome in terms of rationality and morality. As can be seen
from this brief definition of the contradiction between the capitalist
social system and its present chaotic state and the catastrophic
destruction of the environment, it is a dialectical relationship. The
fundamental contradiction to nature can only be overcome by turning away
from the system. It cannot be solved by environmental protection
movements alone. On the other hand, an ecological society also requires a
moral change. The amorality of capitalism can only be overcome by an
ecological approach. The connection between morality and conscience
demands an empathetic and sympathetic spirituality. This in turn only
makes sense if it is based on ecological competence. Ecology means
friendship with nature, belief in natural religion. In this respect
ecology stands for a renewed, conscious and enlightened union into a
natural, organic society.
Also the practical problems of an
ecological way of life are quite topical. One of the tasks of the
activists is to expand the many existing organizations in every respect
and to make them an integral part of democratic society. This also
includes solidarity with the feminist and liberal women’s movements. One
of the most important activities in democratisation is the promotion
and organisation of environmental awareness. Just as there once was a
pronounced class or national consciousness, we must create an awareness
of democracy and the environment through intensive campaigns. Whether we
are talking about animal rights, the protection of forests or
reforestation, such actions, if carried out properly, are indispensable
elements of social actionism. For people who have no feeling for the
biological can only have a disturbed social feeling.
Those who
perceive the relationship between the two can feel true and with all
their senses. Nature, which has so far been plundered and exposed, must
and will witness a great struggle to restore its cover of flora and
fauna. The forest will have to be given a chance again. “Great
patriotism means reforestation and planting trees.” This is a valuable
slogan.
Those who do not love and protect animals will also not
be able to protect and love humans. Man gains value when he understands
that animals and plants are only entrusted to him. A social
“consciousness” that lacks ecological consciousness will inevitably
corrupt and disintegrate, as was seen in real socialism. Ecological
consciousness is a fundamental ideological consciousness. It resembles a
bridge between philosophy and morality. A policy that promises
salvation from the current crisis can only lead to a real social system
if it is ecological. As with the problem of women’s freedom, the
patriarchal and etatist understanding of power also contributes to the
fact that ecological problems have been delayed for so long and have
still not been solved properly. If ecology and feminism continue to
develop, the patriarchal and etatist system becomes completely out of
balance. The true struggle for democracy and socialism will only become a
complete affair when it takes up the cause of women’s freedom and
nature’s salvation. Only such a complete struggle for a new social
system can lead to a meaningful way out of the current chaos.
The text is an excerpt from Abdullah Öcalan’s defense pamphlet “Bir Halkı Savunmak” (engl: “Beyond State, Power and Violence”.)
The PKK intervention is in such a way that won’t allow for further
massacres or genocides against the Yazidi people who have suffered 73
genocides.
ANF
NEWS DESK
Saturday, 3 Aug 2019, 14:00
The whole world watched the Shengal genocide as if it was
a movie. Unfortunately, nobody took action to stop this massacre. There
was an absolute humanitarian tragedy. Yazidis (Êzidîs) experienced the
greatest trauma of recent history. On the fifth anniversary of the
Shengal massacre, there is still a need for this massacre to be analyzed
in all aspects and brought to light still. Was the reason for the 73
genocides, the inhuman cruelty and genocide just that the Yazidis have a
different faith? What other factors are at play? Who are attacking
Yazidis, and why? Who has how much responsibility? These questions need
to be asked and answered.
Siba Şêx Xidir and Til Zerê residential areas were attacked by
explosive laden trucks on August 14, 2007 and there was a massacre. The
perpetrators of this massacre and their motives still haven’t been
brought to light. It shouldn’t be ignored that the attacks were based on
political interests as much as a difference in faith. Like in August
2014 the KDP, responsible for defending Yazidis in the ISIS massacre,
failed to carry out this duty and caused a social tragedy, they had a
political responsibility in the massacre of August 2007. Not only a
political responsibility, they had knowledge of and a role in the
planning and execution of this massacre. It was revealed that the
Turkish MİT was involved in this massacre. Shengal and thus Yazidis have
been used as pawns for politics.
FOUNDATIONS FOR THE MASSACRE LAID IN 2007
A new constitution was drafted in post-Saddam Iraq in 2003. According
to article 140 in this constitution, conflicted areas were to hold
referendums to determine their status. The referendum planned for 2007
was to determine whether the line from Makhmur to Shengal, including
Kirkuk, was to be under the Iraqi central government or the Kurdistan
regional government. As Shengal was attacked with explosive laden trucks
before the referendum, the vote could not be held and the fate of these
conflicted areas was not clarified. Defining the August 2007 massacre
without establishing its ties to the referendum would be obscuring the
truth. A massacre scenario was devised and it was enacted by those whose
plans for the referendum failed. The Yazidis were chosen as victims in
this. KDP used this massacre as an excuse to fortify their own area of
influence. Shengal was officially under the Mosul province, but in
effect it came under control of the Kurdistan regional government. This
in sum is the political play over the deaths of over 500 Yazidis. Who
carried out the massacre is just a detail. If the massacres of Siba Şeyh
Xidir and Tilezer are to be analyzed correctly, they should be
considered in relation to the future of Shengal and the referendum.
The Yazidi genocide in Shengal in August 2014 is similar. The ISIS
gangs attacking Mosul is the fruit of the same political tree. They
wanted to balance symbolic Kurdish presidency, a symbolic Sunni
parliament chair post and a strong and effective Shia Iraqi
administration with ISIS. The Shia Iraqi government and Iran, gaining
more and more influence, were to be restricted with ISIS against the
growth of Shiaism in Iraq. It is the self-expression of the Sunni block
through ISIS. The Turkish state, KDP and some Arab countries, and
primarily the residue from Saddam, are the collective of accomplices.
SHENGAL WAS HANDED OVER, LIKE MOSUL WAS HANDED OVER TO ISIS
The gang group that assumed the name the Islamic State of Iraq and
Sham targets mostly different faith groups and Kurds. Breaking the PKK
control in the lands ISIS targets and eliminating the Kurds influenced
by the PKK would serve ISIS in gaining territory, would allow the
Turkish state some comfort and would push the KDP forth as a model. It
would also serve to break the influence of Shiaism in Iraq. This is the
politics of interest that birthed this monstrosity. ISIS attempted to
advance by burning and destroying everything that crossed their path -
until they were stopped in Kobanê. Shengal was handed over the same way
that Mosul was handed over to ISIS. Those who tied their hopes to ISIS’s
advance allowed them to advance quickly. That was why Shengal was left
undefended. The Yazidi society was stuck victimized by political
interests once more. A force making these dirty plans over Shengal and
the Yazidi people claiming to be the conqueror of Shengal and claiming
rights is such a sad contradiction.
PKK WAS THE ONLY FORCE
The states of the world were silently watching the Yazidi genocide in
Shengal, and the PKK was the only force that intervened with the
massacre with their own limited resources. Despite KDP’s obstacles and
arrests against the intervening force, they stood against the ISIS
attacks and prevented the massacre from achieving the ultimate result.
PKK forces defended the Yazidi lands at the price of their lives. They
opened a corridor for the people in the throes of hunger and thirst,
desperate in the scorching desert sun, and removed the Yazidis from the
area. The first intervention was an urgent intervention. It was done to
save the people from the jaws of the beast, so to speak.
Analyzing the PKK’s intervention in Shengal as just stopping the
Yazidi massacre, aiding the Yazidis, defending the Yazidi lands and
transporting the Yazidis through a corridor would be lacking and
insufficient. The PKK has made an intervention that goes beyond all
these.
The PKK’s intervention in Shengal should be analyzed correctly. The
PKK intervention is in such a way that won’t allow for further massacres
or genocides against the Yazidi people who have suffered 73 genocides.
The PKK’s intervention is in such a way that won’t allow for Shengal and
the Yazidis to be sacrificed for political interests ever again.
The time to take advantage of the closed nature of the Yazidi
society, the way they have been left out of politics and without
self-defense, their financial struggles, the insecurity created by the
small size of the population and using the Yazidis as pawns is over.
Yazidis have evolved into a structure that will allow them to defend
themselves and protect themselves against any attacks instead of the
Yazidi people being used in wars as soldiers or peshmerga according to
others’ interests. The youth, the women have organized themselves and
have launched intense efforts to get to a point where they can answer
the needs of the Yazidi society. Yazidis have become a society that
learned to stand on their own without any outside help. It is an
important achievement that they are handling political, military and
diplomatic efforts over the Yazidi people’s organizations. What is
happening in Shengal is a women’s revolution. The self-defense force YBŞ
organizing the military structure and the security forces is no small
feat.
