Soft surveillance and control: Artificial intelligence as a tool of gradual and deep political repression in the service of contemporary capitalist hegemony

By Rezgar Akrawi

Published 6 September, 2025

Digital corporations, in cooperation with major states, monitor the movements of individuals through smart devices and various means of communication. All digital activities, including supposedly secure closed meetings, are subject to constant surveillance and analysis. In practice, there is almost no fully protected digital space; data is systematically collected and then used to assess and classify individuals and groups according to their behavioral patterns and intellectual and political orientations.

In addition, digital surveillance has become a central tool for monitoring the intellectual and political tendencies of users, enabling corporations and governments to track and target them through organized disinformation campaigns or impose digital sanctions that limit and reduce their influence on public opinion. These strategies are systematically and covertly applied against labor organizations, leftist groups, and independent human rights and media institutions, all of which face increasing restrictions that constrain the spread of their ideas in the public digital space through indirect, subtle methods that are difficult to detect.

Capitalist corporations and major states employ algorithms in social networks and AI systems with precision and systematization to restrict the reach of leftist and progressive political posts, sometimes without resorting to direct deletion.

These practices make digital repression more complex, dangerous, and invisible, as the low engagement with progressive content appears to be a natural audience reaction, while in reality it results from pre-designed algorithms aimed at reducing its visibility. Many studies have documented related phenomena, such as the “filter bubble” created by algorithms to isolate users from political content that challenges their views, and reports on algorithmic bias favoring traditional right-wing discourse over leftist content. Leaks and internal documents from companies like Facebook revealed deliberate strategies to reduce the visibility of certain political or human rights movements by limiting their reach or disabling notifications, all while maintaining a façade of neutrality. These policies create a false impression among activists that their ideas are ineffective or unpopular, pushing some toward self-censorship or adjusting their discourse. (See references: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

Digital disempowerment

Digital disempowerment is a new and advanced tool of class domination, where algorithms and AI are used systematically and imperceptibly, over the long term and gradually, to spread content that fosters feelings of helplessness and resignation, particularly among users with leftist and progressive orientations. This mechanism amplifies the failures and weaknesses of socialist experiments and leftist organizations, while portraying capitalism as an eternal, invincible system, thereby reinforcing the idea that change is impossible. Individualism is promoted, along with personal solutions such as consumption and self-development, isolating individuals from collective, organized political action. Moreover, debates within leftist organizations are steered toward marginal conflicts and magnified, distracting efforts and weakening the ability to resist. Major corporations analyze digital behavior to target users and groups with content that generates frustration, making them feel that socialist change is either impossible or extremely difficult. These policies and methods are not accidental but deliberate, scientific tools designed to abort or weaken the spirit of change and ensure the survival of the capitalist system without real and effective challenges.

Digital arrest and digital assassination

Digital arrest represents a more dangerous stage than surveillance and control, as it goes beyond restricting content reach to imposing arbitrary restrictions on individual and group accounts, suspending them temporarily for varying periods, or permanently deleting them — what can be considered a form of digital assassination — without transparency, clear standards, or local or international laws defending users’ rights. Excuses such as “violating community standards” or “promoting violence” are often used to silence these voices, even though activist content frequently documents the crimes of capitalist states and corporations or human rights violations. One example is the digital repression practiced by social media platforms against Palestinian content documenting Israeli crimes against civilians. During the most recent assault on Gaza, companies like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter deleted and banned hundreds of accounts and posts documenting occupation crimes under claims of “community standards violations” or “terrorism promotion,” despite many being accurate documentation of war crimes confirmed by human rights organizations.

Human Rights Watch documented in 2023 more than 1,050 cases of removal or restriction of pro-Palestinian content on Facebook and Instagram between October and November 2023, including purely peaceful content. I personally was banned for an entire month after sharing a post by the Palestinian Left, and the Secular Facebook page, which had more than 200,000 followers, was shut down for publishing articles exposing Israeli occupation crimes — including articles condemning Hamas crimes.

Independent media agencies such as Quds News Network were also targeted by having their reach restricted or accounts deleted entirely, in a clear attempt to silence voices exposing violations against Palestinian civilians. Media and human rights reports also highlighted the phenomenon of “shadowbanning,” whereby pro-Palestinian posts are suppressed without deletion, especially those containing hashtags like #FreePalestine or #IStandWithPalestine, constituting an undeclared restriction on freedom of expression in the digital space. (See references: 6, 7, 8).

Voluntary self-censorship

Digital repression and restricted reach of posts are accompanied by the phenomenon of “voluntary self-censorship,” where individuals and even groups begin to impose restrictions on themselves, modifying their political discourse or even changing its content, shifting to general theoretical issues and avoiding direct confrontation with capitalism and authoritarian regimes, out of fear of reduced reach, bans during digital arrest, or digital assassination through account closures by AI algorithms on digital platforms. This fear undermines freedom of expression, becoming a decisive factor in reshaping and controlling public discourse even before actual restrictions are imposed. This reinforces capitalist ideological hegemony, shrinks the space for digital resistance, and turns the internet into a self-regulated space aligned with the interests of dominant powers.

