We will put forward our views on the approach of the class-conscious proletariat to the national question in today's world by referring to the national question with the free competition process of capitalism and the stage of imperialism and the handling of the national question with the October revolution.

As is known, nations are the product of a certain historical process. At the dawn of capitalism, the desire of the bourgeoisie to unify the internal market stands in a decisive place in the formation of nation states.Nationalisationfirst emerged in Western Europe and the states that completed the process of nationalisation took the form of national states. Thus, whilesingle-nation states took shape in Western Europe, in countries such as Eastern Europe and Russiamultinational states were formed, which were first politically and then economically dependent under the sovereignty of the first nation to develop.Naturally, these multinational states of the East have been the home of national oppression, national problems, national movements and national conflicts, and they have also been the places where different forms of solution to this problem have emerged.The oppressed nations, which had entered the process of nationalisation late, also wanted to have their own national markets. National contradictions and national struggles first emerged in these places, and the grounds for their emergence were based on dominating the national market. This is what is meant when we talk about the starting ground or theeconomic essence of national struggles.

In this period, the national question, the national struggle was still an internal problem for the state concerned. At that time, "the national struggle was seen as the struggle of the bourgeois classes among themselves". The bourgeoisie was trying to gain national independence in order to seize national markets. This was being fought for. Until the last periods of the era of free competition of capitalism, that is, in the era of bourgeois democracy, the problem was solved democratically. The most recent example of this was the secession of Norway from Sweden in 1905. The people of Norway went to the polls and democratically decided to secede and form a separate state. The Swedish state had to recognise this.

However, with the development of capitalism to the monopoly stage, that is, with the emergence of imperialism and especially with the imperialist war, the process of free competition and its political process, bourgeois democracy, disappeared. In the words of Comrade Lenin, it was "thrown overboard on the broadside of the ship." He said that bourgeois democracy corresponded to the process of free competition of capitalism and political reaction to the process of imperialism.

With imperialism and the imperialist war, national problems ceased to be an internal problem and became an international problem concerning many nations. In other words, the oppressed nations not only found the sovereign nation-state against them, but also many imperialist powers against them. Therefore, it became clear that the oppressed nations and colonies could not achieve their national liberation without turning towards the sovereign nation state and imperialism and without breaking away from them... This is the essence of the national struggle. This is what is meant by thepolitical essence of national struggles.

In multinational countries, since the oppressed and colonised nations have not developed capitalism and have been left backward by the dominant nation and the imperialists, class differentiation is not very developed. The majority of the population of these nations are peasants and other petty bourgeois sections. Therefore, the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie constitute the social base of national liberation movements in these countries. By thesocial base of national movements is meant the peasant question.

Every movement acting on nationalist grounds carries in its essence the bourgeois interests and aspirations of the nation concerned. Its horizon is the attainment of a national bourgeois state and first of all the domination of its own national markets. To the extent that it achieves sovereignty, it will pursue similar ambitions to those pursued by other bourgeois states. Of course, starting from this conclusion, one cannot remain indifferent and insensitive to the national question and national movements, just because in the long run, one day, in general, this is what happens and follows such a course. The imperialists and the state of the sovereign nations not only usurp the rights and freedoms of these colonised and oppressed nations, but also unlimited, merciless oppression, persecution, genocide, assimilation and terror of the workers and labourers, national minorities of these nations. Therefore, far from being insensitive to the oppression of the oppressed, colonised and dependent nations, it is necessary to systematically expose the oppression and cruelty of the sovereign nation and imperialist states on every occasion. A revolutionary, socialist political enlightenment and sensitivity must be created in the country and internationally.

Without the defence of the right of nations to secede freely, without the propaganda for the withdrawal of the sovereign nations and the imperialists from these places, whatever our intentions may be, we would be reduced to the position of being the dupes of the multinational states and the imperialists. We would be in the position of betraying the class-conscious proletarian world view. At the same time, it would be an indication of indifference to politics. The nationalist, racist and chauvinist policies of the ruling nation and imperialists are not exposed. Without doing this, not only will we not be able to free the proletariat and labourers of the dominant nations from chauvinist thoughts and influences and draw them into the consciousness of democracy and the socialist proletarian class struggle, but we will not be able to win the confidence and support of the oppressed nations and their people, especially the proletarians and labourers of the oppressed nations.

