Radical or reactionary? : Kemal as proto Tea Party novelist

Toward the end of Yashar Kemal's "The Burn the Thistles," the folk-hero Slim Memed reflects that his life as a resistance fighter, or "brigand," as the novel calls it, has been pointless: the peasants of the Turkish village (Vayvay) could defeat the evil Ali Safa Bey, and a new one, a thousand tyrants, would rise to take his place. This is a grim and despairing viewpoint and gets at the heart of the ideology of this novel. Difficult to grasp as it may be, it seems to me that Kemal's book purports to be or imagines itself as a radical tract in support of the poor peasants and villagers who rise up against the oppression of the tyrant, government-backed landlords. No doubt the peasants are noble and true to one another (for the most part) and brave and close to the earth and to the forces of nature, where as the landlords are cruel and comically evil and obsessed with wealth and power and possessions - in other words, all the cliches. But is it really so? It would help to know something about Turkish history - Kemal presupposes an informed Turkish readership and gives little or no context - but it seems to me that in glorifying the peasants and, in particular, in making them completely dependent for the strength and bravery on a single, almost mythical leader (Memed), he actually has a very reactionary view of Turkish society: central government is evil, the workers close to the earthy should be left alone in their rural poverty because they're happier that way. Is this really true? Or is it a false nostalgia at best and a proto-Tea Party call (similar to the late Tolstoy?) for an end to social reforms and to progressive government?