For example, during periods of mass protests in various countries against capitalist and authoritarian policies — and more generally, at different levels — many users noticed that their posts containing words like “general strike,” “civil disobedience,” “revolution,” or texts exposing crimes and human rights violations did not reach their usual visibility, whereas general analytical posts about economics and politics were far less affected. This was evident during the “Yellow Vest” protests in France, where media reports documented deletions or restrictions of posts calling for mass strikes or direct confrontation with the government. In the United States, activists in the Black Lives Matter movement reported a major decline in the reach of posts calling for civil disobedience or peaceful protest against police violence, especially on Facebook and Instagram. Similar complaints emerged from activists in India during the 2021 farmers’ protests, where platforms removed posts or blocked hashtags linked to demonstrations, such as #FarmersProtest, under the pretext of “violating local laws.” This led many activists to avoid using terms classified by platforms as “incendiary,” shifting public discourse toward less radical and revolutionary content, thereby shrinking the space for free expression and weakening the role of social media as a tool for political mobilization and radical change. (See references: 9, 10, 11, 12, 13).

The erosion of democracy through Artificial Intelligence

After gaining control over human minds and consciousness through digitalization, the issue is no longer merely about maximizing capitalist profits but has also become a main tool for weakening and even undermining relative bourgeois democracy, rather than supporting or expanding it — even with its limited credibility in many countries, given its subordination to political money, unjust electoral laws serving particular interests, and other factors. Instead of fostering conscious popular participation in political life, digitalization and AI are harnessed to reshape and manipulate public opinion in line with ruling-class interests, influencing elections, shrinking the space for free debate, and steering political and media discourse to serve dominant capitalist powers.

Class control of AI means that this technology — supposedly a tool for enhancing transparency and democracy — is effectively used to produce and promote narratives that preserve the existing capitalist system. Big data analysis and intelligent algorithms are exploited to steer political information in ways that serve capitalist institutions, right-wing and neo-fascist movements, and authoritarian powers, thereby weakening the capacity of the masses to make political decisions based on genuine critical awareness.

Within the capitalist system, AI is not used to empower the masses or strengthen conscious, transparent decision-making, but rather as a tool to distort reality, reproduce propaganda, and enable media disinformation that undermines the essence of real democracy — based on transparency, access to information, and intellectual and political pluralism. This is done by targeting specific groups with tailored content based on their digital behavior, creating an artificial public opinion that entrenches class hegemony and deepens political and social polarization. It not only deceives voters but also reshapes the political debate environment, stripping it of substance and saturating it with propaganda serving capitalism and right-wing ideas.

The influence of AI goes beyond mere manipulation of information; it becomes a central tool in reproducing capitalist political power. By deploying algorithms in election campaigns, tailoring political messaging to capital’s interests, and influencing voters through precision targeting, platforms work to neutralize opposition voices and weaken leftist and progressive-democratic alternatives. A clear example is billionaire right-winger Elon Musk’s intervention in the 2025 German elections through his platform “X” (formerly Twitter), where he directly supported the far-right Alternative for Germany party by promoting AI-driven content, shaping public opinion and reinforcing political polarization in favor of right-wing and neo-Nazi forces.

In this environment, elections no longer reflect popular will — even in relative form — but have turned into an arena of struggle among major states, monopolistic powers, and financial oligarchies, which use the internet and AI as tools of political and ideological domination. This distorts political pluralism and corrupts existing relative democratic mechanisms, as ruling powers either weaken progressive voices or push the masses toward false alternatives that reproduce the capitalist system itself, with at most superficial change.

Alternatives proposed by leftist, progressive, and human rights forces to confront this

AI as a tool for human rights liberation

AI must be directed to serve as a tool for the liberation and respect of human rights, not for their restriction or violation. To achieve this, progressive leftist initiatives ensuring transparency, oversight, and AI use that promotes justice and equality are essential, rather than leaving it as a tool in the hands of authoritarian regimes, major states, and corporations to monitor individuals and suppress freedoms. Strict international and local legal frameworks must be created to criminalize the use of AI in violating human rights, whether through surveillance, targeting opponents and activists, or imposing digital censorship that leads to digital arrest, assassination, and restricted freedom of expression. AI applications in security must be subject to independent judicial review, with civil society organizations involved in assessing their risks to freedoms. Global solidarity networks should monitor AI abuses, boycott companies that sell surveillance technologies to authoritarian regimes, and blacklist them.

To ensure this, open-source AI systems must be supported and developed under independent bodies including civil society and human rights institutions, subject to democratic oversight that prevents abuse by governments, monopolistic corporations, and authoritarian regimes. Such systems can be used to strengthen human rights by exposing violations, monitoring government performance, and analyzing data to uncover repressive practices. Enhancing the role of leftist, progressive, and human rights organizations in monitoring AI use is essential. International coalitions can be built to pressure against exploiting this technology to consolidate domination and digital repression. AI can also serve as an effective tool to counter digital censorship through data encryption, secure communications to protect activists and dissidents, and monitoring dictatorial governments’ activities. At the same time, public awareness must be raised about the dangers of surveillance and digital control and ways to resist it, through enacting local and international laws against privacy violations and providing technical tools that help individuals protect their data and ensure freedom of expression in the digital space.

AI to support democracy and popular participation

It is vital to transform AI from a tool that contributes to the erosion of relative democracy into one that strengthens and develops it. Technology should empower the masses, enhance political participation on the basis of equality, and guarantee transparency and fairness in democratic processes. AI can be used to develop secure, transparent platforms for dialogue and electronic voting, enabling citizens to express their views and participate directly and effectively in decision-making at all levels, thus enhancing participatory democracy and returning power to the people.

