Our struggle must goes beyond what our lifestyle demands

Our struggle must goes beyond what our lifestyle demands

By: Zaher Baher

June 2017

The world still suffers from the current economic crisis that started in 2008. It has not only made the vast majority of us poorer and our life harder but has limited our freedoms as well.  In the meantime the number of visible and invisible wars increases and the number of victims goes up. Despite this, the leftist, communist, socialist and the anarchist movements have not gone forward.

When I attend meetings, I often hear the phrase ‘anarchist movement’.  I question if the ‘anarchist movement’ exist anywhere?

In my opinion after the Spain civil war of 1936 to 1939 there has not been any anarchist movement anywhere in the world.  What we had or we have are just a few strong anarchist organisations. In France and Greece there were some street activities but I could not call them a ‘movement’.

Of course, there are many reason for this.  In this article I point out a couple of major weaknesses of the anarchists in Europe in general and in the UK in particular that to a certain extent are slowing down our efforts and struggle towards the ‘movement’.

  • Far from organising ourselves:

We cannot deny the role and impact organisations play in the movement. Of course, I am talking about non-hierarchical organisation. It is true in history in many places there were many major popular uprisings and movements without people organising themselves before.  However, these movements or uprisings have either been brutally suppressed or have not achieved and major changes. In fact most of them made the system stronger.

Although one of the main principles of anarchism is individual freedom and work on achieving it, at the same time anarchism strongly believes in working, struggling and living collectively while still the freedom of the individual is protected. Working and living together does not restrict it.  In my opinion the relation and link between individual freedom and working, living, struggling collectively is very strong and to certain extent one completes the other.  In other words weakening one of them weakens the other.

Life under this brutal system imposed many commitments and obligations over every individual in society.  If any of us wants to breach some of those obligations and commitments we have to pay the price in certain way.

The present system has been formed on the basis of brutality, exploitation inequality, poverty, unsocial justice, war and its law and order to make the individual subject or obey to these rules.  At the same time, all of these give us enough evidence that this system cannot be changed without us organising ourselves.  We need to organise ourselves, we need to have our short and long term plans, our aims and strategies.  Without the above it is not possible to bring about the major changes we want.  This is why it is important for anarchists to organise themselves in non-hierarchical groups and organisations they think suit them best.

Self-organising alone, concentrating on only one single issue and keeping our distance from other groups and not doing activities together might achieve what the group formed for, but it will never change the system or even make a major change in society. Nowadays engaging in single issue without politicalising it serves the system. It will serve the big society that David Cameron claimed when he came to power in 2010.  We should support the cases that the people suffering on their hand whatever they are, not just supporting the people who suffers.  There are so many single issues: refugees, migrants, homelessness, gentrification, food bank, different housing issues. Comrades work on them but most do not politicalise the issue effectively or do not link up with other groups and do not coordinate our campaigns well enough.

Working on a single issue without radicalising the issue and the people who suffers only benefits the state and the system. Are we just doing work for the state to reduce people’s tensions, angers and their frustration to make them totally dependent? By working for free are we taking financial responsibility off the state, and replacing workers by doing voluntary work? In these circumstances, whatever the good intentions of the individual, the outcomes may be nothing more than self-satisfaction while supporting the State and the system.

Working on a single issue is easy and does not need a lot of effort.  In most cases it suits someone own lifestyle, so we need to push ourselves beyond working only on single issues.

Here I refer to Janet Biehl who describes working on single issue well “Yet the history of the left has shown that strictly single issue movements are limited as well. To be sure, they have significance for protesting particular injustices, but the results they yield are minimal in proportion to the growing social and ecological changes that are necessary.  Above all, they do not provide a program for building the ongoing institutions that are necessary for reconstruction of society.  Nor have they consciously aimed to create a political arena in which democratic activities could become a permanent presence in everyday life” Janet Biehl, The Politics of Social Ecology, Page 141.



  • Individualism and Lifestyle  

Individualism is another branch, and another weakness, of anarchism.  It first appeared strongly in the 19th century and was advocated by many anarchists. Individualism defends the freedom and autonomy of the individual and it has benefited from anarchist principles that believe strongly in the freedom of the individual.  This idea has been used by many anarchists to enjoy their freedom, to be active individually and keep their distance from having to take action collectively. In other words anarchists are the victims of a misinterpretation of anarchism.   This has been justified by anarchists thinking that collective work or activities are not compatible with individual freedoms and their independence.  This tendency is directly or indirectly against any kind of commitments in organising and activities. This kind of individualism to a large extent serves the current system more than it serves the anarchist movement.

Individualism contradicts one of the major aims of the anarchism which is building the communes and living inside the communes. Communes are the outcome of collective activities, based on support, solidarity and mutual relationships with other communes that exist.  Such communes cannot be built upon the idea of individualism. Communes and their autonomy should be seen in practising inside the framework of support, duty and very strong relationship between them, otherwise the commune will be isolated, marginalised and will not last long.

The individualism we see nowadays may believe in working class struggle but with the attitude of not participating in, or committing itself to, the movement it remains lonely and ineffective.  While anarchism is love, concern, sharing, working and living collectively, individualism is only concerned about its own autonomy and lifestyle, so the distance between them remains wide.

A couple of centuries ago, when individualism claimed personal autonomy (autonomy is different from freedom) one could have enjoyed it. At that time the system and its influences were not as strong as they are now. Presently every individual is connected to the system, in many ways that make life extremely difficult. In other words in some ways the individual have been deprived from his/her own freedom.

Today the Ecology question has become a major issue in the anarchist movement or revolution. I was wondering what is the attitude of the individualist to this?  What is individualisms role and how will individualists take part and push forward the ecology question? In my opinion as long as individualism sticks with its idea, it will be extremely hard for them to have a considerable role in this matter.

Bakunin and Kropotkin talked about the freedom of the individual and individualism. Both of them insist that the freedom of the individual and social anarchism are compatible with one another and they are not against each other. Kropotkin was against the individualism of Max Sterner and called it “elitism”.  Bakunin was more concern with social anarchism, in his book, Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 158, he says. “Even the most wretched individual of our present society could not exist and develop without the cumulative social efforts of countless generations. Thus the individual, his freedom and reason, are the products of society, and not vice versa: society is not the product of individuals comprising it; and the higher, the more fully the individual is developed, the greater his freedom — and the more he is the product of society, the more does he receive from society and the greater his debt to it”

Individualism is against authority but it marginalises itself when it focuses mainly on individual freedom at the expense of collective action, activities, political and social self-organisation, so the idea remains impractical.

Another negative side of individualism for me is its support for the current culture, while the socialist/anarchist revolution is incomplete without including culture.  The duty of anarchists is to reject the current culture, which is the culture of the system that covers the whole of Europe, America and the other industrialised countries.  This culture, in every way, is in the interest of capitalism so that if anarchists, as individuals or groups, do not reject it and do not stand against it, it is impossible to take anarchism even one step forward.

As far as I know, although individualism is against authority and the system, it seems to go well with them and their culture. The system wants us to live and remain alone, not having contact with one another, concerned about our own problems and not those of others. You, yourself comes first and everyone else second. Having a certain lifestyle that does not interfere with the system, not organising ourselves, and sticking with a kind of life that we have chosen or has been chosen for us:  this is the culture that the present system maintains and tries to promote through its powerful Media. Without this culture the system cannot renew itself and survive.  So individualism is protecting the current culture that breaks down relationships and keeps distance between us.

