Zeki Bayhan, Kurdish politician and author of numerous writings on democratic socialism
“To know what we will do, we must first know who we are.” Peter Weiss
The use of the term “socialism” has a relatively short history, yet its conceptual equivalent is societality or communalism. Therefore, it can be seen as a common name for all those societal struggles and structures developed in the name of society and for society. In this sense, the history of socialist struggles is the history of all struggles that have emerged against the culture of domination. Whether economic, gender-related, or cultural: all struggles that oppose any form of exploitation and submission are socialist struggles. Therefore, it remains an incomplete interpretation to limit the idea of socialism to the last 200-300 years of modern times, or even just to the period since the emergence of Marxism.
Undoubtedly, the socialist theories and struggles of the last 200-300 years – from the utopian socialists to Marxism – have had a strategic place and role in socialist thought. However, other experiences should not be overlooked: for example, those of the Qarmatians, who established a communalist system between the 9th and 10th centuries. The Qarmatians1 were able to create a structure that lasted longer than the Soviet Union. We bring this example up for the following reason: socialism – including Marxism – cannot and must not be limited to a specific era. The Qarmatians represent a communal mindset and organization that opposed the dominant politics of Islam at the time.
This should not be understood as trivializing Marxism. Marx is one of the most brilliant socialist thinkers in the history of humanity. We continue to draw lessons from Marxism, and we keep learning from Marx. What we want to emphasize is the following: as much as Marxism contains a brilliant perspective that still illuminates us today, it ultimately remains an interpretation of a specific era – the concrete analysis of the conditions of the 19th century. Conditions have changed after 200 years, so the analysis also has to change. And this change in the analysis brings with it a multifaceted need for change: from ideology to organizational structures up to and including the strategy of struggle. Marx himself continuously reviewed and revised his thinking during the period from 1848, when he wrote the Communist Manifesto, until his death.
Since the collapse of the Soviet system, socialism has largely retreated to the realm of intellectual debate. It was shifted from the field of societal organization to university lecture halls and conference rooms. And these debates carried – and still carry – the marks of the melancholy that the socialist world fell into after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In other words after the loss of socialism a state of disorientation developed.
What should have been done was what was necessary: to draw lessons from the outcome of a proper critical-self-critical analysis and to revive the socialist struggle. However, very few people emerged who truly made this their cause. Those who did emerge were often trapped within personal or group-specific boundaries.
With the 1968 movement, it became clear that the modernist paradigm, in both its right-wing and left-wing forms, had collapsed. This is what we refer to as a systemic crisis. No right-wing or left-wing structure formed within the horizon of modernist thinking can be placed outside of this crisis. In fact, the ’68 movement was not a classical socialist movement. Rather, it expressed the idea that neither liberalism nor the experiences of real socialism had realized the utopias they promised – and, more importantly, that they would not be able to do so.
In light of this development, the capitalist modernity, particularly through the politics of globalization, began to search for new ways out. The socialist world, on the other hand, generally read the 1968 movement as a rebellion against the capitalist Western world. In reality, it was the Soviet system that was under greater pressure – and thus at a higher risk. A thorough examination of the Soviet system during the period 1970-1990 will make this quite apparent.
Socialism and Criticism – Self-Criticism
Marxist theory is a theory of criticism, and from the very beginning, it has also been subject to self-criticism. The Marx-Proudhon debates were extremely productive in this regard. However, when Marxist-socialist movements came to power, a noticeable shift occurred in the culture of criticism. One of the main reasons that led the Soviet system to its destruction was its break with the culture of criticism and self-criticism. After the revolution, the direction of criticism in the Soviet Union was turned outward. Criticism of the Soviet system was understood as counter-revolutionary. The system was deprived of criticism – and thus of self-criticism. The voice of criticism was stifled. A structure that closes itself off from criticism cannot renew itself; it cannot cleanse itself of its flaws and problematic aspects.
A similarly problematic approach prevails in many socialist movements. Revolutionary movements exist through criticism of the prevailing system; they are intrinsically movements of criticism. This understanding automatically perceives criticism of socialist movements as counter-revolutionary. This mindset is an inheritance of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) within socialist movements worldwide. It is so rigid – one must call it a dogma – that movements claiming to lead a socialist struggle for over 100 years do not question themselves, feel no need for renewal, despite having made no progress, and continue to speak grandly in the face of all these failures.