AI tools can also be developed to automatically analyze and expose fake news and disinformation, protecting the public from campaigns aimed at undermining their ability to make fact-based decisions. These tools can be widely and freely employed as part of a broader project to promote media transparency and counter monopolistic media hegemony. This also requires fighting for clear international and local laws preventing AI’s use in manipulating public opinion, ensuring that information provided to the public is accurate, objective, and reflective of reality without class or ideological bias.

Excerpts from Rezgar Akrawi's book Capitalist Artificial Intelligence: Challenges for the Left and Possible Alternatives – Technology in the Service of Capital or a Tool for Liberation?, which has already been translated into several languages. Free link to the book. 

Rezgar Akrawi is an independent leftist, interested in the left and the technological revolution, and works as an expert in system development and e-governance. He is coordinator of the Center for Marxist and Leftist Studies and Research (in Arabic) and the founder and general coordinator of Modern Discussion www.ahewar.org, one of the largest and most prominent leftist and progressive platforms in the Arab world.

References

1. Filter bubble – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble

2.Jonathan Nagler et al. – How tech platforms fuel U.S. political polarization and what government can do about it – Brookings https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-tech-platforms-fuel-u-s-political-polarization-and-hat-government-can-do-about-it

3. PNAS – Algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2025334119

4. Arxiv – The Political Amplification Bias of the Twitter For You Algorithm https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.01852

5. 2021 Facebook leak – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Facebook_leak

6. Meta’s Broken Promises: Systemic Censorship of Palestine Content on Instagram and Facebook – Human Rights Watch (21 https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and

7. Are social media giants censoring pro-Palestine voices amid Israel’s war? https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/10/24/shadowbanning-are-social-media-giants-censoring-pro-palestine-voices

8. Meta ‘stifling’ pro-Palestine voices on social media, rights group says https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/21/meta-stifling-pro-palestine-voices-on-social-media-hrw

9. Why Twitter Blocked Accounts Linked to Farmers’ Protests in India https://time.com/5935003/india-farmers-protests-twitter

10. Civil rights groups urge Facebook to fix 'racially biased' moderation system (facebook-moderation-racial-bias-black-lives-matter) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/18/facebook-moderation-racial-bias-black-lives-matter

11. India: Twitter blocks accounts over farmers’ protest at government request – BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55898708

12. How Elon Musk’s X became the global right’s supercharged front page – The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/04/elon-musk-x-trump-far-right

13. “Yellow Vest” Facebook group with 350,000 members frozen on European election day https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/05/28/vest-m28.html

Economy and Ecology

Storm in a Coffee Cup – a catalogue of global warming effects

Thursday 4 September 2025, by Phil Hearse


Got a spare £2bn lying around unused? If so, here’s an investment opportunity. Coca-Cola, owner of the coffee shop chain Costa Coffee, wants rid of it. Analysts say the asking price is £2bn, though it could probably be snapped up for £1.5bn.


So what’s behind this decision – a substantial markdown on the £3.9bn Coca-Cola paid in 2018? The main driver is the spike in prices for customers, caused largely by the climate crisis, which has badly hit producers in Brazil, Vietnam and Colombia.

The increases at chains like Starbucks, Pret a Manger and Costa have been dramatic. Prices in coffee shops are hard to pin down because “premium” city-centre outlets tend to charge more, and transport hubs such as airports and major railway stations much more still. Starbucks lists a tall latte at £3.65, but that price is hard to find. In city centres, it’s likely closer to £4.50, and in airports well over £5.

For office and shop workers – those full-time employees with a generous six weeks of holiday – buying coffee on the way to work now costs around £900 a year. True, you can linger in Starbucks and make a coffee last for 90 minutes or more. But not if you’re dashing to work.

Climate change is the main factor driving up prices, but another is the rise in fertiliser prices, caused by disruption to Russia’s exports – yet another way Putin’s war in Ukraine has shaken the global economy. On top of that comes disruption to supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, caused by Houthi attacks on shipping in solidarity with the people of Palestine.

Climate change’s impact on coffee reads like a catalogue of global warming effects. Brazil, the world’s largest producer of Arabica beans, has suffered major frosts, droughts and storms. Frosts in particular wiped out young trees that take 20 years to replace. Vietnam’s Robusta crop – the main bean used in instant coffee – has been battered by storms and droughts. Colombia’s crop has suffered similar misfortunes. Experts estimate that by 2050, 40% of land currently used for coffee will be unsuitable for cultivation.

Costa Coffee is said to be in talks with Apollo Global Management, a vast private equity group with holdings across multiple industries, which also owns Waggamama. Its three founding partners have allowed financial giants like BlackRock and Vanguard to take minority stakes.

What might Apollo see in Costa? Perhaps a stripped-down operation that keeps only prime sites – such as central London and airports – where premium prices can be charged. The rest of the estate could be sold off piecemeal. Another option might be to use some outlets to become part of its Wagamama restaurant chain.

Deals of this kind are typically bad news for staff, who often see jobs disappear and conditions worsen. Not that the current situation is brilliant. Full-time baristas in the main coffee chains earn just above the national minimum wage – round £18,000 a year on a 37.5-hour week. That figure looks impossible to live on when the average rent for a one-bedroom flat in London is £1,500 a month, with two-bed flats averaging £1,900. In fashionable areas, rents are higher still.

