- First of all, could you introduce yourself?

- My name is Özgür Aren. I am a member of TKP-ML MK Political Bureau.

- The subject we want to talk about is the United Revolutionary Struggle, which has received the attention of our people, especially the revolutionary public agenda in the last period… At this point, what does your party think about action unions and alliances and HBDH in this context.

The process shows that the class struggle will be harder and harder in all respects. Against the attacks of the imperialists, their collaborators and their henchmen, the well-framed actions and forces, alliances and so on. we have to emphasize examples of solidarity and develop practices in this direction. These unions can cover all legal and illegal areas of struggle as well as be limited. What is important here is that each party-organization participating in the unity of action can demonstrate the ability to create a unique form in accordance with the spirit of unity. Because the main thing is to put the general interests of the people and the revolution at the center of the work.

Communists approach the problem within this historical consciousness. Action unions and alliances, the difficulties of the process, our shortcomings, our deficiencies, etc. it should not be handled in a hopeless and futuristic way. Likewise, we should always care about fighting practices in the same trenches and positions in order to be an active organizer and component of the just and legitimate struggles of all oppressed and laborers.

Those who cannot show the maturity and courage to organize common practices in every field against the fierce attacks of the fascist dictatorship will never be successful in uniting the great masses. The problem is more than conducting theoretical discussions on the policies of revisionists and reformists to divide the masses of the working people and to exhaust their revolutionary energy. Because it is our duty to unite and mobilize the vast masses of laborers in the struggle for popular democracy, independence and socialism, and the main thing is how we fulfill or fulfill this historical task.

Therefore, we must insist on the policy of uniting and mobilizing popular forces on concrete problems. This insistence also paves the way for combining large batches. Every practice put forward on this basis does not only change by positively affecting the forces that are friends and allies of the revolution, but also makes the same positive effect within its own structure for each organization. The act of learning by doing, changing by changing is a completely objective phenomenon within the logic of class struggle.


- What is your overall view of Troops of Action?

- Our discussion of the problem of unity of action and alliances with the parties and organizations in the ranks of the people goes back to the foundation of our party. Our party put forward its approach on this issue right after its 1st Conference.

In the second issue of The Communist of 1978, our party's approach to unity of action is evaluated in terms of communists and popular forces. In the related assessment, action unions are defined as a temporary, relatively short-term and tactical issue in ensuring the unity and common struggle of the working class and the oppressed people.

In the same document, the content and principles of the action troops, Comrade Lenin “By agreeing, non-party ones understand 'a tactical decision' or line 'fixing'. For the party members, the agreement is the initiative that brings others into the business of maintaining the party line ” It is stated that the content of the action units includes the current goals and tactics that comply with the minimum program of the Marxist-Leninist line and reflect their political goals and strategies.

As a result, our party has embodied its approach to action unions on the basis of the following principles; “First, we certainly do not see the tactic of unity of action as a basis for communist unity.

Second, we boldly separate the issue of building a united front of the people from the tactics of unity of action. … Class alliance is a permanent, programmatic collaboration. Action unions are a tactic we will follow in conducting concrete political campaigns.

Thirdly, in today's conditions, in various concrete political objectives, common struggle platforms that serve to realize the Democratic People's Revolution can be identified and implemented, and action unions can and should be realized. "

As can be seen, the action unions highlighted here are briefly “the coexistence of popular politics with concrete goals, which we will follow in conducting concrete political campaignsIt is defined as ”. Another important point is the emphasis on working style; “…Fourth, in order for a unity of action to take place on this basis, it is necessary for the politics in the ranks of the people to practice popular democracy among themselves, to unconditionally accept the principle of "freedom in propaganda and agitation, unity in action".

This is the foremost basic principle in unity of action. What should be understood from both sides of this principle?

First of all, to stay loyal to the platform where the unity of action is formed, to ensure that the messages determined and intended to be given on this platform reach and cost the masses and mobilize the masses for these goals. This creates the unity aspect of the action.

The freedom aspect of the action is agitation, propaganda, ideological struggle between politics, the work of each politics to make the masses understand its line, criticism-self-criticism, in short, such activities to be carried out before, during and after the action.


The principle of freedom in agitation and propaganda does not mean that all kinds of agitation and propaganda can be applied unlimitedly. All politics should act on the basis of the acceptance of this principle, but focus on unity in matters that lead to the formation of unity of action in the concrete situation; They should be against behaviors and understandings that will obscure or distort the content of the action on the grounds that I am making agitation propaganda. The unity of action should be directed towards embracing the masses, not the limited number of elements of certain policies. Obviously, one cannot attempt to embrace the masses by deducing from the principle of freedom that practically everyone does what they want.

In this respect, we are of the opinion that the principle of freedom in agitation-propaganda can be practically limited to the content of that action in mass demonstrations, and this is necessary and possible at the same time. Practical experience so far shows that such attitudes; It has shown that determining common slogans within the scope of the action and giving weight to it is positive and in the interest of the public.

As a result, the platform takes priority during the action; The boundaries of the unity direction of the principle surround the direction of freedom during action.

Another issue in this regard is equality between politics within the union of action. Politics should have equal rights in using propaganda opportunities and speaking in unity. Another aspect of equality is of course being a partner in the work to be done and taking responsibility.


Fifth, the people's democracy in these action unions should be reinforced by using a criticism-self-criticism mechanism among these political movements.

The criticism and self-criticism of the politics in the people's ranks against each other is the fact that they do not abandon revolutionary honesty; It is an important issue in the destruction of groupist mentalities that have overcome the public interest. We are of the opinion that self-criticism is neither a minority nor a movement aimed at eliminating the unity of action. All political movements should act in the awareness that their self-criticism is mainly against the people, not just against each other. " (ibid)

When we look at the history of the revolutionary and communist movement, we see positive practices as well as negative practices at the point of revolutionary action unions and alliances. Today we are faced with the task of deepening these positive practices. As a matter of fact, the HBDH organization has emerged as the product of this concrete need.