Realism in revolutionary politics is both a trap and a stage. If you limit yourself to realism, you will eventually anchor in the harbor of conservative politics and fall into the trap. However, if you read reality as an analysis of concrete conditions and use that as a base to build solid bridges to revolutionary ideals, you lead a successful revolutionary process. In this case, realism becomes a stage that propels the revolutionary struggle forward. It is a simple reality: whether it calls itself Marxist, Leninist, or Maoist – the socialist experiences brought the 20th century to an end with great disappointments. Socialist movements, under Soviet leadership, took power in a third of the world according to the Marxist revolutionary strategy, yet they collapsed. Why?
We must not fall into the illusion that this collapse can be reduced solely to the difficulties encountered along the way. Of course, each experience had its own specific mistakes and flaws; they must be examined. However, when the outcome is the same everywhere, we must problematize the common foundations: system analysis, revolutionary strategy, power, and state politics, etc.
The world today is darker than the one of the 20th century: for workers, for oppressed cultures and ethnicities, for women, for nature, and for all living beings within nature… In the past 40-50 years globalization policies did not just lead to the ruthless exploitation of labor, but to the exploitation of the entire planet – which will continue. While global corporations are being fattened poverty and misery grow daily. With globalization, the spiral of war and violence continues. Massive migration movements have already emerged, affecting tens of millions of people.
Let’s look at Turkey. In Turkey, labor has never been exploited as ruthlessly as it is today. Trade union rights have never been so curtailed. Unemployment and poverty have never been so widespread. Belief, identity, culture, and lifestyles have never been under such ruthless pressure. The divide between society and capital has never been so deep. In light of this, is there any movement that, in the name of socialism, descends into society, organizes, and can create a social base? And doesn’t this picture tell us something?
In short: The socialist struggles and power experiences of the 20th century have dissolved; the political economy of the prevailing system has changed; the exploitation of labor has intensified; globalization policies have destroyed society in various ways; the ecological crisis has reached a level that threatens life itself. Under these conditions, it is a historical obligation of the socialist world, including Marxism, to draw lessons from the history of social struggles through a self-critical reading and, based on a concrete analysis of the present conditions, create a new path out through the interplay of theory and practice.
The Dissolution of the Socialist Vanguard Role and Öcalan’s Mission
While some mourned the collapse of the Soviet system and others struggled with melancholic feelings, Öcalan declared his position with the phrase “Insisting on socialism is to insist on humanity.” This was in the early 90s. It was also a declaration of the decision: a path will be found. This search represents one of the most strategic dimensions of Öcalan’s revolutionary struggle in the last few decades. For the crisis in which socialism found itself was not primarily a Kurdish or Middle Eastern problem, but a global crisis.
One could say that in his search for a socialist path forward, Öcalan had two advantages in addition to his leadership abilities. First: He had begun the struggle as a socialist. Within the socialist movement in Turkey, he was strongly influenced by Mahir Çayan and had great sympathy for him. After founding the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), he closely followed the Soviet Union; he developed relationships with groups like the Iraqi Communist Party and the Bulgarian Communist Party. Socialism formed his theoretical foundation, but he also engaged with its political representations. This created both theoretical and practical skills.
Secondly, Öcalan had thoroughly analyzed the reality of the Middle East in the specific context of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran – their political power structures and social fabric. The fact that the Kurdish liberation movement could survive and even become stronger in a region like the Middle East for half a century – despite war, displacement, division and siege – is also based on a combat strategy linked to Öcalan’s ideological and political experiences.
Chaos is creative, the mother of all creations. The crisis and chaotic situation that socialism found itself in didn’t just demand the responsibility to reflect upon it, it also created opportunities for free thinking. This was a good foundation for learning from the socialist struggles that had been waged with great sacrifices. For not only truths, but also mistakes, are instructive.
History unfolds in waves and takes its course, but sometimes it assigns a central role to certain individuals in its progression. Öcalan is a leader who began the struggle for the solution to the Kurdish question from a socialist perspective and made rapid progress. In the early 1990s, he found himself confronted with the crisis of socialism, a crisis that, on a national, regional, and global level, encompassed broad, oppressed social classes. He was one of the rare individuals capable of taking responsibility – and, in a sense, he had to. For he was a socialist and represented a socialist movement that was rising and gaining societal support. This was a responsibility history imposed on Öcalan. And he showed the strength to live up to it.