If the basis of anarchism is looking after one another, loving, caring, sharing and giving support and solidarity and also exchanging ideas, knowledge and experiences, then there is no doubt that individualism, whatever its reasons, its form and sources does not serve anarchism as much as it serves the present capitalist system.








We, supporters of Rojava, should be worried about its partnership with the United States

We, supporters of Rojava, should be worried about its partnership with the United States

By: Zaher Baher

17th May 2017

The political and military balance in Syria is constantly changing. Relations between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), co-founded by People’s Protection Units (YPG), and in turn Russia and US constantly ebb and flow. The dynamic behind these changes has very little to do with ISIS. In fact, it all depends on the respective interests of the great powers and their struggle against one another to establish predominant power there.

The past year has seen a steady erosion of the US position in Syria vis-à-vis Russia, who has since overtaken it. Russia’s heavy involvement in Syria and becoming a major ally with Turkey has changed many things. The relative inactivity of the USA has given the opportunity to Russia, Turkey and Iran to play a significant role in making decisions there.

Under Trump’s new administration this has changed somewhat. He probably has a different approach to Syria. While US still is one of the major powers in the world, it cannot sit and do nothing in the region especially in Syria.

After a long pause, Trump has decided to ally with SDF against ISIS to defeat them in Raqqa regardless of Turkey’s position and reaction. Trump has now approved a deal to supply arms including heavy weapons to SDF directly, seeing them as the most effective and reliable force especially after the SDF capture of Tabqa City from ISIS. The US administration is at present more than any other time determined in recapturing Raqqa, the ISIS de facto capital. It is now quite clear that the US administration and SDF and the People’s Democratic Party (PYD) are getting very close to one another to the point that SDF strife to achieve what the US wants to achieve, even though this can be at the expenses of what have been achieved so far in Rojava.

We supporters of Rojava should be very worried about the current development in relation to Democratic Self-administration and the Movement of Society (Tev-Dem). We should be concerned because of the following consequences:

First: It is a matter of influence for the US while seeing that Russia almost controlled the situation and managed to take Turkey onto its own side. US wants to be very active before losing its power there. It wants to play the major role and achieve its own goal, this can be only done through SDF and PYD. There is no doubt that the US is more concerned about its own interests rather than Kurdish interests in Rojava.

Second: To contain SDF and PYD, to make them a tool by using them for their own interest. This is the best way to make PYD and SDF lose their credibility in Syria, the region, Europe and elsewhere.

Third: The current attitude of the US towards Rojava and arming SDF directly might be an effort to cut them off from PKK and decrease PKK influence over developments in Rojava.

Fourth: There is no doubt that whatever happens will now make Turkey more furious against both YPG and PKK. This could create a greater backlash from Turkey. It may repeat last month’s military operations against YPG or even extend these military operations into Rojava and against YPG & PKK in Shangal, in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Fifth: With Russia’s displeasure against the SDF and PYD, Assad could be influenced to change Syria’s attitude towards them in the future if not now. If Rojava had chosen the Russian side instead of USA, it could have been much better because Russia is more reliable as an ally than the US. It looks like Assad will stay in power after the defeat of ISIS. Assad normally listens to Russia very diligently. In this case, there was a greater chance under pressure of Russia that Assad would have let Rojava pursue a better future than what US and Western countries may decide for them.

Sixth:  Intensifying and prolonging the current war causing Rojava a great deal of dislocation.  Continuation of the war costs SDF so many lives and makes them weaker and weaker.  The stronger and the bigger the size of SDF in Rojava is, the more it must necessarily be dependent on one of the major power, in the meantime Rojava will be weaker.  The more SDF achieves militarily, the more socially and economically can actually be lost in Rojava.  The more powerful SDF and PYD become, the less power the local self-administration and Tev-Dem will have.  The number of SDF fighters alone is estimated to be 50,000. Just imagine even 10.000 instead of working militarily, working in the fields and cooperatives or building school, hospitals, parks and houses, by now Rojava would have been somewhere else.


Seventh: Often I have mentioned in my articles that a successful Rojava – successful in the way we were hopping – depended on a couple of factors or as a minimum one to preserve the experiment.  One was expanding Rojava’s movement at least to a couple of more countries in the region.  The other factor was international solidarity.  However, neither  happened.  If one thing can now preserve Rojava, it is ISIS and the opposition forces in Syria holding out against the odds.  In short only a prolonged anti-ISIS military campaign can preserve Rojava.


In my opinion after defeating ISIS in Kobane’s region, YPG should have suspended it military operations except in self-defence of its establish perimeter.  After defeating ISIS in Kobane region and the greater intervention of US and Russia, UPG and PYD should have withdrawn from the war.  PYD should have dealt with the situation better and withdrawn from power for Tev-Dem and let the rest of the population to make their own decisions about peace and war.  Clearly the current nature, direction and the potential course of the present war in Rojava has completely changed.  It is a war of the major powers, European governments and the regional governments over securing interests and sharing domination.


The situation at the moment looks very grim.  It appears that once ISIS has been defeated in Mosul and Raqqa then more than likely war will start involving Rojava and PKK in Qandil and Shangal.  These calculation are being made by Barzani, head of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), Turkey and perhaps also Iran and Iraq with the blessing of the US, Russia and Germany.  Such a war may start by the end of August or September after the military defeat of ISIS in Mosul and Reqqa.




Where the revolution is more likely to happen, in developed or non-developing countries?

Where the revolution is more likely to happen, in developed or non-developing countries?


By: Zaher Baher

Nov 2016


Opposite to the communists and other leftists, I understand revolution as a socialist/anarchist one and its outcome is a classless and non-hierarchically society.

Developing capitalism, reaching globalization, the fast increase in the number of working class and  apparent economic crisis that has often been mistaken for capitalist  crisis – it all makes old theories about revolution obsolete. It’s not just that the revolution has not happened. In fact, if the revolution in advanced industrialized countries has not aborted, certainly it has been postponed for a long time.

Capitalism on its own managed to create many groups among leftists, socialists, libertarians and feminists who are serving the system instead of fighting it.  It also managed to find gaps, places as a cheap market, using issues of nationalism, terrorism, racism, fascism and religion to create different types of war between the human beings.  By doing this it has expanded and managed to renew itself.  This has proved that capitalism is not “digging a grave for itself” in fact it is digging it for us, and was able to create a crisis often to make our movement weaker and weaker.

In addition, capitalism in very industrialized countries long time ago has managed to defuse all the tools like strikes, demonstrations, protests that have been used by the working class and the rest as the tools of struggle.  These tactics in fact are now playing in the hands of the system instead to be against it.

Previously I have written quite a lot about that, I’m therefore trying to avoid repeating myself here and prefer to get straight to the subject.


There are a couple of views about the way revolution happens and its victory:


First: Revolution through vanguard party, the military coup or through the election of parliamentary system.  This means the revolution happens from the top of the society and the outcome of either one is more or less the same.  History proved that these revolutions wherever they have happened has not just failed but in fact, brought disasters and disappointment to people.  They also proved that imposing the theory over realities is wrong and brings catastrophe.