The national question used to be recognised as one of the demands of the bourgeois democratic revolution and as one that would be solved by the bourgeois democratic revolution. After the imperialist war it became clear that the bourgeoisie had lost its progressive role, had become reactionary and would not allow the recognition of the right of nations to secede. As a matter of fact, Tsarism was overthrown by the bourgeois revolution of February 1917 and a government of Mensheviks, social revolutionaries and liberal bourgeoisie was established, but they did not solve the national question. Not only did they have no intention of solving the national question, they acted with the chauvinism of the ruling nation. For example, although the representatives of the Finnish people, the representatives of social democracy, demanded that the Provisional Government restore to the Finnish people the rights which they had enjoyed before joining Russia, the Provisional Government did not recognise this demand of the Finnish people and their sovereignty. Nevertheless, they resorted to repression and threats against Finland, Ukraine, Poland, etc., who wanted to secede.

The Bolsheviks did not take part in the Provisional Government formed after the February revolution. At their conference in April 1917, the Bolsheviks said: "Which side should we take? On the side of the Finnish people, of course, because it is inconceivable that any people should be forcibly kept within the framework of a state. By formulating the right of peoples to determine their own affairs, we thus raise the struggle against national oppression to the level of a struggle against our common enemy, imperialism. If we do not do this, we shall find ourselves in the position of those who carry water to the mill of the imperialists ..."

The RSDIP (Bolsheviks) under the leadership of Lenin, Stalin and Stalin made the second emphasis in the above quotation on the fact that some of the nations which were actually endeavouring to secede were in contact with the German, British and French imperialists. This is the reason for the emphasis on "the right of the peoples to determine their own sorrows", i.e. the right to liberation from the bourgeois exploiting classes.

The Bolsheviks' understanding of the right of free secession was the same after October as it was before the October revolution, and there was no change in its essence. However, there have been differences in different historical conditions regarding the solution of the problem. And they have always acted with the understanding of acting in the interests of the proletarian revolution ...

Indeed, the Russian bourgeois dictatorship was overthrown by the October revolution. However, power was not seized all over Russia at once. The revolution had begun in the industrial centres and port cities of Petrograt, Moscow, Odessa, Sevastopal and Odessa, where Russia's central power was located; its spread to the outskirts was proportional to the defeat of the White Army and took time. The Soviets, led by the Bolsheviks, acted on behalf of the whole of Russia, since they had overthrown the centralised power. But on the other hand, on the one hand, it was waging a civil war with the remnants of the Russian white army, which numbered in the hundreds of thousands, and on the other hand, it had to fight against the invasions and attacks of 14 countries, led by German imperialism. The 5-year civil war, in which foreign occupation and the white army tried to strangle the socialist revolution, lasted and cost the lives of 7 million people.

Despite these conditions, there was no hesitation in declaring an end to the policies and practices of oppression and assimilation of nations and national minorities. In accordance with the NCCPR, it was defended and declared that those nations who wished could leave freely and those who wished to stay together could stay together with equal rights and freedoms. They did not prevent any nation saying that they do not recognise or like your representatives. Or at least, they did not act with the thought of creating obstacles to the right to secession, in case some of them sided with the imperialists, surrendered, played the role of an outpost of them and attacked us or massacred communists, revolutionaries, labourers, etc. Although some of them had this potential, the right of that nation to secede and establish a state was respected and no obstacles were put in the way.

For example, on 31 December 1917 the Council of Soviet People's Commissars officially recognised the independence of the Republic of Finland. And on the same day Lenin delivered the resolution of recognition to the reactionary head of the Finnish government. Comrade Lenin wrote the following: "I well remember the scene in Smolni, when I handed the law to Svinhufvud, the representative of the Finnish bourgeoisie, who had acted like an executioner - which means 'pig-headed'. He shook my hand in a friendly way, and we complimented each other. What an unpleasant thing it was! But it had to be done, because in those days the bourgeoisie deceived the working class, the people, by claiming that the Muscovites, the chauvinists, the Great Russians, wanted to crush the Finns. It had to be done."

A Western writer,Stuart Chase, wrote in June 1919 that since the Finnish Government had seized power, it had murdered 16,700 members of the Socialist Republic in a few days and in cold blood, and sent 70,000 to death camps.

Comrade Lenin referred to the approach of Marx and Engels to the national question. Stating that they "demanded the separation of Ireland from England", which was one of the unresolved national questions in the era of capitalism's free competition, and that they "educated the workers of England in a truly international spirit" by putting forward such a demand, saying that "although federation could come after separation", he emphasises the importance of acting with the understanding of looking at the problem with the class interest of the proletariat in all circumstances.

