thefuturepresent.webs.com) , in January 2011

With Muhsin Kareem the member of the central committee of WP and the person in charge of the Abroad Organization,

and published in Vol.1, No,1, 2011

1. What were the origins of the foundation of the Worker-Communist Party of Kurdistan in March 2008?

Muhsin Kareem: Worker-communist Party of Kurdistan (W-cPK) was the Kurdistan Organization of Worker-communist ‎Party of Iraq (W-cPI) which was established in 1993. But due to the withdrawal of the central government’s ‎military and administrations from the Kurdistan region in October 1991 which was replaced by ‎the two Kurdish Nationalist parties The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), and the situation lasted until the collapse of ‎the central government in 2003, and then due to the collapse of central government itself which ‎led the Kurdish ruling parties to share the power in Baghdad with other Iraqis parties and ‎groups, many social, economic and political changes took place in the Kurdistan region.

‎Kurdistan society was not the same as that before 2005. There were many political and ‎economic differences which had grown up and the gap between Kurdistan region and the rest part of ‎Iraq was obvious. For example; there was the issue of occupation in Iraq that people were ‎concerned about while people in Kurdistan did see the political landscape in a totally different ‎view. ‎

Therefore, the third congress of the party in the end of 2007 or the beginning of 2008 decided about the establishment of the W-cPK rather than continuing its political activities in Kurdistan under the name of Kurdistan Organization of W-cPI as it recognised that it was working in two different societies which needed two worker-communist parties with their political priorities.

2. What is the difference between Worker-Communist Party of Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Communist Party?

Muhsin Kareem There is nothing common between the Kurdistan Communist Party (KCP) and our party. So there is no need to show our differences. The Worker-communist Party of Kurdistan W-cPKis a Marxist and an internationalist organization, which considers organising the social revolution of the working class to abolish the capitalist system and establish a new society based on freedom, economic and social equality. While the KCP is a liberal-nationalist party with nothing links it to the working class struggle. You can find its position in the same political queue with the KDP, the PUK and even Islamic terrorist groups regarding the political and economic interests of working class.

3. The case for the independence of Kurdistan made by the W-CPK seems to be based on the sectarian nature of the Iraqi state which has been established since the USA/UK occupation not opposition to national oppression. Do you consider Kurds to be an oppressed nationality? Is independence a realisation of the right to self-determination?

Muhsin Kareem: I do not see that for us the Independence of Iraqi Kurdistan is the realisation of self-determination as a right only. Yes, we support this right, but as you mentioned, the case is the political situation in Iraq that needs to be considered. Before the collapse of the Ba’athist Regime, in 1996, our party (W-cPI) declared the right of people of Iraqi Kurdistan to hold a referendum to decide about their political destiny, and we supported the independence of Kurdistan, because the whole issue was about putting an end to the Kurdish question and to put away for ever the threat of a chauvinist regime that oppressed Kurdish people by all means of brutality and barbarism.

The Ba’athist regime was just thrown away from Kurdistan region by the (provided comfort) programme under the UN resolution as a result of the Second Gulf War (1991). Therefore the risk of re–control of Kurdistan by the Ba’athist regime army was really existed. So our policy was to prevent the oppression of Kurds come back again.

But after the collapse of that Ba’athist Arab nationalist regime and getting the Kurdish nationalist parties the power sharing in Baghdad, the whole issue was changed. The matter of oppression of Kurds temporarily is over now. But the Kurdish question is not solved yet, as the sectarian nature of the government and the Federal system based on religion and ethnic biases stay always as a threat to blow up the national tension between the Iraqis citizens (Kurds and Arabs). The possibility of people in Iraq to live in peace and have the same equal citizen rights is not secured. I can say that it’s impossible under this ethno-nationalist Islamist regime. Therefore our party in its statement of Independence states “the Worker-communist party of Kurdistan announces the declaration of the independence of Kurdistan and puts the struggle for separating Kurdistan and establishing a secular and non-ethnocentric state as one of the main policies on its agenda.”