Second: preparation for happening revolution through self-organizing in radical independent non-hierarchal groups, committees, assemblies in all realms: politics, economic, culture, education, social and climate and ecology.  Self-organizing in factories, farms, public services, markets, schools, universities, and in other work place is crucial.  These groups in the beginning are working to achieve daily necessities and empowering the role and independence of the individuals.  Then to work on building a movement on a local level, nationwide through the social networks and the people’s assemblies in the neighborhoods, villages, cities and towns. They link together to launch their activities through direct action by using direct democracy.  After empowering themselves and establishing self-administration they can challenge the state and its entire administrations and getting closer to its main strategy.


In my opinion while we see the state as a main center of the entire power in the country, in this case it is practical and sensible to have the same view to the most advanced industrialized countries  like US, Canada, Australia, Russia, Japan and the western countries   as a center for the world.  This center with its financial institutions has an enormous political and economical power over the rest of the world, especially the not or less developed countries as they are main bases for them.  In this case collapsing this center with the theory “the revolution must be bottom up” should start from the countries which are protecting and preserving the interests of the advanced industrialized countries.  This does not mean the demonstrations, protests, strikes, occupations and riots do not happen in the industrialized countries.  On the contrary, while there has been exploitation, work slavery, inequality and no social justice, they certainly caused the backslash.  However, when people have  no intention to organize themselves, do not have a long-term plan, these tools of struggles are just temporary ways to  achieving  the current goals – even if all these actions are for maintaining what we have achieved previously. So these activities do not just achieve major changes; in fact they bring disappointment for people.


What made this Center so strong is the existence of not or less developed countries where they preserve the rich ground in providing cheap labors, cheap materials also they are lucrative markets for them.  When the political and economic dependency of the Center to these countries and vice versa ends, in other words when the bases are destroyed, then the top will collapse as well.

There are some social areas in less developed societies, which do not exist in advanced industrialized countries, being rich soil for a revolution. These grounds are::


  • Social Relationship


In these countries capitalism has not reached every corner of the individual’s life who are living in a very good social relationship and their contacts are more human and less on the basis of goods and materials.  The State’s agencies designated to help and support the poor or unemployed either do not exist or offer very little help.  And also in the situation of the natural and man-made disasters, in both cases, whole burden falls on the shoulders of the people themselves and their communities.  They help each other morally, financially, collecting stuff and showing solidarity.  In short, people in those societies rely completely on themselves in the community rather than on the government to fulfill their needs, when they face the disasters or in having happiness times.  In those countries there are still some simple bases of old community remained.   To certain extent still in some places these people are living and working collectively.  Their conversations are about politics and the problems are going on in their communities and outside, are concerning them.  In a society like this the contacts and making relationships between individuals in their workplaces, in neighborhood, in villages, in universities and other places are very easy.  People there talk about their daily needs; they debate and discuss the concerning issues, making decisions about them.   They trust one another so that it is easy for them to come together in doing the common work, activities and can commit themselves to do so.  Of course these can be much easier for the people to organize themselves for different issues, making decisions and delivering them.  Certainly this is easier to be done   in remote villages than very big villages, in towns than the cities.  The self-organization through building local groups and people’s assemblies, make people working and living collectively in convenient and more practical.

There are more positive points in addition to the above in the societies of those countries while  in an advanced industrialized countries it either does not exist or very little.


  • The weak points of the capitalism


It is quite clear that achieving easy target and easy victory always happen from the weakest point of the system. It is also clear the weakest point here are the none or lesser industrialized countries and their communities because of the grounds that I described above.  While in these societies the majority of their people have not become robot, their talks and conversation are still not about the latest fashions, models of the different consuming, they have still remained human being. In these places effort and preparation for building cooperatives, trying to live together, desiring to share their social and economic necessities is easy.  In such places the villages, the countryside and the small towns are less dependent to big towns and free-market.

In those countries and their societies, if the people are ruling themselves, they are able to obtain all the necessities of life, and also simple tools, means of agricultural and ecological economy.  If they cannot obtain some of their needs, they can get them through exchanging process via social network or their assemblies.  There is no doubt to believe there are countries in the world where people remain poor, if the people rule themselves. What made those countries and their society are poor is greedy rich and elites, the state, corruption, the society  structures  that set up on the basis of class and hierarchy and implementing polices and plan of neo-liberal economy.


The process of defeating the capitalism, the process of ending up the dependency of one another is slow, long way but very solid.  Its entire victory and expanding the experiment rely on the international solidarity of libertarians and anti-authoritarians and also happening the same process at least in a few countries…

Existing hierarchical and class society, inequality, injustice, poverty, war and more, have left us with just a few options: sitting down and doing nothing, or waiting for the vanguard party, the military coup, election (the biggest lie in history).  This way is more dangerous than the sitting back and doing nothing because most of the time intensify the disasters.  Or simply fighting back the system through building the independent radical non-hierarchal local groups. These are the real basis and the real hope for the future revolution.





Kurdish speaking Anarchist Forum need your help to unblock Facebook account, page and groups

Dear Friends and Comrades,

We as Kurdish speaking Anarchist Forum need your help to sign our petition


As you are aware since 2015 our Facebook account : Kurdish-Speaking Anarchist Forum under the name of KAF ( Anarkistan Azadixwazan) www.facebook.com./Kurdistan.anarchists.forum have been blocked by Facebook team.

Many times we have made Facebook aware that our account is a group account not individual account. In response, they asked us to provide them evidence/identities to prove our statement. We always replied and in many occasions we met their demands by providing Iraqi identity of the group’s members but still have not received a satisfied answer from them.

Please see below the dates that we contacted Facebook:

11/18/15 at 6:59 AM

2/24/16 at 9:21 PM

3/13/16 at 10:35 AM

6/22/16 at 9:09 PM

06/28/2016 at 15:18

6/30/16 at 7:16 AM

7/15/16 at 1:46 PM

In every response we have provided the documents that Facebook team requested. Unfortunately they have not taken them seriously, instead, again and again they asked for the same information .

While we provided Facebook all the necessary documents as before , but we still have not received their reply to our e-mail of 15/07/2016 . It is clear for us that Facebook have ignored our request and failed to satisfied us as to why they do not want to open our accounts. Facebook’s attitude is clearly very hostile to anarchism and anarchist movement that we are a part of it. We, therefore , have no choice but protesting against their discrimination and prejudice attitude towards us and towards our pages that we listed down:

www.facebook.com/kurdistan.anarchists.forum                                        closed at 15. Nov. 2015

www.facebook.com/groups/pertukxaney.Enraki/                        closed at 15. Nov. 2015

www.facebook.com/groups/anarkistan/                                        closed at 15. Nov. 2015

www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009554550402                            closed at 15. Nov. 2015

https://www.facebook.com/groups/azadiwazan/                       closed at 14. Oct. 2016

https://www.facebook.com/groups/Pertuky.Anarky                    closed at 14. Oct. 2016

https://www.facebook.com/groups/978063422320020/                          closed at 14. Oct. 2016

We are sure while Facebook monitoring our pages they are also aware of our messages as they are against repression, wars, terrorism, racism, sexism, nationalism, discrimination, abusing children and women, corruption, coercive and many more. We are fighting for achieving : freedom, equality, social justice, living collectively, solidarity and classless society.

