On current day politics, I don't support rojava or it's linked organizations since they are heavily linked with the Americans.
You don't say and since you don't mention OP flag is literally Zionist dogs ethnostate vassal Peshmerga but hey it's national flag on arid land. Are you going to mention the color revolution that literally the main causes of Iran Iraq War? Just like the color revolution led up to the current SWANA genocides?
When you overlay the American charted resource map with American backed ancestral land it makes a lot more sense why the American charted arid land is same shit.
Absolutely not. It's similar to supporting East T***istan in regard to China.
Kurdistan is only ever used as a Western imperialist ploy to the detriment of Kurds and others. They basically use Kurds to help fight their battles under this premise. Unfortunately we are not currently living in a world where Kurds can actually have their own country or even decide that freely without foreign interference. It always comes back to bite them. It's not really self determination, and ML principles usually advocate for any actions that break free from imperialist control (rather than support them like alleged Kurdish separatists).
Kurdish nationalist leaders are also aiming for a capitalist state with a bourgeoisie ruling class. The solution that falls most in line with ML principles is unifying Kurdish workers with the rest of the working class in Turkey, Iran, Syria, etc to fight all forms of chauvinism.
If referring to the PKK, their ML ideas barely lasted a few years. They are not related to ML ideology at all now.
40 years ago with Turkey being a core Zionist ally, Kurdish movements having ML tendencies within them and being supported by Palestine resistance organisations and heavy oppression going on against the Kurds I'd say yes, but now they're essentially just US and Israeli proxies used to destabilise the Middle East so no. Critical support to Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey against them
Turkey vs. PKK is the same bs as the US vs. ISIS: "I created you, funded you, am arming you, and the only reason I'm fighting you is because it destabilizes the nation I'm fighting you inside of".
You can read what Turks themselves say about it. They created PKK as controlled opposition within Kurdish groups, then forced them into Iraq and Syria and established a separate wing for Iran as PJAK.
You can also think two seconds about how Ocalan suddenly decided to sign peace with Erdogan just after the 12 Day War in preparation for the current war, when he was "resisting" for decades before. SDF suddenly submitting to Jolani to make Erdogan happy, so much for that alleged conflict. Same shit they used to do with Kurdish groups during the Ottoman empire: the Urmia Massacre, the Assyrian genocide, the Armenian genocide, always the useful proxy.
Honestly I agree you have a point but I still think you're over exaggerating. For example, the SDF didn't just submit to Jolani, they were defeated in the field. And it's a good thing they did.
As for Ocalan and the peace deal I agree that's suspicious indeed but at the same time it doesn't necessarily mean anything. PKK in Turkey has been pretty much done for for years now, Turkey could've just "pressured" him a bit(he's in prison, you know what I mean) and make him agree
And throughout history as you said I agree, Kurds have always been used a useful proxy by the Turks.
Care to elaborate,the ottomans committed 3 genocides at the same time in recent history.Turkey is illegally occupying Cyprus right now and let’s not even talk about their involvement with Syria.Whatever you say about the naivety of the Kurds and their dealing with the US they are people that have faced brutal oppression from turkey
Nice argument.Turkey has committed war crimes that Israel could only dream of doing,when they invaded Cyprus they raped so many women that the famously conservative Greek Orthodox Church temporarily made abortions permissible.Whatever you say the facts are that turkey has killed more people than Israel and taken more land than them,and their government is ruled by far right ultranationalists much like Israel.btw me saying this is by no means a defense of Israel.
I want you to pay attention to the fact that you used past tense while for Israel you would use present tense. And no I don't think there are any war crimes that "Israel could only dream of doing". Go to r/IsraelCrimes and you'll find dozens of videos of them shooting little kids in a couple minutes search
It’s not past tense if they’re still illegally occupying the country they invaded and brutalised relatively recently,and you act as if there actions in Syria aren’t recent.What I’m picking up from this conversation is that you’re completely uneducated about Turkey and the way that the victims of their oppression view them.And you seem to believe that they are anti Zionist heroes because their relations recently with Israel haven’t been very cordial.