- Let's not get to HBDH right away. You said, "When we look at the history of the revolutionary and communist movement, we see positive practices as well as negative practices at the point of action unions and alliances". What could be the reasons for these negative practices?

- We must emphasize the following fact; Theoretically, as stated above, dealing with the problem of unions of action on the right basis cannot guarantee practical success. For practical success, as in all matters, practitioners need to understand the problem in depth.

It is indisputable that there are practical failures in many aspects of our history of struggle. Undoubtedly, there is an ideological, political and organizational understanding that led to this failure. It is unthinkable that this understanding will not be reflected in our practice of action unions in one way or another. We need to act in the light of this scientific method in order to reveal our inadequacies and to approach our historical process in a more questioning manner specifically for this problem.

We are a party that feeds on the MLM source and tries to apply the weapon of criticism-self-criticism and the principle of democratic centralism despite all its deficiencies; Creating a common culture has always provided us with an advantage in walking distance with different understandings. However, our difficulties in deep comprehension caused a disadvantageous situation.

Therefore, the rate of our success and failure in the problem of unions or alliances is hidden in our level of understanding. Insistence on unions-alliances of action is a problem with understanding the positivities that these and similar practices add to the class struggle. Believing in the formation of a common will under the leadership of the collective mind against imperialism, feudalism, fascism, patriarchy and all kinds of reaction is conducive to a decisive stance in overcoming the obstacles that arise in this matter. First of all, we need to grasp the fact that every activity requires great effort. Realizing that every positive activity is the result of intense labor is the greatest assurance of struggling with difficulties.



- What exactly should we understand when you say action alliance-unions and alliance? Or are there differences, what are they?

- Action troops and alliances from each other not separated by very thick lines together goals and contents one and the same is not. This situation is directly related to both the quality of these forces and the goals they want to achieve. With the forces that will come together to overthrow the state; various reforms or workers' rights, freedom of political prisoners, women's liberation struggle and so on. The difference between the forces that will come together is important.

for example action troops relatively more short are formations that cover time zones. This situation is related to the fact that the action units are mostly focused on one agenda and one goal. The goal is concrete, short-term and variable. It covers whatever is locked in and ends after the set goal is reached. Relatively short-term action alliances are based on individual actions, not stabilized, action continues until the end. It can be said that unity of action is, in the last instance, in the struggle for political power of the communist party, especially with the profession and political organizations of these revolutionary classes and strata, who want to fight against the enemies of the revolution in order to ensure the unity of revolutionary and democratic forces, etc. they are the associations made on concrete demands. At the same time, this is an effort of the communist party to influence and win over revolutionary circles and somehow to include these circles in its policies, tactics and attitudes. Dozens of unity practices, including our party, have demonstrated this concretely.

Action troops should not be confused with alliance practice. It means that an alliance is being made with the forces that are united in action union. So every action alliance is also an alliance. But alliance with forces that have an interest in the revolution is broader, longer-term, and more central.

KP -or its directly controlled institutions- is included alliances relatively more long are term partnerships. Its content, scope and purpose depend on the forces that make it up; more centralization excess and stability are formations. The reason for this is related to the long term and the excess of the goals covered by it. In alliances, the rules to be followed, agitation and propaganda are determined and implemented by the forces that make it up.

However, whether it be action alliances, alliances, etc. -In some periods, there are no big differences between them due to the attack of the enemy and the position of the oppressed.- all of these short, medium and long term agreements. The parties sitting at the table for a cause and a goal take action by mutually agreeing, making concessions and uniting for a certain goal. All of these are essentially joining forces. The problem is the act of coming together with revolutionary, patriotic and progressive forces, except in situations where only one party or organization alone cannot succeed. Regardless of the strength of the participating parties or organizations, it is a matter of partnership with the forces moving to the same position.

Although approaching the problem with this awareness has certain differences in terms of the importance of the activities, the fact that this is a part of all our other works should be accepted in advance. Such an understanding requires a more serious approach to the problem with it. In other words, it enables insistence in the struggle for the concretization of the policy and creative in the application of tactics.

Action troops and alliances are carried out with more than one force. Therefore, the right attitude of one side alone does not provide the solution to the problem. In order for the problem to find a right to life in practice, all parties should follow a more flexible and unifying line in terms of partnership.

Collective mind; It means to focus on practice on common grounds by discussing different ideas, distinguishing right and wrong. Conducting these discussions on a level basis and with the general interests of the revolution at the forefront breaks any prejudice. In an environment where prejudices are shaken or broken, suggestions are listened to in a calm and responsible manner. Whether the proposal plays a role in reinforcing the action rather than who it comes from.

If the revolutionary and communist movement catches a minimum level of depth in line with this point of view, many unnecessary debates are avoided. Instead of wasting time on the details in the discussions, an effort is made to create a common thought and action style on the main points. Because it is the people's forces and the cause of the people that will win in every action that is accomplished by organizing jointly. Inevitably, this result is reflected in the general and regional work of each movement in accordance with its position in action. In other words, every action that is organized and accomplished in the right way contributes to the work of every movement in the alliance.

It is essential to create a collective debate process prior to practical action at central or regional level, in short or long-term action unions and alliances. Today, the conditions for applying such practices in a holistic manner may be limited. But defending this at the level of understanding and taking practical steps in this direction prepares the ground for more serious joint marches. This also serves the process of discussing right and wrong ideas. If every understanding and every practice is fed by an ideology, it must be seen that what is done and what is tried to be done is an ideological struggle.