For young people living alone – or even with a partner who isn’t earning much more – the cost of living is crushing. Two consequences follow: mounting personal debt, as people rely on credit cards for everyday spending; and at the sharpest end, homelessness, particularly among low-skilled, middle-aged men.

Coca-Cola’s retreat from coffee reflects a shift in strategy towards “healthier” drinks. Coffee overtook tea in Britain in the late 20th century, ending a 200-year reign. Now, regular consumption of “premium” coffee – anything beyond instant – looks set to become increasingly the preserve of the middle classes.

2 September 2025

Source: Anti*Capitalist Resistance.

Attached documentsstorm-in-a-coffee-cup-a-catalogue-of-global-warming-effects_a9156.pdf (PDF - 906.1 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article9156]


Phil Hearse  is a member of the National Education Union, a supporter of ACR and co-author of Creeping Fascism (2019).


International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.

Did the Atomic Bombs End World War II?

This is a fundamental question, as its answer is closely tied to the legitimacy of using nuclear weapons. A global reckoning with this issue could lay the groundwork for an international legal ban.

by Reiho Takeuchi | Sep 5, 2025 | 

On September 2, it marked 80 years since Japan signed the Instrument of Surrender, formally ending hostilities with the Allied powers. In 1945, Emperor Shōwa decided to surrender on August 14. Why did Japan choose to accept defeat at that moment? The United States had dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. As a result, many claim that these bombings brought the war to an end. This past June, U.S. President Donald Trump compared American strikes on Iran to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, stating, “That hit ended the war.” But did the atomic bombs truly end World War II?

To explore this question, we must consider two perspectives: how the Japanese government perceived the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and whether the United States intended to use them specifically to force Japan’s surrender.

What was the Japanese government’s response to the atomic bombings?

To begin, let us examine this first question. Experts have pointed out that the role of the Soviet Union’s entry into the war is often underestimated. While many believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the war to an end, another perspective holds that the Soviet declaration of war was the decisive factor. The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8 – two days after the bombing of Hiroshima – and launched an invasion of Manchuria on August 9.

On June 22, 1945, Japanese leaders convened a conference in which Emperor Shōwa urged peace negotiations through Soviet mediation. This was despite the fact that, back in April, the Soviet Union had formally notified Japan of its intention to terminate the Neutrality Pact. Yet Japan continued to pin its hopes on Soviet goodwill, reasoning that the pact remained legally valid until April 1946. The Soviets, for their part, offered no clear response, leaving Japan to wait in vain for a gesture that was never likely to come.

Japan had come to recognize that it could not defeat the United States and the United Kingdom on its own. The Imperial Japanese Army’s plan for a decisive mainland battle would be rendered impossible if the Soviets joined the conflict. Thus, Japan placed its hopes on Soviet mediation, aiming to secure favorable terms for peace – most importantly, the preservation of the Emperor’s position.

Yasuaki Chijiwa, Director of the Department of International Conflict History at the National Institute for Defense Studies, notes that Japanese leaders continued to await a response from the Soviets even after the bombing of Hiroshima. It took two days to assess the devastation in Hiroshima, but once the Soviets entered the war, Japan acted swiftly. Just six hours after the Soviet invasion began, Japanese leaders convened to discuss surrender terms.

Emperor Shōwa stated, “Now that we are at war with the Soviets, it is imperative to bring the conflict to a swift conclusion.” Foreign Minister Shigenori Tōgō echoed this urgency: “We must end the war immediately.” Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki declared, “I have decided to accept the Potsdam Declaration in order to end the war.”

Although the Army continued to insist that a mainland battle could inflict significant damage on the enemy and strengthen Japan’s negotiating position, Emperor Shōwa expressed growing distrust toward the military. He had been informed as early as June 1945 that Japan’s forces lacked the capacity to sustain such a campaign, and this realization is believed to have shifted his stance toward seeking an early peace. He resolved to accept the Potsdam Declaration, provided that the Emperor’s position would be maintained.

The Byrnes Note – a diplomatic reply issued by U.S. Secretary of State James Byrnes on August 11 – did not explicitly guarantee the continuation of the Japanese monarchy. Nevertheless, despite resistance from factions within the military, Emperor Shōwa accepted the terms of the declaration on August 14.

In summary, the two atomic bombs were not the sole or decisive factor in Japan’s decision to surrender. Japanese leaders referred to so-called “new-type bombs,” yet they struggled to comprehend the full extent of their impact in such a short time. Moreover, by that point, roughly 60 Japanese cities had already suffered catastrophic damage from large-scale incendiary bombing campaigns targeting urban populations.

A 1946 report by the United States Strategic Bombing Survey – commissioned by the U.S. military to assess the impact of aerial bombardment during World War II – concluded:

“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

Did the United States intend to force Japan’s surrender through the use of atomic bombs?

This second question invites deeper scrutiny. While it is commonly accepted that the U.S. aimed to end the war by deploying atomic weapons, an alternative perspective suggests that other strategic motives may have been at play.

Professor Yasuhiro Inoue of Hiroshima City University examined the role of James Conant, then-president of Harvard University. Conant also served as chairman of the National Defense Research Committee, an organization that facilitated the militarization of academic research and ultimately contributed to the successful development of the atomic bomb. He emerged as a key architect of the scientific mobilization behind the bomb’s creation.