The question is how the communists will have influence on the political situations and how they find solutions for the political and social problems. The Kurdish issue has been an obstacle in front of the struggle of the working class towards socialism and this class should find a solution. Our main aim is worker revolution but since this issue hinders us from uniting the working class in whole Iraq, we should have a solution. That is why we support the independence of Kurdistan. This is not the realisation of self-determination, which is rather a nationalistic aim. So we are neither separatists nor supporters of “self-determination”. We move from the working class’s perspective and interests.

4. What is the current influence of Kurdish nationalism and its attitude to independence?

Muhsin Kareem: Kurdish Nationalism is represented now by two major parties the KDP and the PUK. They have declared federalism and they have implemented it in some way. In my point of view, these parties do not support the issue of independence as they have achieved much more than the political and economical goals they had ever thought about. Certainly the Kurdish people demands independence but the Kurdish nationalist parties are thinking of their own political and economic interests.

Jalal Talabany, the Secretary General of the PUK and the President of Iraq has said “the independent ‎Kurdistan is a dream of poets!” And Masud Barzany, the president of Kurdish region and the ‎president of the KDP, in his party’s 13th congress, just about two weeks ago, announced that he is ‎supporting the right of self-determination for Kurds. But while the echo of his ‎announcement was heard inside the hall of congress, he stated that the Kurdistan regional Parliament has made its decision to ‎remain Kurds within the Iraqi Federal system. I can say that they have a negative role concerning the right of people and their will to decide about their future.

5. An independent Kurdistan whether in Iraq, Turkey or Iran remains opposed by key powers, which in the past have partitioned the territories inhabited by Kurds and subjected them to national oppression. What is the perspective of the W-CPK in its struggle for independence in the context of this neo-colonial-imperialist structure of the world’s economy?

Muhsin Kareem: I would like to clarify that we are not concerned about the nationalist aspects of independence. We do not encourage nationalist inspiration of united Kurdistan. It is not the issue of working class struggle for freedom and equality. It is the old dream of few nationalist parties and mostly of Kurdish intelligentsia. What we are concerned about is the class struggle within each country which Kurds live in and how to unite the working class movements to seize the power. We understand that to gain this goal the communists and Marxists should consider the Kurdish issue and have a right and reasonable answer for it. But as a Marxist and a worker-communist party based in Iraqi Kurdistan, we are concerned how to empower the working class movement against the Kurdish bourgeois-nationalist movement and its power. This is beside our struggle for an independent secular and non-ethnocentric state in Iraqi Kurdistan.

We are looking at independence not as a reaction to the neo-colonial-imperialist power which tries to re-divide the world again, but as a solution to the obstacles that we have in our class struggle for freedom and equality in Iraqi Kurdistan. The proposal of independence of Kurdistan is a political tactic of the party to achieve its goal; establishment of socialism and abolishing the capitalist system. The Kurdish issue is an obstacle in front of this goal, we have to remove it.

6. It has been in the past there has been a difficulty in developing a struggle for a united independent Kurdistan due to the nature of economies within the partitioned areas, do you think there is a material basis for a united struggle of workers ruled by Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria today. For example economic links with Turkey have greatly increased, Turkey now has the largest share of foreign investment in Iraqi-Kurdistan?

Muhsin Kareem: As I mentioned in my previous answer, we are a Marxist party and have no relation with Kurdish ‎nationalism movement. We are interested in class revolution and empower its movement and ‎taking power from the bourgeoisie. We believe that for working class to take the power and establish ‎its government, it is essential to unite and fight within the frame of that state and country they live ‎and work in. Beside that we believe in Internationalism and working class struggle to ‎overthrow the capitalist system, and we see ourselves an army of working class armies all around ‎the world. That is why the increasing of Turkey’s investment in Iraqi Kurdistan does not make any ‎change in our political concepts. ‎

7. Do you think Marx’s concept of ‘revolution in permanence’ has any relevance to the role of communists in Kurdistan today? How do you see the relationship between social emancipation and independence, as a simultaneous revolutionary process, to prevent limiting change at the level of fulfilling demand of national liberation but continuing the struggle?