Again, he points out that while Marx supported the Polish and Hungarian national movement, he opposed and did not support the national movement of the Czechs and the South Slavs because they played the role of "outposts of Tsarism", the most dangerous enemy of the revolutionary movement in Europe. In this emphasis, he exemplifies that not every movement can be supported regardless of its nature, regardless of the role it plays...

Just as the revolutionary character of the great majority of national movements is relative and specific, so is the reactionary character of certain national movements relative and specific. In the conditions of imperialist oppression, they were of the opinion that the revolutionary character of national movements did not necessarily require the presence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a democratic basis for the movement.

Comrades Lenin and Stalin not only laid the theoretical foundations of their world view on the national question, but also showed how the question should be handled in a country like Russia, which is a prison of nations and peoples, and how the national question can be solved in practice by realising the proletarian socialist revolution. At the same time, they not only inspired, encouraged and supported the liberation struggles of the oppressed, dependent and colonised nations from the ruling nation and imperialists, but also welcomed their struggle for independence and made them feel that they would not leave them alone as long as they stood against imperialism.

They attached great importance to the formation of an alliance of the national liberation movements in the oppressed countries with the proletarian class movement of the western countries and their becoming allies of the revolution. They acted with the importance and awareness that this alliance would accelerate the weakening and destruction of imperialism and the ruling classes in the colonial and semi-colonial dependent countries. They stated that the endeavour and success in this direction mainly rests on the shoulders of the communist movement.

Lenin and his party did not look down on the liberation movements of the oppressed nations, neither in the intoxication of the success of the revolution, nor in the arrogance of the great nation. Nor did they look for the criterion of being merely revolutionary. They looked at it according to whether it struck a blow to imperialism and political reaction. Therefore, they rejoiced in their revolts against imperialism and their local support, supported and encouraged them to strike a blow.

For example; Before the revolution, in 1913, in an article entitled "The Awakening of Asia"; "... China today is a place of bubbling political activity, a living social movement and a democratic breakthrough. After the 1905 movement in Russia, the democratic revolution spread throughout Asia: Turkey, Persia, China, and in British-ruled India, too, the agitation is growing.

An important development was the spread of the revolutionary movement to the Dutch dominated East Indies, Java and other Dutch colonies.

For one thing, a democratic movement is developing among the masses in Java; a nationalist movement has emerged withIslam as its flag... (Ibid.)

"... the proletariat of the European countries and the young democracy of Asia, with full confidence in its own strength and unshaken faith in the masses, are advancing to take the place of this degenerate and corrupt bourgeoisie." (Lenin. National Liberation Movements in the East - NLD.). And a month later, in his article "Backward Europe and Forward Asia", he expressed a similar joy.

After the October Revolution:

"The struggle of the Afghan Emir for the independence of Afghanistan, in spite of the royalist character of the Emir and his supporters, is objectively arevolutionary struggle, because it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism..." (hungry Stalin). "During the imperialist war, however, the struggle of the sharp democrats, "socialists", "revolutionaries" and republicans, such as Krenski and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Cleynes, was areactionary struggle, because its aim was to mask, consolidate and make imperialism victorious.

"For the same reason the struggle of the Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intelligentsia for the independence of Egypt is objectively arevolutionary struggle, in spite of the bourgeois origin and bourgeois character of the leadership of the Egyptian national movement. Whereas the struggle of the British workers' government for the maintenance of the dependent state of Egypt is areactionary struggle, in spite of the proletarian origin and proletarian character of the members of this government, in spite of their being "for the sake" of socialism." (hungry Stalin-agy).

"Not to speak of the national movements of the larger colonial and dependent countries, such as India, such as China, whose every step on the road to liberation, even if it does not quite conform to the requirements of formal democracy, is a ram blow against imperialism, that is to say, is undoubtedly arevolutionary step." (Hung. Stalin. Agy)

The approach of the masters of Marxism has generally been along this axis.

If we evaluate today's communist and revolutionary movements in the specific context of our subject, it is obvious that they have serious deficiencies.