SHENGAL SHOULD BE AUTONOMOUS
The Yazidis are developing their self-government. The assembly
efforts have created a significant experience. They need to be more
institutionalized, assumed as the governing model and go into action.
Whether Shengal is under the Iraqi central government or the Kurdistan
regional government, in any case, it needs to have an autonomous status.
Considering the facts that the threat against Shengal is not completely
removed and that it was a conflicted area and part of the Article 140,
there is still a long way to go. But despite everything, the Yazidis are
going through a process where they learn by doing, and do by learning.
The fortune and the history of the Yazidis have changed.
DIRTY TRICKS
The PKK’s intervention in Shengal is geared towards building a new
social system. It aims to create a free and political society. Most
recently, a mixed group of gangs have resorted to military force and
attacked Khanasor with Roj Peshmergas and counter units on March 3,
2017. They have murdered some ten of our friends and wounded others.
They opened fire targeting women. Two female friends fell martyr while
dozens of others were wounded. Failing to achieve results via
provocative attempts on Shengal, KDP has resorted to dirtier tricks and
are trying to pressure and intimidate the people. They want to achieve
results via intimidation, arrests and buying people out. If that wasn’t
enough, the Shengal mountain was also targeted by the Turkish state’s
aerial attacks.
All of the Yazidi massacres were carried out during the Ottoman
period. The Yazidis who fled Ottoman genocides and sought refuge in the
Shengal mountain back in the day are now threatened by aerial attacks,
to finish off the survivors of the ISIS massacres.
The partnership between the KDP and the Turkish state over Shengal
has been exposed once more with these attacks. This alliance over
animosity and murder of Yazidis is also a tacit alliance with ISIS.
PKK’s intervention in Shengal is a permanent response to animosity
against the Yazidi people.
Επειδή υπήρξαν και υπάρχουν και στην επικράτεια τής Ελληνικής Δημοκρατίας ορκισμένοι πολιτικοί και ιδεολογικοί εχθροί τού ηρωϊκού ΡΚΚ, θα τους καλούσαμε αν μπορούσαν να διαβάσουν να μελετήσουν και να μάθουν για τον σωτήριο ρόλο τού ΡΚΚ στην διάσωση και οργάνωση των Γεζίντι απέναντι στους Γενοκτόνους φασίστες τού ISIS, στο άρθρο που αναδημοσιεύσαμε [Αυτοκαθορισμός : Remembering the Şengal genocide].
Έπειτα, αφού σκύψουν το κεφάλι τους και αναλογιστούν τι έχουν πει με το λερωμένο ιδεοληπτικό στόμα τους, ειδικά οι "αυτόνομοι" και οι πολύ "αριστεροί" τού κΚε και των ελληνικών μ-λ, να μάθουν να σέβονται και να μη το "ανοίγουν" χωρίς να ξέρουν και χωρίς να θέλουν να μάθουν την αλήθεια που είναι μια και με την οποία δεν έχουν ούτε θα έχουν ποτέ σχέση.
NEWS DESK – When on the
3rd of August 2014 the savage ISIS gangs swept over Şengal, which
counted at that moment of the attack a population of 500 000 people due
to migration, the Yazidi community witnessed with their own eyes how the
Peshmerga of the KDP as well as the soldiers of the Iraqi army all ran
away taking their entire weapons and armaments with them, throwing the
Yazidi population under the bus and leaving them totally unprotected in
the fangs of ferocious ISIS. The ISIS gangs launched their first attacks
together with some local thugs that lived in southern Şengal, on the
village Gir Zerik. Afterwards they aimed at the villages Siba Şêx Xidir,
Rambosî, Til Qeseb, Kocho and Til Benadê.
THE PEOPLE FLED TO THE MOUNTAIN
The
defenceless Yazidis who were left alone to fend for themselves,
struggled with a couple of arms, which they successfully hid from the
KDP. But it was impossible to stand against all the panzers, missiles
and heavy artillery which the gangs had obtained from Mosul. The flight
of the Peshmerga rendered the Yazidis completely desolate and
dispirited, and therefore they headed to Mount Şengal, the last resort.
Hundreds of thousands of Yazidis at all ages were at the mercy of a
calamity and betook themselves desperately to the mountain. The
Peshmerga of the KDP were meanwhile crossing the humanitarian corridor,
which the YPG had opened, to Rojava and rushed from there over back to
South Kurdistan.
“WE WITNESSED TREASON WITH OUR OWN EYES”
One
of the fighters of the Şengal Defense Units (YBŞ) Tîrêj Şengalî
conversed with the ANF on those very moments and said: “When ISIS got
control of Mosul, up to 12000 soldiers that were stationed here assured
us: ‘Şengal is our honour, we will defend it no matter what.’ But they
did not fulfil that promise. They delivered us to the gangs and left us
in the clutches of the genocide. We saw with our very own eyes how they
abandoned these poor women and children and ran off. They betrayed this
people. We have witnessed this treason by ourselves.”
“THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT STARS WERE SHINING”
One
of the fighters of the Women’s Defense Units (YJŞ) Viyan Helabî called
the incidents of the 3rd August 2014 in Şengal a Black Day and stated:
“No matter how much and long we talk, we will never be able to put into
words what really happened there back then. It was a black day. The
whole world was watching minute for minute what barbarity was being done
to the Yazidis. Everything, every step happened in front of the eyes of
the tacit world. Those who fell into the hands of ISIS, were gone for
good. They were either enslaved or slaughtered. But also among those who
fled in masses to the mountain, countless died of thirst and hunger,
whereas others fell from the crags and died. Some people also jumped
from the high cliffs to save themselves from falling into the clutches
of ISIS. Despite all that horror, on that night the stars over Şengal
were sparkling brightly. It was a lucid night. Every moment was
illuminated by the light of the stars. The stars were shining in an
unnatural way. There was a meaning hidden behind that…
THE LIGHT OF HOPE IN MOUNT ŞENGAL
The
ISIS gangs massacred only within the first 24 hours thousands of
Yazidis and kidnapped tens of thousands. Those who managed to get to
Mount Şengal beheld on the mountain a light of hope. The Yazidis who
always fell victims to genocides in the course of history, looked now on
a small group of guerrillas of the HPG standing there in front of them
on Mount Şengal, having taken control of both routes and repelled the
attacks of the ISIS gangs successfully. The guerrillas of the HPG had
taken both routes leading to the mountain under their control with only
some light personal arms and one DsHK, which the Peshmerga left behind
as they were busy running away. The interview of the journalist Hayri
Kızıler, who also left for the mountain as the genocide was taking
place, gave us some impression of how the guerrillas used those personal
rifles in the fight against the ISIS gangs.
AND HOPE GROWS
In
his interview Kızıler gave following account: “The people arrived at
the mountain, and by then the HPG had taken control of the routes. This
was heart relieving, no matter how small. After that a vast unit of YPG
fighters came in and they fought a fierce war of position, until they
managed to get to the Mount Şengal. The next day, following the
statement of the People’s Defense Central Headquarters Commander Murat
Karayilan, a unit of guerrillas fought its way open to mount Şengal step
by step. On the 5th August a local militia force was founded, called
the Şengal Resistance Units. Emplacements were set and on the fifth day
the mountain was secured completely. The HPG unit consisting of 7
guerrillas turned within shortest time into a 2 000 men and women strong
force. On seeing this, the people gained new trust. With the arrival of
the YPG and the HPG, the Yazidi people were filled with tremendous
esperance.”
THE HUMANITARIAN CORRIDOR OF THE YPG AND YPJ
As
news about the genocide were spread, Rojava mobilized to highest
degree. The forces of the YPG and YPJ, who were themselves in Rojava’s
Hesekê in the heat of a great operation against ISIS gangs and their
appendages, left that operation halfway and moved heaven and earth to
get to Şengal over the Til Koçer, Rabia and Jazaa route. The fighters of
the YPG and YPJ opened a way of hundreds of kilometres, giving dozens
of martyrs, and reached Mount Şengal finally on the 8th August. The
fighters of the YPG and YPJ on the mountain guided hundreds of thousands
of Yazidis with the cars of the mobilized inhabitants of Rojava placed
at their disposal through the corridor to Rojava. The global community,
which remained until then completely silent in view of the tragedy the
Yazidi people faced, titled this corridor that has been fought open
fiercely, the “humanitarian corridor”.
“WE DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO”
One
of the commanders of the Şengal Defense Units (YBŞ) Tîrêj Şengal, who
himself was among the civilians saving themselves through the
“humanitarian corridor” to Rojava and decided to return once again to
Mount Şengal, told ANF about his psychological state back then and the
happenings he witnessed with these words: “We were really completely at a
loss. Then we heard that some of the HPG guerrillas who were stationed
on the mountain had entered the city and wanted to organise the people.
