Abdullah Öcalan’s call and the perspective he submitted to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) Twelfth Congress continue to be discussed. Hakan Öztürk, Labourist Movement Party (EHP) chair, said that even within some socialist movements, such a clear critique of capitalism is rarely made, and added: "Today, the PKK is perhaps the largest movement defending socialism in the world. In this sense, I find it very positive and believe it can trigger many other political developments. Even the debate sparked by this statement will yield highly positive outcomes."

The problem and the solution have both been expanded

In his remarks on the debates within the Turkish socialist movement concerning the perspective text, Öztürk continued: "I believe the critiques of this text stem from the fact that there has not been a sustained polemic for a long time, which has led to a decline in theoretical depth. This issue cannot be discussed on such a superficial level. Is capitalism being criticized? Yes, it is directly being criticized. Is the nation-state being criticized? Yes, the nation-state is being criticized. Is industrialism being criticized? Industrialism is also being criticized. Now, alongside capitalism, both the nation-state and very clearly industrialism are identified as core problem areas. The problem has been expanded; the scope of the problem has been broadened. Where has industrialism brought us?

On the one hand, we can say that workers are being exploited, receiving low wages, working long hours, living far from prosperity, and that their children cannot access proper education. On the other hand, should we not also say that industrialism is driving the world toward disaster under capitalism? This text states it outright, and in many socialist movements, such statements are often absent. Yet here, the text describes how savage capitalism operates and has become a tumor on this planet we call Earth. If it continues like this for another 50 years, it will bring the world to the brink of physical annihilation. An approach that expands the scope of the problem in this way is very close to the perspective of the Labourist Movement Party. The scope of the problem is broad, and the disaster left behind by capitalism is immense. Öcalan points to all three of these issues."

A political program is being elevated here

Öztürk added: "Alongside expanding the scope of the problem, it also presents a programmatic framework and a broad solution framework. Just as the scope of the problem is broad, the scope of the solution is also broad, addressing both the problem and the solution. This is not an abstract, vague, or self-congratulatory approach; rather, it represents a political program and perspective that deserves serious consideration. While political programs within the general left in Turkey have declined, here we see it being elevated. In this sense, it proposes a communal approach against capitalism, a democratic nation against the nation-state, and an eco-economy against industrialism. We might even call it eco-socialism.

Democratic nation instead of nation-state

In discussing a democratic nation rather than glorifying the nation-state, removing it from blood ties and transforming it into a relationship of equal citizenship means creating a form of nationhood that offers better examples for the world. Instead of defining a nation based on blood ties and then becoming exclusionary, defining it as a democratic nation and democratic society aligns closely with the views of the Labourist Movement Party. In that sense, we are not advocating for a pure nation-state. In fact, no Marxist would ever argue for such a thing. Organizing it based on equality and the relationship of equal citizenship, and maintaining a distance from a pure, unmixed nation-state, is a proper stance. If, as a solution, everyone in the Middle East and the world were to advocate for pure nation-states and fully attempt to implement this, it would only bring disasters. As Marxists, when it comes to resolving these tensions, should we advocate for the establishment of separate nation-states? Personally, I would not. If a common country, a shared geography can be established, I would fully support it as a Marxist. This is much like how the Bolsheviks and Lenin defended Russia’s unity as one large country. I do not see any criticism to be made here; on the contrary, this is a positive position for us."

A call for an internationalism of nations

Öztürk said: "There is also a political approach here, one that we do not see in many currents within Turkey. It states that internationalism is necessary. I find the expansion of the solution very positive. Confederation can be considered within the nation-state problems across different regions, but if we are to build a political movement to withstand this global crisis, the answer is internationalism. It is about establishing an international structure and beginning efforts toward that goal. In fact, when the Labor and Freedom Alliance was first founded, this was one of our proposals. We said, ‘Right now, we face many troubles, but similar problems have occurred in South America, Europe, and Asia. Let us organize a symposium where we can discuss how these issues were resolved, or not resolved, in those countries and what experiences were gained.’ Today, the proposal to establish an international is a much more advanced idea, and as a Marxist, I have nothing but support for it. This is extremely positive. While many speak of the need for internationalism, it is the Kurdish movement that possesses such immense power to make this call. This is not a worn-out intellectual call for internationalism, but rather a profoundly meaningful call, one that resembles the internationalism of nations.

Even attempting this is magnificent

The call for internationalism tends to include all workers and all oppressed nations that have suffered injustice. This call will be no different. It is a call that comes directly from a people who have been oppressed and wronged. The concept of excluding peoples is entirely out of the question. Can one gather such an international without criticizing the global system? It will inevitably be built upon that critique. In this sense, the text is highly suitable for forming an international. It essentially says, in its own challenge, that ‘the issue is not only capitalism; it is also industrialism, and it is also this understanding of nationhood.’ Thus, the scope of criticism has been expanded, and the solution that corresponds to this expanded critique is an international structure. Even if it is not fully idealized, the very attempt to build it is magnificent. It can be done, because the power to do so exists."

Öztürk emphasized that the Kurdish Freedom Movement holds significant power today and noted that even simply saying 'this is good, let it be done' with regard to internationalism would already be a major step forward. He continued: "When the time comes, if the Kurdish movement says, ‘Friends, let’s discuss these issues on a global level, how did things unfold in your countries, what were your experiences?’ it will already double the impact. In my view, given its experience, its strength, and the deep theoretical background it possesses, this would be extremely beneficial. This would not be like the initiatives taken by intellectuals; it would take on real, tangible form. In this sense, how far behind could the Kurdish people be from the position the Russians were in when they prepared for internationalism? Some may ask, ‘will everything be asked of the Kurds now?’

But just as everything was once asked of the Russians, today the same will be asked of the Kurds. Because when you succeed at one task, others will naturally turn to you for guidance. The Russians could not say, ‘is everything our responsibility?’ and neither could the Kurds. They can carry this burden with honor. Such is life; such is history. The Kurdish people have achieved this in this geography. Today, they are speaking of what they have accomplished in Rojava and in Turkey. They speak of the councils they have established, of the secularism they have been able to build there. A form of secularism is being experienced in the Middle East. People are experiencing freedom in their beliefs. In this regard, just as they have brought many issues onto their agenda, they will also bring internationalism onto their agenda. For years, the Kurdish movement has invited everyone to act in internationalist solidarity. It has always defended the fraternity of peoples and has never harbored even the slightest hostility toward the dominant nations with which it has had conflicts or tensions."

To be continued…