The current historic moment unites all those who struggle for socialism in one common stance: insistence on socialism.
Socialist movements around the world, as well as individuals or circles concerned with this question, experienced the most intense diversity of views and debates on socialism in the nineteenth century. The nineteenth century is marked as the century in which the main theoretical framework of socialism began to be constructed.
Those who study socialism generally converge on one common point: they take the “Enlightenment Period,” when the concept of socialism began to develop theoretically, as their reference. At that time, the viewpoints that prioritized social problems were accepted as the main starting point. In this regard, the views of Jean-Jacques Rousseau hold an important place. It is also necessary to mention that Pierre Leroux, assumed to be the first to use the concept of socialism at the beginning of the nineteenth century, as well as Marie Roch Louis and Robert Owen, were among the followers of Henri de Saint Simon (1760–1825).
The Industrial Revolution and the rise of capitalist modernity intensified contradictions and conflicts, while thinkers of the time systematized their views on socialism and engaged in heated debates among themselves. As a result, a turning point emerged in the development of socialist thought, a new era, so to speak. Saint Simon, Robert Owen, and Charles Fourier began to be considered “Utopians” in this phase and were defined as “Utopian Socialists.” François-Noel Babeuf (1760–1797), who took a revolutionary stance against the Directory period during the 1789 French Revolution, was also included among those in this line. This did not stop there: those who developed views on socialism sought to systematize and conceptualize their ideas. Within this scope, those who embraced or sympathized with these views began to be referred to as followers. Intensifying social problems, class contradictions, and conflicts further expanded and spread these ideas. The fact that numerous ideas were defended in the name of socialism in the nineteenth century is itself evidence of this.
Proudhonian, Bakuninian, Blanquist, Lassallean, Bernsteinian, and Marxist interpretations and evaluations of socialism emerged and developed within such a historical process. By its nature, intense and relentless ideological struggle also occurred among these theoreticians and those who defended them. Arguments were developed and employed to refute one another’s ideas. Countless articles, brochures, and books were published on this subject. Many materials documenting the debates between Marx, Bakunin, and Proudhon have survived to the present day and still serve as the most important reference sources in ongoing debates. This can also be clearly seen in evaluations related to Lassalle and Bernstein.
Efforts of Marx and Engels
In the circumstances of the nineteenth century, those who claimed to defend socialism also possessed the means to reach broad segments of society. In France, the Proudhonians, in Germany, the Lassalleans, and in England, the Fabian Associations experienced a more extensive quantitative development. Marxists, in comparison, advanced more slowly, yet followed a qualitatively deeper path. The impact of the 1848 Revolution, the organisational efforts that foresaw the unity of the working class internationally, their openness to developments, their political flexibility, and their ability to renew themselves intellectually, placed Marxist Socialists at a more advantageous position than others. In this sense, it is necessary to see the importance of the search Marx and Engels entered into while they developed the theory of socialism, and their openness to what was new.
Marx’s views on socialism must also be considered within this framework. When evaluating “Primitive Communist” communities, Marx stated: “If these communities had been able to endure long enough, they could have transitioned to communism. Because the means of production were used in common, and the fundamental principle ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ was being realised…” Likewise, in the period in which he exchanged letters with the Russian Marxist Vera Zasulič, he expressed similar views as a result of the research he carried out: “…in theoretical terms, the Russian rural commune, by developing the communal ownership of land on which it is based and at the same time eliminating the principle of private property which it implies, can preserve itself; it can become a direct starting point for the economic system toward which modern society tends; rather than beginning by committing suicide, it can open a new page; it can become the possessor of the fruits that capitalist production has brought to humanity, without passing through the capitalist regime. (…) If the revolution comes at the opportune moment, if the rural commune gathers and concentrates all its forces to enable it to attain its full scope, the rural commune will very soon develop as an element of renewal within Russian society and as an element of superiority vis-à-vis the countries enslaved by the capitalist system.”
Naming it as scientific socialism
When looking at the dates of Marx’s correspondence with Vera Zasulič, it is necessary to see its direct connection with the findings and data that emerged under the conditions of that period. And not only in this respect: when Marx encountered the knowledge and data regarding Native Americans in Lewis Henry Morgan’s book Ancient Society, what he saw there not only resonated with his own views, but also enriched the interpretations and evaluations he made about history and society. This can also be seen in the book written by Engels, whose influence from Marx is unquestionable, titled The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Marx’s naming of his conceptualised views as “Scientific Socialism” must be considered a crucial subject that requires careful attention.