Dear Supporter our accounts are still closed, therefore we ask you to sign our petition as a form of protest against Facebook team’s discrimination . Please forward this petition to anybody you know for signing it , in order to force the Facebook to open our pages as above.


With solidarity

Kurdish-speaking Anarchist Forum


Leftists and Communists have damaged the Socialist movement as much as the right-wing did

Leftists and Communists have damaged the Socialist movement as much as the right-wing did  

By: Zaher Baher

Sep 2016

The last century has seen a couple of historical catastrophes that continue to present day and the world still suffers from their fallout. The first one was so-called the Bolshevik revolution (Bolshevism) and the second was the “Iranian revolution”.  While none of them was revolution, in fact both stopped the revolution in the half way.

The first catastrophe has lasted almost for 80 years, it engaged nearly half of the world and its shade still looms over our heads. The second one helped to build religion political parties and their militia in the region, especially in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Afghanistan. This has caused deepest fear and wariness for its main rival, Saudi Arabia. To the Iran/Iraq war, incoming of Mujahidin, Taliban, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan then Isis and the current wars between Sunni and Shia, Sunni and Sunni and Sunni and the “infidels”, the “Iranian revolution” contributed greatly.  Dark time triggered by this movement is here to stay and nobody knows for how long.

Both of them were recognised and defined by many people, including the leftists and Communists themselves, as two different events/directions.  The first one as a left and the second as a right-wing, while both of them were the enemy of socialism/anarchism.  Both of them were the main obstacles to reach the socialism destination.  While both of them built upon their own principles, in practice both are being hostile to socialism, so recognising them by left or right for me in that aspect does not make a sense.  In addition both have a common principal “Ideology” that has given them strength and power.

In this article I mainly elaborate and highlight the communists and its ideology’s base, Marxism.  Here I want to explain briefly the source of hostility to socialism that the leftists and Communists have relied on and the affected realms.

  • Left in the past and present:

Leftists, from social democrats, the socialist political parties, green parties to the working class/labour parties throughout the world never could become revolutionary forces to take the society towards major changes.  Their slogans and demands, like freedom, social justice and equality have vanished as soon as they reached power. The Leftists’ struggle in non industrialised countries was represented the guerrilla’s war. In a sense of analyzing radical struggle, they never got anywhere or just simply built something, what in many cases was worse than the previous one.

In industrialised countries their struggle was the parliamentary election system.  Once they reached power, they were unable to fulfil what they promised to people, so they betrayed those who voted for them.  There is no doubt that among them there were faithful and dedicated people that their actual motivation to involve politics was to serve people, especially among the social democrats or labour parties. There were Marxist-Leninist people within these groups and most of the time they have/had more radical manifesto than their own party.

The power of people in political parties is very limited and they only project the illusion of changes, eventually disappointing their own supporters.

The socialist, the very radical people inside these political parties, in reality have left no doubt that, whether deliberately or not, they serve this system much better than their right-wing colleagues.  They do that by prolonging the system; by deceiving people that their life can be improved step by step through the historical lie of election.  They tell them this is the only way to make improvement, so there is no another way, no third way.

The experience and the realities proved while the leftist or socialists are in power, they are not only quelling the spirit of revolution among people, in fact they demoralise them, even killing their normal drive for resistance.  In Europe, especially in UK, the period when Labour Party has been in power the number of the protests and strikes decreased compared to when Tory Party were in power.

The link below shows how the strikes in UK since 1970s are decreasing and becoming less effective as well. Since 1990 each year the number of the strike actions and their effectiveness dropped apart from 2011 as it was slightly different.  The link also shows the reasons why there are fewer strikes every year although I personally disagree with the author’s reasoning.  http://isj.org.uk/why-are-there-so-few-strikes/

For many of the leftists, especially the Communists, distorting of the socialist movement for not achieving socialism go back to ‘Stalin’.  A minority thinks Stalin has done nothing except prolonging Lenin’s period and his theory.

However, if we look at the history and reality properly, we reach a conclusion that we cannot blame Stalin and Lenin for that because all of what Lenin did was originated from Marx and Engels.

Let’s briefly look at the excuses of those who believe Lenin and Marx were different from one another as if Lenin has distorted Marx’s theory and idea:

Organisation and working class party:

One of the factors pushed Lenin to build a political party was transferring a class consciousness to working class.  He did not believe that the class consciousness emerges from external conditions and their actual impact on working class itself. He also believed in controlling the working class through the strict discipline of political party as he did not believe in the spontaneous movement of working class.  He thought the spontaneous movement is chaotic and does not get the working class anywhere.

For victory of the revolution Lenin believed building a revolutionary political party is essential and also believed the communists are the most conscious people. This was the reason for him to build his party outside of the workers. So the Vanguard party is the best tool of the revolution and to build the Dictatorships of Proletariat.  In his famous book “what can be done?” he lied down the plans and principles for Bolshevik Party and made it as main guideline for the party members to work on and go by it.

Lenin has got the idea of building the working class party form Marx. Marx in the Manifesto of the Communist Party said “The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working class parties “


Clearly in this short line Marx tells us: a) the communists and the workers are different.  b) The working class can have their own political parties.

John Molyneux, academic, writer and one of the former leading SWP in Briton and now in Ireland has written various articles about Lenin and his theory.  I regard him as one of the best people who has excellent knowledge about Lenin, Trotsky and Marx and can connecting them in respect of analyzing many issues.  I refer here to him in some of his writings about the working class political party.  In the link below he said “But when one speaks of Marx’s theory of the party, the subject is not political parties in general, but the revolutionary party which has as its aim the overthrow of capitalism – specifically one is talking about Marx’s concept of a proletarian political party, because, of course, it was his view that ‘the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class ..”  He continuous writing and says   “…Indeed Marx often suggests that the workers cannot be regarded as a class in the full sense of the word until they have created their own distinct party. Thus we find in The Communist Manifesto that ‘the organization of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset Again by the competition between the workers themselves’ [11], and in the decision of the London Conference (1871) of the First International that ‘the proletariat can act as a class only by constituting itself a distinct political party’. [12] This basic idea remained central to the theory and practice of both Marx and Engels from the mid-1840s to the end of their lives” in the same writing Molyneux carry on, he refers to Marx who said “This constitution of the proletariat into a political party is indispensable to ensure the triumph of the Social Revolution and of its ultimate goal: the abolition of classes. [45]


Lenin and Marxists-Leninists wanted to share their idea and principles with the working class to debate the working class struggles and transferring them the socialist consciousness, but as the history since then shows in practice they have controlled them and while they were in power they exploited and suppressed them.

  • State, Centralism and Authority

In regard to the above, there are leftists and Communists again who believe that what Lenin did was not originated from Marx and Engels.  In my opinion that is not true. In fact Marx and Engels persisted on centralism and authority. In the first and second International  Workers’ Organisation  as the central and authoritarian organisation, the messages sent out  and order the working class was “ Workers of the world, unite!“.  Marx himself was on the top position in this organisation. It was then when Marx insisted on having a central authority in the organisation which was rejected by Bakunin.  Bakunin believed that centralism in organisation suppresses the spontaneous action and revolutionary enthusiasm.  This was one of the reasons that made Marx remove Bakunin and his comrades from the organisation.

