40 years ago Kurdish nationalists were trained by the PFLP and had good relations with anti-US countries like Syria and...

All memes aside, what went wrong? Is the cult of personality around Ocalan strong enough that he single-handedly changed the ideology of his followers? Were Kurdish groups infiltrated by western tools? Or were they always unprincipled, and it just took until now to manifest the way it did?

Attached: 1497055209944.jpg (495x362, 18.73K)

Other urls found in this thread:


there's your problem
if they think that's the best way to achieve independence they'll do it

They were unprincipled. But most leftist ideologies that aren't Marxism-Leninism or some variation thereof are unprincipled and often not ideologically disciplined.

Look, if you want your interests pursued (in this case, national independence) it's a good strategy to align yourself with the sole, hegemonic superpower of the world. The issue is that with the US, once you do get independence, you're instantly at the mercy of American porkies.

Realpolitik. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Also, the US helped them whereas Assad and Iran did dick for them. I think they fully realize that they're pawns in a larger geopolitical game, but better victory as pawns than morally and politically "correct" death and defeat. They're ultimately doing whatever they can to win, and they don't give a shit about the opinions of Marcyites.

ethnostate as a goal

Mate they don't even want a nation state after the ideological change within PKK, don't talk pish

I guess when Lenin took that sealed train to Russia the Germans have to him he was being an opportunist and counter revolutionary too.

Why are there so many American apologists today?

Pretty much every lefty, except Cuba, at one point or another has done that.
Assad was allied with USA against Iraq in Gulf war and hosted USA torture bases in Syria in latter war.
Soviets were allied with USA against the nazis.
Chinese were alied with USA against the Soviets.
Vietnam was and still is alied with USA aginst China.
DPRK was allied with USA against pirates

I dunno, was user apologizing for the German Empire?

They were Marxist-Leninists (or at least the PKK was, and they're the most influential Kurdish group).

Syria sheltered exiled PKK members. Iran allied with the largest Iraqi Kurdish groups during the Iran-Iraq War (and yes, I know those parties are different from the PKK, but in general there's been a shift of Kurdish parties toward US interests).

That was always their goal; what changed?

This but unironically

That was a while ago. Here and now the US is supporting the Kurds and Assad and Iran aren't.

Yes I'm well aware that things have changed, hence my initial question

Most of the foreign fighters supporting them are from various ML parties.

Are you willing to support any oppressive and corrupt third world shithole as long as it is anti-capitalist?

The radical left faces much more severe political repression in Iran than in the US.

That’s all that happened, there was no political or ideological shift in the Kurdish movement.

Nah, only as long as it is anti-US.

Support Somali pirates against US imperialism and their DPRK mercenary lackeys!

Uh yeah lmao, I would support a socialist state even if it has corruption

Allies in war isn’t the same as having over a dozen military bases on your land and basically being owned with your Allie

You mean to have an excuse to step into Syria and plan the long wanted regime change? The fucking US funded ISIS with their „their war on terror“ campaign and the occupation of Iraq

Attached: FC12685D-CBDE-4FDE-BB90-8595E218510E.jpeg (600x800, 72.5K)

Oh and also the part about

Is demonstrably false, since ISIS started as a resistance group against the US occupation during the Iraq war.

They created the material conditions for the spawn of ISIS then the CIA funded them to start a regime change in Syria. But with ISIS losing more and more influence they switched sides. Now they changed their puppet but the strategy stays the same; planning a regime change in Syria

Sorry to break this to you user, but: It's totally logical for the US to fight and organization and to support it at the same time.

No they didn’t, the US began their bombing campaign against ISIS in Iraq almost as soon as they invaded the country in 2014. Later that year they started supporting the Kurds in Syria at the battle of Kobane when ISIS was at the height of its power. In fact it was the ISIS defeat at Kobane that was the turning point in their war against the Kurds and began the process of their defeat. Then of course the idea that they are using the PYD to facilitate regime change in Syria is ridiculous because the PYD has never once called for regime change in Syria. On the contrary they have repeatedly said that they do not want to separate and that they will integrate their militias with the SAA at the end of the war. Not to mention numerous cases of open collaboration with Assad even before the Turks invaded Afrin. So clearly the Kurds are pursuing their own agenda independently of what the US wants.

Maybe, but there’s also the fact that there is no hard evidence of US support for ISIS. Then there’s the fact that the US is arming literally all of their enemies save Assad, and the fact that the US is engaged against them directly. If they really wanted ISIS to win then they wouldn’t be very obviously doing everything they can to make them lose.

False premise.
Their relations with Syria are actually not bad, now.

The bases thing, I assume is true - are there any sources besides regional outlets, though? I don't recall seeing this elaborated much on here. That said, yeah - an issue of realpolitik. If you're occupying territory and the US asks to use it for military bases to fight one of the several enemies surrounding you, they're still going to want that area for bases even if you turn them down. It's a raw deal, but about the only place where it wouldn't be strategically preferable to allowing greater losses would be if your revolution was occurring in the US itself.

No you don’t understand, the only acceptable realpolitik for ☭TANKIE☭s is to suspend proletarian democracy, take away worker’s political power, brutally repress fellow communists, and betray the revolution in every conceivable way in the name of historical necessity. But if you let the US give you air support in your fight against genocidal islamofascists then you have gone too far.

I would gladly sacrifice the entirety of the kuridsh proletariat to destroy the American empire. This isn't about some stupid anarkiddy experiment kid. It's about making the global environment safe for actual socialism in the future. American hegemony cannot coexist with socialism.

Attached: wut angry.png (696x860, 421.3K)

The success or failure of America’s empire won’t happen based on what goes on in Syria. However the success or failure of a third world revolution will depend on their ability to defeat ISIS. I’m critical of their relationship with the US, but to suggest that the Kurds shouldn’t have at least taken advantage of military support is a typical soft western leftist thing to say from the safety of their armchair. Telling them that they should have refused US air support is equivalent to telling them that more of their comrades should have died. At the current moment they clearly still maintain a high degree of independence from the US, and as long as that remains the case and they don’t actually turn into proxies, they deserve our support as a revolutionary movement.

It’s also worth noting that the only way you can fight American imperialism without helping Russian or Chinese imperialism is to fight a genuine proletarian revolution, not some bourgeois nationalist nonsense. Since allowing another empire to pick up America’s slack leaves you at square one. The American Empire will collapse when capitalism does, not the other way around.

I should probably add before I get banned that I don’t support America’s agenda in Syria, I just support the Kurds taking advantage of the US Air Force. I want the Kurds to use America, not the other way around.

It doesn't. There can be no another 1917, without another 1914.

Right because I forgot about how capitalism totally collapsed when the British empire did. Oh wait…