Muhsin Kareem: I have to say that, as a communist and as a member of a party which has been fighting for years and ‎years defending the working class rights and demands in Iraqi Kurdistan, I do not believe in stages in ‎working class revolution. There is no stage of national independence and then the beginning of social ‎emancipation. Even when Lenin proposed the right of nations in self-determination, he was ‎concerning about the working class revolution and how to unite them against the bourgeois ‎nationalist movements and parties in side the both depressive and dominant nations. He saw the ‎issue as a barrier on the way of working class to carry out its revolution to pull down the capitalism.‎

‎ I understand that there were movements and trends which claimed themselves socialists and ‎Marxists but in reality they were nationalist-leftists had found politically and even ideologically in Lenin and Marxists defence ‎of the right of nations in self-determination as great support for ‎their national agendas. We had lots of those leftists in the past that had not a tiny link to Marxism ‎and communism and working class struggle for equality and freedom.‎

‎ Therefore, I believe that the issue of ending the repression against Kurds in Iraq ‎and setting up an independent state in Iraqi Kurdistan, which we consider it now, is like clearing the way ‎for working class to take advantages in its struggle to seize power and put back all bourgeois ‎reactionary movements. So, in my point of view, there is one revolution and one mission which is the ‎socialist revolution of working class, and we have to get rid of the barriers and the Kurds issue is a ‎barrier so we have to solve it in a very humanitarian and justice way.‎

8. In the post-World War Two period many independent states were established yet many of the aspirations of the anti-colonial struggles were never realised. What lessons can be learned from the experiences of these existing states for your own struggle for independence?

Muhsin Kareem: The anti-colonial struggle was the concern of the national-bourgeoisies in the countries which were occupied by the Imperialist powers. They were against foreign capitals to invest in their counties and wanted all natural sources and labour to be under their control. It was the fight between two wings of bourgeoisies in order to control the natural resources and the labourer of the newly emerging working class.

It had been possible for the bourgeoisie in the colonised countries to circulate its political and social views as the people's views in their community. They were able to drag the working class in those countries behind its political agenda and economic development. In this context, there had been so-called communist parties stood in the same trench with the national bourgeoisie and defended the concept of national liberation and development.

We share Lenin in his concept about the Imperialism. Imperialism is that stage of capitalism that ‎exports capitals. Everywhere has become the receptive of capital. And the independent ‎countries and the states which established after the liberation from the colonialist countries could not be a ‎unique to this rule. They wanted to invest capital in their countries. They had to deal with the big ‎foreign companies and corporations. They had to buy technology and even food from the developed ‎capitalist countries and to sell their natural resources to them, e.g.; if there were not the big ‎companies in the colonialist countries bought the oil and even did search for and extracted it, their independent states would have collapsed a few months after the ‎liberation! ‎

9. There is a significant view amongst communists in less-developed countries that the key task is that of development. For example there have been Communists in governments such as in West Bengal and South Africa promoting neo-liberal policies to advance development. They equate development as technological-industrial growth; even though still capitalist it will improve the conditions of working people and increase the size of the working class and potential social revolution in the future? Does the W-CPK agree with this perspective?

Muhsin Kareem: Simply not. As I said before they belong to the same family of nationalist bourgeoisie. Since the ‎capitalism has come to the existence and brought about the proletariat, there has been a trend and wing in‎side the bourgeoisie, claimed itself as a defender of working class while in reality it concerns about the power ‎and the future of capitalism. The traditional claim of this trend is:” it is for the sake of workers that the ‎capitalism is existed! We invest our capitals and hire workers, they get paid and live!” Many organizations ‎and political and economical thinkers, who called themselves socialists and even communists, were belonged to that ‎wing of bourgeoisie and positioned in the same trench. In the case of these new so-called communists, ‎the excuse is the size of working class that needed for social revolution! You may remember that in its time, ‎the social populists were raising the same excuse against Lenin, and the Lenin’s response to them was that those people could ‎accept Russia had become capitalist based on the numbers of chimneys of Russian factories! ‎

Those so-called communists you mentioned are the advocator of national capitalism and have no difference ‎with the nationalist movements in their countries. In reality they are working as political and economical ‎consultant of bourgeoisie in their countries. Under the name of resisting the imperialism they support the ‎national capitalism. In other words, I can say that, as Stalin’s programme of building socialism economy in ‎Russia turned to developing of the industries, increasing the products and building a powerful state capitalist ‎economy, the reflection of that policy on the pro Soviet communist parties was the economic development in ‎their countries. What Stalin did was that the capitalism wanted in USSR at that time. So that trend amongst ‎the communist movement was powerful as the result of significant influence of the” Communist Party in ‎USSR”.‎

10. What lessons have you learned from the experience of the USSR and Eastern Bloc with regard to promoting a communist alternative today?