Marx believed after taking over control of the means of production there will be a temporary period of transition from the socialist society to Communism. Marx made his theory about that very clear in 1870 in his book, Critique of the Gotha Programme The transitional period is essentially a period of revolutionary change.  “Between capitalist and communist society,” wrote Marx, “lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other.”24..  Although Marx in this book clearly talked about the authority but  the foundation of this ideas has back to 1843  “In fact, in The German Ideology itself, the theory of proletarian dictatorship (not yet given this name) is presented rather clearly: ”. . . every class which is aiming at domination, even when its domination, as is the case with the proletariat, leads to the abolition of the old form of society in its entirety and of domination in general, must first conquer political power in order to represent its interest in turn as the general interest, which in the first moment it is forced to do.”18    Marx and Engels, The German Ideology, 52-53. Please see the link below.

In fact the type and the reason of state that Marx and his successors wanted to establish are really not important at all.  Any type of state whether is small or big, proletariat or bourgeois state; all of them need bureaucratic administrations, police, military, courts and law and the spies’ network or institutions.

In reply to Marx, Bakunin said in his book:  Statehood and Anarchy, “If there is a state, then there is domination and consequent slavery. A state without slavery, open or camouflaged, is inconceivable—that is why we are enemies of the state. What does it mean, ‘the proletariat raised to a governing class?’”26.  Marx responded, “It means that the proletariat, instead of fighting in individual instances against the economically privileged classes, has gained sufficient strength and organisation to use general means of coercion in its struggle against them…”27.  Then Bakunin asks, “Will all 40 million [German workers] be members of the government?”28   Marx’s response, “Certainly! For the system starts with the self-government of the communities.”29

When Marx writes about the proletarian power and the peasantry he says “the proletariat… must, as the government, take the measures needed… “30, see the link below


However, from very beginning Bakunin idea and attitudes towards state were clear and never hidden; he made the following caustic remark about Communism “I detest communism, because it is the negation of liberty and because I can conceive nothing human without liberty. I am not a communist because communism concentrates and’ absorbs all the powers of society into state, because it necessarily ends the centralization of property in the hand of the state, while I want the abolition of state”


Alas what Bakunin predicted about Marx’s state, after almost a half century the Communist and the Bolshevik party proved to be true.

Many Marxists deny that what came in Critique of the Gotha Programme, has anything to do with state. However, both Marx and Engels in other statements or correspondences were insisting on power and centralism.  Even for some countries or places Marx accepted election as the Parliamentary system can be a peaceful period to exchange the power Did they not advocate participation in bourgeois elections, and the election of workers’ candidates into parliament? In fact, in certain countries, they even thought that a working class parliamentary majority could be used for a peaceful transition to socialism”62


A couple of issues were very important for Marx: centralism and industrialisation. He was very keen on having them. He always thought these two are main foundations for establishing socialism. That is why both Marx and Engels became a great advocate of centralism in the politics and in working places as well.  They never denied this fact; I have already mentioned centralism in regards of their politics above.

They believed that working in factory is good for the workers.  Engels praised the factory “as a school for hierarchy, for obedience and command” (Ecology or Catastrophe, the life o Murray Bookchin, By Janet Biehl), P 190.

In another book, Bookchin says “Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were centralists – not only politically but socially and economically.  They never denied this fact, and their writings are studied with glowing encomiums to political, organisational, and economic centralisation.  As early as March  1850 in the Address of the Central Council to the Communist  League, they called upon the workers to strive not only for  the single and indivisible German republic, but also strive in it for the most decisive centralisation of power in the hands of the state authority lest the demand be taken lightly , it was repeated continually in the same paragraph, which concludes: As in France in 1793, so today in Germany the carrying through  of the strictest centralisation is the task of the really revolutionary party’.  The Murray Bookchin Reader Edited By Janet Biehl, P140.

On the same page Janet wrote: The same theme reappeared continually in later years.  With the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War, for example, Marx wrote to Engels “The French need a thrashing. If the Prussians win, the centralisation of state power will be useful for the centralisation of the German working class”

On the personal level, Marx also was arrogant and authoritarian. He has not made much effort and was not ready to unite with those who differed with him, even they if they did not have significant differences.  Anybody who reads his correspondences with his opponent, like Proudhon, Bakunin, Max Stirner and the others realises that.

  • Working class and Technology

Marx was very concerned about the revolution and insisted that it was the task of working class only.  He, in other words, thought the advanced technology and industrialisation creates a strong working class that will be ready for the revolution.  This was the reason why we see almost his main writings and studding being about industrialisation, capital, added value, working class and its class struggle with bourgeoisie to prove that the future of socialism can only be in the hand of Proletariat.  This means that any society must go through the advanced capitalism before heading to socialism.  This is the reason for Marx to be very hopeful about Proletariat to the point “Marx had written that if the working class ever accepted capitalism as natural, then all hopes for revolution would be lost” Ecology or Catastrophe, Edited By Janet Biehl, P285.

While Marx connected the strengths of Proletariat to advanced technology, he did not hide his feeling and happiness even if that would happen through destroying many people’s life, displacing many thousands more, the environment, causing starvation and unemployed. The best example was East India Company, while   this company in the end became an empire on its own and ruled a very large area of India.

Janet Biehl in the same book on page 60 drawing our attention to what Bookchin remarkably said about Marx’s idea and thought “Marx had considered it capitalism ‘historical mission to develop technology to the point where it could provide for humanity’s material needs” In the same book on page 190 she wrote what Bookchin says “Marx had even thought capitalism, by destroying earlier economic forms and developing technology, had played a historically progressive role.  He thought class society had been historically necessary to achieve humanity’s ultimate liberation.  Such notions, Bookchin wrote, made Marxism, all appearance to the contrary, ‘the most sophisticated ideology of advance capitalism’.”

David Graeber in his new book: The Utopia of Rules on page 121 and 122 talks about Marx’s idea of technology and profit that actually did not come out true especially if it concerns revolution in the area of means of production.  He says “ Marx’s specific argument was that, for certain technical reasons, value, and therefore profits, can only be extracted  from human labour.  Competition forces factory owners to mechanise production, so as to reduce labour costs, but while this is to the short-term advantage of the individual firm, the overall effect of such mechanization is actually to drive   the overall rate of profit of all firm down.  For almost two centuries now, economists have debated whether all this is really true.  But if it is true the otherwise mysterious decision by industrialist not to pour research funds into the invention of the robot factories that everyone was anticipating in the sixties , and instead to begin to relocate their factories to more labour-intensive, low-tech facilities in Chain or the Global South, makes perfect sense”

Graeber in the same book on page 143 says “…that capitalism is in its nature technologically progressive.  It would seem that Marx and Engels in their giddy enthusiasm for the industrial revolution of their day were simply wrong about this.  Or to be more precise: they were right to insist that the mechanisation of industrial production would eventually destroy capitalism, they were wrong to production market competition would compel factory owners to go on with mechanisation anyway”


Even knowing that Proletariat was a minority within the society, Marx put a huge task on it. Not just fulfilling the revolution and even not controlling the state only; in fact he believed that the workers should have and set up their own committees in the factories and the other places of work to control the production and other issues.  This means giving the authority to a minority of people to overrule the majority; in other words, power to minority on the expense of majority. The power and authority, whatever its size anywhere that means there is no social justice, no equality and no freedom.