At the time of the masters of Marxism, in 1950, there were 58 states in the world. Today there are around 200 states recognised by the imperialist UN. The technological possibilities of the period of the masters of Marxism and today's technological and information access possibilities are incomparably advanced. Despite this, it is clear that we are insufficient in mastering the concrete developments in the world. It is difficult to say that we know enough about the situation of colonised, semi-colonised, dependent nations and national minorities in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It is clear that without objective knowledge of the national and class situation in these places, it will be difficult to analyse and approach correctly. We may not know the situation all over the world, but more important than this is the issue of how we evaluate and approach these movements as an understanding. The extent to which we "know" and correctly evaluate the current situation is revealed by our political and practical approach.

Again, it is another fact that the development of both the oppressed, dependent national movements and the working class and labouring people's movements and their progressive, revolutionary struggle have been insufficiently processed and propagandised.

Palestine and the Kurdish National Liberation Struggle:

The most obvious example is the current approach to the Kurdish and Palestinian national liberation struggles.

The class-conscious proletarian and revolutionary movements of the imperialist countries must on every occasion call for "their" imperialist states to get out of the colonies, the oppressed countries and their territories, to put an end to their oppression, to leave them alone, to respect their right to determine their own future, not to interfere in their internal affairs, and must systematically propagandise in this direction, raise the level of consciousness and sensitivity of the proletariat and labouring people, and ensure the mutual trust and support of the broad working people of the oppressed countries.

In the same way, the class-conscious proletarian and revolutionary movements of the sovereign nations of the multinational countries dependent on imperialism or semi-colonial countries dependent on imperialism must, on every occasion, carry out systematic propaganda and agitation to demand that the bourgeoisie of "their" sovereign nations put an end to the oppression of the colonised and oppressed nations, get out of their national territories, put an end to occupation and annexation, leave them alone, respect their national rights and freedoms, including the right to self-determination, that is, the right to secede and establish a separate state. To the extent that it systematically does this on every occasion, it can break the influence of the racism and chauvinism of the ruling nation, raise the level of consciousness and sensitivity of the working class and labouring masses of the people. To the extent that it does this and to the extent that its concrete practice is in accordance with this, it can win the trust and support of the working class and labouring sections of the oppressed nation and minorities. It can draw them to the class-conscious proletarian line and ensure that they act together against common class enemies and at least act in solidarity.

Both in imperialist countries and in countries where there are sovereign nations dependent on imperialism, those who do not carry out propaganda and activities in this direction or who stay away from it are under the influence of "their" sovereign nation chauvinism. It means that they have not broken away from the nationalist, racist, chauvinist, occupying, annexing, imperialist-minded point of view of the ruling classes of "their" imperialist and sovereign nation.

Before the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, the Ottoman Empire, like the Russian Empire, was an occupying, annexing, prison of nations and minorities...

As a result of the First World War, the Ottoman Empire was defeated and disintegrated. The Republic of Turkey was founded on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. During the foundation years of the Turkish Republic, there were 5 nations. There were Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian, Greek and Arab nations. The 1915 Armenian genocide policy of the "ittihadists" of the Ottoman period was continued and Armenians ceased to be a nation. The Greeks were deprived of being a nation through massacres and exile and "exchange" (exchange). The Arab nation ceased to be a nation as a result of oppression, expulsion to neighbouring countries and systematic assimilation. Turks and Kurds were left behind. The Kurds have been subjected to genocide and massacres 30 times, and despite frequent exiles and systematic assimilation, they remain the only oppressed nation that has not been eliminated as a nation. The Turkish nation is the dominant nation. It holds the state in its hands. Apart from the Kurdish nation, there are also dozens of oppressed national minorities. National minorities, including the Kurdish nation, are denied any rights and freedoms and continue to be systematically oppressed and assimilated.

The Turkish state, due to its structure, education and cultural shaping, moulds society as Turkish racist with the ideology of Kemalism. Naturally, the revolutionary movement also comes within this social shaping. Some revolutionary parties and organisations are still not completely free from the influence of Kemalism. Therefore, on the national question in general and on the Kurdish national question in particular, it is seen that to one extent or another, they are influenced by the state's point of view.

Let alone systematically exposing the national oppression, massacres and brutal attacks of the sovereign nation state on every occasion, with the share of the systematic oppression of the state, reformist legal parties and some parties and organisations that carry out illegal activities, whose names are "communist", "socialist", "revolutionary", "workers" party, are on the same ground with the sovereign nation point of view and with various "concerns" They do not even want to appear on the side of the Kurdish national movement.