Muhsin Kareem: I have to say that from a very long time ago we did not believe in the Eastern Block as socialist states. We may be the only group amongst many of communists who believed in Lenin’s thoughts but do not believe in so called Socialist Block. We understand that some Trotskyists did not recognise the Eastern Block as the Socialist Block, but they do that in a totally different point of view with us.

We believe that the working class had seized the power in Russia and established its government, but the process of establishing socialist economy was failed in USSR. We think that both Stalin and Trotsky did not have the answer for that most important and crucial issue in the post revolution period when it was raised between 1924and 1928. Unfortunately Lenin was unable to participate in the discussion because of his death. I can say that our movement and class were unfortunately unsuccessful in continuing the mission after seizing power from the bourgeoisie in Russia, and as a result of that we were not able to keep what we had achieved. We need to have a clear understanding what had happened in USSR in order to know what we should do today.

However, we had a very deep debate about that issue inside our movement (Worker-communism) about 20 years ago and I prefer all communists to read it. http://www.hekmat.public-archive.net

11. What do you think are the main tasks of the W-CPK are now, in the current situation?

Muhsin Kareem: There are some important tasks facing our party in the current political and social situation in Iraqi Kurdistan. We are a worker- communist party and our duty is to empower the working class and promote its political and revolutionary potential to prepare it to seize power. But we believe that this preparation for the revolution is taking place through a set of political and economical reforms in the favour of working class. Based on that, I think these are the tasks that the party should consider:

a. Workers in Kurdistan are deprived from being organized and have the right to demonstrate and strike. The previous regime and under the two Kurdish nationalist ruling parties, they do not allow the independent worker’s organizations and each party has its organizations for workers, teachers, and students and so on. So one of the very important tasks is to fight for those basic rights of workers:” the freedom of strike, demonstration and establishment of independent organizations.”

b. In a situation like that, the workers have no representatives and only the bosses and the bourgeois government decide on their payments and work conditions. Although the workers do not have legal tools to defend them, but they held many protests and activities to demand a better pay and work conditions. We have the duty to empower this struggle.

c. The issue of political freedom is an issue that concerns working class and the whole society. Under the authority of militias, there is always encroachment on people’s freedom. How far the political freedom expanded the working class and the deprived people will get benefit from it to defend their rights.

d. Although the two major Kurdish nationalist ruling parties have lost their political creditability, due to the national repression of Kurds by the Ba’athist regime, the Kurdish nationalism perspective has influence in the people’s thinking. Beside that, the Islamist groups and Islamic beliefs have their influence as well in dragging the society backwards and in spreading a blind enmity to the communism and any progressive movement and idea. They have the support of the two nationalist ruling parties. We have to fight them ideologically and politically to push them back and clear the way forwards.

e. The two ethno-nationalist parties have bond Kurdistan to Iraq through a Federal system on ‎the base of ethno- religious identity of the people and have put the people on an unexploded ‎bomb with the possibility of blowing at any time, while people in Kurdistan want the ‎independence. In another way, although there is formally one Kurdistan regional ‎government, in fact each party has its on authority over the region controlled by its militia ‎and they have divided people according to the loyalty to their parties! Putting these two points into account, the fight for the establishment of Independence Kurdistan and non-ethno-religious ‎state in Kurdistan is one of our most important missions.

f. Internationally, we have the duty of building relations with workers’ movements and organizations and the communist trends, groups and parties that have fundamental common attitude towards class struggle and communist revolution, and share our understanding in the fight to establish the worker’s state.