The strength of the national movement is determined by the degree to which the wide strata of the nation, the proletariat and peasantry, participate in it.[29]
After Comrade Stalin analyzed the conditions under which workers and peasants joined the national movement and after saying, “The class-conscious proletariat has its own tried banner, and has no need to rally to the banner of the bourgeoisie,”[30] he continues:
From what has been said it will be clear that the national struggle under the conditions of rising capitalism is a struggle of the bourgeois classes among themselves. Sometimes the bourgeoisie succeeds in drawing the proletariat into the national movement, and then the national struggle externally assumes a “nationwide” character. But this is so only externally. In its essence, it is always a bourgeois struggle, one that is to the advantage and profit mainly of the bourgeoisie.[31]
As Comrade Stalin immediately adds: “But it does not by any means follow that the proletariat should not put up a fight against the policy of national oppression.”[32] No, the conclusion to be drawn from this is that a popular movement and a national movement are not the same thing.
If we summarize, a popular movement is a class movement of the oppressed and exploited masses. And in essence it always carries the mark of oppressed masses it exists in every historical period, and today popular movements have moved towards realizing the ultimate liberation of the masses by uniting with the leadership of the class.
National movements emerged in the conditions of a rising capitalism. In the West it was during the period between 1789 and 1871, whereas in Eastern Europe and Asia this began after 1905 and in places still continues. National movements always bear the mark of the bourgeoisie and it is the natural tendency of every national movement to establish states with national integrity that best correspond to the needs of capitalism.
The movement today in Kurdistan of Turkey, which is “developing rapidly,” is both a Kurdish national movement led by the Kurdish bourgeoisie and small landlords and also a class movement – that is, a popular movement of the oppressed and exploited Kurdish workers and peasants – increasingly showing a predisposition to unite with a communist leadership. The former of these only aims to end the national oppression of the Turkish ruling classes and at the same time seize control of the “internal market” on behalf of the Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords, while the latter opposes both the exploitation and oppression of the Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords, and national oppression and the policy of oppressing nationalities. The Safak Revisionists portray these two entirely different movements, as regards to their character and objectives, as one and the same.
7. The Development of National Movements inEasternEurope and Asia
We have already mentioned the fact that national movements in Eastern Europe and Asia only began around 1905 and that the natural tendency of these movements was towards the formation of national states. The period when national movements began in Eastern Europe and Asia was the period when imperialism was formed, trade took on an international character and when the contradiction between international capital and the international working class became prominent.
Between 1905 and the end of the Second World War, national states (some of them multinational states) were formed in Eastern Europe and Asia and colonies generally took on a supposed independent condition. However, in reality a new form of dependency spread, with semi-colonized countries taking the place of colonies.
The 1917 Great October Socialist Revolution ended the period of old-style revolutions under bourgeois leadership throughout the world, opening the period of new-democratic revolutions under proletarian leadership and the period of socialist revolutions. The bourgeoisie began to fear popular movements all over the world. For this reason, national movements in Eastern Europe and Asia were unable to go beyond changing the colonial structure into a semi-colonial structure, conserving the semi-feudal structure intact. The bourgeoisie and landlord classes established an alliance and collaboration with imperialism.
At the conclusion of the Second World War, with the success of the neo-democratic revolution in China, the seizure of power by antifascist popular fronts with proletarian leadership in Eastern European countries and their immediate transition from democratic popular dictatorship to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the construction of socialism and the regression of imperialism all led to the bourgeoisie in backward countries becoming even more terrified of revolution.
In this new period, when imperialism is headed for complete collapse and socialism is moving towards victory all over the world the situation of national movements is as follows:
The task of completing the national and democratic revolution in semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries, that is, the task of liquidating completely imperialism and feudalism, is now on the shoulders of the proletarian class movement. The bourgeoisie no longer has the power or ability to carry out these tasks, which are its own historical tasks. Only a wing of the national bourgeoisie, its revolutionary wing, may take its place as an ally in a united popular front under the leadership of the proletariat. And then only constantly limping and faltering. This is the general, widespread and typical situation for our era.
On the other hand, the bourgeoisie of oppressed, dependent, subject nations and a section of landlords in a small number of old colonies and multinational states are embarking on national movements against national oppression and with the objective of establishing nation states. These national movements in both these colonies and in subject nations are singular occurrences that have been passed down to our era from the previous period, are not widespread and do not characterize our age, but still have to be addressed by Marxist-Leninists. In both these types of nations the natural tendency of national movements is towards the formation of national states. If anything is certain, it is that these national movements possess a progressive and democratic character. But another certainty is that these national movements, whether they conclude in the founding of a separate state or another form, they will not be able to complete the national and democratic revolution. The task of sweeping away and carrying off imperialism and feudalism in these nations will again rest on the shoulders of the class movement of the proletariat. The proletarian movement in both these kinds of nations must know that on the one hand it has the task of completing the national and democratic revolution while, on the other, it must support the progressive and democratic character of the bourgeois national movement.
Turkey is today one of the multinational states. In Turkey, only the Kurds constitute a nation.[33] In this respect, from the point of view of Turkey’s communists, the Kurdish question constitutes the essence (not the entirety) of the national question. Now, let us take a look at the development of the Kurdish national movement.
8. The Kurdish National Movement
National movements in Turkey are not new and are not comprised solely of the Kurdish movement. They began before the collapse of the Ottoman society and have continued until the present day. Bulgarians, Greeks, Hungarians, Albanians, Kurds, Armenians, Arabs, Yugoslavs and Romanians rebelled against the dominant nation of the Ottoman state, the Turkish nation, on numerous occasions. History has, apart from the Kurdish movement, concluded the national movements with a certain resolution. Within today’s borders of Turkey, the only national movement that has yet to be resolved is the Kurdish movement. In Turkey, the natural tendency of the national movement has always been towards the formation of states with national integrity. Capitalism, which silently entered the life of Eastern Europe and Asia at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, set in motion the national movements in these regions. The other nationalities within the borders of Turkey separated from Turkey, organizing within national (or multinational) states, in accordance with the development of goods production and capitalism, with the exception of the Armenian movement, which suffered mass slaughter and forced exile in 1915 and 1919.