Murray Bookchin in his interview with Janet Biehl explained this point very well “ …Well unless the worker in an enterprise really begin to see themselves primarily  as citizens rather than workers, then we are opening up the very strong possibility that they will claim at the expense of the popular assembly.  To the extent that you withdraw power from the popular assembly and give to work place, to that extent you open cracks in the unity of the popular assembly  and increase the possibility that the  workplaces itself  will act as subversive  element in relation to the popular assembly.  let me put it simply: The more power the workplace has, the less power the  popular assembly has – and the less power the workplace has, the more power the popular assembly has.”  The politics of Social Ecology, Libertarian Municipalism, Edited by Janet Biehl, Page162.

In regards to the definition of Proletariat for Marxist today, especially the Marxists in Middle East they need to clarify themselves.  If they accept the same definition as Marx had in his day of Proletariat then that is quite far from the reality and they will be disappointed about the revolution. If they agree that everybody wherever they work and whatever they do including students, pensioners and disabled people are workers, and then in this case they should review their understanding of Proletariat.

However, it might not be very important really how they define proletariat.  What important is we know and very clear is the working class is much weaker and the hope of the revolution by them very slim than the time was Marx alive. Here, we can say that Marx’s prediction by increasing the quantity and quality of proletariat along side of advance technology, strong capitalism and getting frequent economic crisis that for him as coming a sign of the revolution did not happen.

If we look at the reality considering working class even the people’s movement are in a very low level, except in France and Greece.  Even the actual struggles in these two countries are not to achieve anything new, in fact to maintain, to keep what they had before.  This made me for the last 10 years to think that the economic crisis has not been capitalism crisis, it was our crisis.  To clarify my point I wrote a long article in Oct of 2015 under the title: Is Capitalism in Crisis, or Are We?



Technology and its Role: As I mentioned above technology and its advances were very important for Marx and Marxists in building socialism.  For them advanced technology was a historical development and condition to tackle scarcity of production and also to create dynamic revolutionary force, proletariat.  If we look into this topic closely we can make several points. First: Marx had no doubt that a strong proletariat emerge from an advanced technology and advanced technology is necessary for industrialising society; finally full industrialisation creates socialism.  This was how Marx has seen his final goal and that was also the reason as to why Marx thought the bourgeois is a revolutionary class and recommended the proletariat to offer its support.  Even now many of the Marxists think the bourgeois is revolutionary.  Second:  this analysis by Marx became the foundation for Lenin, Stalin and their successors to work on to clarify Marx’s point better and put it in practice in real world. With help of Marx’s theory they have divided the history of human beings society in respect to arriving of socialism into 5 to 6 stages.  It started from primitive society, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and then communism.  This division clarified the role of proletariat and technology as even more important.  They insist on that talking about building socialism in the non advanced economy countries was dream and not practical.


Technology and the quantity and quality of proletariat in fact are not even a secondary condition for emerging revolution and reaching socialism/anarchism society.  The grounds for this revolution are existing classes and hierarchical society dominated by the tiny minority of elites.  This condition has left the majority of people either having nothing or very little and the elites having everything.  This kind of societies existed throughout the history since the class society appeared, so it is really not important whether that tiny minority in that society was named feudal, bourgeois or capitalist.  It is very true the societies have been changed through the means of production but the exploitation, suppression, class and hierarchy society were always there.  The above was the main ground for emerging revolutions regardless of the type of the society that people lived in.

In general the Communist, Bolshevik parties in the world struggled to make bourgeois more stronger and to work on industrialising the society, even if their slogans praised socialism.  This was the reason for those parties to cooperate with the so called “patriotic bourgeois” to establish different kind of powers: socialist state, patriotic democracy state, popular democratic state, communist state. In few pre-capitalist countries, like Iraq, the Communists even participated in governments. They were trying to transform the society into socialist one, skipping the capitalist phase (the non- Capitalist path of development). In Iraq the Iraqi Communist Party, ICP, had a pact with Ba’ath party over 5 years between 1973 to end of 1978.

So whatever happened in Lenin period and after him, we will see its root in Marx’s theory and idea.

In my opinion this thinking of proletariat and advanced technology as necessary for the society to go through capitalism in order to reach socialism/anarchism greatly damaged our movement for the last 170 years. It is also quite obvious this idea has made the Marxists ideologist blind, as they cannot see the realities, pen their mind, think on their own rather than following someone who died 133 years ago. They now need to ask themselves if Marx’s revolution theory connects to the role of proletariat and industrialisation that means the revolution in the none industrialising countries will not be happening. More questions here are how this revolution can happen even in the industrialised countries? Is it through vanguards, even if history proved they are the suppressors of the revolutions rather than liberators? Let’s say it will be happened through them; but how do you transfer the society into full power through the Dictatorships of Proletariat, to Communism, classless society? The Marxists can only respond to these questions quoting Marx’s bible, not through the reality.


  • Technology, Nature, Environment and Ecology:

Marx and Engels exceptionally highly valued technology, for their own purpose. No doubt it was on the expense of environment, nature and whatever creatures live on the planet. Marx saw human beings precious and valuable to the extent of subduing the nature and dominating it by the human beings for their interests.  In this point Marx shares his interest with Qur’an because both of them believe that the nature has been created to serve human being.  This was the reason for Marx to produce his infamous line when he says “Human being is the most valuable capital in the world” According to this statement the other creatures are not very important, In other words, we can sacrifice them for the sake of human being’s interests.

I cannot recall Lenin writing a lot about ecology or environment like how Marx did.  Even Marx has not written as much as Peter Kropotkin and Murray Bookchin have.  However, whatever Marx wrote about this issue, showing his concern, in practice he was very hostile to nature by praising and advocating technology so much.  Marx wanted the nature to be dominated by the human being and this can only happened in his view by having advanced technology.  He did not pay any attention to damage and destruction of natural environment. He did not mind killing animals, birds and other creatures with displacing many more.  He missed the need of balance between technology and nature.  He ignored the fact that while nature in many ways serves people and the society and then in return it should be served by the Human being as well.

What is clear today is the whole natural disasters including raising global temperature are being created by mankind through the advanced technology for more money and profit.  I believe many of us agree that this is a clear hostility towards nature.


  • Self-Determination and Nation State:

Marx and Engels talked and wrote a lot about various issues.  As the nationalism and national movements at their time were a hot issue they tried to link it to proletariat question so that they could not avoid discussing it.

At the time there was Poland issue back to 1795 and Ireland that for a few centuries was a colony of Great Britain and from 1801 became a part of it.  There was also the Jewish question, in addition to Hungary, Slovaks, and Czech and Bulgarian issues as well.