- As far as we understand, you are not just talking about collecting in attack periods or against attacks ...

Yes, of course, it is a great service to the cause of the people to create a practical unity of behavior among popular forces on common problems in the fight against the enemy. Therefore, everyone who is sincere in the struggle for popular democracy, independence and socialism and, moreover, in the extension of the boundaries of democratic rights and freedoms must form a stronger and more organized march with the forces walking in the same direction.

Such a march not only frightens the enemy, but also creates a positive effect on all laborers and oppressed peoples, especially the working class. The power of influence of great forces encourages the oppressed and becomes a source of morale. It triggers their involvement in the process. The fact that the advanced masses talk about the unity of revolutionaries and their acting together is the product of their need for this power.

The mobility of the great powers is always the antidote to the fear germ that swarms the masses. Especially in times when the authority of revolutionary and communist forces over the masses is shaken and mass ties are weakened, it becomes more important for the progressive, revolutionary and communist forces to develop common practices on common problems.

The fact that the germs of fear and insecurity find the right to life among the working masses cripples and aggravates any revolutionary activity. The best example of this is the period of fascist coups. In such periods, it is understandable in itself to concentrate more on shoulder-to-shoulder walking practices. However, it is unacceptable to always bring the policy of unity and alliance to the agenda in these periods. Minimizing the problem to attacks and power level is to simplify it.

This is due to the superficial approach that; The parties or organizations that have reached a certain power do not attempt to organize joint marches with the forces that should work together in the struggle against the enemy. What such forces understand from a joint march is "walk behind me". It is a fact that; All the calls and statements of "unity" and "solidarity" by those who do not make any effort to work together on common problems have no practical value.

Although there is a bumpy course in the policy of unity of action and alliances in the lands we live on, this problem has always been discussed between revolutionary and communist forces and sometimes came to life. Despite all the deficiencies and negativities, it will keep its place in the agenda from now on. Because this policy has an objective basis.

For action troops and alliances to achieve more effective results, all participants need to train their organized forces. The work to be carried out and the formation to be created to bring common grounds to the fore in practice facilitates the common walk. There are some common responsibilities that come with being in the same position and in the same trench. The precondition for the proper fulfillment of these responsibilities is the continuation of the relations between the popular forces in the fields of work in a manner in accordance with the revolutionary legal principles. This kind of relationship provides a mutual exchange of information. Regularity in relations, unity of action and alliances always add strength to the policy. This joint effort creates an atmosphere of trust, breaks prejudices, and enables the weapon of criticism and self-criticism to function in a healthier manner.


- There is also the discussion of the United Front of the People ...

Yes, one of the misconceptions in dealing with action unions and alliances, which we briefly summarized above, is that the unity of action and alliance policy is understood directly as the United Front of the People. For example, although HBDH declared itself as an action unity / alliance, discussions were made in the ranks of the revolutionary movement as well as in our ranks, claiming that it was a front arising from content discussion.

As we have mentioned above, action units (EB), alliances and the United Front of the People (HBC) should not be considered by separating them with thick lines. Of the People's United Front "a special allianceIt should not be forgotten that we are talking about a process of struggle and war from beginning to end. However, it is wrong to consider HBC as an ordinary EB or alliance.

As it is known, the people are made up of different classes and strata that support the revolution and whose interests are in conflict with the order. Objectively, each class acts in its own interests. Different sections of the population cannot have strong trust in each other without going through a series of common struggles; The firm and most enduring friendship is one based on a tangible set of common experiences of struggle. This common struggle brings with it joint actions, the struggle together. All this takes place in the natural course of the war before the People's United Front was organized.

HBC politics is a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist politics; It rises above the basic alliance of workers and peasants and is, in essence, the concrete expression of the policy of ensuring that the national bourgeoisie (and the oppressed national bourgeoisie) take into account the dual character of the revolution. The unity of the communists and the working class under their leadership emerges as a necessary preliminary step for the establishment of the basic worker-peasant alliance and for the realization of the HBC.

That is, the unity of the working class under the leadership of the communists must be ensured and consolidated so that the capacity of the class to lead the people, that is, the possibility of building the basic alliance of workers and peasants, and from there the practicalization of HBC politics. When the working class cannot establish its unity under the leadership of the communists and establish the basic alliance of workers and peasants, it is not possible to implement the HBC policy. In other words, the only way that the HBC policy can be practiced is through the unity of the working class and the establishment of the basic alliance of workers and peasants.


- At this point, the question arises whether the oppressed dependent nation bourgeoisie can be dealt with in class alliances in line with the HBC policy ...

- Communists do not exclude the peculiarities of national problems, evaluate them in terms of the proletarian socialist world revolution, and consider the essence of the matter on the basis of the establishment of the working class of various nations and nationalities on the basis of their own unity, the establishment of the worker-peasant alliance on a solid and broadest possible basis. Consequently, without ignoring the dual character of national movements not led by the proletariat, they see them as allies of the struggle for democratic popular revolution, revolutionary democratic forces that can be included in the HBC if the conditions for their establishment are met.

HBC, apart from party and military organization, “three guns of the peopleAnd rises mainly on the unity of the proletariat and the basic alliance of workers and peasants, which will be built through armed struggle in the countryside. As the communists continue their struggle to build the unity of the working class and the basic worker-peasant alliance, they can implement a united front tactic that will strengthen these policies. For example, they can develop relations with the petty bourgeoisie or the oppressed nation bourgeoisie, and try to win the national bourgeoisie to united front politics.

Undoubtedly; In this matter, the tactical problem arises as the comprehension of the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal, anti-fascist, anti-patriarchal platform of the democratic people's revolution, which is the minimum common program of the popular classes, current goals and tactics, together with strategic goals, to the popular classes in mass struggle. The way to meet this need is to organize the struggle against the common enemy with short or long-term action units with revolutionary organizations and the realization of concrete political campaigns.