The concept of “society socialism”
This terminology is somewhat confusing. After all, socialism inherently means societality. So why “society socialism”? Because socialism has always been identified with the state and power – and has been perceived in this way. This stems from the fact that the Marxist revolutionary strategy is based on seizing state power and achieving socialism through proletarization.
The conceptualization indicates that the direction of the socialist struggle shifts from the goal of seizing state power to the building of society. With the term “society socialism”, Öcalan doesn’t just intend to reconnect socialism with its philosophical core but also to provide a clear direction with his socialist organization and politics. According to this vision, all political, economic, and cultural organizations will take society as their foundation.
Some circles criticize this argument, claiming it lacks a perspective on power. If power is defined as the state and centralized political force, then this criticism is correct. However, if power is defined as societal strength and will, then it is not. The power perspective being laid out here is the transfer of power from the state and political power centers to society, to the societal base. One cannot say that there is no power simply because everyone possesses power – but there are no power center. This can be described as a perspective that replaces centralized political power with societal power.
Societal socialism is against the centralization of power in the state or in state-like organizational structures – even in the name of socialism.
Criticism and systemic construction are not the same
There has always been criticism of Marxism and socialist experiences: from anarchism regarding the centralization of power (the state) and hierarchy; from feminism for the way gendered exploitation was addressed; from the ecology movement for the exploitation of nature and the affirmation of industrialism; from cultural movements with criticisms related to identity politics. In addition, there is the multifaceted criticism of postmodernism.
All of these criticisms can be one-sided due to their respective perspectives. However, each of them points to a deficiency or a disturbance. The renewed systemic construction of socialism is something different. Even if Marxist-socialist theory and experiences addressed the gender question on the basis that feminism demands, it would not necessarily mean that all the other criticisms would be answered.
The Frankfurt School and postmodern philosophy have formulated multifaceted criticisms of Marxism and socialist experiences. And both in the Frankfurt School and in postmodern philosophy, there are strong Marxist threads. Yet, despite their criticisms that broaden the horizons, they do not discuss the renewed, systemic construction of socialism.
The Reconstruction of Socialism
The reconstruction of socialism requires a systemic holism – philosophically, ideologically, and in the model of organization. Without such a systemic holism, the dialectic of the part and the whole cannot function.
Öcalan’s formulation of democratic societal socialism expresses such holism. For in this formulation, on a philosophical level, the perspectives based on democracy, ecology, and women’s liberation; on an ideological level, democratic societal socialism; and on an organizational level, confederalism are systemically intertwined with each other.
A – Philosophical Context: The Democratic-Ecological, Gender-Liberating Perspective
This perspective is based on three aspects:
1 – System Analysis
Öcalan analyzes the capitalist system not as a system of the last few centuries, but as the final and most crisis-ridden phase of 5,000 years of state civilization.
The fact that state civilization, rather than capitalism, is problematized represents a paradigmatic shift in analysis. An analysis that only problematizes capitalism focuses solely on capitalist power and the capitalist state. However, an analysis that problematizes state civilization itself addresses the state organizational form as such. This difference directly influences many components: from the power analysis in revolutionary theory to the strategy of revolution and the model of societal organization.
According to Öcalan, a correct analysis of capitalism is only possible if it is evaluated together with state civilization and as a phase of it. This is because the codes of capitalist political economy were established in the dawn of state civilization.
Some socialist circles reject Öcalan’s thesis that, instead of the Marxist class contradiction, the contradiction between the commune and the state should be emphasized. However, behind the historical and societal analysis based on the commune-state contradiction lies a systemic analysis that understands capitalism as a phase within state civilization. If state civilization is the problem, then it is an inevitable outcome of sociological reading to focus on the state and its relationship to the commune—the entity the state destroys and against which the commune struggles. Furthermore, within Marxist theory, there is also the thesis that the state developed by destroying communal social life. Engels’ works on this are well known.