When the Bourgeois revolution in France in Feb 1848 happened, it pushed Marx and Engels towards giving more attention to national question and their expectation from Bourgeois class.  Their definition for Bourgeois revolution was Democratic Bourgeois Revolution, struggling for nation’s freedom. So we should not be surprise to hear their opinion of the Bourgeois At this time, Marx and Engels believed the bourgeoisie could play a historically progressive role by sweeping away feudalism, despite clear signals that it was prepared to compromise with the old order because it feared the power of the growing working class that allied itself to the anti-feudal struggle”.  Marx and Engels did not pause here, when they spoke about Germany and its connection with Poland, they clarified their attitude about the National issue and laid down a duty for the Proletariat “Referring to the struggle in Germany at the time, Marx and Engels explained that this meant the working class must “fight [together] with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie”.3


Of course they believed that support or even union of proletariat and bourgeoisie in the anti-feudal struggle would be in the interest of working class, creating next step towards socialism

In Poland question, Marx and Engels were very much in favor of the Polish after seeing a clear exploitation and suppression; they supported them in their right of Self-Determination. In Nov 1847 in commemorating the 1831 Polish revolt in London meeting, Engels had a speech about the liberating Poland. He said “We Germans have a particular interest in the liberation of Poland. German princes have profited from the partition of Poland and German soldiers are still exercising oppression in Galicia and Posen [parts of Poland]. It must be the concern of us Germans, above all, of us German democrats, to remove this stain from our nation. A nation cannot be free and at the same time continue to oppress other nations. Thus Germany cannot be liberated without the liberation of Poland from oppression by Germans. And for this reason Poland and Germany have a common interest, for this reason Polish and German democrats can work together for the liberation of both nations”.5  (see: the previous link)

What is amazing here although above was Engels’ opinion about Poland as one of the “great historic nations” but in the meantime he did not approve the same right for some of other nation, like, Southern Slavs.  His justification was “ Engels’ view was based on the firm materialist reasoning that the various southern Slav peoples were not yet nations — were not oppressed as nations — and therefore could not exercise a self-determination independent of the reactionary Prussia-Austria-Russia axis (…) Apart from the Poles, the Russians and at most the Turkish Slavs, no Slav people has a future, for the simple reason that all the other Slavs lack the primary historical, geographical, political and industrial conditions for independence and viability. (…) While Engels noted the capitalist tendency towards centralization and the establishment of large states, he underestimated the countervailing tendency for small nations to fight against national oppression and for independent states of their own — that the path to the elimination of national boundaries might first have to go through a proliferation of them — a fact that Lenin was later to recognize” (The same previous link.)

In regards to Ireland Marx had different opinions. In a letter to Engels in 1867, Marx said   “I used to regard Ireland’s separation from England as impossible (…) I now think it inevitable, although federation may follow separation.”   He continued and said “I long believed it was possible to overthrow the Irish regime by way of the English working class ascendancy. A deeper study has now convinced me of the opposite. The English working class will never achieve anything before it has got rid of Ireland”.

I quoted Marx and Engels in respect of National Question to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that Lenin has got his opinions and principles from Marx.  It is not his own theory; however, we should acknowledge that Lenin has done this in practice.  The statement of “Self-Determination” became an article in the plan and program of Bolshevik alike parties in the world.  He has written a lot about this issue in very detail especially in his famous book, Lenin and National Liberation in the East.  This book has become a guide for the Communist people although in many countries the Communist parties have sacrificed the principle of Self-Determination to diplomatic relation between Russia at the time with the “Patriotic Government”.  In some of the countries the Communist Parties have sacrificed this principle because they got on very well with the Ruler Bourgeois.  Obviously in this circumstances the only interest the Communist party was concerned was the old Russia’s interest and clearly it was at the expense of their own people.


Lenin followed Marx in whatever he has done and said.  Some of the analyzing from Marx for the Marxists became a Bible, but this is not right because many of Marx’s writings and predictions have not come out truth, in fact they damaged the socialist movement badly. The Marxists should have reviewed Marx rather than sacred him. Marx’s times in term of Proletariat and technology were very much different from now.  Many of Max’s writings and predictions were wrong for his time and are still wrong now.  Marx had a great fear about the scarcity of necessary production to sustain the life of people, this was one of his reasons of defending the technology and also technology for him has a great role in coming revolution.  The life proved that this was not true as well.  His definition for proletariat as only a revolutionary class might for his period was right, but certainly now have been proved wrong.  Not only they cannot unite in one day action even they cannot unite in one office, in one section, department (of course there are reasons for this).  Working class like the rest in the society are the main protectors of this system, it is them who hold the system tied and keep it intact.  What important for them are their jobs even if that comes at the expense of killing innocent people in other countries and destroying their lands.  We can see this fact today very clearly; any of us can bring up many examples.  Again setting up committees and assemblies only from the working class and them to be in control is wrong.  We want everybody should have a power not just the workers alone.

Marx and Marxists have been believing in political revolution and taking power from the top, while the revolution should be social revolution starts from the bottom of the society and should cover every single area.  The ecology issue is very important too; to certain extent if the revolution does not cover that area then the revolution will be failed.  We also cannot talk only about class issue without addressing the hierarchy issue seriously.

In dividing history of human beings in respect of arriving socialism, like how Lenin and Stalin developed later, Marxists are wrong.  This theory has caused a lot of problems for the countries in which the Communist parties betrayed the socialism by cooperation with the Bourgeois Ruler in the country and take a part in the dictator government or setting up their own one.


Changing the name of Kurdistan Anarchist Forum to Kurdish-Speaking Anarchist Forum

Changing the name of Kurdistan Anarchist Forum to Kurdish-Speaking Anarchist Forum


Kurdistan Anarchist Forum (KAF) formed in 2005, until now it has been recognised by this name.  The word ‘Kurdistan’ caused so many questions from different comrades and friends and from many places and organisations. We were asked why ‘Kurdistan’ ? We, therefore, wrote some clarification in the form of ‘FAQ about KAF’ to explain and clarify our position that when we say ‘Kurdistan’ nothing to do with “nationalism” or “Patriotic”.  In fact using ‘Kurdistan’ was only to reflect the place of our activates as we explained in our ‘FAQ about KAF’.


In  order to avoid any more confusion and for clarity, we as (KAF) comrades thought it is better to changing the name to (Kurdish-Speaking Anarchist Forum) but still remain as (KAF).


Just to let all our comrades and friends know, From now on our letters, announcements and publicities will be under the name of Kurdish-Speaking Anarchist Forum (KAF)


With Solidarity

Kurdish-Speaking Anarchist Forum (KAF)

1st Sep 2016


Website         www.anarkistan.com

Archive          www.issuu.com/anarkistan

Twitter           www.twitter.com/anarkistan

Facebook       www.facebook.com/sekoy.anarkistan

Email              anarkistan@riseup.net

On the latest process in Turkey

Istanbul Yenikapi Rally that was realized last Sunday is an important example showing the extent of political mobilization in Turkey, happening in the last month. The rally, which was joined by five million people and the leaders of opposition parties (except HDP), showing “unity of the protectors of democracy”, actually had multiple messages targeting both domestic and foreign politics. During the coup process, which can be described as the clashing of power groups inside the state, it looks like president Erdogan and AKP Government managed to talk different political groups into their “politics for coup process”.

What Happened?