Others continue to confuse the Right to Secede Freely (i.e. the right of nations to secede and form separate states) with the right of peoples to determine their own future (i.e. the right of peoples to make a revolution), failing to realise that both concepts have different contents and are the correct solution in different historical conditions.

Some of them understand anti-imperialism as anti-US or equate it with anti-US, and while they see and support the governments of Saddam Hussein, Hafez-Bashar al-Assad, M. Gadaffi etc. as anti-imperialist, they do not support or cannot explain that they will support the PKK, the national movement of an oppressed nation. Likewise, while seeing and supporting states and governments such as Venezuela, Iran, etc. as "anti-imperialist", it does not support the liberation movement of a nation that is waging a struggle against the current state, which is the "common enemy" of the country in which it is located, does not make alliances and is afraid of not being seen with it.

In Turkey and in the international arena, a similar, if not identical, approach can be seen in the approaches to the Palestinian national liberation struggle or the Palestinian resistance that has been going on for the last year.

We will not go into the historical process of the Palestinian national struggle, but we would like to touch upon the approaches to the genocidal war of Israeli Zionism since 7 October against the Palestinian nation in general and Gaza in particular. Some revolutionary movements in Turkey and in the world have mistakes and deficiencies both in their ideological and political approach and in their practical solidarity.

Firstly, there is Israel, a Zionist state which has been founded on Zionism since its foundation in 1948, which has taken possession of known lands with an aggression that does not recognise borders, rules, etc., and which has been in a state of unlimited aggression, and moreover, which openly declares its ambitions by calling many countries of the region "the promised land for us". Opposite to this, there is an oppressed, oppressed Palestinian nation, which has systematically lost its lands in its homeland where it has lived for generations, through genocide, massacres, war and aggression, a significant part of the survivors of the massacres were deported to other countries, forced to migrate, and the rest of them were forced to "live" in lands separated from each other and under the threat of annihilation at any moment, unable to form a plan for the future.

Secondly, a week or two before the Israeli war against Palestine began, B. Netanyahu showed a map of Israel at a meeting in the USA, which was reported in the press, and said that the Gaza and West Bank parts of the Palestinians, which they had previously divided, were destroyed and that this was the Israeli state border. And he showed a second map, another map showing both sides of the Nile River and the Red Sea as the borders of the state of Israel.

Thirdly, probably on the basis of this situation or under the pretext of an "act of aggression" by the Palestinians of Gaza against Israel (which the state of Israel, instead of calling the Palestinians, named Hamas, "Hamas raped women, children, mass murdered children" with fictional videos prepared in advance - which the Israeli people themselves, live witnesses said that these discourses and videos were not true and they were revealed), they launched a crazy war on Gaza accompanied by lies. In the very same hours, the USA and the Western imperialists declared that they were on Israel's side and gave their full support, and the very next day, the presidents, presidents, prime ministers, heads of state of the Western imperialists such as the USA, Britain, Germany, Canada, France, Holland, Greece, etc. went to Israel and declared to the world that they offered their highest support and that they were behind Israel. They entered into a race to support Israel with aircraft carriers, intelligence ships, all kinds of weapons, technical weapons, equipment and material support. Even this situation was enough to understand the essence of the matter and that it reflected a joint decision as if a single button had been pressed.

Fourthly, the US President Baydin's statement in a speech many years ago that "If Israel did not exist, we would have to create another Israel in the region" is sufficient in itself. With this statement, he openly admitted that they had captured the region out of fear of Israeli terrorism. It is known that the region's oil and natural gas energy deposits and transport routes, as well as the energy and raw material resources of North Africa and the transport routes of trade with Asia pass through this region, it is of vital importance for the imperialists to secure these regions. In recent years, the fact that the important countries of the region have developed relations with China and Russia, etc. has mobilised the USA, Britain and other Western imperialists, and Israel's mission in the region has been mobilised in order to bring the countries of the region into line and disrupt the plans of their rivals with the fear of Israel and war.

Fifthly, one side, Israel and the US, British and other Western imperialists, shouted "Hamas" and "Hamas terror" in unison. They did not want to talk about the Palestinian problem and the fact that it was a resistance jointly decided by the 14 organisations of Palestine. The world media monopolies are in their hands. They try to manipulate it in any way they want.

Sixthly, they have never spoken of Palestinians or Palestinian national liberation or resistance, taking care not to revive from memory the pain, love, respect and support created in the hearts of the peoples of the world by the imperialist and Zionist persecution and oppression of the oppressed and oppressed Palestinian nation for generations, trying to forget and erase it.

