Why does PKK always work with Communists

[Anthea]

Why does PKK always work with themselves with Communists?

The report stated that nine outlawed groups including the Turkish Communist Party/Marxist-Leninist (TKP/ML), the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (MLKP), the Revolutionary Communists Party (DKP), the Turkish Communist Labor Party/Leninist (TKEP/L), the Maoist Communist Party (MKP), the Turkish Revolutionary Communists Union (TİKB), the Revolutionary Headquarters, and the Turkish Liberation Party-Front (THKP-C) conducted their first meeting in Syria’s Latakia on Feb. 23, after recently joining forces upon a PKK invitation.

At one stage I distinctly remember the PKK giving up it's communist ideology

Commission has been on the decline worldwide, it is totally illogical for the PKK to re-align themselves to a dying cause

I suggest the PKK align themselves with international groups that have had similar histories to themselves

The first group they should connect with are Native Americans

The reasons are two-fold, native Americans have suffered greatly we all know the history and the continuing problems they face

Also, unlike the PKK, they receive a great deal of sympathy

There are many other such indigenous groups

The Catalonians of Spain

The Aborigines of Australia who have almost been totally wiped out by European occupation

There are many such peoples worldwide so why does PKK focus only on communists

Communism will not win them any support

PLEASE let us have YOUR thoughts?

[Benny]

True, it´s strange! But now I´m going to ask a perhaps stupid question - are there no right wing version of PKK? I mean are there no Non-socialist organization?

/B

[Piling]

From 1978 until 1995, PKK was Marxist-Leninist. In 1995, there was a general Congress and it dropped the ML ideology and the hammer & sickles disappeared from the flags. Then the ideology of PKK was – and is still – essentially 'Apoist' as there was a Maoism : based on a cult of personality and a 'philosophy-wisdom-political project for all humanity' preached by Apo (Öcalan). But as fir maoism, this ideology changed often, according to the mood of the Leader, to changing alliances, and historical events (as his capture).

They are not really communists anymore. If USA did not support Turkey during Cold War, it could have been different. Of course, as quite all liberation movements from 70s the 'marxist inspiration' was strong, but in the Rojava project, for example, I wonder what remains of marxism (i am not a specialist of Marx so if someone can correct or explain, welcome).

Nowadays I think that the current 'Political Line' is half a copycat of Maoism during the Cultural Revolution half a copy of Iraqi Kurdistan Region ( YES, the Big Ennemy , but yes !).

There is no 'right wing' within PKK : in fact when Öcalan was free and ruled as an absolute Guru, there was people faithful to Öcalan and the others (traitors and fascists). No real 'wings', but many internal rivalries as it happens in any totalitarian Party.

Now since Apo's capture and detention, many people talk about 'doves and hawks', people supporting political negotiation and peace (obeying to Imrali's views aka 50% Öcalan 50% Turkey) and a pro-war camp supported by Cemil Bayik and Iran.

But it can change all the time and especially now, it will depend on the evolution of Erdogan's attitude toward Kurds after the failed coup.

[Benny]

But isn´t also the case that it is the armed struggle that makes it hard to get support? I mean many of the groups listed above - aboriginals, native americans, catalonians - conducts their struggle by political means.

/B

[Piling]

Some pro war within PKK are supported by Iran which does not want a total defeat of the military wing because Turkey is one of its ennemies (especially in Syria).

In any guerilla or terrorist movement (and PKK is not a terrorist movement, though violent and certainly not democratic) when time is coming to negotiate, the armed wing tries always to restart the conflict, because peace gives power to the political side (happened with ANC, IRA, ETA, etc.).

The guerilla has no interest to stop the war because in that case they won't have any amnesty from Turkey and no place where to shelter and they don't want to be caught like Öcalan : Cemil Bayik Murat Karayilan (though this one can be sheltered by KRG but if Turkey wants him, it could be difficult for KRG to protect him), Duran Kalkan, etc., are quite old now, they have no future in the mountains but a future of imprisonment if they go down from Qandil HQ. That's quite tragic.

So war is a tool for Iran (harming Turkey), for guerilla (its reason to exist, as it happened for ETA, FARC, etc. and all armed movements) and for pro war Turks within army because war gave them some power. But now Turkish army lost 42% of its generals so it is a beheaded force.

Concerning Turkey, if they would have really wanted a truce and a peace, Erdogan would have acted differently. He asked to PKK a complete surrendering and offered nothing in exchange.

[Benny]

I see what you mean and thank you for your posts. I guess one can say that these things are very complicated and have their own logic.

/B