Marx did not adopt a one-dimensional approach when forming his system of thought. He demonstrated an approach grounded in the unity of history, society, economy, and philosophy. In developing Scientific Socialism, he established its connection with English Political Economy, the French Revolution, and German Philosophy. He accepted Political Economy, Scientific Socialism, Dialectical and Historical Materialism as the foundational pillars of this doctrine. Furthermore, he identified the role played by the theory of evolution, the living cell, and the discovery of energy, found their historical significance, and shaped his theory through these developments. For this reason, Scientific Socialism gained broader acceptance than other interpretations of socialism and embarked upon a process of being put into practice.
As can be seen in the prefaces written for each new edition of the Communist Manifesto, Scientific Socialism consistently embraced renewal and carried a characteristic of enriching itself intellectually and practically. As is also understood from Engels’ works Dialectics of Nature and Anti-Dühring, a struggle was carried out against false ideas and tendencies. Thus, Marx and Engels never remained static or stagnant but were always in a process of renewal. In doing so, they did not create clichés or rigid formulas. Leninism, accepted as the Marxism of the twentieth century, became, in its own time, the name of the search for solutions to the problems of putting socialism into practice under changing world conditions, and it waged this struggle accordingly.
Socialism continues to play its role today
We are living in the years in which the first quarter of the twenty-first century has been completed. At the end of the twentieth century, when Real Socialism dissolved, the system of capitalist modernity sought to “reorganise” the world, and even outer space, in line with its own interests. The Third World War, which began in the last quarter of the twentieth century and still continues today, is being used as the fundamental instrument of this global reorganisation.
Marx and Lenin played their roles and paid heavy prices for the victory of the search and struggle for socialism in their own time. The theoretical, ideological, political, organisational, and practical developments they pioneered and developed were the result of this. They did not view the templates of the past as insurmountable, nor did they adopt a religious or dogmatic approach. For this reason, Marxism, which in the nineteenth century was accepted as Scientific Socialism was, in the twentieth century, accepted as Leninism, and they both came to be recognised as the pioneers of the historical development of socialism.
Under today’s conditions as well, socialism continues to exist on the basis of its historicity, and the struggle waged for it continues to play its role in its entirety. Today, the task of socialists is also defined as rebuilding themselves according to changing world conditions and playing the role of leadership. Just as Marx and Engels fulfilled their historical duty and responsibility in the nineteenth century, and Lenin did so in the twentieth century, it is necessary to struggle for socialism in the twenty-first century as well and this struggle carries historical meaning and importance.
The legacy of the struggle for socialism
Under today’s conditions, it is no longer possible to speak of Real Socialism, the term used during the Brezhnev era for “achieved socialism” in the Eastern Bloc and in the Soviet Union. In those places, state-based “socialism” experiments collapsed. Beyond those bankrupt experiments, those in various geographies of the world who carried out revolutions in an effort to build state-based socialism also became part of the capitalist system. Likewise, movements, organisations, and parties that waged state-based struggles for independence, democracy, and socialism were dragged into the capitalist system and could not prevent their own dissolution. Within this framework, it is necessary to regard both the socialist experiments of the past, and the revolutionary and socialist struggles being waged today, as major experiences from which conclusions must be drawn. Taken together, all of these are legacies of the struggle for socialism. The task before us is to provide correct answers to the question of how this legacy should be handled, and how it should be placed at the service of ongoing socialist struggles. The answers to be given on this basis are no different from the answers of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. And, as Öcalan stated, the slogan that stands out here is: “Insisting on socialism is insisting on being human.”
There are aspects of achieved socialist experiments, national liberation struggles, and class struggles that have become part of history and have contributed to history and these cannot be denied. We also cannot ignore the aspects in which they failed. If there has been dissolution and failure, the reasons for this must also be seen. Correct conclusions must be drawn from them. In order to reach the right conclusions from lived practice, one must correctly examine the reasons and the results of that practice, and put them through the filter of correct criticism and self-criticism. The path to success passes through this. One of the fundamental tasks before us in the struggle for socialism is precisely this.