Some of them were even arrested by the KDP. At that time we had crossed
the border to Rojava, but many of us had the deep desire to return to
Mount Şengal and do something, no matter what.”
12 RIDERS OF LEGENDARY DERWÊSHÊ EVDÎ
People’s
Defense Central Headquarters Commander Murat Karayılan stated in an
interview he gave in November 2014, that basing on the warnings of
Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan they wanted to send their forces
to Şengal, Makhmur and Kirkuk and to get on that issue into contact
with the KDP (Kurdistan Democratic Party) and the PUK (Patriotic Union
of Kurdistan).
Karayilan conversed on the diplomacy that were
conducted then as follows: “The KDP asserted that they have got
everything under control, that the Peshmerga units would be totally
sufficient and that there would be no need for the guerrillas”. The PUK
also said the same thing and added that in case they needed help they
would call for us. We, the PKK, are taking matters into our own hands.
And based on this we made some preparations. We mobilized 12 of our
guerrillas to head to Şengal. When I talked with those 12 comrades, I
compared them with the 12 riders of Derwêshê Evdî, a very famous Kurdish
epic, and told them that they will defend Şengal the same way. We sent
those comrades clandestinely to Şengal. When the Peshmerga got wind of
that, they arrested three of our comrades of that group. The nine
remaining guerrillas made their way carefully to their destination. On
the 3rd August at 09:00 o’clock we received news of a catastrophic
dimension and we heard that the Peshmerga had retreated from Şengal one
day before. It was the first time for eight years that I used a phone to
talk with the comrades in Şengal, and that minute we send off a unit of
guerrillas to Şengal.”
“IN EVERY VALLEY AND CANYON WERE CORPSES”
From
here on we leave the talking to the HPG guerrilla Êrîş Hewreman, who
was one of the guerrillas of the “intervention force”: “We were put in
charge as soon as the genocide in Şengal took place in order to rescue
our people there. After we set off from Qandil, we crossed the border to
Rojava and from then headed over the corridor, which the YPG had
secured, to Şengal. As we betook ourselves to Şengal, we came across on
the way many of our Yazidi people that had starved to death and severely
effete children and elderly. A drop of water was a great need. The
valleys and canyons were filled with corpses of those who were massacred
by the ISIS gangs or died of thirst. What infuriated us even more than
the actual abhorrent genocide, was the treason of the KDP, that bragged
to be a Kurdish party”.
YAZIDIS SCATTERED ALL AROUND
The
majority of the Yazidis managed to escape the genocide and reached
Mount Şengal and were then taken to Rojava. Another part went to the
cities of Southern Kurdistan. Those who reached Rojava were accommodated
in the Newroz refugee camp in the Dêrik city. The Yazidi Kurds that
crossed the border to Northern Kurdistan were placed into refugee camps
mostly in the cities of Şırnak, Mardin, Batman and Amed. Some others
headed afterwards, despite all calls of the Yazidi institutions and the
Kurdish people, to Europe.
“YAZIDIS GOT TO KNOW THE PKK”
We
want to listen once more to the words of the HPG guerrilla Êrîş
Hewreman telling of what exactly was done back then and what kind of
resistance was offered: “When the fighters arrived at the area and the
Yazidi youth started to self-organize, the people was loaded up with
great morale. Even though the corridor between Rojava and Şengal was
closed again after some time, the morale did not fade at all. Between
the people and the fighters a strong bond was forged. At the very
beginning the Yazidi people did not know anything about the PKK at all.
But now they have come to understand the PKK thoroughly. At that time
they switched from the defense to offense, inflicting heavy blows to the
enemy. Within a small area they offered a massive resistance 11 months
in a row. It was an unparalleled resistance. The Yazidi community came
to know and love heroes like Pirdoğan, Canfeda and Berxwedan.”
JOINT COMMAND FOR OFFENSIVE
On
the one side a substantial struggle was waged in Şengal against the
ISIS gangs, and on the other side the KDP put all its efforts into
hindering the liberation of Şengal. On 29 October 2015 the Şengal
Defense Units (YBŞ), the Women’s Defense Units (YJŞ) and the Şengal
Defence Forces (HPŞ) issued a joint statement and declared the formation
of a joint command for Şengal’s liberation, called the “Êzîdxan Command
to liberate Şengal”.
COORDINATION BETWEEN YPJ/YPJ AND THE GUERRILLA
On
the border to Rojava the forces of the YPG and YPJ liberated Hawl and
Xatûniyê, providing a great boost to the operations to liberate Şengal.
On the border to Şengal the guerrillas of the HPG and YJA-Star advanced
on the mount Kolik and Geliyê Şîlo and liberated many villages of
Şengal.
LIBERATION OF ÊZÎDXAN
The joint
command that was forged on 29 October, heralded the start of the
“Operation to Liberate Şengal” to the Yazidi community and the people of
Kurdistan. After the operation was launched, the KDP mobilized on the
eastern front to get rid of the bad reputation it had earned with its
withdrawal from Şengal on 3 August. The Yazidi people who remained on
Mount Şengal also took up arms in the framework of self-defence and
joined the operation. Already on the second day of the operation the
forces of the YBŞ and YJŞ and the guerrillas of the HPG and YJA-Star
cleared the city centre of the gangs. The HPG command in Şengal as well
as the general command of the YBŞ issued a statement saying: “We
dedicate the liberated and free Şengal to our people.”
BARZANİ’S DENIAL EFFORTS
Şengal
was freed from the ISIS gangs in front of the eyes of the entire
closely watching world. The president of the KDP Masoud Barzanî however
held a press conference one day after entering Şengal once more and
tried to deny the reality that occurred second for second in front of
the eyes of the world. He claimed that the Şengal town was secured by
his Peshmergas. The fighters of the YBŞ and YJŞ and the guerrillas of
the HPG and YJA-Star immediately went on liberating the villages in the
south, as soon as they cleared the city centre. But the KDP Peshmerga
took their seats in Şengal town centre, settled there and did not move
an inch whatsoever.
Υπάρχουν διάφορες προσπάθειες για την καταγωγική θεμελίωση τής έννοιας τής δημοκρατίας, και δεν προτίθεμαι βέβαια να τις παραθέσω τώρα, αλλά μπορώ να σας δώσω ένα μεζεδάκι για το πως θεωρώ εγώ ότι μπορεί να οριστεί μια νέα σοσιαλιστική μορφή της χωρίς να δεσμεύεται απόλυτα από την οποιαδήποτε καταγωγική θεμελίωση:
Βασικό στοιχείο των ανταγωνιστικών ταξικών κοινωνιών είναι η έριδα και η αγεφύρωτη σύγκρουση μεταξύ ατόμων, κοινωνικών τάξεων και μεταξύ άλλων κοινωνικών ή "ιδεολογικών" ομάδων.
Δεν θεωρώ ότι στον σοσιαλισμό που επιθυμώ θα εκλείψουν οι σκληρές αντιθέσεις, άρα και οι αντιπαραθέσεις μεταξύ ατόμων και κοινωνικών ομάδων, αν και οφείλω να "ξεκαθαρίσω" ότι για μένα δεν νοείται σοσιαλισμός χωρίς να υπάρχει δια αυτού κατάργηση των σχέσεων οικονομικής εκμετάλλευσης και καταπίεσης, χωρίς δηλαδή να υπάρξει κατάργηση τής ύπαρξης μιας ξεχωριστής τάξης ιδιοκτητών των [βασικών] μέσων παραγωγής και των πόρων.
Θα υπάρχουν άλλοι λόγοι σύγκρουσης και αντιπαράθεσης, θα υπάρχουν διαφορετικές γνώμες, διαφορετικές στρατηγικές για την πολιτική, οικονομική ίσως και πολιτισμική "υφή" του σοσιαλισμού.
Δεν θεωρώ ότι αυτοί οι ανταγωνισμοί θα είναι ήπιοι, όπως επίσης δεν θεωρώ ότι υπάρχει κάποια οντολογική διασφάλιση ότι οι συγκρούσεις που θα προκύπτουν από τις αντίθετες στάσεις και γνώμες θα είναι εύκολα αφομοιώσιμες σε ένα εκ των προτέρων διασφαλισμένο ως μη-ανταγωνιστικό κοινωνικό συνεχές.
Απλά το κοινό υπόβαθρο των συγκρούσεων θα είναι διαφορετικό από το κοινό υπόβαθρο στο οποίο έχουμε συνηθίσει να ζούμε ζώντας σε μια ταξική καταπιεστική κοινωνία όπου μια οικονομική ολιγαρχία "κανονίζει" την κοινωνική κανονικότητα σύμφωνα με τα οικεία ιδιοτελή συμφέροντα της και όπου τα υπόλοιπα "μέλη" τής κοινωνίας είναι "αναγκασμένα" να αγωνίζονται συνέχεια, υπό ανταγωνιστικούς όρους, για την ίδια την επιβίωση και αυτοσυντήρηση τους.