The existence of state on the lands we live on, is directly related to the existence of the army, especially considering its relation during the founding process. Coup is a term that has an important place in the political life of the Turkish Republic. One can see how the coup, as an inevitable political reality of the existence of state in these lands, affects the current state policies considering the latest coup that occurred, the 1980 Coup. What happened on July 15, has a character that continues this political reality. The army who wanted to intervene the political power tried to take control of strategically important state buildings; many bureaucrats in strategically important positions were taken hostage, the parliament and intelligence buildings were bombed, bridges and airports were blocked by soldiers, clashes occurred between soldiers and the police. The five hour coup attempt was terminated with different and rapid maneuvers of the current government and especially of president Erdogan. Among these maneuvers, notable factors are control of the media, control of the civil and mass mobilization through the media and the control of law enforcement under Ministry of Internal Affairs.


Current political power was able to maintain a massive mobility since July 15 under the name “democracy watch” especially targeting the street and military areas. To create the civil mobilization that stopped the tanks marching towards the bridges blocked by soldiers on the night before July 16, AKP have been using all facilities of state. Since July 15, while this mobilization is identified with sacred values of the state, and the ones who lost their lives in this mobilization are declared “martyrs” with stories of heroism, a state of continuous vigilance is tried to be created by steadily pumping hate and revenge. The big rally mentioned above is en extension of this state of vigilance. We see that part of the mobilization on the street is also targeting various sections (Kurdish, Alevi, Opposition) that stand against the state in different areas. AKP and Erdogan, which hold the current political power, have become a platform for Islamist-nationalist formations. This is shown clearly by the symbols created by the process.

Cover Of Democracy

Each coup is a process by which the state oppression shows itself in a physical and violent form. It is nothing but putting pressure on the oppressed using force and violence to take over the political power. As revolutionaries who experienced the period when military coup of 1980 directly murdered, tortured and repressed the revolutionaries and the oppressed, and the period following it, we know too well what coups really are.

We also know what is being tried under the name of allegedly anti-coup “democracy struggle” since July 15. The state of being “elected power” which is raised as an argument against the sections that plotted the coup, plays an important part in legitimizing current position of AKP and Erdogan. All political discourse they raised since July 15 is in fact related to this cover of democracy.

We have emphasized before that AKP and Erdogan have made explicit their characteristic of being a platform for Islamist-nationalist sections. Especially considering the struggle of these sections against pro-coup, laicistic, radical Kemalist power groups inside the state since the founding of the state, it can be seen that there is an existential contradiction between this platform and the army and republican bureaucrats. As much as this contradiction seems like pro-democracy, it is really far away from it. To see the distance, it is suffice to look at the “demands” in the street. Death penalty, presidency with extra authorities, and many other demands based on the same Islamist and nationalistic values are hidden under the cover of democracy.

While democracy is sanctified by the current political power, demands of the 51% who voted for this political power in the latest elections are described as the will of the people. The reality is even farther away from this. Current political power is trying to sell its plans and strategies as the people’s demands. Since this platform is against all “political values of the West”, its play of pro-democracy is not realistic.

It must be noted, on the other hand, that we should not fall into the same trap that some socialist organizations fell into while doing the analysis. Our criticism above does not mean that we embrace the democratic values of the system. In fact, it is the same democratic system that makes possible “the majority oppress the minority” under the play of pro-democracy. Inside this democratic system, when radical Islamist take power, they are the pro-democratic; and when the nationalists or liberals take power, they are. This is the exact message that AKP and Erdogan want to give to the West; “we are democratic”.

Who Plotted The Coup?

In our assessments from the start, we indicated that the current process is a result of the power groups inside the state fighting for power. It’s known that since the first elections that AKP started to hold the state power, AKP has relationships with the Gulen Community which was gaining popularity especially in the international media. Even Erdogan himself declared in a recent rally, that he had relations with the Gulen Community and that he was deceived and apologized from the people.

Fethullah Gulen, who is a religious authority and community leader have had an increasing influence on Turkish politics in the last thirty years. This increasing influence reached political power with AKP and opened the door for organizing significant positions inside significant state agencies. Current AKP power also benefited from this positional convenience. Conservative identity of the party allowed this. Fethullah Gulen was seen as an important spiritual leader until last four years by party members and Erdogan himself. The peak of this fight for power in the last four years due to various political and economic reckoning is this coup attempt. Considering the depth of their relations and the relations of coup plotters with Gulen Community, the process defines something very different from classical contradiction between Kemalists and conservatives. This is a clash of interests. Gulen and his community which are accused of treason by the political power, are just one side of a broken partnership.


Since the question is the political power of the state, it’s obvious that political clash of power groups inside the state has a place in international schemes. Since the day of coup attempt, in a process where all TV channels, newspapers, radios, except the revolutionary ones became a part of the mass media various scenarios were continuously broadcast and are still being broadcast. Most of the scenarios state that the coup is made by the US with the hand of Gulen Community, due to the fact that Gulen resides in US. The scenarios often talk about the coup attempt is being designed by CIA due to anti-West international politics of the Turkish state.

Other scenarios talk about the coup attempt being designed and operated by AKP and Erdogan himself. These other scenarios emphasize that Erdogan who would reinforce its power as a result of this process would eliminate all opposition in this position. Of course the oppression politics against the Kurds plays an important role in creating this context of no opposition. AKP, CHP, MHP which acted as “unity of democracy” since the beginning of the process followed a policy that explicitly left HDP out, creating an allegedly “coalition of democracy” accusing HDP and the Kurdish movement to be a part of the plot and thus disabling HDP.

Another scenario as part of the same process of disabling is the war scenario. In this scenario, following the violent operations it made in a period of one year especially in North Kurdistan, its emphasized that the state getting ready for massacres at even larger scales. Within a conjuncture where the line between civil war and foreign war disappeared in the last ten years, one cannot but think that one end of the war will be directed to Rojava and Syria. Considering Syria and the mobilization in Middle east geography alone, it’s possible that the coup process is part of other international schemes.

State Of Emergency For Who?

It’s important for us revolutionary anarchists to analyze well all scenarios above as possibilities with respect to our near and distant perspectives. We need revolutionary strategies made with these perspectives. However, apart from all these scenarios, we as revolutionaries feel the practical repercussions of the State Of Emergency process since July 20.

The state is in a process of reconstruction since July 20. Operations in the army, police, judiciary, economic centers, ministries, municipalities, etc are still going on. The state which is a mechanism of oppression and violence, becomes more oppressive and more violent with this delegated legislation, and apart from the sections related to Gulen Community, increase the attacks on revolutionaries, taking advantage of the process.

Populist opposition engaged with the power, big media pool which became the voice of political power, law enforcement directly reporting Erdogan, fascist mass ready to mobilize with Islamist-nationalist values, army ready to attack near geographies within international conjuncture… Possible dangers awaiting the oppressed and the revolutionaries in this geography.

The fight of power groups claiming political power over a device rising above economic and political injustice; is nothing but the hegemony of the oppressors over the oppressed gaining permanency in order to destroy the freedom of the oppressed. Neither the apparent or implied dictatorship, nor military or civil formation, nor coups or elections of the political powers that are enemies of the people have any relations to peoples will. We, who believe that life of freedom cannot be created by coup nor by elections, know the existence of state as a coup to freedom and our revolt will last until it creates a free world. What we all need is, not getting hopes up from the fight between the powers, but to know that hope is revolution for freedom.

Huseyin Civan (DAF member)