According to Inoue, Conant’s ultimate goal was to showcase the overwhelming power of atomic weapons to the major powers, thereby shaping the postwar world order, promoting international control of nuclear arms, and advancing the cause of global peace. For this reason, the bombs had to be detonated in densely populated urban centers without prior warning. The war, in effect, needed to continue until the bombs could be deployed.

In September 1944 – two months before the United States learned that Germany had abandoned its nuclear weapons program and eight months prior to Germany’s surrender – President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill secretly signed the Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire. The document included a commitment that the United States would use the atomic bomb against Japan.

In May 1945, the Interim Committee was established as a secret advisory body tasked with making recommendations on the use of atomic weapons and postwar nuclear policy. The committee rejected the precautionary measures and advised President Harry Truman to proceed with the bombings. One recommendation stated: “The most desirable target would be a vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers’ houses.” The intention was to create a plausible justification while ensuring mass civilian casualties.

Japanese researcher Tami Torii argued that President Truman, who assumed office after Roosevelt’s death in April 1945, deliberately sought to prevent Japan’s surrender until the atomic bombs could be used.

As previously noted, Japan had appealed to the Soviet Union to mediate peace negotiations. However, as early as 1943, Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin had informed the United States that the Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan following Germany’s surrender. At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin secretly agreed to this plan, promising the Soviets territorial gains – including South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands – despite the existence of the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact. The Allies concealed from Japan the fact that the Soviets had no intention of mediating.

Torii argued that President Truman and Secretary of State James Byrnes used the Potsdam Declaration as a strategic deception. Although the Declaration was issued on July 26, it omitted the clause guaranteeing the Emperor’s position – a provision that had appeared in earlier drafts written by Secretary of War Henry Stimson. Stimson repeatedly urged Truman to inform Japan that the Allies would accept its request, but Truman deliberately avoided doing so. Moreover, the Declaration was crafted to avoid sounding like an ultimatum, subtly encouraging Japan to dismiss it. The Soviets were excluded from the Declaration, allowing Japan to continue hoping for Soviet mediation. This manipulation became evident after August 9, when Truman and Byrnes ultimately implicitly acknowledged the condition Japan had originally sought.

Ronald Takaki, former professor at the University of California, Berkeley, emphasized that the atomic bombings in Japan were part of a long-term strategy for shaping the postwar world order. Byrnes sought to use the bomb as a means of intimidating the Soviet Union. He told Truman that demonstrating its power could help ensure Soviet subordination to U.S. dominance after the war.

Final Thoughts

Japan’s stance has remained ambiguous. Public discourse largely centers on mourning Japanese victims. The education system tends to emphasize domestic suffering without holding the United States accountable for its wartime actions. Moreover, media coverage rarely questions American responsibility for the atomic bombings. Without a willingness to engage in independent study, Japan risks passively accepting the justification for their use. At the same time, Japanese society often avoids confronting its own wartime atrocities – an issue that both the education system and mainstream media frequently neglect.

Yet the world remains vulnerable to the threat of nuclear weapons and mass civilian killings. In honoring those hibakusha who have courageously spoken out against nuclear arms and shared their stories with the world, we must deepen public discussion about the broader context and hidden motives behind the bombings.

While interpretations may vary, it is time to move beyond manipulated narratives.

Reiho Takeuchi is a writer from Japan specializing in geopolitical issues in East Asia. His recent work has appeared on Substack. He can be reached at reihotakeuchi@gmail.com.

Turkey/Kurdistan

Türkiye: From the Kurdish movement to mass mobilizations

Saturday 6 September 2025, by Uraz Aydin

On the occasion of the agreement on the dissolution of the PKK, Uraz Aydin presents the history of this movement and the evolution of the protest against the Erdoğan regime.

Can you explain what the PKK is and its main orientations, and what differentiates it from other left-wing or nationalist political groups?

The founding of the PKK must be seen in a context of politicization and radicalization. The 1960s witnessed a development of the workers’ movement and revolutionary radicalization, particularly among the youth. But it was also a decade of awakening of Kurdish national consciousness. This Kurdish national politicization was largely achieved within the Workers’ Party of Turkey (TIP), which was the main political actor in the workers’ movement of that decade. It was towards the end of the 1960s, but especially after the amnesty of 1974, when the thousands of Turkish and Kurdish activists detained since the military intervention of 1971 were released , that Kurdish revolutionaries began to found their own independent organizations . [1]. The PKK was founded in the wake of this, but relatively late. Although the organization’s official history dates its origins back to 1973, the founding congress was not held until 1978. Before that, it was a core group of students and especially teachers gathered around Abdullah Öcalan. They called themselves the "Revolutionaries of Kurdistan" but were better known as "Apocu" ("Apo’s supporters" - short for Abdullah). Thus, from the very beginning, Öcalan’s personality had a central influence.

At the programmatic level, nothing specific differentiated it from the multitude of other Kurdish radical left organizations that advocated armed struggle for an "independent, unified, democratic and socialist Kurdistan" in a stagist perspective. [2]. But in the meantime, weapons were mainly used to defend against attacks by the fascist far-right "Grey Wolves" or in the fratricidal war that reigned within the revolutionary left. The PKK was one of the two main groups that did not hesitate to use weapons against other rival Kurdish (and Turkish) groups, but it was not alone in this. Thus, before the 1980 coup d’état [3], the PKK was a Kurdish revolutionary organization among others.