Marx and Engels criticised the Utopian Socialists, yet they did not deny their existence or their contributions. They accepted Babeuf as a pioneer for themselves. Likewise, they stated that they were influenced by Hegel and Feuerbach, yet they did not refrain from surpassing them. They debated with Proudhon and Bakunin, yet when necessary, they sought to walk together. However, they maintained their insistence on the ideas they believed to be true.
For these reasons, they also played the role of vanguard in the realisation of revolutions in the twentieth century. They prioritised dynamism over stagnation in thought, organisation, and action; they prioritised richness in method. They acted and struggled according to the “concrete analysis of concrete conditions.” As can be understood from their evaluations and criticisms, they insisted on the correct and revolutionary stance, even in the moments when they were most challenged.
Insistence in socialism against capitalism
The historical significance of the moment we are going through lies in one shared point embraced by everyone who claims socialism and wages this struggle: insistence in socialism. Even discussing this is unnecessary. Yet there are “achieved socialism” experiments that dissolved and failed. The world is in a state of chaos. The capitalist-imperialist system sees these conditions as an opportunity for itself and seeks to reorganise its system of exploitation and plunder upon them. What needs to be done in response, and the attitude that must be taken, is very clear. It is insistence in socialism. What is fundamental is how its requirements will be fulfilled.
It is not possible to fulfil what is necessary through the experiments and practices of “achieved socialism.” If insistence on “achieved socialism” continues and the same path is followed, the outcome will not change, it will again be nothing but disappointment. For this reason, a repetition of what has already happened will not go beyond being a repeat of the past. What is necessary is not repetition, it is to become a force of solution by drawing upon the experience gained from them and by conducting a concrete analysis of concrete conditions. This requires analysing the process we are in, redefining the fundamental tasks and responsibilities of today, and putting new strategies, tactics, and instruments into practice accordingly. In doing so, it is necessary to adopt a broader perspective not limiting the “achieved socialism” experience only to individuals, or to the mistakes made, or to what was not done. The approach that comes to the fore here concerns the parameters that are prioritised in arriving at solutions. All failures to date, all evaluations, criticisms, and practices regarding “achieved socialism,” have been questioned on this basis, and in the end, not even as much as a barley grain of progress has been made. This was not all: time was wasted; energy and strength were lost; conditions could not be utilised. And this turned into a major possibility, an opportunity, for the capitalist modernity system.
Today, it is known that revolutionary and socialist movements in the world are in a state of search and struggle to solve fundamental problems. One can say that this search and struggle did not begin today, but earlier. Beginning from the second half of the 1960s, the emergence of the Revolutionary Youth movements that swept almost the entire world, and the question “what kind of socialism” that surfaced, was an expression of this. Despite the fact that revolutionary struggles in various countries of the world and state-based socialism experiments have become extensions of the capitalist modernity system, these searches continue. They are becoming a source of hope, strength, and morale for humanity and the future. When these realities are not taken into account, it is not possible to give a sufficient and correct meaning to Öcalan’s Manifesto for Peace and Democratic Society.
The theoretical openings and perspectives of Öcalan
Abdullah Öcalan’s Manifesto for Peace and Democratic Society must be addressed and evaluated within historical and social reality. This is also a requirement of socialism. If this is not done, neither history nor society can be understood. The views put forward cannot be accurate; they remain fragmented, limited to retelling what happened in the past, and cannot produce solutions. In such a case, the meaning they carry is taken outside its essence. The Manifesto for Peace and Democratic Society must be addressed with such an approach. This approach will bring us together with a correct understanding and struggle of socialism. Any other approach cannot be accepted. Socialism is as historical as it is social, it is the present. As it gains meaning in the Manifesto for Peace and Democratic Society; it is the unity of these. It describes the “Longue durée,” that is, both yesterday and today. The first sociality that began with communes, and the current struggle waged against the destruction of society, express this meaning. Therefore, when the meaning and definition of socialism, as expressed by Öcalan is not correctly understood, it becomes impossible to understand the struggle waged in the name of sociality, and the role and position of those who lead it. Likewise, the fundamental reason why Marx and Engels named their views “Scientific Socialism” cannot be understood.
Every historical period and every transitional phase produces currents of thought that express the fundamental characteristics of that period, and they feel the need to show the difference between themselves and what lies outside them. The words used and the meanings attributed to these words in accordance with the mission undertaken, express such meaning. If this were not so, the difference between them and what precedes them, as well as the reason for their existence, could not be understood. The fact that Marx and Engels did not call their teachings simply “socialism” or “utopian socialism” but named them “Scientific Socialism” finds its place within such a reality.