Η δημοκρατική απάλειψη των καταπιεστικών εκμεταλλευτικών όρων τής κοινωνικής παραγωγής, εν συντομία η υπέρβαση τού καπιταλιστικού αλλά και του κρατικιστικού τρόπου παραγωγής, θεωρώ όμως ότι θα φέρει ένα είδος δημοκρατικής ειρήνευσης, χωρίς να σημαίνει κατάργηση κάθε είδους ανταγωνισμού και σύγκρουσης.
Οι ποικίλες διατομικές και κοινωνικές συγκρούσεις θα συνεχίζονται σε ένα άλλο πλαίσιο, αλλά νομίζω ότι εντός τής σοσιαλιστικής δημοκρατίας θα εκλείψει η ακρότητα αυτών των συγκρούσεων, η αβυσσαλέα έκρηξή τους όπως λόγου χάριν παράγεται αναπόφευκτα από το ακραίο υλικό πλαίσιο ζωής των εργαζόμενων πολιτών μιας σύγχρονης καπιταλιστικής δημοκρατίας.
Η εικόνα ενός τέτοιου είδους σοσιαλιστικού δημοκρατισμού μάς ωθεί ή πρέπει να μας ωθήσει να αναθεωρήσουμε την μορφή και το περιεχόμενο τού μέχρι τώρα επαναστατισμού ή δημοκρατισμού μας, σε σχέση μάλιστα με όσα είπαμε στην αρχή.
Οι δημοκρατίες των ταξικών κοινωνιών [όταν υπήρξανε ή όπως υπάρχουν] δεν παύουν να είναι δημοκρατίες, δεν θεωρώ άρα ότι υπάρχει μια εντελώς "μη καταγωγική" θεμελίωση των σοσιαλιστικών δημοκρατικών προτύπων μας, αλλά ταυτόχρονα η δημοκρατία που θέλουμε να υπάρξει ως εργατική δημοκρατία πρέπει να κομίζει ένα νέο ιδιαίτερο στοιχείο που αφορά σε αυτήν την νέα μη-εριστική ή μη-απόλυτα εριστική και μη-δικηγορίστικη έκφραση και ουσία της.
Μέχρι τώρα ο δημοκρατισμός των εργαζόμενων πολιτών πιθήκιζε τον δημοκρατικό Λόγο των ρητόρων-δικηγόρων των ταξικών και ενδοταξικών συγκρούσεων των ταξικών δημοκρατιών, όπως διαμορφώνονταν και διαμορφώνεται [ως Λόγος] μέσα σε ένα πραγματικό ή φαντασιακό πεδίο μιας πραγματικής ή φαντασιακής ιστορικής δίκης.
Η έριδα και η εριστικότητα παρουσιάζονταν ως ο μοναδικός τρόπος τής δημοκρατικής σοφιστικής.
Τίποτα από όλα αυτά δεν πρόκειται να εκλείψει, οι αντιθέσεις και οι συγκρούσεις δεν θα λείψουν, αλλά υπάρχει ωστόσο ανάγκη να ανακαλύψουμε [πέραν των αστικών ή μικροαστικών "ευγενειών"] την ευγένεια τού σοσιαλιστικού ήθους, όπως τούτο θα προκύπτει [και] από τις συνεργατικές και συντροφικές σοσιαλιστικές παραγωγικές σχέσεις.
Ibrahim Kaypakkaya on the Kurdish National Question
The
following text is excerpted from a lengthy polemic by Ibrahim Kaypakkaya
entitled The National Question in Turkey. This work was originally
completed in December 1971, before Ibrahim Kaypakkaya led the genuine
Marxist-Leninists in splitting with the Shafak revisionists, who
were also billing themselves then as the Revolutionary Workers and
Peasants Party of Turkey (TIIKP), and founded the Communist Party
of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist (TKP/ML) in April 1972. The National
Question in Turkey was re-edited by Ibrahim Kaypakkaya in June 1972,
soon after the organisational split with the TIIKP revisionists.
The
excerpts printed here are translated from a collection entitled
Selected Writings, Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, which was published by Ocak
Yayinlari, Istanbul, 1979. AWTW
2.
Who is subjected to national oppression?
According
to the Shafak revisionists, it is the Kurdish people who
are being subjected to national oppression. This fails to grasp
what national oppression means. National oppression is the oppression
to which the ruling classes of the dominant nation subject the oppressed,
dependent and minority nations. In Turkey, national oppression is
the oppression by the ruling classes of the dominant Turkish nation
not just of the Kurdish people but of the entire Kurdish nation,
and not even of the Kurdish nation alone, but of all minority
nationalities.
İbrahim Kaypakkaya (1949 – May 18, 1973) was a major leader of the Communist movement in Turkey. He was the founder of the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist (TKP/ML).
Following the military memorandum of 1971,
the Turkish government cracked down on the Communist movement in Turkey
and was successful in destroying the machinery of the TKP/ML.
Kaypakkaya and several of his colleagues were arrested. Kaypakkaya died
in prison in 1973 after being tortured for over 4 months and later being
shot in the head by his interrogators.
He
is revered by his admirers today as a symbol of resistance, who
describe him as an aggregator of the ideas and traits of other major
leaders and thinkers in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
The Iranian Revolution was supported by millions of people from all walks of life. | Courtesy Tudeh Party of Iran
Even though it has to wage
much of its struggle underground, the Tudeh Party of Iran, 40 years
after the overthrow of the autocratic U.S.-installed Shah, continues the
fight for a secular, democratic, and socialist Iran. The following is
an exclusive interview with Mohammad Omidvar, a member of the political
bureau of the Tudeh Party.
Since left and progressive forces, including labor unions, wage
an underground struggle in Iran, special measures had to be taken to
conduct this interview. The questions and the answers were transmitted
to and from Iran by a People’s World source outside that country. The
Tudeh Party chose People’s World as the venue for this important
interview because it wanted to give people in our country, on the 40th
anniversary of the Iranian Revolution, a better understanding of what is
happening in Iran.
The movement that started out with great hope for the future of
that country became, for many reasons, a failed revolution. This
interview helps clarify for our readers the reasons for this failure and
outlines the direction in which the progressive forces in Iran hope to
lead their country now. Omidvar also explains why the Tudeh Party
opposes current U.S. sanctions against Iran and why the Trump policy of
regime change is so fiercely opposed by the country’s progressive
forces.
– John Wojcik, editor-in-chief, People’s World
People’s World:
Progressive forces around the world had assessed the February 1979
revolution in Iran as a broadly-supported, all-encompassing social
revolution, one of the most exciting and popular uprisings of the 20th
century. What were the key factors in the final years of the Shah’s rule
that led to the revolution? Iran under the Shah was often represented
in the Western media as a strong, modern, and even democratic country.
Was this the case?
Mohammad Omidvar—The 1979 revolution in Iran was a national
democratic revolution, a classic example of a majority- supported
revolution that took place in the particular circumstances of the growth
of capitalism in Iran. In the 1960s and ’70s, Iranian society faced a
profound structural crisis due to the expansion of capitalist
relations whereby representatives of the comprador bourgeois class
dominated the political and economic life of the country.
The ever-increasing influence of capital in the Iranian economy, with
a police state that prevailed to safeguard the despotic client
regime, resulted in the middle strata becoming ever more squeezed. This
also led to the weakening of the economic positions of sections of the
national bourgeoisie. It is also noteworthy that during the same period
the working class was experiencing a modest growth due to the migration
of a large number of people from rural areas into cities as a result of
the pseudo-land reforms enacted. The real reason for these limited
reforms was to eliminate the threat to the Shah’s regime from large
landowners.
This gave the growing working class more social weight within the
class structure of our society. The 1979 Revolution, therefore, arose
from serious socio-economic crises and class contradictions
created by the dominating interests of comprador bourgeois and the
despotic rule of a corrupt, pro-western regime. It mobilized millions of
people—from workers, peasants, and the petty bourgeoisie to sections of
the small and medium national bourgeoisie—against the Shah’s regime.
The Iranian Revolution and the toppling of the Shah’s
regime was supported by the vast majority of people; millions were in
the streets calling for change. What were the key demands of the
majority of these forces in the 1979 Revolution, and was the
establishment of a theocratic state one of them?