In such a critical situation, some revolutionary organisations did not develop a correct attitude against the intense attack and exposure of the imperialists. Even many revolutionary organisations have distanced themselves from grasping the essence of the problem with political discourses such as "Hamas is a terrorist organisation", "Hamas is a fascist terrorist organisation", "Hamas carries out massacres", "it serves Israel by preparing an environment for the massacre of its people", "it provoked Israel" and "it invited Israel", "it receives support from Iran" etc.

Such approaches contain serious errors:

Firstly, the problem there is not the problem of Hamas or the nature of Hamas. This is a matter for a separate discussion or evaluation. Hamas is an organisation within the resistance in Gaza, which is a joint decision of 14 Palestinian organisations. It is one of the organisations trying to wage a struggle for survival, a national liberation struggle to preserve its national existence. Among the resistance organisations in Gaza, it may be the strongest, the most prepared, etc. It may be one of the organisations with the most mistakes among the Palestinian groups.

Secondly, within these 14 components, some organisations were influenced by Marxism/socialism in the past. It should not be forgotten that others are organisations on a national basis.

Thirdly. In the Middle East, where Islam is dominant, these organisations also come from that society, and if we take this state of society into account, religion certainly has a serious influence on the organisations. This does not mean that they cannot wage a national liberation struggle, or that they are not worthy of it or have no right to it. It is the imperialists who keep religion alive the most in those places and it suits them.

Fourthly, as in the case of the Palestinian organisations, we know that all over the world, the imperialists target as "terrorist organisations" every organisation and movement that opposes them for one reason or another, which they cannot manipulate or use. Everybody also knows that when the organisations they founded, won and turned into those that serve them, they become the most "respectable" and "respected" organisations and they cherish them. We think it is enough to remember Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban etc.

Fifth, we revolutionaries can criticise Hamas etc. in many aspects. This is a separate problem. Who calls Palestinian organisations, including Hamas, "terrorists"? The US, Israeli and EU imperialists, who have turned the world into a bloodbath and are the world's chief terrorists! Do we need to say more? It is useful to be careful and cautious about the same language or evaluations with them. In political approaches, if they say one thing, it is necessary to be careful to make the opposite evaluations in general!

Sixthly, we think that it is an approach that is not based on class and political grounds to say that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, 'Hamas is a fascist terrorist organisation', etc., rather than these terrorists of the world.

Seventh,in assessing the Palestinian resistance in Gaza on 7 October 2023, does this resistance of the Palestinians have the aim and calculation of strengthening imperialism in general and its most loyal base or bases in the region? Has it developed or is it being carried out with this calculation, or is it being carried out or resisted in order to preserve its existence and ensure its national liberation? And if the Palestinians succeed, who will be strengthened and who will be weakened or hit? This aspect must be analysed. It is possible that a national movement or class movement can be defeated, but in this case, should one learn from the defeats and prepare for another resistance, or should one act with the approach and mood of Plakhanov, who said "we should not have taken up arms" etc. after the defeat of 1905? The issue should also be looked at from this point of view...

We find Hamas' understanding of deliberately targeting civilians wrong. We do not believe that 'bullets have no address'. War has/should have its own rules. We are against the random killing of civilians and ill-treatment of prisoners in war. It is true that Hamas' tactical attacks on 7 October were excessive. However, while condemning this, it is wrong to evaluate the situation and the support to be given to the Palestinian national struggle on the basis of these tactical attacks.

In summary, we must carry Comrade Lenin's excitement and hope for the awakening in Asia, the hope and excitement that the spark of national liberation struggles in the oppressed, colonised and dependent countries will develop and trigger each other, that the struggles in these countries will integrate with the class movement of the west and affect each other, and that the proletarian revolutions will converge and succeed. By internalising Lenin and Bolshevism, we must embody its ideals and mood...

There is no reason for despair and pessimism... The historical conditions we are in today are reminiscent of the years before the October revolution, and the October revolution was born as a result of the conditions aggravated by the war. In this period when the imperialist war drums are rising, if the war cannot be prevented by the efforts of the revolutionary forces, the imperialist war will lead to revolutions because it will ripen the conditions. As long as the subjective forces act with the consciousness and responsibility of this and take the courage!

TKP-ML (Communist Party of Turkey- Marxist Leninist)