These political campaigns mean the resolution of the concrete problems arising from the struggle of the people and the comprehension of the masses of the people with its political content as a concrete aspect of the democratic people's revolution platform. The issue of conducting a political campaign that will embrace the mass of people, on the other hand, causes the problem of action unions mentioned above, that is, the organization of revolutionary-democratic parties and organizations and short or long-term action unions in the ranks of the people.

It is important to bring this truth to consciousness; For the formation of the HBC (to achieve a stabilized union) it is necessary to go through a series of short and long-term action unions, joint struggles that have not yet been stabilized. This process develops dialectically. Throughout the process, each class and strata reach the awareness of the interests of their own class and clarify their demands and programs. It is possible to unite the working masses around a single program and organize the United Front of the People in a common goal that falls within the scope of the proletariat since the most revolutionary class is the proletariat and the vanguard of the most advanced proletariat. becomes.

It is necessary for the masses of the people to trust each other, to participate in and organize all struggles to which the masses tend to develop their fighting spirit, and to respond concretely to all possible tendencies of unification.



- As for HBDH ...

- HBDH gains importance in terms of revolutionary communists based on what we have listed above. And precisely for these reasons, the periodic policy that serves the tactical process -It is because the contradictions in society must be shaped depending on their course.- Developing it with an approach that prioritizes the Kurdish problem and organizing and strengthening HBDH, which is its concrete expression it is mandatory.

To prioritize the Kurdish national problem and the HBDH, just like other political processes, it does not and should not create a result that neglects the contradictions and conflicts experienced in the context of their own specific gravity and denies carrying out activities in this direction. It is just as wrong to treat them in isolation under conditions where it is never necessary to confront each other. In the case where this disconnection is not allowed, it is necessary to correctly identify the points of intersection, aggregation and focus in the table that displays the image as the sum of contradictions.

Under conditions where the fascist regime sees the struggle of the Kurdish movement as a "survival problem", it is a historical mistake not to be related to this struggle and not to meet on a common struggle ground. HBDH this respect, in terms of Turkey revolution an important opportunity ve combat tool should be seen as.

HBDH, which declared its establishment on March 12, 2016, is a historical step. Hbdh'n the declaration of Turkey and the Kurdish National Freedom Movement of the Revolutionary Movement of the alliance in the fight against fascism and TC merge armed struggle is extremely important, especially because of the approach to the forefront. However, it should be emphasized that each organization participating in the HBDH approaches the United Revolutionary Movement in accordance with its class representation and line. For this reason, it is necessary to foresee that every organization participating in the Movement approaches the issue with its own ideological stance and politics, that this concrete reality will create some difficulties within itself, and it will contain some concessions in order to bring the "unity" issue to the fore.

For our party, HBDH has three important aspects. Of these the first To be associated with the Kurdish National Freedom Movement on a revolutionary basis, latter it also covers the way Turkey Turkey Revolutionary Movement within the revolutionary parties and organizations to develop a long-term alliance relationship in the Democratic People's Revolutionary struggle the third; the need to organize a joint movement of all these forces under fascism.

Based on this, we must underline that; For us, the HBDH organization is the concrete name of turning towards a common enemy with all parties and organizations that we have joined together in the war against fascism, and who show the will to walk together, beyond "ordinary action unity". Therefore, HBDH is also seen as a step in the development of the revolutionary struggle in our geography.

Our involvement in the HBDH is the product of addressing the current goals and tactics together with strategic goals in the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal, anti-fascist, anti-patriarchal line of the democratic people's revolution, which is the minimum common program of the popular classes of our party. As our party can achieve strategic goals, the organization of HBDH today formed the revolutionary platform-alliance is of the opinion. An important preliminary step in realizing HBDH's HBC policy is to support revolutionary structures in the struggle against fascism. a long-standing alliance evaluates as.

The HBDH, which we have formed with the Kurdish National Freedom Movement and revolutionary organizations, has an important place in terms of responding to a series of issues, especially the national problem, in concrete conditions, and at the same time creating a revolutionary focus against the fascist dictatorship, including this. However, like all partnerships, HBDH contains some contradictions within itself. This is due to the nature of the job. What matters is how we handle these contradictions, whether we approach in the direction of "unity" or "fragmentation". The main point is to emphasize the unity, not the secondary points. This approach "Unity-struggle-higher union" It can be formulated. It is important to bring the main points to the fore, not the secondary points, and to unite those who want to fight against fascism on the basis of short or long-term action alliance. This politics is a revolutionary politics.

Engaging with revolutionary national movements, forming alliances, etc. There is no obstacle in front of us in matters. While the practice of our party since its establishment has been in this direction, lastly at its 1st Congress: “... the weight of the process and the aggression of fascism on the upper level, together with the revolutionary and communist movements it dictates that they act together to meet the process in bilateral or multi-action associations. In this sense, it should be evaluated as an important position in LLL. " has been called. (Communist 72, April 2019, p.167)

For our party, the organization of HBDH does not correspond to the United Front of the People, but with a political approach that also serves its establishment. a tactical alliance It is handled as.

(As a parenthesis, we would like to underline that neither Dimitrov nor Mao had any questions about how the united front will take shape, scope, and when it will become a need. inherent in all times there is no definition. There are opposite expressions and warnings.)

So whether our country "action and forces" or "front" get a way we need to agree on the first structure considering the nature and power balance of the war in Turkey, when gerekip / not required, our inside is-or not, or is how to determine whether we should choose not to engage. So what is important or determinant, not according to general or abstract ideas, but according to concrete conditions. we must determine.