As mentioned before, a wide range of social forces—from the working
class to the national bourgeoisie, the middle strata, and the petty
bourgeoisie, and the various socio-political forces representing their
interests—participated in the revolution with different perspectives and
programs. The people’s slogan was “Freedom, Independence, and Social
Justice,” and that was the approach supported by our party. The
religious forces insisted on adding the “Islamic Republic” to the
people’s demands; they did not reveal, at first, what that would mean in
practice. They revealed nothing of the characteristics of the kind of
state they were planning.
How and why did the forces of what you describe as
“political Islam” manage to gain the upper hand? Wasn’t it possible for
other revolutionary and/or secular forces to prevent this?
People vs. Army – 1978. | Courtesy Tudeh Party of Iran
The ruling theocratic regime’s propaganda claims that the people of
Iran came to the streets to topple the regime of the Shah in order to
establish the “rule of Islam.” In reality, the 1979 Revolution had a
clear social and class context that was aimed at removing the
destructive influence of imperialist monopolies from our country,
securing Iran’s economic and political independence, establishing
justice, and democratizing the political and cultural life of our
society.
The 1979 Revolution ended up being taken over by religious forces for
a number of critical reasons, dating right back to the aftermath of the
1953 CIA-MI6 coup d’état in Iran, which re-established the Shah’s
regime. Over the following 25 years, while the left forces—especially
the Tudeh Party of Iran, the nationalist forces and, later on, the
guerrilla movements, including the People’s Fedaian and People’s
Mujahedin—were heavily suppressed by the security forces, the clergy
were allowed to use their networks, mosques, and religious events to
organize and promote their agenda (Political Islam).
The Shah’s regime and its dreaded security force, SAVAK, saw the
clergy as an important tool in countering the left and radical forces in
Iran. Indeed, in letters exchanged between then-President Carter and
Ayatollah Khomeini (now published in the mémoires of Dr. Yazdi,
Khomeini’s close confidante in Paris and Iran’s first post-revolutionary
foreign minister), the U.S. was prepared to tolerate Khomeini’s regime
provided they guaranteed to stop the influence of the Tudeh Party of
Iran in Iran’s post-revolution era.
In your publications, your assessment is that, after its
initial success in overthrowing the Shah’s regime and bringing about a
number of political changes, the 1979 Revolution was halted and
ultimately failed. What characterizes it as a failed revolution, and was
this inevitable? Could other revolutionary forces, including the Tudeh
Party, have done things differently, thereby altering the negative
course the revolution was taking? Did the left, including the Tudeh
Party, make any mistakes, in your estimation?
Ehsan
Tabari, one of the key leaders of the Tudeh Party of Iran, addresses a
rally in Tehran articulating the position of the Party on the
drafting of the new constitution, November 1979. | Courtesy Tudeh Party
of Iran
The Iranian Revolution successfully completed its political phase of
overthrowing the Shah’s despotic regime. It was clear to our party that
for the revolution to succeed, it needed to evolve into its social
phase, replacing the socio-economic order it had inherited from the
Shah’s regime with a new order.
Many of our party’s slogans and our platform—including the
nationalization of banks and multinational companies, as well as land
reform—was carried out in the atmosphere that existed in the first year
of the revolution. However, constant U.S. and reactionary interference
in Iran, including the imposition of the imperialist-instigated
Iraq-Iran War, stopped the revolution in its tracks and provided the
backdrop for Khomeini and his followers to stop these programs and move
towards the establishment of a theocratic regime.
At the time, conscious of challenges facing the revolution, our party
called for the formation of a “people’s united front” with other
revolutionary forces to make sure that the revolutionary movement would
not be derailed, but this did not materialize due to significant
political differences among those forces.
Our party, in its analysis of the early years of revolution,
concluded that in our policy of “critical unity” with Khomeini and his
followers, we were perhaps more concerned with unity than being critical
of some of the policies that clearly were not in line with
revolutionary ideals and the people’s demands. It is clear that had the
left-democratic forces managed to come together, it would have been
possible to change the balance of forces politically in the country for a
different outcome. The reactionary forces, in a matter of three years,
were able to attack the left and democratic forces one-by-one and then
establish their absolute rule in Iran.
The major slogans of the 1979 Revolution were for
freedom, independence, and the establishment of a republic, with
democratic rights and structures, to replace the Shah’s dictatorship.
What is the Tudeh Party’s assessment of the outcome of the revolution
for democracy, gender equality, the rights of ethnic and religious
minorities, and trade union rights in Iran?
Iran, 40 years after the revolution, is ruled by a despotic regime
with no regard for human and democratic rights. Over past decades, we
have witnessed laws restricting women’s rights and their treatment as
second-class citizens. This has included medieval laws permitting the
marriage of girls as young as 11, as well as enforcing gender
segregation in places of education and even hospitals.
The regime has also ruthlessly suppressed the basic rights of ethnic
and national minorities, as well as religious minorities. Its record on
trade union rights remains appalling. Many trade unionists are
imprisoned or exiled and trade union activity either restricted by the
state or forced underground. The regime has never accepted the legal
operation of trade unions. It only permits Islamic Labor
Councils—tripartite bodies involving the employers, government
representatives, and employees—thus breaching ILO Conventions 87 and 98,
guaranteeing all workers the right to belong to a trade union of their
choice and engage in trade union activities.
During the past forty years, many significant social
movements have demanded, and continue to demand, change in Iran. Have
these movements aimed to reform the political and socio-economic system
in Iran, or have they been directed towards a more fundamental change in
the social order?
Protest
in the industrial city of Arak – workers of HEPPCO and Azarab, two
major manufacturers, protesting against privatization, unpaid salaries,
and unacceptable conditions of service. | Courtesy Tudeh Party of Iran
Over the past two decades, powerful social movements have emerged in
Iran demanding change in the way the country is ruled and rebelling
against corruption and repression. In 1997, Mohammad Khatami became
Iran’s president promising reform and the “rule of law.” There was a
powerful social force, from women to youth and students, behind Khatami,
and he received over 20 million votes in the election.
But his government’s promises were not realized due to their
overriding belief that change could only take place if permitted by the
“Supreme Religious Leader” and could not cross the “red lines” of the
Islamic Republic. Over the eight years of Khatami’s presidency, despite
some respite in terms of the oppression, real changes to Iran’s power
structure never materialized, and the regime was able to neutralize the
social movements and gain the initiative against them.
Socio-economic conditions continue to worsen in Iran. Poverty is at
unprecedented levels, with some estimating 40 percent of the population
being below the poverty line, all while the regime has sold over $800
billion worth of oil over the last three decades. Now we are witnessing a
radicalization of people’s demands amidst growing workers’ strikes and
protests. In late 2017 and into 2018, we had sporadic protests in 80
Iranian cities which the regime suppressed savagely. And over the past
three months, we have been witnessing prolonged workers’ strikes in key
industries such as steel, automobile, and sugarcane in the south of
Iran. People are demanding an end to the current neoliberal policies of
privatization, economic hardship, and the unprecedented levels of
corruption.
One of the characteristics of the 1979 Revolution was its
then-stated “anti-imperialist” position. Some of the acts of the
theocratic leadership were seen by some on the left as having a
progressive motivation, as Iran’s way of protecting its sovereignty. How
does the Tudeh Party assess the theocratic leadership’s stated policy
of being opposed to U.S. imperialism? Is it sincere? Has the foreign
policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran benefitted the Iranian people in
any way?
It is true that one of the key characteristics of our revolution was
its anti-imperialism, and especially in opposition to U.S. imperialism,
due to their long-term interference in our country and plundering of our
national resources, including oil and gas. The religious leaders used
these slogans, which were mainly viewed as Tudeh Party slogans, to
consolidate their position in the revolutionary movement
Clearly, their anti-American slogans were not based on the same
understanding as the anti-imperialist slogans of the left and our party,
which reflected our view of the destructive role of monopoly capital on
the world stage and our belief that anti-imperialist forces should
unite and work together to build a different world. The Iranian regime’s
ideal economic model was that of a capitalist order wrapped up with
empty Islamist slogans.
For the Iranian regime, its influence in the region and the building
of an Islamic empire was a critical part of its foreign policy and, as
such, clashed with that of reactionary and puppet regimes in Saudi
Arabia and other Arab states in the Persian Gulf region. It is also
important to note that at the most critical points in our region’s
recent history, including the imperialist aggression in Afghanistan and
Iraq, the Iranian regime—according to its own leaders—helped U.S. plans
by opening up the country’s airspace so that attacks could be carried
out against both neighboring countries.
The Trump administration is now openly following a policy
of regime change in Iran. What is your party’s position on the
possibility of such an external intervention? Can you give us your
opinion about the activities of President Trump, the Israeli government,
Saudi Arabia, and their allies?