What justified the launch of an armed struggle strategy against the Turkish state in 1984?

In fact, it was mainly after 1984 that the PKK began to take root among the Kurdish plebeian and peasant population. Let’s go back a little. Öcalan left Turkey in 1979 during the state of emergency, but before the coup d’état. This was a decisive element in the construction of the organization. He thus had time to establish contacts with Palestinian resistance groups in Syria and Lebanon, to prepare the conditions of exile for his militants, conditions that would also be those of a real military apprenticeship. After the coup d’état of 1980, Apo thus called on his militants to return clandestinely to Syria. They were trained in the same camps as the Palestinians in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon under Syrian occupation. Some would participate in the resistance against the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The PKK lost several dozen members, which also gave it a certain legitimacy.

The PKK launched the armed struggle in August 1984… because Öcalan considered that his army was now ready. The question of military combat as a method for the liberation of Kurdistan had been justified, not by conjunctural conditions or relationships of forces, but on a programmatic level, since 1978.

The offensive against the Turkish state was planned as early as 1982 but was postponed several times. Moreover, Öcalan was operating in the Middle East, where alliances and adversities between various states and Kurdish national movements (from Iraq and Iran) constituted a highly shifting terrain. This unstable context also weighed on the conditions of the struggle. The alliance he formed with Barzani’s group, dominant in Northern Iraq, a movement he previously considered feudal and reactionary, was, for example, decisive in building his camps in the mountains on the Turkish border and thus being able to launch his guerrilla war. Thus, while all the other Kurdish and Turkish groups tried to preserve their forces in exile, in Syria but especially in Europe, the PKK was the only one to engage in a real armed struggle. The legitimacy it gained through its offensives allowed it to recruit more and more, despite the significant losses of fighters suffered in the field.

40 years later, does the announcement of the dissolution not appear to be a failure, on the military and political levels?

I think that military objectives had already been non-existent for several decades. If for the Öcalan of the party’s founding and of the 1980s, any objective short of independence (various forms of autonomy, federative entities, etc.) was reactionary, the leader of the PKK had begun to revise his ideas from the beginning of the 1990s, particularly after the fall of the bureaucratic dictatorships. As we know, he would eventually come to criticize the nation-state form.

Öcalan had already attempted negotiations in 1993. After his arrest in 1999, he began to advocate a completely new direction, much to the surprise of PKK leaders and activists who were preparing to escalate the war and suicide attacks. This new direction aimed to end the armed struggle in favour of a permanent ceasefire, to pave the way for a political solution. He thus unquestionably renounced the strategic objective of an independent Kurdistan. Two further negotiation processes followed in 2007-2009 and 2013-2015, which unfortunately failed. However, the creation of the autonomous zone of Rojava in northeastern Syria must also be interpreted within this military and political framework. The existence of an administrative structure linked to the PKK on the Turkish border constitutes an important achievement for the organization, against the Turkish state and vis-à-vis its historical competitor in northern Iraq, the Barzani clan and its Kurdistan Democratic Party.

Where are we today in the new talks?

It should be clarified that the Kurdish movement is not only an armed movement. The PKK has managed to form a massive movement of several million people, with various civil structures that have sometimes developed with autonomous dynamics, despite the authoritarianism of the organization. Today, the civil-democratic base seems to be much more important and effective in its fight than the armed structure in terms of the objectives to be achieved for the Kurdish people. So, while there are certainly highly questionable aspects such as its authoritarianism, its excessive fetishism of the leader, the arbitrary internal mass executions (especially at the turn of the 80s and 90s), the dozens of indiscriminate attacks... it must be recognized that this movement, over time, has very strongly contributed to the consolidation of a national consciousness of the Kurdish people, and has largely anchored it on the left, with feminist, egalitarian values, and fraternity between peoples. From a historical point of view, this is an important asset.

At the level of the negotiations, everything started with the unexpected call from the far-right leader and main ally of Erdoğan, Devlet Bahçeli , on October 22, 2024, for Abdullah Öcalan to come and speak in parliament to declare the end of the armed struggle and the dissolution of the PKK. After a period of very opaque negotiations between the Turkish state and Öcalan, with the participation of a delegation from the DEM Party (a left-wing reformist party from the Kurdish movement) and the leadership of the PKK, the founder of the organization, from his prison on the island of Imrali, in the Marmara Sea, announced in a letter on February 27, 2025, that the PKK was to dissolve.

We don’t know what the debates were within the organization. There had already been tensions between Apo and the organization’s Presidential Council in previous negotiations. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine that the PKK leadership would have quickly agreed on a process declared so abruptly. The organization’s leadership strongly emphasizes that the entire process must be led by Öcalan, which can be perceived as a desire not to take direct responsibility for it.

The disarmament of the PKK certainly constitutes an important basis for a demilitarization of the Kurdish question, even though the Erdoğan regime will undeniably try to steer this process according to its interests and in particular to break the alliance between the Kurdish movement and the bourgeois-democratic opposition led by the CHP [4] ,criminalized by the regime. However, we still do not know what democratic advances the Kurds will be able to benefit from with the dissolution of the PKK. A parliamentary commission will probably be formed to determine the measures to be taken. These should include, in a first step, the release of political prisoners (linked to the Kurdish movement), the withdrawal of the guardianship (kayyum) of Kurdish municipalities and the return of mayors to their functions, the reinstatement of "peace academics" to their work and the possibility for Öcalan to freely lead his movement, to be able to communicate with the outside world, to receive visits, etc.