The historical and societal analysis based on the contradiction between the commune and the state does not negate the class contradiction. The concept of the commune represents the negation of all exploitation relations and structures: class-based, gender-based, and cultural. The state, as the central power institution of the exploitation system, is not solely built on class relations. State organization carries a patriarchal character, and at its foundation lies gendered exploitation. It is a well-known reality that this exploitation historically precedes class-based exploitation.
The commune is a realistic structure that is better suited for historical sociology because, compared to class, it comprehensively captures the multifaceted dynamics of the culture of societal freedom, thus making it significantly more fruitful for the analysis of history and society.
The institutionalization of exploitation relations in the areas of democracy, ecology, and gender is the work of state civilization structures. The socialist worldview and perspective, which envisions a holistic struggle in these areas, is shaped by this systemic analysis.
2 – Criticism of Marxism
We say: democratic societal socialism. The character of socialism is inherently societal – and democratic. However, this designation is politically necessary. For, above all, the Soviet Union and other socialist experiments did not truly pass the democracy test.
Behind this problem lies the fact that the Marxist revolutionary strategy prioritizes the seizure of state power and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. With this strategy, power was sought first, before attention was given to democracy. And after the revolution, as in the Soviet example, the strengthening of the state took precedence. As a result, the lack of democracy in Marxist-socialist experiments comes to the forefront, which ultimately harms socialism.
One of the most important shortcomings of Marxist theory – and thus of socialist experiences – lies in the field of gender exploitation. Marx was, of course, aware of gender exploitation and saw it as a problem. However, due to the class-centered analysis of society, he predicted that overcoming class exploitation would also eliminate gender exploitation. This reduced gender exploitation in Marxist theory to a secondary issue, leaving the theory incomplete.
In the field of ecology, it is undeniable that there is a strong philosophy of nature in Marxist theory. However, Marx and Engels’ welcoming of industrial developments and their view of them as progress led to a superficial treatment of industrialism within socialist circles. This not only paved the way for the exploitation of nature by the capitalist system, but it also left Marxist theory incomplete in ecological terms. Marxist theory only treated industrial developments superficially, contributing significantly to the widespread and still prevalent view that it is not industrial developments themselves that are responsible for ecological destruction, but rather the powers that use them. In reality, industrial developments are far from being as harmless as they have been portrayed.
In short: Democracy, ecology, and gender are the most significant gaps in Marxist theory. A liberating socialist perspective and practice, however, must be democratic, ecological, and gender-liberating. In this sense, this also means completing the Marxist-socialist approach.
3 – The Present World
In today’s world, democracy, ecology, and societal sexism are the most pressing social issues. Since state civilization is built upon the exploitation of these fields and capitalism represents the peak of this structure, this outcome is not surprising.
One of the most discussed topics in mainstream political science and philosophical literature is democracy. Almost every analysis begins with the assumption that democracy is a component of state civilization. However, within the system of state civilization, it is impossible to speak of class-based, cultural, political, or gender-based democracy. This is because the state is built upon the negation of democracy. The term “democratic state” is an empty phrase. Democracy is self-governance of the people. Where self-administration exists, the state structure does not function. In today’s capitalist world, where nations are exploited to their core and suffer from hunger and misery, we cannot even begin to speak of democracy. The ecological crisis has reached a level that threatens life itself. Ecology is now one of the greatest challenges humanity faces.
In the realm of gender, the contradictions have deepened. Women are exploited and negated to an unprecedented extent economically, culturally, politically, psychologically, and sexually—on all levels. That socialism has to provide solutions to these problem areas that destroy social life and freedoms is a moral-political responsibility. Overcoming these problems is only possible if the perspective is properly aligned and sharpened.
The difference of the democratic-ecological, gender-liberating perspective is that these aspects are analyzed in relation to one another and made the foundation of a perspective for societal socialism. Accordingly, the ecological, gender-liberating, and democratic viewpoints cannot be separated from each other. A democratic perspective requires socialists to simultaneously adopt an ecological and gender-liberating perspective. A socialist cannot oppose the exploitation of labor while remaining silent on the issues of women and the environment. If they do, they become inconsistent and lose their socialist identity.
Behind all these contradictions lies the domineering mentality and culture of state civilization. Labor, women, nature, identity—these are all exploited in the same manner. The socialist struggle against this cannot be confined to one of these contradictions alone. Socialists must fight based on an understanding of the nature of the power system, considering a multifaceted, relational wholeness.