- There are understandings that relate not to associate with the Kurdish National Freedom Movement to its being "reformist and liquidator"… What is the impact of such evaluations on partnership?

- The policy of alliance with the National Movement, even if it follows a reformist line, let alone being revolutionary -depending on the circumstances- can be carried out. Movement -no matter what action- As much as it becomes reformed, an assessment should be made based on concrete conditions. At this point, the Comintern tries to deal with "reformist national movements".with certain conditions- takes an approach that enables: “The communist party must be refused to form each bloc with the national reformist opposition; If the actions of the bourgeois opposition can be used to develop this mass movement, and such agreements can be used by the communist party. if it does not in any way restrict the freedom of agitation within the masses and their organizations can not exclude temporary agreements and coordination in certain actions against imperialism. It is spontaneously understandable that communists must also grasp the sharpest ideological and political struggle against bourgeois nationalism and against the tiniest signs of its influence within the workers' movement. In such cases, the communist party must not only maintain its full political independence and preserve its face, but it is also necessary to open its eyes on the basis of facts to the working masses under the influence of the opposition in order to recognize the complete unreliability of this opposition and the danger of the bourgeois-democratic dreams propagated by it ”.

Yes, today there are understandings that associate not being affiliated with the Kurdish National Freedom Movement, not having an alliance with it on common grounds, and the movement being "reformist and liquidator". Apart from the social chauvinist perceptions of the Kurdish movement as "nationalism" and "cooperation with imperialism", the answer to be given to such approaches -as the Comintern clearly stated above- It can be seen in the Kurdish Movement's approach to the revolutionary and communist movement. After all, the practice of the Rojava Revolution is obvious.

The fact that the Kurdish Movement is standing on a revolutionary ground today reveals the necessity and necessity of engaging with it and fighting against fascism in common struggle positions: "It should not be forgotten that; The 'united revolution' of the National Movement, 'Turkeyfication Up 'and so on. His discourse and treatment push him not to be indifferent to social problems other than the national question, which is its raison d'être. Of course, the programmatic solutions and approaches it brings to these problems are in order, that is, at the level of reforms. At this point, however, the problem is not with the National Movement, but with the weakness and powerlessness of the revolutionary movement, especially the communist movement.

The current political-practical stance of the National Movement, the resistance of the social base on which it rises and the demand for freedom, together with it, constitute a strong example of the revolutionary side of the movement. Fully develop the relationship with him, taking into account the nature and particularly the developing alliance or unity of action, including examples such as HBDH and still more that Turkey revolution of the oppressed nation oppressors of studies contradict the main terms are nations and manic conflict between nationalities that conditions- the moment is emerging as one of the revolutionary tasks . This political approach will both provide a strong unity with the revolutionary dynamics of the National Movement's national rights struggle and contribute to the development and strengthening of this ground. " (K 72, April 2019, p.168)

It is a fact that we have already gained ground in our relations with the Kurdish National Freedom Movement and we have made some progress in acting together. This relationship with HBDH has attained a concrete organizational form.

It is clear that supporting the democratic content of the National Movement and addressing this support in the form of defending all kinds of democratic rights is an inadequate approach. Issue we should not only be defined by a policy of support, but that we are actively a party to the war. should be handled with awareness.

On the other hand, in order not to allow any ambiguity, let us emphasize that the problem of alliances is not seen as an ideological-principled problem for communists, it is a tactical problem of political struggle. From this point of view, the problem of alliances is evaluated outside of any stereotyped formula, within the objective and subjective concrete conditions of the moment.

In addition, clashes not only in the ranks of the people, but also in enemy camps are important and should be taken into account in the proletariat's struggle for power. Therefore, those who have a goal of revolution should both firmly unite with the dynamics in the ranks of the people and take the developments in the enemy ranks correctly. Departing from the concrete conditions of our country we are approaching the issue of alliances and concrete conditions existing in Turkey to associate with the Kurdish national struggle for revolution, it is imperative to develop allied relations on various grounds.


- Then, if it is convenient for you, shall we briefly mention your party's views on the national question in terms of relevance to the issue?   

- Our party, all kinds of problems, including national problems revolution perspective is addressed within. In the age of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, the real and final solution of all questions, including the national question, will be under the leadership of the proletariat. Solutions not led by the proletariat are bound to remain temporary and contain the seeds of new conflicts. Hence, it is among the tasks of the proletariat to solve the problems of democracy, including national problems in the semi-colonies and colonies.

In the age of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, the fact that the national question ceased to be an internal issue and became a world issue made these problems a part of the proletarian socialist world revolution. This is so regardless of who leads. However, even in national problems that are not led by the proletariat, those responsible for the national repression directed by these movements and the reactionary forces (imperialist-feudal-fascist forces) directed by the democratic revolution under the leadership of the proletariat are the same.

The fact that the national question has become a problem that the proletariat must finally resolve in our age does not mean that the problem will not arise or develop outside of the proletariat's leadership. All national movements not led by the proletariat are, in the final analysis, national movements that develop under the leadership of the national bourgeoisie. The class component of these national movements is important for the revolutionary dynamic of the movement. But even when the national bourgeoisie does not start it itself and its organizational participation is very low, the ideological leadership of the movement is the national bourgeoisie. National movements not led by the proletariat dual nature also originates from here.

What we call national question is ultimately a question of rights and status. As the name implies, it is not a class-based problem. The fact that his final solution is tied to class is not an obstacle for him to produce intermediate "solutions". For example, some of the national problems of our age have been "solved" by imperialist interventions. The demand to establish a state, in which the national question is mainly oriented in the context of guaranteeing democratic rights and creating its own market, has been moved to another stage with the "autonomy" preference in different examples. For, cultural rights in collective character, political status and conditions under which organization is achieved, especially language, define an "advanced" point in terms of national criteria.