Criticisms towards real socialism
When the official representatives of the Second International crossed over to the ranks of their own imperialist bourgeoisie, communists, in order to make their difference clear, placed the word “Communist” at the beginning of their party names, and this expressed precisely such a reality. Likewise, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), in its fourth congress in 1990, adopted a similar method through its constitutional changes regarding the symbols and emblems associated with Real Socialism. Later, in his analyses and evaluations, Öcalan made this distinction even clearer through the criticisms he developed towards Real Socialism, and with the theoretical openings he developed, particularly on women, the state, and power, he put forward assessments that surpassed the existing mindset of the time. He also introduced methods other than armed struggle in the resolution of the Kurdish national question.
Likewise, it is understandable that those who were in search during such periods attributed different meanings to concepts they used under the conditions of their time, or expressed themselves with different concepts. When examined closely, it will be seen that there are many such examples in the periods of Marx–Engels and Lenin. Therefore, in order to correctly understand the concepts used, whether we agree with them or not, the correct approach is to evaluate them within the meaning framework in which they were first used and reach conclusions accordingly. Concepts used by Öcalan should also be approached on this basis. Beyond this, to cherry-pick, to make them a matter of polemics through demagogic discourse, is unacceptable, nor is it an ethical attitude.
In both the Manifesto of Democratic Civilization and the Manifesto for Peace and Democratic Society, Öcalan very clearly expresses the meaning and reasoning of the concepts he uses. Yet, artificial agendas and debates are still being witnessed. There can be no acceptable aspect to this. What needs to be done is to correctly understand what Öcalan is saying and trying to achieve and to approach and struggle accordingly. Today, there is no other valid path. What is valid is insistence in socialism. Searching for other paths, or occupying oneself with different searches, is not only the wrong choice, it also does not lead to socialism.
Real socialism
The following can also be noted for some of the key concepts: Real Socialism, this concept began to be used during the Brezhnev period for the “achieved socialism” in the Soviet Union and in the Eastern European countries, except Albania and Yugoslavia. What was highlighted by this concept was that the political practices implemented in these countries diverged from and differed from, the general socialist theory. When this concept was used, these countries were the first that came to mind. However, the Communist Parties of the Soviet Union, as well as those of countries such as Bulgaria and East Germany, influenced Communist Parties in various geographies of the world through their relations and thus these were also referred to as ideological and political projections of Real Socialism.
At the time, when the concept of Real Socialism was being used, the World Socialist Movements were also internally divided. The Party of Labour of Albania (Enver Hoxha) and the Communist Party of China (Mao Zedong) were in a practical confrontation with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which they accused of social-imperialism. This confrontation also showed its impact within revolutionary and socialist movements internationally. As a result, Communist Parties in different countries that had relations with the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries were evaluated as parties under the ideological and political influence of Real Socialism.
In the end, the Soviet Union and the states which, like Albania and Yugoslavia, defined themselves as having different “models of socialism” collapsed. Most of the Communist Parties there either dissolved or attempted to continue under different names. Those in various geographies of the world who claimed to stand in opposition to the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, and who had carried out revolutions and attempted state-based “socialism”, also became part of the capitalist system. From that point onward, Real Socialism turned into a general concept used for the “achieved socialism” experiments that dissolved and became extensions of the capitalist system, that is, for state-based socialism.
Whatever name is used, when discussing the state-based “achieved socialism” experiments that dissolved and became an appendage of the capitalist system, correct conclusions must be drawn from the practices of the groups, movements, and parties that were under their ideological and political influence and that set out on the same road. Likewise, it must be known that the primary reason behind such an outcome is the very parametric framework which shaped their ideological and political line. Above all, within these parameters, it must never be forgotten that the dominant approach was that of a power- and state-centred understanding of revolution and socialism, along with thought structures which reproduce the human–nature, primary–secondary, centre–periphery, subject–object, and female–male divisions.