According to the Kurdish movement, other, more structural reforms should follow, concerning the status of their national identity and culture within Turkish society, which would require a new constitution. Erdoğan is planning to change the constitution in order to be able to run in the next elections. Will it be a constitution that will guarantee rights to the Kurds while consolidating the autocratic nature of the regime? The question is controversial, but we are not there yet.

Another issue is the order in which the steps will be taken. Will the state wait until the complete surrender of arms is complete before implementing the supposed democratic reforms, or will the two processes overlap? It seems that Erdogan is opting for the first option—which is difficult for the PKK to accept—while Bahçeli seems more realistic on this point.

What political developments has Turkey experienced since the movement against the imprisonment of Istanbul Mayor İmamoğlu ?

After March 19, we witnessed a social mobilization the likes of which we hadn’t seen in a long time. Millions of citizens took to the streets to defend elected mayors, the right to vote, democracy, and freedom. Although the movement was extremely heterogeneous, there was a notable radicalization, particularly among university and high school students.

As is often the case after spontaneous outbursts, the movement’s momentum faded after a while. However, momentum persisted for a while thanks to boycott campaigns against certain capitalist groups that supported the AKP. But in the absence of sustainable social struggle bases, platforms, and coordination capable of prolonging resistance—aside from occasional calls for meetings launched by the CHP—it can be said that today the movement has lost its momentum in the streets, even though indignation remains very much present.

But the regime continues its crackdown on the CHP, with successive waves of arrests in various Istanbul municipalities. Eleven mayors are currently detained awaiting trial. A final "anti-corruption" wave has been launched against the former CHP mayor of İzmir and his staff (a total of 160 people in custody). Today is the hundredth day since İmamoğlu ’s arrest , and the indictment is still not ready. This clearly shows the extent to which the Erdoğan regime is acting in a completely arbitrary manner. Furthermore, there is also a legal attempt to split the CHP. A trial has been opened for alleged irregularities at the 2023 CHP congress, at which Özgür Özel , the new party chairman, was elected – a leader who, since İmamoğlu ’s arrest, has pursued an opposition policy of unusual firmness for the CHP.

However, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the former party chairman (and former presidential candidate, who lost to Erdogan in 2023), has suggested, in a spirit of revenge, that he could take over the party leadership if the congress were to be cancelled. He also claims that he believes the mobilization that began on March 19 was pointless, that it is a matter between Imamoglu and the judiciary. Thus, there is a clear and public tension between Kilicdaroglu’s team and those of Özel and Imamoglu . For the time being, the trial has been postponed until September.

What is the state of the labour movement today?

The labour movement’s trade union organizations played virtually no role in this protest movement. The working class did not identify with the movement. A significant portion of it remains receptive to Erdoğan’s propaganda, despite a dramatic deterioration in purchasing power over the past several years. And so far, very little effort has been made (particularly by the radical, anti-capitalist, revolutionary left) to make people understand that the democratic question and the social question are intimately linked.

Democratic aspirations must be fertilized with class content. The "proletarian shock" of which Ernst Bloch spoke is still the main thing missing from the fight against the regime. This is the most important, historically decisive, and difficult strategic task facing the revolutionary left. It is about breaking the cultural-religious divide, the maintenance and deepening of which is the AKP’s main weapon, and replacing it with class polarization.

But to return to the weakness of unions in the movement, there are several reasons for this. First of all, the rate of unionization is low in Turkey, at only around 15 per cent. And it must be taken into account that this percentage only includes "declared " workers , therefore not those who work illegally. Thus, the actual level of unionization is even lower.

Moreover, the largest union confederations are conservative and right-wing nationalist. Some are fully in the AKP fold. So we shouldn’t expect any strikes from them, especially in the current political climate. DISK and KESK are the most left-wing confederations. But here, as elsewhere, the links between unions and their members are not always very organic, and there are serious doubts that workers will participate massively in these strikes. Especially since this can represent a serious risk of losing one’s job, given that the laws, and even the Constitution, no longer mean anything in this country. For several years, every strike has been banned ("postponed") because it would undermine national security.

However, in June 2025 there was a strike of 23,000 workers at the Izmir city hall, with a main, very legitimate demand: to obtain wage increases and equal pay with colleagues who do the same work. The strike was led by the Genel-Iş union linked to DISK, organized mainly in the CHP city halls and in strong collusion with them. The strike lasted only less than a week and the workers obtained significant gains at the end of it [5]. But the rank and file of the CHP and the "white collar" fraction of the working class reacted to this strike in a very negative way: "you are playing into the hands of the AKP by weakening our city halls", "why are garbage collectors demanding the same salary as doctors?" This reaction has shown us once again how solidarity and class consciousness always need to be rebuilt even (and perhaps especially) in times of mobilization against a dictatorial regime.

What is the mood among the population regarding the wars waged by Israel?