What is decisive for us here is that the National Movement in the context of the national question değil is what revolutionary communists do.

From this point of view, the task Kaypakkaya clearly expressed was not realized in our geography, and the proletariat and its vanguard could not respond to the process. This situation led to the Kurdish nation's struggle for national freedom by creating its own leadership. At the current stage, a national freedom movement has emerged that has organized and struggled in four parts, not only in Turkish Kurdistan, and in the process, it has assumed a content that forces the Turkish regime in every field.

The role of the Kurdish problem, which compels the regime in all respects at the current stage, has created a "decisive" "enemy" phenomenon, from the efforts of the fascist dictatorship to create legitimacy for itself through the war climate, to the methods and tactics of intervention in the class struggle. So much so that the regime, not only the struggle of the Kurdish movement within the country, but also its gains outside its borders, and its position, is a "survival problemDefines as ". So when we say the Kurdish problem severe and shocking It should be known that we are talking about a problem that affects us.


- What do you call “the duty Kaypakkaya expresses clearly”?

- When İbrahim Kaypakkaya examines the historical development of the Kurdish National Movement, he brings the floor to the policy followed by the TKP of the period and expresses the following:

"Instead of combining the strong and righteous reaction of the Kurdish peasants to national oppression with the leadership of the proletariat, he followed the Turkish bourgeois and landlords, thus causing great damage to the unity of the working people of both nationalities. It spread seeds of distrust among Kurdish workers against Turkish workers and peasants. " (HR, All Works, p. 243, Nisan Publishing)

Kaypakkaya said, “To unite the just reaction of the Kurdish workers under the leadership of the proletariatHe mentions. This is the task of the communist movement. The Kurdish National Liberation Movement's struggle against fascism with the priority of being against national oppression orcommunist, non-revolutionary movement of national character"Let us leave" unification "on the grounds of" unification ", every move that avoids for one reason or another, Or his name is communist first of all, it will and will cause the Kurdish laborers to feel distrust towards Turkish workers and laborers.


- How do you embody this task?

- The Kurdish national question has become a weight-bearing phenomenon, with its vertical and horizontal cross-cutting features of the fascist regime, due to the consequences of wars and developments in both Turkish Kurdistan and other parts, and the dimension of the people's war that covers the main field of struggle is the future of the class struggle. / has gained a feature that will seriously affect his fate. It must be seen that it is not possible to walk forward without making this reality a starting point. The chains of the problem, which are tied to the main pillars of the system, are sorely entangled in the class struggle. Before this is seen and brought to consciousness, every step taken in the name of politics will be incomplete.

This is the main reason that led the revolutionary communists to review their attitudes on the Kurdish national issue, to take a self-critical approach to their practices, to establish a special policy on the problem by engaging with the Kurdish National Freedom Movement and the HBHD in concrete terms. With its increasingly dominant character, the ball of contradictions growing in the axis of this problem has created a depth that affects other areas as well and has been moved to a “priority” status that threatens the system. This is so with dimensions that are clearly reflected in all the programs of the ruling classes, which intersect directly or directly with all their practices.

At the current stage, the Kurdish National Freedom Movement, along with a series of internal debates after the imprisonment of A.ecological, democratic, gender liberal society paradigmDeclared as ”. In line with this political line, its military line “'revolutionary people's war' strategy on the basis of self-defenseIt has formulated as ". This paradigm together in the ranks of the Revolutionary Movement in Turkey, the Kurdish movement "reformism" to "associated with the imperialists" have to, "nationalism" to "liquidation" is extending the range of assessment has also been released.


- Can this kind of evaluation not be made?

- Of course it can be done, but the real problem of those who make these analyzes a reason not to be associated with the movement is about the confidence in their ideological-political lines. The possibilities listed above exist already from the moment of the emergence of national movements, and of course, to draw attention to, criticize, warn, etc., according to their place and situation at every stage of the war. it is a revolutionary task. However, keeping our determinations and criticisms in the foreground and not being related is the product of a problematic approach.

On the one hand, the struggle of the Kurdish people, their contribution to the class struggle, etc. praised, guerrilla warfare, self-defense, etc. On the other hand, the mechanism leading to this is continuous reformism, relation with imperialism, liquidationism and so on. "criticized" and "not shared" with! It is clear that there is a contradiction, a problematic approach and confusion here. The fact that a movement does not qualify as a class movement makes it more vulnerable to surrender and liquidation, disarming it to follow a coherent and determined line in the struggle against imperialism and domestic reactionaries. However, it does not make it a direct reformist, liquidator, and imperialist collaborator. The fact that the nature of the movement is not communist brings with it the possibility that the movement "fails to put the end", if so to speak, and wobble according to the situation that has developed from time to time.

However, this possibility constantly -probabilities for every move in general- It is not correct to put it on the agenda, to "distance itself" on the basis of distrust in a movement with a "definite end" and to put all this as a "reason" for not being associated with the Kurdish movement. Status -the possibilities we counted- Three or five more or less revolutionary, progressive, democratic structures are valid for them. Could it be right for us to present an approach that prioritizes "distrust" and "non-collusion" against these movements, and that we do not organize solidarity, do unions of action, and establish alliances? However, the situation differs when there is a national movement, and both a distant and anxious attitude is adopted and the position of "teacher" is taken.

In the background of this approach, there is a formation as / as oppressor nation communists-revolutionaries.

From our point of view, the Kurdish issue could not be handled with an internal approach as an organization, despite the brilliant analyzes of our leading comrade regarding the period, and the issue could not be handled with an internal approach, so it was considered a “distant point”. This situation resulted in the communists not being able to associate with the important and predominant part of the Kurdish workers and peasants on a correct basis. First we have to highlight this reality.