B – Ideological Context: Democratic Society Socialism
Democratic society socialism involves the fundamental assumption that the primary contradiction exists between the commune and the state, and that societal history is characterized by this contradiction. In this perspective, the commune is the value composition that forms a free society; it is based on the principle of freedom and equality. One could also say that it is based on the dialectic of equality and freedom. Equality and freedom are societal complements that cannot be separated from each other. In all societal fields of relations—labor, politics, gender, culture, nature—this principle is fundamental. Class relations are also one of the fields of contradiction that have emerged contrary to the principle of equality and freedom. The commune, however, is not class-based but society-based. It is a form of societal organization that transcends class affiliations.
This analysis does not prioritize any exploitation relationship over the others in relation to societal transformation. In terms of the culture of freedom, there is no distinction or superiority of labor exploitation over gender exploitation, or gender exploitation over the exploitation of communal values. From the ethics of freedom, exploitative relations cannot be differentiated into “essential/secondary.”
Therefore, in the perspective of democratic society socialism, the subject of societal transformation is neither solely the proletariat, nor solely women, nor any other single group. The subject of societal transformation consists of workers, women, ecologists, oppressed identities, cultures, and other societal segments—the moral-political forces of society.
The Marxist revolutionary strategy gives priority to the seizure of state power, postponing societal transformation, in other words, the building of a socialist society, to a later time. This means that the construction of a socialist society can only take place once state power has been seized. That this revolutionary strategy does not work has been demonstrated by the real socialist experiences of the 20th century, and this is less a criticism than a fact substantiated by history. The socialist world can no longer afford to close its eyes to this fact.
Democratic society socialism rejects a revolutionary strategy based on the seizure of state power and refuses to engage in struggle on this base. This is because it analyzes and recognizes that the state is characteristically built on the suppression of freedoms and that societal changes toward freedom cannot be achieved through an institution that is inherently hostile to freedom. The transformation strategy of democratic society socialism is oriented toward self-administration and is based, according to this principle, on organizing society from the grassroots up.
The organization of society based on the principle of self-management in all areas of life, especially in the economy, will push back the state’s exploitative policies against society. When society builds a network of organizations through local initiatives that can fulfill its economic and political needs, the state will lose its function.
Self-administration politically excludes the state—or vice versa. The state administers society based on centralized power. The more local initiatives emerge that function with the direct participation of the people as political subjects, and the more self-administration mechanisms become institutionalized, the more the grounds under the state will be diminished, and eventually, the very ground beneath its feet will be removed.
For while the state exists by centralizing economic and political power in its hands, self-administration requires that power be distributed to local structures, to the grassroots. Because this conflict is structural, there will always be a political tension between self-administration and the centralized state as long as the state exists.
Self-administration is also the most effective school for rapidly transforming society. A self-governed society demands that every member acts as a political subject—and practices both leadership and following in political roles. In this sense, self-administration will pave the way for society to encounter its moral-political character and enable its liberation through action in the public sphere.
A key feature that distinguishes the transformation strategy of democratic society socialism is that it does not defer societal transformation to the future but understands it as a process that begins immediately and locally. Processuality is a fundamental characteristic of this strategy of societal change. Simply put: Not everything will happen all at once, but socialism will be built everywhere step by step, and these steps will grow into a system of solidarity through the organization of networks.
1. Positive Revolution
Öcalan occasionally uses the term “positive revolution” in reference to this societal transformation strategy. It is well known that revolution is a multifaceted act, encompassing both destruction and construction: First, the old is destroyed, and in its place, the new is built, restructuring society in accordance with this new paradigm. In my view, destruction forms the negative aspect, while construction forms the positive side of the revolution. Because Öcalan rejects the strategy of seizing state power, he opposes dedicating revolutionary potential solely to destruction, or exhausting it in that regard. According to him, revolutionary energy must be immediately directed toward the construction of socialism—now and here. This transformation strategy, which in revolutionary theory does not focus on destruction but rather places the construction of socialism at its core, emphasizes the positive side of revolution. Thus, the “positive revolution” can be understood as a term for societal transformation focused directly on building, rather than merely dismantling.
2. Democratic Nation
Democratic society socialism sees the freedom of identity and culture as a fundamental condition for a free sociality. Society is ontologically based on differences; it is inherently heterogeneous. Therefore, the protection of identity and cultural differences at the societal level is not seen as the problem of individual identities but as the concern of society as a whole.