Anti-Zionism is, by all accounts, a position shared almost unanimously by the population. But there are some difficulties in building a united movement in support of Palestine and against the Israeli offensive against Iran. Erdoğan’s Islamist and nationalist regime naturally adopts an anti-Israeli stance and organizes large rallies in solidarity with Palestine. But it has been shown that trade with Israel and financial and military relations with Tel Aviv continue! Recently, Selçuk Bayraktar , Erdoğan’s son-in-law and manufacturer of the famous Turkish drones, announced the creation of a joint venture with Leonardo, an Italian company criticized for its arms sales to Israel and targeted by protests in several cities around the world. Moreover, the Kürecik radar system, in the NATO military base in Malatya province, is directly integrated into the Israeli defence network. Therefore, Erdoğan’s anti-Zionism is more rhetoric than concrete facts.

Another difficulty is that the Kurdish movement rarely mobilizes on the Palestinian issue. Relations between the Kurdish movement and the Palestinian resistance—whether Öcalan and Arafat, the PKK with the PLO, or Hamas—have been marked by tensions and disagreements since the 1990s. More recently, Cemil Bayık, one of the PKK leaders, had criticized Hamas’s methods during Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and declared that the Palestinian and Jewish peoples must find ways to live in brotherhood. But a more circumstantial reason undoubtedly lies in Washington and Tel Aviv’s support for the YPG (included in the SDF), [6] seen as an ally in Syria. Öcalan had also strongly criticized this situation. During his meeting with the DEM delegation on April 21, 2025, he stated, speaking of the SDF, that "Israel has formed its own Hashd al- Shaabi" (pro-Iranian militias operating in Iraq).

Can there be a new convergence between the Kurdish movement and the opposition, despite Erdoğan’s manoeuvres?

It should be remembered that the convergence between the Kurdish movement and the secular bourgeois opposition worked especially well for the elections. These two opposition forces needed each other to triumph over the regime’s forces, both at the municipal and presidential levels. Ultimately, this was not enough to overthrow Erdoğan in 2023. It is very difficult to predict what the relationships of forces and the dispositions of each of these elements will be by the next election, scheduled for 2028 but which will most likely take place earlier. Will the peace process continue with all the instability and atmosphere of war that reigns in the Middle East? What state will the CHP be in after this immense attempt to criminalize it? Ekrem Will İmamoğlus be free and, above all, eligible to unite the opposition against Erdoğan?

But I think the key is to forge structures capable of guaranteeing the continuity of struggles against the regime in various areas. Whether it is the fight against the opening of olive groves to mining, the women’s movement, the housing crisis – which has become a major problem – the LGBTI movement, or the mobilization of parents against the commodification and Islamization of education, the fundamental objective for the revolutionary left must be to create structures, coordinations and committees in all these fields, to be prepared for the next mass social and/or democratic mobilizations, to prevent this dynamic of combat from evaporating in the space of a few weeks.

4 July 2025

Translated by International Viewpoint from Inprecor.It is an updated version of the one conducted for the Swiss site SolidaritéS .

Attached documentsturkiye-from-the-kurdish-movement-to-mass-mobilizations_a9158.pdf (PDF - 903.5 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article9158]

Footnotes


[1] The memorandum of March 12, 1971, marked a "Turkish-style" military coup, in which the army, without directly seizing power, imposed an authoritarian government under the pretext of restoring order. This intervention aimed to crush the burgeoning labour and student movements, establishing a brutal repression against the revolutionary left. However, with the rise to power of Bülent Ecevit in 1973, an amnesty was proclaimed, allowing the release of many left-wing activists imprisoned after the coup.


[2] Our current considers as "stagist" the idea that the revolution in dominated or feudal countries should be achieved in two stages: first the national or bourgeois revolution, which would constitute a democratic capitalism independent of imperialism, and secondly the social revolution. To this conception, we oppose the theory of permanent revolution, which indicates that the two stages must be combined to succeed.


[3] On September 12, 1980, the military seized power, citing clashes between left-wing and right-wing nationalist political groups. This coup d’état destroyed the gains of workers’ and popular struggles, established a bloody military dictatorship, and laid the foundations for authoritarian neoliberalism in Türkiye.


[4] Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, Republican People’s Party, created in 1923 by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, member of the Socialist International and associate member of the Party of European Socialists.


[5] A retroactive 30 per cent wage increase for the first six months of the year and a 19 per cent increase in July. Inflation is above 35 per cent a year in Türkiye, according to official figures.


[6] The People’s Protection Units (Kurdish: Yekîneyên Parastina Gel) form the armed wing of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) in Syria. The SDF is the Syrian Democratic Forces, which includes the YPG.


Turkey
‘Well dug, old mole!": Mass resistance in Turkey
Kurdistan/Turkey: A Newroz of hope against a backdrop of coup d’état
Türkiye: Political Crisis and Democratic Movement
Turkey and the Neofascist Contagion
Turkey: a mass movement builds against Erdogan’s power grab
Kurdistan
Dissolution of the PKK and new perspectives
Kurdistan: ‘Turkey must choose between the status quo, endless war and peace with the Kurds’.
The Turkish State and the Kurdish Question: Contradictions and fragilities of a new hope
Syria: "The West is sacrificing dozens of peoples and faiths"
Kurds under attack on all fronts

Uraz Aydin
* Uraz Aydin is the editor of Yeniyol, the review of the Turkish section of the Fourth International, and one of many academics dismissed for having signed a petition in favour of peace with the Kurdish people, in the context of the state of emergency decreed after the attempted coup in 2016.


International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.