So what is your attitude towards the national movement?

- First of all, the following issue is very clear for us. National movements not led by the proletariat have a dual character. Despite these dual characteristics of national movements, the allies of our democratic people's revolution are the revolutionary-democratic forces that will take part in our united front if the conditions for their establishment are met. These qualities are more evident to the extent that national movements tend to national oppression and persecution. On the other hand, these movements are often with the participation of poor peasants and urban petty bourgeoisie.

For this reason, the communists advocate, above all, taking sides in the struggle of the oppressed national bourgeoisie (without ignoring its dual character). The problem is the "real solution" to refer to the revolution under the name of freely leaving About the rampage from mentioning specific gravity exhaustively and falls away from the political ground that in this way to date, Turkey is an unacceptable situation in terms of the interests of the revolution. The fact that the problem arises from the conditions of our country and cannot be solved by its own dynamics means that other missions are also loaded with those dynamics. The Kurdish problem, in the light of its power and reality that gradually increases its capacity to bear this burden, stands at an extremely important place in our struggle for the Democratic People's Revolution.

"Unless there is an uprising of a reactionary class against our arch enemy, the bourgeoisie of the great powers, without renouncing socialism, here support the uprising we have to. If we refuse to support the uprising of the annexed territories, we will be objectively annexed. In the 'era of imperialism', which is precisely the beginning of the social revolution, the proletariat will support the uprising of the annexed region with a special energy today so that it can attack the 'great' power bourgeoisie, weakened by such an uprising tomorrow or even at the same time. (Lenin, On the National and Colonial National Question, Inter Publications, p.366, bba)

Without giving up its claim to socialism -Except for the uprising of a reactionary classWe are faced with the necessity of communists to support every uprising and struggle. Again Lenin, "If it is really revolutionary and does not interfere with our work" ve "The Communtern has at least initially mobilized the petty bourgeoisie, the peasants and even a significant segment of the working class." It has made it unquestionably clear that we need to support the revolutionary bourgeois national movements. Therefore, it is among our duties to develop relations with revolutionary national movements and to take part in short or long-term alliances that serve to establish the HBC.

On the other hand, Comrade Kaypakkaya said:The fact that the Kurdish national movement today has not clearly formulated secession does not mean that it will not tomorrow. But various compromises are also possible between the bourgeois and landlord classes of the two nations; Let's not forget that too. As a matter of fact, the Barzani movement in Iraq is contented with partial autonomy. In addition, while one wing of the Kurdish national movement advocates separation, another wing may defend the opposite. For these reasons, let's not roll up the trousers before seeing the creek " (HR, All Works, Nisan Publishing, p. 258), we see that he has a clear point of view towards the revolutionary national movement.

Comrade Kaypakkaya "Let's not roll up the legs without seeing the streamHe noted that the Kurdish national movement was fragmented at the time and that none of them had emerged with the demand for the Right to Separate Freely. If it is remembered that he was imprisoned and murdered a few months after writing the theses, it would be to obscure our own duties to wait for more. At that time, -If we don't count the previous ones- the existing Kurdish national movement had not made a revolutionary breakout yet. In the turmoil of the period, there was no obstacle to developing a relationship under different forms with the Kurdish national movement, which raised the flag of national independence with the 1978 August Initiative, aside from its establishment in 15, even if there was no united front. Failure to do so has been a great opportunity missed.


- Even affiliation with the Kurdish National Liberation Movement and especially taking part in the HBDH are criticized by some for "pursuing the National Movement" and as "tailism" ...

- Yes, let us answer such claims with a quote from Lenin by Comrade Kaypakkaya: “… There is nothing more than national injustice that retards the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity; The 'offended' members of a nation are more sensitive than anything else about equality and for the violation of this equality, the violation of this equality by their own proletarian comrades, just because of negligence or merit. That is why it is better to go excessively than to be inadequate in compromising and tolerating national minorities. " (National Liberation Movements in the East, p. 383-384, as cited in İbrahim Kaypakkaya, All Works, Nisan Publishing, p. 256)

So to speak, we should prefer "going to the extreme" rather than being "inadequate" against the struggle of the Kurdish nation. In the current situation, to be in contact with the Kurdish National Liberation Movement, to fight against the fascist regime in a common position like HBDH, some of them necessarily "tailism" etc. If criticized in ways they should turn to the insight Lenin put forward.

After all, creating and waging a struggle together with the Kurdish Movement on this ground will serve as an important antidote, especially the poison of chauvinism. Moreover, the unified character of the HBDH organization has come to the fore as a reality that can be described through the comradeship of trench that was tested in the Rojava Revolution.

In short, a class movement that is not directly related to the Kurdish question has no chance to lead and direct the class struggle. This is today's reality. Nobody has the chance to turn away from this reality and act around a scenario that they have prepared. Those who think they have such a chance inevitably find themselves in the problem, and they are dragged with repetitions because they do not set out with the right approach.

The current stage and in particular the scope of the problems affecting the class struggle in Turkey, held attitudes in the face of the Kurdish problem with a huge bulky size between the agenda of the society in Turkey, Turkey serves as litmus paper function on a held attitudes in the face of the revolution. The reality is basically associated with the revolutionary movement Kurdish kavramayıp not, as justification "reformistlig" of those who take the class character or the forward line, it is clear that Turkey is a revolution that he issues.

The relationship between TDH and Kurdish National Freedom Movement is a rare one. So much so that in the present situation the National Movement is more organized and stronger than the communist movement and the revolutionary movements. Its mass base and organizational structure is incomparably superior and does not take a negative approach to communists and revolutionary movements. On the contrary, HBDH strives to organize a unified struggle, as in its organization.