In a statement by our Central Committee on May 1, 2018, in response
to the growing threat from the U.S. and its allies, our party opined
that: “In analyzing the current developments in the Trump administration
and the coordination—more than ever before—of the governments of Israel
and Saudi Arabia with that administration, many of the world news
agencies have commented that the risk of a military conflict between
Israel and Iran is now higher than ever.”
We further elaborated that: “Our country and the Persian Gulf region
and the Middle East is once again faced with a very serious and urgent
threat of catastrophic military conflicts which will have dire
consequences for Iran and the entire region. Ignoring these threats and
supporting the destructive and interfering policies of the U.S., Israel,
and Saudi Arabia, contrary to the claims of some of the foreign-allied,
anti-people, so-called opposition not only will not lead to the
liberation of Iran from the claws of the current theocratic regime but,
like the imperialist-inflicted war of Iraq with Iran (1980-88), will
have very damaging consequences for our nation, and for the popular
movement for freedom, sovereignty, and social justice. The struggle of
the Iranian people to dispose of the theocratic rule and establish a
national and democratic regime in Iran…is not achievable through the
destructive military intervention of such reactionary forces as the
Trump, Netanyahu, and Bin Salman administrations. In such critical
times, the most important task of all the national and democratic forces
is to organize and mobilize all peace-seeking forces of the nation and
the world to prevent another disastrous and destructive war in our
region.”
What is the attitude of the Tudeh Party and the
progressive and labor movement toward the sanctions imposed by the Trump
administration against Iran? How do the sanctions hurt progressive
forces?
Metalworkers protest the non-payment of their salaries. | Courtesy Tudeh Party of Iran
The Trump decision, in complete contravention of world public
opinion, to take the U.S. out of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA) Agreement with Iran…has significantly increased tension
in the region and raised the threat of a new devastating war in the
Middle East.
We condemn the re-imposition of economic and banking/monetary
sanctions on Iran, which constitute an illegal violation of an
international agreement ratified by the UN Security Council and mostly
hurt the ordinary people of Iran. It is worth mentioning that similar
sanctions against Iraq, prior to the U.S.’ military attack on that
country in 2003, cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of vulnerable
citizens, including children and the elderly.
Despite Trump’s claim that his actions will help the Iranian people’s
struggle, it is clear that U.S. policy is to change the course of the
Iranian people’s struggle and facilitate a regime change to establish a
puppet government.
The struggle of the Iranian people against the religious dictatorship
in Iran can only be determined by the Iranian people and its
progressive forces. The backing of John Bolton and the Trump
administration for the Pahlavi family (the family of the deposed Shah of
Iran) and the so-called “National Council of Resistance” headed by
Maryam Rajavi—who for many years received the patronage and protection
of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and who currently receives hundreds of
millions of dollars’ worth of support from the criminal Bin Salman
government regime in Saudi Arabia—clearly shows the real intentions of
the U.S. government towards Iran and our peoples’ struggle.
The Tudeh Party of Iran, along with other progressive forces in our
country, view U.S. sanctions and its interference in Iran as directly
opposed to the national interest of our country and our peoples’
struggle against the dictatorship in Iran.
What objectives is the Tudeh Party pursuing at this stage of the struggle for the transformation of your country?
Forty years after the victory of the 1979 Revolution, Iran is in need
of fundamental and democratic change. The future of our country should
be determined by our people, without external interference, through the
establishment of a democratic political system.
Iran has remained at the stage of National Democratic Revolution and
the Tudeh Party of Iran is committed to our country realizing the
following objectives: safeguarding national sovereignty; rolling back
and eliminating the neoliberal economic restructuring implemented by the
Islamic Republic; limiting and directing the growth of capitalism
towards the growth and development of the productive forces of our
national economy; the fair redistribution of materials and wealth; and,
the realization of democratic freedoms and social justice.
The Tudeh Party of Iran continues to believe that such a change
requires the formation of a united anti-dictatorship front by
mobilizing all social forces within our country and the emergence of a
strong union of left and progressive forces with effective participation
of the working class.
The Tudeh Party of Iran believes the most urgent goal of the
progressive forces in Iran is that they work together to prepare the
grounds for ending the absolute rule of the Supreme Religious Leader
once and for all, in order to open the way for fundamental democratic
and enduring change in our country.
Η ιρανική εργατική τάξη βρίσκεται εδώ και δεκαετίες εγκλωβισμένη σε ένα αδιέξοδο δίλημμα:
Να διεκδικήσει ανυποχώρητα τα δικαιώματά της χωρίς να φοβάται το ενδεχόμενο μια εξέγερση της ενάντια στο θεοκρατικό καπιταλιστικό καθεστώς να χρησιμοποιηθεί-εργαλειοποιηθεί από τις δυτικές ιμπεριαλιστικές δυνάμεις και το αμιγώς πλέον ακροδεξιό Ισραήλ για να διαλύσουν και αποικιοποιήσουν δια της ψευτο-ομοσπονδιοποίησης την χώρα που ζει; με εκατοντάδες χιλιάδες θύματα και το έθνος κατεστραμμένο;
Ή να συνεχίσει να κάνει υπομονή και να δέχεται την ηγεμονία των θεοκρατών για να μην καταστραφεί η χώρα από τους λύκους που την περιτριγυρίζουν διψασμένοι για θάνατο και καταστροφή, με αποτέλεσμα όμως αυτής τής υπομονής την συνέχιση τής καταστολής της, και την ενδυνάμωση των αντιδραστικών αντιιμπεριαλιστών δολοφόνων;
Αυτό το δίλημμα είναι δικό της αλλά αν θεωρήσουμε ότι η εργατική τάξη του Ιράν, οι εργαζόμενοι της χώρας αυτής και τα φτωχά λαϊκά κοινωνικά στρώματα, είναι μέρος τής παγκόσμιας εργατικής τάξης, μέρος του παγκόσμιου λαού, τότε το δίλημμα είναι και δικό μας.
Πως θα απαντούσε ένα αυτόνομο δημοκρατικό ταξικό κίνημα σε μια άλλη χώρα στην αγωνία αυτών των ανθρώπων;
Πως θα απαντούσαν άραγε οι ξερόλες διανοούμενοι στην δύση και οι πολυάριθμες σεκταριστικές και ρεφορμιστικές αριστερές, κομμουνιστικές, αναρχικές ομάδες και οργανώσεις στην δύση και την Ελλάδα; πως θα απαντούσε άραγε το πρώην-κομμουνιστικό ΥπερΚόμμα ελλάδας; η Λαέ, οι Εξαρχειώτες;
Είμαι σίγουρος ότι όλοι αυτοί έχουν την απάντηση έτοιμη: Η μια αντίθετη και συμπληρωματική προς την άλλη.
Τα συγχαρητήρια μου σε όλους.
Στις πορείες σας τώρα, άντε και καμιά μολότωφ να περνάει η ώρα..
Ζήτω η ιρανική εργατική τάξη και ο ηρωικός πολιτισμένος λαός τού Ιράν!
Αναδημοσίευσα έναν λόγο τού Ν.Μπουχάριν και ένα άρθρο του Κ.Κάουτσκι, σε αντίστιξη, και χωρίς να έχω την πρόθεση να προβώ σε "εμβριθείς" αναλύσεις, για να σας "δείξω" πως οι αντινομίες, οι αντιφάσεις και τα αδιέξοδα τού περιλάλητου "κινήματος", ήδη στις "δοξασμένες" εποχές του, χτυπάνε κόκκινο, είναι τυφλές, και σημαίνουν ένα στρατηγικό ανθρωπολογικό πρόβλημα που δεν πρόκειται να "αρθεί" εύκολα με την ανάκληση αγνών "θεμελίων" ή την επίκληση τής "νέας" εποχής τού καπιταλισμού ("ολοκληρωτικός καπιταλισμός" και άλλες ανοησίες).
Ο Κάουτσκι εκφράζει, ως ένα (συκοφαντημένο από τους αντι-σοσιαλδημοκράτες) ακέραιο πρόσωπο, την κοινοτοπία αλλά και την βαθιά δύναμη τού δημοκρατικού σοσιαλισμού, με όλες του τις ρεφορμιστικές αντιφάσεις και τους περιορισμούς αλλά και την δέσμευσή του στις αξίες της ελευθερίας τής δημοκρατίας και του αλληλοσεβασμού.
Η έλλογη κρίση του για τις απολυταρχικές μεθόδους των μπολσεβίκων είναι προφητική και εύστοχη, αν και δημιουργείται ως κρίση από την θέση υπεράσπισης ενός συμβιβαστικού μεταρρυθμιστικού σοσιαλισμού.