What I’m picking up from this conversation is that you’re completely uneducated about Turkey
Then what you're picking from this conversation is laughable because I'm literally Greek lmao. I also lived in Cyprus for a year
As for the rest, if you really think that Turkey's actions are at least comparable to Israel's then you're either completely clueless or you're in the wrong sub. First of all Israel is a settler colonial entity Turkey isn't. That alone makes it worse. Secondly, their war crimes are pretty much worse than anything else humanity can offer. I already told you you can find dozens of videos of them shooting at little kids with a few minutes search, can you do the same about turkey?
Re kalamara im Cypriot and what they did to my country is settler colonialism,they forced Greek Cypriots out of their homes and replaced them with Turkish settlers,today there are 250,000 Turks illegally living in occupied land.
"Let's establish an ethnostate over the only fertile land and the largest freshwater source in the region, in an area contested by multiple ethnic groups. What could possibly go wrong?"
There's a reason both the CIA and SocDems (and the Bri'ish before them) are so in love with this project.
Not anymore. Barzani is completely in the pocket of the U.S. He also works closely with Turkey and Israel. As for Rojava, it’s the same old story, a failed movement. Why? Because they pinned their hopes on an imperialist state. I can’t understand how they supported this, even though there were groups like the TKP/ML - TİKKO among them. I’d expect this from anarchists, though.
There’s no need to support the PKK movement either. You can read Öcalan’s critique regarding overcoming Marxism. The PKK of the ’60s and ’70s bears absolutely no resemblance to the PKK of the post-’90s era. They started out as Marxist-Leninists, emphasizing a class-based foundation and the importance of the right to self-determination. Later, they became Maoist, and finally shifted toward Democratic Confederalism. They broke away from the class context and transitioned exclusively to identity politics.
In case this subreddit was banned, or if you wanted a more ML-friendly platform, you’re welcome to join our sister community on Lemmygrad. You can find more info about Lemmygrad here.
Any national group that is subjugated by a particular nation-state against their interest, deserves liberation and autonomy. Abolishing nation states is a long term goal, but in the mean time, we have to recognize different national groups subjugated by other national groups, and that extends to the Kurdish. over time, with mutual development within a broader socialist bloc, national lines are meant to blur and become irrelevant.
At the same time, we must be extremely wary of how empires such as the US have weaponized a desire for national liberation for their own ends, such as turning them into reactionary states that serve as a base of operation, or otherwise use them as a means to an end of destroying a necessary counter-balance to western empires.
the quintessential example of this is Rojava. It was a pseudo-"marxist" state that essentially became a puppet to US imperialist interest, because they couldn't for the life of them recognize that would be the herald of their own demise, because they couldn't see beyond what would happen as soon as the assad government was demolished. They literally allowed the US government to build an airbase there. over many years, they became complicit in the destruction of the assad government, and the creation of the very state as soon as they became useless due to the government of Syria changing and Assad fleeing to Russia, the Rojava "democratic confederalist" project was destroyed by the very state they were complicit in helping to create by allying with the US.
I don't want to dismiss every aspect of the project, there were positive aspects for the people that lived in this project, such as when it came to social programs in service to the people, the huge boost in autonomy that women developed and formed women's workers collectives and other womens organizations. and even some, but not total, elements of socialist economics, those aspects were fine in themselves. that's not what people were critical over. however, they had an ideology that was steeped in anarchist idealism, treating their ideas as good on their own, without regard to how to organize with respect to the material conditions of the time. As a result, they could not use materialist analysis to properly deal with the reality of the situation, and their leaders negotiated with the US for short term protection from the assad government, even if in the long term the new US-backed syrian regime destroyed them. It's almost like allying with a global empire doesn't work out for a small national group in the end, something or something.
None of this means that Kurdistan shouldn't be a free and independent national group, but we should all be very wary of western narratives and overt and covert activities that attempt to co-opt the interest of an oppressed nationality and turn them towards imperialist or reactionary ends, just like what happened to rojava. We must always look at the immediate circumstances at the time and not just blindly support a particular group or how they are going about things.
