Duran Kalkan: Conditions to fight for democracy and freedom are better than before

Duran Kalkan says conditions to fight for democracy and freedom are better than before.

Duran Kalkan, from the PKK Executive Committee, wrote in a text published on the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) website that conditions to fight for democracy and freedom are better than before.

"The international powers are deeply divided"

Kalkan looks to the international powers and states: “It is crystal clear that neither the US, Europe, Israel and the UK have a solution, nor can the bloc of Russia, China and India produce a solution. Russia has completely lost its ideological approach and has no basic strategic thinking. It operates a policy based on daily needs. Some say there will be an alliance between Russia, Turkey and Iran that could also support Korea. The USA, on the other hand, would form a bloc with Europe and a new bipolar order, as in the 20th century, would emerge. It is perfectly clear that such a thing will not happen. These lessons were learned from past wars. You can't go back to the 20th-century status quo. If that were possible, it would have happened by now. We don't have to expect anything like that. This means that the hopelessness of the situation will continue. The global powers are very fragmented and disorganized. The global hegemonic powers of capitalist modernity are indeed in a very weak position.

"The conditions to fight for democracy and freedom are better than before"

Compared to the world of 30-40 years ago, the current situation offers much more favourable conditions and opportunities to advance the idea of ​​freedom and democracy. The conditions for fighting for rights are better, but this path should not be considered easy because it is not without dangers.”

“The revolutionary forces lack global unity”

Kalkan recalls that Abdullah Öcalan presented the concept of "democratic world confederalism" as a solution model and goes on to say: "Without that, no solution will develop and there would be no results. Combat can develop in spots, but let's not forget that something that develops today can bounce back tomorrow. The revolution is a matter of struggle; it will happen if we try every moment. The real weakness lies in avoiding a world revolution. There is no joint world-revolutionary struggle taking place that corresponds ideologically, politically and militarily to the requirements of the time. In some places, the ideological dimension is emphasized and the politico-military dimension is neglected; in other places it is the other way around. There is no unified attitude in the struggle for world revolution.

An analysis of the specific situation is important. Lenin's concept is indeed very, very important in terms of social science. However, we must not slip into objectivism by analyzing the concrete. The concrete analysis of the concrete conditions is also important. We must be able to do that too. So what is the situation and what is not? How can it be turned to success? We have to rack our brains about this. Social science also requires this.

"Never separate from philosophical-ideological criteria"

Contradictions and conflicts must not be confused with one another. It is necessary to look at any problem or event not only from the point of view of political and military science, but always to consider an ideological and philosophical point of view as well. Political and military perspectives without philosophy and ideology are dangerous. They do not lead to a correct understanding of contradictions and conflicts. On the contrary, they sacrifice everything for political and military relations. A mentality and policy that is reduced to politics alone or to the political-military situation is absolutely wrong. One must not separate oneself from philosophical-ideological criteria.

"The enemy of the enemy did not become a friend, but a traitor"

In the 20th century, socialists have been very strong in this politico-military focus. That was Mao's favourite subject. He kept saying 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'. In the 1990s, we in Kurdistan also wanted to pursue this policy a little, but the international conspiracy brought us that. The enemy of our enemy did not become a friend, but a traitor. Such is the role played by Greece, Russia and some of these powers in the international conspiracy. Rêber Apo called this a 'false friendship'. That sums it up. That is, we cannot look at events only from a political and military point of view. The philosophical and ideological point of view must never be lost; it is even clear that the philosophical and ideological point of view is the decisive one and that political and military action must be based on this. This is a more correct approach.

A revolution has been going on for a hundred years. If you take the revolutionary movements in France as a basis, then we go back 200 years. Taking the Paris Commune as a basis, 150 years. The October Revolution has taken place, the socialist revolution against capitalism. These were important processes. It has been established that unless socialism succeeds, humanity will perish. But despite this long process, the revolution could not create an alternative. If there could have been a European revolution, a world revolution, as the October Revolution predicted, socialism could have led mankind to a better life, the dangers could have been eliminated, but that did not happen. That was also the conviction when the revolution took place. The theory was based on that. The practical failure was poured into theory.

“None of the analyzes created in the Soviet Union were correct”

This was the mentality when such revolutionary steps were taken, the theoretical analyzes moved within this framework. Practical failure was poured into theory. An attempt was made to build a socialist theory on this failure. This is not correct. After the defeat of the revolution in Europe, none of the theoretical analyzes developed in the Soviet Union were correct. In fact, the Soviet Union did not survive, develop, or sustain itself. When it failed to become an alternative, when it failed to develop socialism, it could not save itself from becoming a form of capitalism.”

“Failure shows us the way”

Kalkan concludes: “All this shows us the way. Our approach to revolution, our revolutionary understanding, must rest on this foundation. It is necessary to understand against this background the new theory, the philosophy, the ideological-political line, the strategy and tactics, the style, and the pace, everything that has emerged on the basis of the paradigm shift. In this way we understand Rêber Apo correctly and should participate accordingly. If we don't understand Rêber Apo properly, if we don't participate in the right way, then we can't implement anything properly.

It is necessary to understand the reality of apoism, the concrete situation in Kurdistan, the stage of capitalist modernity, the situation of the Third World War, the ways out of the war, the theory of democratic modernity, the revolution, its characteristics, its development in Kurdistan and to be understood even more precisely and better elsewhere.”