Η θέση του Μπουχάριν απέναντι στον "αριστερισμό" (Γκόρτερ και άλλοι υπερκομμουνιστές τής εποχής) και τον αναρχοσυνδικαλισμό, είναι αποκαλυπτική για τις μπλανκιστικές και αυταρχικές θέσεις των μπολσεβίκων, αλλά εμπερικλείει ως θέση μια σημαντική δύναμη κυνικής-ρεαλιστικής αλήθειας.
Βέβαια ο ίδιος ο Μπουχάριν δεν είχε την εποχή που έκανε τον διδάσκαλο στους αριστεριστές για τον "αντιαυταρχισμό" τους επίγνωση τής μελλοντικής δικής του μοίρας, όπως αυτή προκλήθηκε από την δράση του "επαναστατικού" μηχανισμού που υπερασπίστηκε και συνοργάνωσε μαζί με άλλους ομοϊδεάτες του.
Στο βάθος όλων αυτών, δια μέσω των επιχειρημάτων του Μπουχάριν, ακούμε την ίδια υστερική αριστερίστικη φωνή που τα καταγγέλλει όλα αυτά (και τον Μπουχάριν), και αυτή προφητικά αλλά όχι με τον ίδιο τόνο και προσανατολισμό όπως η προφητεία τού Κάουτσκι, αλλά χωρίς επίσης να προτάσσει ούτε ένα λογικό επιχείρημα.
Τίποτα δεν έχει αλλάξει, και δεν διαφαίνεται κάτι που να μπορούσε να τα κάνει "όλα αυτά" στιγμές που ξεπερνιούνται σε μια ευρύτερη διαλεκτική μετασχηματιστική-επαναστατική διεργασία.
Source: Published in To the Masses: Proceedings of the Third Congress of the Communist International, 1921 (https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/897-to-the-masses), pp. 508-515 Translation: Translation team organized by John Riddell HTML Markup: David Walters for the Marxists Internet Archive, 2018 Copyright: John Riddell, 2017. Republished here with permission
Comrades, the comrade who spoke before me, Comrade
Malzahn, objected to the tone adopted by Comrade Heckert. However,
Malzahn himself spoke in a similar tone. As a result, I am obliged to be
as meek as a little lamb. (Laughter) In the present discussion
of different positions and problems, in my opinion, we have quite often
spoken of things that are truly obvious. So, for example, when Comrade
Hempel of the KAPD spoke here of new methods of mass action, that is a
quite obvious matter for us here. We discussed this theme in some detail
even before the War. It is just as obvious that, as regards what has
been said here about offensives in general, even Comrade Lenin
recognises that there is no Marxist who could speak against offensives
in general. It would therefore be perhaps desirable, to include that
sentence by Comrade Lenin in the theses. (Laughter)
Trotsky: But only using the wording of Comrade Lenin: ‘Only asses could believe the contrary.’
Bukharin: In discussing the world situation as a
whole, we must keep in mind that it is not at all excluded for the
relative temporary equilibrium that seems to prevail in Europe to be
suddenly disrupted, and for the situation in this or that country to
suddenly change. In this regard, Comrade Lenin spoke of a number of
things, and his remarks need to be interpreted somewhat – of course, to
be interpreted strictly in the fashion of Lenin. Let me provide some
examples.
In the first phase of our revolution, the Central Committee of our
party sent instructions to all our agitators to protest against the
shameless lies of the bourgeoisie, who claimed that we, the Bolsheviks,
were for civil war. Those were our own instructions. And in the
situation at that time, these instructions were entirely correct. Now if
we take quite a different situation, for example, just before the
October Revolution, this sentence and these instructions would be not
only completely wrong but completely criminal. At that time, of course,
we gave all our agitators instructions to carry out an uprising and
engage directly in civil war.
Let us take a second example, which comes from after the winning of
political power. During the [1918] Brest-Litovsk Peace, our party and
Comrade Lenin, the recognised leader of our party, were for the
Brest-Litovsk Peace, as you all know. Later, during the [1920] Polish
events, the same Comrade Lenin was for the offensive, for a military
policy. That was absolutely correct, of course. These examples show that
the tactical line is something that is not fixed but is absolutely
in motion, always determined by the specific position, specific
conditions, and the specific conditions. If we can grasp that, we will be able to deliver a warning to comrades who find Comrade Lenin’s speech to be undialectical. (Laughter)
We all know very well that the future Executive, however it is
composed, must heavily upbraid any party that, under certain
circumstances, does not take the offensive. In other words, the general
tactical line proposed in the theses by the Russian delegation cannot
be used as justification for all conceivable future vacillations
committed by opportunist forces inside the Communist Party. (Loud applause)
Now a few words about conditions in Germany. A certain entirely
undialectical contradiction exists among the different comrades. On the
one hand, it is said that we must study our errors very carefully, and,
on the other, that we should talk only of the future. In my opinion that
is not a contradiction but an absurdity. We must, should, and will talk
about the conditions. Despite the various remarks of Comrade Malzahn, I
will say a few words about the Levi affair, because it is by no means a
personal matter but concerns a current. And we know very well that
there is sill a certain political affinity between certain forces in the
German party and Paul Levi. To continue to speak about the March Action
now and going forward would be quite strange, since a great deal has
been said already. Nonetheless, I would like to analyse certain passages
of Levi’s most recent article, passages showing us that Levi has now
developed into a quintessential Menshevik.
I will start with the question, ‘sect or party,’ which as you know
plays a major role. When we look back on the past and recall what Levi
did during the Second Congress, it is clear that during the congress he
said that the Communist International should be pure, that it would be a
crime against the Communist International to admit syndicalist trade
unionists. If we do that – these were his very words – that action will
amount to burying the International. (Shouts: ‘Hear, hear!’)
That is what Paul Levi said during a session of the Executive. Now he
has turned around completely. Now Levi is claiming that we were against
mass parties and mass organisations of the proletariat. That is no
dialectical contradiction. Rather it means that Levi is seizing hold of
any argument in order to break free of the party. In the question of the
relationship of masses to leadership, Paul Levi spoke out quite sharply
against the KAPD, and rightly so, referring to this group’s lack of
understanding of the role of leadership in a mass party. Now, however,
an article by Levi expresses solidarity with a group within the Russian
party, namely the so-called Workers Opposition, which is the embryo of
the tendency that is fully developed in the KAPD.1
This appears in black and white in Levi’s last article. That tells us,
once more, that Levi grasps at any tool to destroy the big workers’
party, the Communist Party. (Loud applause)
Let us take a third question, ‘the struggle for the dictatorship of
the proletariat’. For us, this struggle is of course self-evident. Even
Levi could not think otherwise. Taking his most recent article, we find
the following on conditions in Russia:
It seems to us that creating the possibility of
political struggle is all the more urgent, given that Russia has entered
the phase of granting concessions.2
What is that supposed to mean? The text of the article as a whole
indicates what it means. Levi says that the situation in Russia is not
yet sufficiently clear. In his view, Russia today is undergoing a
political and social crisis. The Communist Party needs to make a
correction in order to find the right path. From what side will this
correction come? From the side of the Social Revolutionaries, of course,
from the side of the Mensheviks, that is, against the dictatorship.
That is clearly specified here. Of course this signifies a blow against
all the policies of the Russian party. This also has a certain
relationship with what Levi said earlier against Moscow and Moscow’s
dictates. Aside from that, these are psychological considerations. From a
logical point of view, what we have here is the embryo of a conception
that is directed against the dictatorship of the proletariat as such. (Loud applause) Of course, this is a fully Menshevik conception. To express it differently, this is the transition from the concept of the dictatorship to that of free democracy. There is no other way to interpret it.
Then we have, in addition, the question of the dictatorship of the
party. We Marxists – at least, we orthodox Communists – have always
maintained that the dictatorship of a class can be expressed only
through the dictatorship of the vanguard of that class; that is, the
dictatorship of the class can be realised only through the dictatorship
of the Communist Party. We have always rejected the entirely absurd
concept that counterposes the dictatorship of the class to the
dictatorship of the party. That is nonsense. And Levi was with us
completely on that point. Now we find, in his most recent pamphlet,
ideas regarding Russian affairs, but there are also conceptions that
attempt to generalise the Russian experience. We read there:
Every dictatorship of the proletariat is a dictatorship
of Communists, but not every dictatorship of Communists is a
dictatorship of the proletariat.
So if there is a rift between the proletariat and the Communist
Party, then the dictatorship of the Communist Party is not the
dictatorship of the proletariat. In response, I would ask: how do we
determine in this case the classes in the party? Is it possible, from a
Marxist standpoint, to form a classless party? Yes or no? Obviously, as
Marxists, our answer to this question must be ‘no’. There is no
classless party. It follows that if the Communist Party is at the helm,
it represents the interest of some class. What class? If it is a
Communist Party, it represents the interests of the proletariat.