Furthermore, from the ethics of societal freedom, it follows that the freedom of one identity requires that other identities also be free. This is because freedom is a relational practice; it requires a relationship with the other. On a level where everything is one and equal, there can be neither relationship nor development.
For this reason, democratic society socialism rejects the idea of the nation as it exists in the model of the nation-state. This concept is power-centered, monistic—and thus identity- and culture-destroying. It is hostile to society.
The solution model for identity and cultural issues in democratic society socialism is the democratic nation. A democratic nation is an organizational model in which all identities and cultures can organize and develop based on a culture of self-gouvernance; and in which they stand in a relationship of solidarity with one another based on the principles of freedom and equality. In the model of the democratic nation, it is envisioned that identities can live in community with other identities, while preserving their differences. That democratic society socialism is politically oriented toward self-administration allows, in this sense, for the self-organization of every identity.
C – Organizational Model: Confederalism / Union of Communes
The organizational model proposed by democratic society socialism is confederalism. This is because confederalism is a model that enables a networked, horizontal relationship and solidary unity of societal organizations based on self-administration.
Öcalan refers to the commune as the fundamental cell of an organisational model for a free societal. The system he calls the “Union of Communes” corresponds to what is known as confederalism in the literature. That Öcalan bases his model of societal organization on the commune is a product of his historical and societal thesis. According to this thesis, society is inherently communal. The fact that the first social communities were communes is neither a coincidence nor a choice but a result of the nature of social existence. Furthermore the commune is made up of a social fabric in which the principle of freedom and equality operates.
State organization is built to deviate from and degenerate this form of free social existence. In this sense, the contradiction between the commune and the state is the contradiction between free society and its antagonists.
Due to the anti-propaganda of the capitalist system and the failure of socialist experiences, there has been a widespread reservation toward the commune, even in some socialist circles. However, socialist struggle should not be guided by perceptions, but by realities and societal needs.
Despite these negative perceptions, communal organizations have gained increasing significance in various regions over the last few decades. Mexico/Chiapas, Venezuela, and Brazil are the first examples that come to mind. There are local governance experiences like Porto Alegre and Montreal, which emphasize decentralization, participation, and a commons-oriented economy. And there is the experience of Rojava, which is explicitly organized according to Öcalan’s perspectives. These examples are less coincidental and more the result of socialist efforts. In our view, these measures are overdue and must be accelerated as well as expanded.
It is known that in his later years, Marx became increasingly interested in self-governance and communes. After the revolutions of 1848 and the experience of the Paris Commune, Marx began to reassess the theories he had developed in his early phase. His evaluations of the communal culture that prevailed in the villages of Russia, which were conveyed by Russian revolutionaries of the time, are still of relevance.
The Commune must not be thought of as merely an economic organization. The commune is a network of economic, political, and cultural organizations that meet societal needs through local initiatives. This network spans from production and distribution mechanisms to people’s councils that function with direct participation and according to the will of the people—a broad spectrum of organizations.
Undoubtedly, communes must be structured to meet the needs of today. The perspective of organizing based on communes should not be reduced to narrow and monistic templates. What is essential are collective structures that meet societal needs based on the principles of freedom and equality, are organized in a participatory and solidarity manner, and whose joint action is enabled by political structures—such as the relationship between the commune and confederalism, or the union of communes.
In summary, it is clear that it is necessary to engage in a detailed examination of all aspects of democratic society socialism, whose philosophical foundations and organizational perspectives we have only outlined in broad terms here. This summary is based on the general principles we have presented. We are aware that new questions may arise from this summary. So be it. The more questions are asked, the stronger and more profound the answers will become. What harms socialist thinking is not questions, but silence. For questions are a sign of seeking, and socialism needs questions more than ever.
About the author:
Zeki Bayhan was born in 1976. Originally from Hakkari in North Kurdistan, he holds a degree in economics and was arrested on political grounds in 1998. He has been in prison for 28 years. On 18 April 2025, he was transferred to İmralı Prison to serve as secretary to the Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan. On 12 September, he was transferred to Izmir Type F Prison No. 2 for health reasons, where he remains today. He has published articles and books on democratic socialism and social sciences.