Nevertheless, the fact that a revolutionary or progressive organization is not associated with a movement that has dealt perhaps the heaviest blows of its history to the state, which itself is regarded as an enemy, is organized on a national basis and has revolutionary and democratic features and has created a mass base expressed in millions, moreover, there is a common ground for struggle. Not in an effort to create is a problematic approach. We think the main reason for this It is the practice of "nationalism" in order to oppose "nationalism".

As in other country revolutionary practices, chauvinism is the largest dose of venom injected into the veins as the main poison of the ruling nations. It is necessary to go through a serious reckoning and purification in order to get rid of this poison, which is systematically exposed from cradle to grave, in every aspect of life in the axis of official ideology. Ideology exists for this. Indeed, Marks "A nation that oppresses another nation can never be free" He did not speak so that it would sound nice.

Lenin evaluates this approach of Marx as follows: “Initially Marx believed that not the national movement of the oppressed nation but the labor movement within the oppressing nation would save Ireland. Marx does not absolutize national movements because he knows that only the victory of the working class can achieve the complete emancipation of all nationalities. It is impossible to calculate in advance all possible interrelationships between the bourgeois liberation movements of the oppressed nations and the proletarian liberation movements within the oppressing nation (this is the problem that makes the national question so difficult in today's Russia).

But things turned out so that the English working class fell under the influence of the liberals for a long time and became an extension of it, and struck its own neck with a liberal labor policy. In Ireland the bourgeois liberation movement grew stronger and took revolutionary forms. Marks reviews and revises his own understanding. "What a misfortune for one people to subdue another people." The British working class will not escape until Ireland gets rid of British oppression! Reaction in England is fueled by the enslavement of Ireland. (Just as reaction in Russia was fed by the enslavement of a number of nations.) (Lenin, On the National and Colonial National Question, Inter Publications, p.250)

Those who brand the national liberation struggle with nationalism oppose it not their own nationalism, but more importantly, nationalism that has an "excuse" and is "understandable", but a nationalism based on racism and chauvinism. The Kurdish problem is seen as a US project or it is treated as an "oppressed nation problem" outside itself, and the solution is distortedly referred to the Self-Determination of Nations, which they "perceive" and so on. Being against problems, alienating from problems, more importantly, problems on the opposite side this is the natural equivalent of positioning.

Comrade Kaypakkaya; In his assessment of the Kurdish National Movement, he uses the following statements: “If the communist movement decided that the separation of the Kurdish nation would be beneficial for the class interests of the proletariat, for example, if the possibility of revolution in the Kurdish region would increase in case of secession, then it would advocate separation itself; He used to propagate separation between Turkish workers and laborers, and among Kurdish workers and laborers. In both cases, warm and sincere ties arose between Turkish workers and laborers and Kurdish workers and laborers. The Kurdish people had a great feeling of trust and friendship to the Turkish people and communists. The unity of the peoples would be strengthened, the success of the revolution would be easier. " (HR, All Works, Nisan Publishing, p. 245)

As can be seen, let alone the "separatism" of the Kurdish National Movement, Comrade Kaypakkaya himself defends "separatism" in terms of the class interests of the proletariat, if the possibility of a revolution arises, and, so to speak, "nationalism"! The issue is all about the concrete assessment of concrete conditions and one should definitely not be indifferent to the problem for whatever reason.

Similarly, Kaypakkaya responds to the understandings that criticize the Kurdish Movement for "cooperation with imperialism" and present this as a reason for not getting involved with the movement and ultimately not fighting on a common ground with the HBDH: "… Suppose that British imperialism was behind the Sheikh Said Rebellion. What should the attitude of a communist movement be under these conditions? Firstly, to oppose the policy of the Turkish ruling classes to suppress and suppress the Kurdish national movement by force, to actively fight against it, to demand the Kurdish nation to determine its own destiny, that is, to ask the Kurdish nation to decide whether to establish a separate state. In practice, this means holding a general vote in the Kurdish region without external intervention, and the decision to leave or not to leave, in this way or a similar way, by the Kurdish nation itself. The withdrawal of all military units in order to suppress the Kurdish movement, the absolute prevention of any intervention, the Kurdish nation to make its own decision about its future, The communist movement first fights for this and expose the suppression, suppression and intervention policy of the Turkish ruling classes to the masses, he would actively fight against him...”(HR, All Works, Nisan Publishing, p. 244, bba.)

The reason for the vacillation in the face of the national problem in general and the Kurdish National Question in particular and the lack of relation with the Kurdish Movement in the past is, first of all, the theses put forward by Comrade Kaypakkaya are sufficient. not graspingSecondly, in accordance with the time period passed between these theses Cannot be updated and reproduced.

That we tried to express from the beginning two points If we need to emphasize again; first While discussing this issue, the age we are in is the age of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, latter as in all matters from concrete analysis of concrete conditions is that we have to act. National movements and action unions, alliances and so on. While evaluating, we should not only have a theoretical discussion. In Kaypakkaya's approach, it is necessary to examine the points, which are very clear in terms of being a response to various assumptions, and which are quite concrete.

Thus "Lenin was right when he said that the national movements of the oppressed countries should not be evaluated in terms of formal democracy but in terms of their real results in the balance sheet of the general struggle against imperialism, that is, on the world scale, not in isolation. (Lenin, All Works, Vol. 19, p. 318) Therefore, one should not discuss the abstract nature of the national question, independent of the interests of the general world revolution.

The first dimension of the issue in our age -As we highlighted above- in colonial and semi-colonies intertwining of national revolution and democratic revolution is a matter. The second is "Departing from the concrete analysis of concrete conditions to”Is the principle.


- Yes, it was a very comprehensive and straightforward assessment. Thank you

- I also thank you on behalf of our Party.