So what can be the meaning of this sentence of Levi’s? The sentence
has and can have only one meaning, namely, a concept hostile to the
party dictatorship. From a purely theoretical point of view, the
following situation may arise: The proletariat becomes demoralised. The
party governs. The party does not have the support of the entire
proletariat, and perhaps not even the majority of the proletariat. Now
tell me please, in such a situation, where a part of the proletariat has
been declassed, does the ruling party not represent the interests of
the proletariat? In such a case, who does represent the real interests
of the proletariat? The party, of course, the ruling party. What then is
the point of all this talk? The goal of this chatter is simply to
develop the embryo of a line of thinking opposed to the dictatorship of
the proletariat as such and therefore for bourgeois freedom, for democracy. This line of thought is absolutely clear.
We can observe that the embryo of such liberal concepts is also found
in the KAPD. I have touched on this question deliberately because I
consider this ideology and these symptoms very dangerous. In my opinion,
this signifies the road to the Mensheviks and the road out of the Communist Party. (Loud applause)
We must therefore draw the following conclusions: An energetic battle
must be waged against such tendencies, or the remnants of such
tendencies, in all parties, including the German party. Every formation,
every group that crystallises out of such conceptions must be
immediately dissolved. In my view, we must put an end to the opposition
faction, as such, within the German party. (Loud applause)
I will now move on to another question, that of the KAPD. Comrade
Hempel declares that we do not need leaders or theoreticians. This
statement, in my opinion, stands as evidence that hatred of leaders is
so strong in this party that it has made a poor choice of leaders. (Laughter)
This party publishes various educational pamphlets and propaganda
articles. Among the pamphlets we find one by their main theoretician,
Hermann Gorter, Class Struggle and the Organisation of the Proletariat.
This pamphlet presents the KAPD’s line of thinking and ideology much
better than the speech of Comrade Hempel today. Gorter is not such an
adroit diplomat as Hempel, although Gorter is a man of letters and
Hempel an ordinary worker. By the way, we heard another ordinary worker
today, Comrade Burian. Now let us listen to what Gorter says in this
pamphlet.
The greatest weakness of the German and world revolution and one of
the main causes of its defeats is the fact that it is not guided by a
policy that is scientific, that is, historic-internationalist.
As we shall see, Gorter writes like a good Christian cleric. He continues:
In determining tactics and strategy, the question of productive and
class relations in Germany, Western Europe, and America was not given
priority and perhaps was not considered at all. The main responsibility
here lies with the Russians – Lenin, Zinoviev, Radek, etc. – and the
entire Third International.
The idea expressed in this sentence is then developed in the pamphlet
along various lines. That was from page 1. At the end of the pamphlet,
Gorter writes as follows:
The Kronstadt proletariat revolted against you, against the Communist
Party. You proclaimed a state of siege in Petersburg that was also
aimed against the proletariat. (Given all your policies, you had no
choice in the matter.) After doing that, did it not occur to you that it
might be better to have a dictatorship of the class rather than one of
the party? And that it would perhaps be better in Western Europe and
North America to have a dictatorship not of the party but of the class?
And that the ‘Lefts’ are perhaps right after all?
To wrap up, he writes:
If the Russian policies of party and leader dictatorship are still
pursued here, after the disastrous results they have already produced,
that is no longer a matter of stupidity but a crime. A crime against the
revolution.
So first Gorter says that for agrarian Russia the only correct policy
is a dictatorship of the party. Naturally that does not apply to the
developed capitalist countries of the West. Consequently, it is a crime
against the International and the revolution to mix up these two
different things. Then, on the last page, he says that mistakes have
been made in Russia, and that KAPD policies must be applied in Russia as
well. (Protests from the KAPD representatives) Dear comrades
of the KAPD: it’s written here in black and white. Let me cite a Russian
proverb. It says, ‘The crocodile is as long from tail to nose as it is
from nose to tail.’ (Laughter) That goes for politics as well.
The final page of Gorter’s pamphlet refutes completely what he said
on page 1. So there is no difference between Russia and North America,
and vice versa. Then Gorter tells us about the trade unions, and that to
impose the relationships of agrarian Russia on distant countries is a
bankrupt policy. The trade unions are outmoded institutions and are
therefore of no use.
KAPD representatives: That is not true.
Bukharin: Dear comrades, that is written here in
black and white. Tell me, why should we not apply exactly the same
policy to the parties? The parties, too, arose previously; they too
arose in an earlier period. You respond that this is why the Social
Democracy is of no use. That means, it follows, viewing the question by
analogy, that the old trade unions were also useless. What has happened
to the parties must also have happened to the trade unions. Either the
one or the other. And if you apply the line of reasoning you have
developed for the parties to the trade unions as well, the picture
becomes quite clear. The old trade unions really had quite different
functions, which by no means justifies the entire theory of the trade
unions presented by Comrade Hempel in his speech today. We carried out a
theoretical and practical struggle with the trade unions in Russia and
in other countries. We always fought against those views on the
trade-union question. We said that the unions are mass organisations of
the proletariat, which must be educated toward the final struggle
together with the party, together with the other party organisations.
You have not offered any counter-argument.
Gorter relies here on quite a curious argument. Completely distorting the matter, he declares:
Our modern Western European and American world is
cartelised, imperialist, and based on banking capital. In such a world,
capital is no longer organised by trades but rather by enterprises.
So, not by trades but by enterprises. That is completely wrong. It is
not a matter of enterprises, or even branches of production, but by
various combinations of production branches. What Gorter says is
complete nonsense. Suppose it were true, what would that tell us,
according to Gorter? It would mean that we should also consolidate our
trade unions. Gorter provides no other evidence, and neither does
Comrade Hempel. You cannot say that new epochs demand new organisations.
New organisations are all very good, but experience teaches us that the
old organisations should not be given up. The sentence about organising
by enterprise is wrong, factually speaking. All you can conclude from
that is simply that the trade unions should be organised in the same
fashion as production is. If you are satisfied with such generalities,
why not apply this to the party as well?
The arguments about the relationships among the parties and between
the leadership and the masses are just as weak. Gorter says that the
party was able to win in Russia because the proletariat was small. In
other countries, capitalism is enormously large and the enemy is much
bigger and stronger, and therefore we do not need any leadership or
party in the strict sense of the word, but rather entirely different
organisations. I must reply that the entire argumentation is completely
wrong. The party and the leaders cannot be counterposed one to the
other. If we have a large party, it must have a central committee. What
does ‘central committee’ mean? It means simply the leadership.
The [chair’s] bell has given me a signal. So in conclusion I will say
only this to the comrades of the KAPD: You maintain that you are good
Communists, as stated by your theoretician, who considers himself a
representative of a proletarian party that is better than us. Any
halfway intelligent person tries to establish the social causes of the
crisis [in Russia]. How did this crisis find expression? Simply through
an attempt at a peasant vendee aiming to overthrow the proletariat.3 You do not want to recognise that, and still you say, ‘We are a more proletarian party than you.’
KAPD representatives (raising objections): That’s a slander!
Bukharin: That is no slander. It’s written here in black and white. What other sense could these words have?
Radek: No sense at all. It’s nonsense. (Laughter)
Bukharin: In my view, we must tell the comrades that
these goals and these ideas unite the KAPD fully with its most hated
enemy, with Paul Levi. You stand on the same theoretical foundation as
Paul Levi.
KAPD representative: And what about in practice?
Bukharin: Given that your practice is rather
different from your theory, that shows you to be complete muddle-heads.
That is why we call on the KAPD comrades not to let themselves be led
astray in this fashion by their leaders. Their leaders must not write
such things, otherwise we will have to finish off with the entire party.
(Loud applause)
Notes
1.
The Workers Opposition was a group within the Russian CP that led by
Alexandra Kollontai, Aleksandr Shlyapnikov, S.P. Medvedev, and others.
Formed in September 1920, it called for trade-union control of
industrial production and greater autonomy for CP fractions in the
unions. After its position was rejected by the Tenth CP Congress in
March 1921, the Workers Opposition subsequently raised criticisms of
measures adopted introducing the NEP. Following its censure at the
party’s Eleventh Congress in March–April 1922, the Workers Opposition
ceased organised activity.
2. Levi, ‘Von den Konzessionen’, published in Unser Weg
(Sowjet), 6 (15 July 1921), pp. 167–72. ‘Concessions’ here refers to
Soviet Russia’s willingness, under the New Economic Policy, to permit
limited foreign investment projects, subject to government control.
3.
Vendée is a department in northern France that was a centre of royalist
and peasant insurrection against the French Revolution from 1793 to
1795.