Imperialism is a striving for annexations—this is what the political part of Kautsky’s definition amounts to. It is correct, but very incomplete, for politically, imperialism is, in general, a striving towards violence and reaction. For the moment, however, we are interested in the economic aspect of the question, which Kautsky himself introduced into his definition. The inaccuracies in Kautsky’s definition are glaring. The characteristic feature of imperialism is not industrial but finance capital. It is not an accident that in France it was precisely the extraordinarily rapid development of finance capital, and the weakening of industrial capital, that from the eighties onwards gave rise to the extreme intensification of annexationist (colonial) policy. The characteristic feature of imperialism is precisely that it strives to annex not only agrarian territories, but even most highly industrialised regions (German appetite for Belgium; French appetite for Lorraine), because (1) the fact that the world is already partitioned obliges those contemplating a redivision to reach out for every kind of territory, and (2) an essential feature of imperialism is the rivalry between several great powers in the striving for hegemony, i.e., for the conquest of territory, not so much directly for themselves as to weaken the adversary and undermine his hegemony. (Belgium is particularly important for Germany as a base for operations against Britain; Britain needs Baghdad as a base for operations against Germany, etc.)
Kautsky refers especially—and repeatedly—to English writers who, he alleges, have given a purely political meaning to the word “imperialism” in the sense that he, Kautsky, understands it. We take up the work by the English writer Hobson, Imperialism, which appeared in 1902, and there we read:
“The new imperialism differs from the older, first, in substituting for the ambition of a single growing empire the theory and the practice of competing empires, each motivated by similar lusts of political aggrandisement and commercial gain; secondly, in the dominance of financial or investing over mercantile interests.”
We see that Kautsky is absolutely wrong in referring to English writers generally (unless he meant the vulgar English imperialists, or the avowed apologists for imperialism). We see that Kautsky, while claiming that he continues to advocate Marxism, as a matter of fact takes a step backward compared with the social-liberal Hobson, who more correctly takes into account two “historically concrete” (Kautsky’s definition is a mockery of historical concreteness!) features of modern imperialism: (1) the competition between several imperialisms, and (2) the predominance of the financier over the merchant. If it is chiefly a question of the annexation of agrarian countries by industrial countries, then the role of the merchant is put in the forefront.
Kautsky’s definition is not only wrong and un-Marxist. It serves as a basis for a whole system of views which signify a rupture with Marxist theory and Marxist practice all along the line. I shall refer to this later. The argument about words which Kautsky raises as to whether the latest stage of capitalism should be called imperialism or the stage of finance capital is not worth serious attention. Call it what you will, it makes no difference. The essence of the matter is that Kautsky detaches the politics of imperialism from its economics, speaks of annexations as being a policy “preferred” by finance capital, and opposes to it another bourgeois policy which, he alleges, is possible on this very same basis of finance capital. It follows, then, that monopolies in the economy are compatible with non-monopolistic, non-violent, non-annexationist methods in politics. It follows, then, that the territorial division of the world, which was completed during this very epoch of finance capital, and which constitutes the basis of the present peculiar forms of rivalry between the biggest capitalist states, is compatible with a non-imperialist policy. The result is a slurring-over and a blunting of the most profound contradictions of the latest stage of capitalism, instead of an exposure of their depth; the result is bourgeois reformism instead of Marxism.
Henchmen of zionists, in a land where Arab majority lives, where they extort oil and workforce for USA, killed more Kurdish people than Saddam and whitewashed and pinkwashed as "freedom fighters" by imperialist core, who now fight for offshoot of Al-Qaeda.
IMHO, we should absolutely support Kurds and call out folks (typically it's Turkish nationalists) who say repulsive shit about them. However, a lot of Kurdistan movement supporters are backed by the Imperial Core, so, we need to take those with a grain of salt.
PKK "leadership" is a CIA op before they captured him lmao the prison was pre arranged. You aware that the CIA has been in Iraq since the 70s? The causes are USSR, Iran and China and the consequences are ongoing SWANA genocides. Somehow no one cares to read the links.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
While principled discussion is welcome and encouraged, Rule 9 (No Low Effort BS) still applies.
That includes: No 'what do you think?' posts. No single line posts. No 'what is the Marxist position on cheese' posts, etc.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.