Scientific socialism
Scientific Socialism must be considered completely separate from “achieved socialism.” Confusing these, or assigning similar meanings to them, will never lead us to a correct conclusion. On the contrary, it leads to mistaken thinking, and to erroneous political and practical attitudes. While the concept of Real Socialism which entered the literature during the Brezhnev period in the Soviet Union, referred to the experiments of states that claimed to act in the name of socialism, socialism itself carries a broader meaning. Scientific Socialism, however, bases itself on dialectical materialism in the struggle to achieve socialism. It formulates universal theses based on objective reality and scientific facts. It develops social, political, and economic theories. Marxist Socialism is also known as Scientific Socialism. It takes into account the conditions of time and place. It grounds material, economic, and social life in the mode of production. It regards the disruption of harmony between the productive forces and the relations of production and the transformation of this into contradiction, as the inevitability reached by social change. Since Marx, this has been taken as the fundamental datum guiding the theory and practice of individuals, parties, and movements who base themselves on Scientific Socialism. In this sense, it must never be confused with Real Socialism.
Democratic socialism
Democratic Socialism gains meaning as an ideological and political concept. At its core, democracy and socialism are not concepts that exclude one another. They possess an intertwined unity of meaning. Therefore, using democracy and socialism together as a concept carries no theoretical or ideological drawback, on the contrary, it allows the emphasis to be made more strongly. When this concept was first used, it was not approached differently. Engels, when expressing the distinction from the Utopian Socialists, did not reject this. It is also known that many Marxist Socialists defined themselves as “Democratic Socialists.” In this sense, it is not a concept rejected in general. However, later this interpretive framework diversified according to changing conditions and became a subject of polemics. The reason for this was the differences that began to emerge in the struggle for socialism and their reflection onto the ideological and political sphere. More precisely, this concept being taken out of the general definition of socialism and made “specialised.” Even further, being used to identify individuals and groups accused of deviation from socialism, turning its usage almost into a “crime.”
What befell the concept of “Democratic Socialism” is no different. So much so that, under the conditions in which the Social-Democratic and Revolutionary Communist line took shape, leading towards party formation within the Second International, this concept was specialised to describe people’s positions, and became loaded with a metaphorical meaning that characterised social democrats. In this framework, they were defined as representing a deviation from the struggle for socialism, a drift into the capitalist modernity system. As mentioned above, the concept of Social Democracy became an ideological and political term that expressed their exclusion from socialism, following the betrayal of its official representatives.
When the history of socialist struggles is examined, it is possible to encounter many similar outcomes. Of course, socialists must draw correct conclusions for themselves from historical experiences. However, drawing conclusions from history and experience does not justify reductionist approaches that slip into dogmatism. On the contrary, it makes it necessary to update concepts according to changing conditions and to interpret them correctly and appropriately, and to build thought upon this basis. Furthermore, under the conditions in which “Real Socialism” collapsed, and in which “achieved socialism” became an appendage of the capitalist modernity system, such an approach becomes even more necessary.
Giving meaning to concepts solely on the basis of the phases they went through, interpreting them accordingly, and building thought upon this basis, is not correct, it means confusing what should be distinguished, or putting apples and pears on the same scale.
Democratic society socialism
Democratic Society Socialism is also a concept that is charged with a meaning in which the terms complement one another without mutual negation. The fact that socialism is embodied on the basis of democracy and society should not be subjected to a different interpretation. Essentially, what this concept describes are the policies that were developed and put into practice towards democracy and society within “achieved socialism.” In other words, it is the assertion that socialism can reach success only by rising upon its fundamental bases in the face of the fully proven bankruptcy of policies that sought to build socialism without democracy and without society. The Kurdistan Democratic Communes Union is the realised form of Democratic Society Socialism. The Communalist Fellowship Movement is the blood that gives life to the body, that keeps it standing, that runs through its veins.
Undoubtedly, these concepts that we emphasise with a single sentence each require a much broader elaboration and exposition within themselves. They will later be explained and written in greater detail. What can be stated here is that the meaning attributed to these concepts does not constitute the “updating of Marxism” or of socialism. That is, it is not the construction of the theory of socialism from scratch. Both of these approaches would contain many errors within them and would not carry a meaning other than an obscuration that prevents the essential from being seen. The historical conditions in which Marxist Socialism or Scientific Socialism, as the founders defined it emerged, and the historical role it played, make its repetition impossible; and in the meaning that socialism expresses historically and socially, this also does not allow such a thing. What must be understood here is to become an agent of existence within the struggle grounded upon the fundamental bases of socialism, which exists within its historicity, its sociality, and its contemporaneity, within the “Longue Durée.”
This text first appeared in the ANF news agency (under the title “Sosyalizmde ısrar” on November 3, 2025).