Speech by the Academy of Democratic Modernity in the conference The art of Freedom.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the Kurdish liberation struggle, proclaimed that ‘to insist on socialism means to insist on being human.‘ In the following discussion, I aim to explore the conception and understanding of socialism within the Kurdish freedom movement. How has it evolved within the context of paradigm shifts, and how does it intersect with the concept of ‘democratic modernity‘, which serves as an alternative to capitalist modernity today. Additionally, I will briefly touch upon the topics of organisation and avantgarde, addressing the question: what steps are to be taken?
The Understanding of Socialism in the Old and New Paradigm
In the new paradigm of democratic modernity, Öcalan redefined and developed democratic socialism through critique. He defined democratic socialism based on criticism and self-criticism of real socialism. As early as the early 1990s, before the systematization of his new paradigm in his defense writings in Imrali, Öcalan spoke of the necessary renewal of socialism in light of the crisis of existing socialism. The main expression of this crisis was the collapse of existing socialism and the Soviet Union, accompanied by the proclamation of the “end of history and ideologies.” As a movement that adhered to socialism despite this historic turning point globally, Öcalan emphasized the importance of revolutions in the 21st century, as below:
The 21st century will be the century in which the devastating effects of imperialism on the human mind, spirit, and culture will be reversed. The tasks to be accomplished in this century are, in particular, to make nature habitable again, to address population growth, which must be curbed, to promote historical awareness and the preservation of historical values, to nurture the human spirit, to combat the commercialisation and exploitation of women and sexuality, and to ensure their emancipation. It is evident that achieving advanced development in the emancipation of women is becoming a crucial objective of the 21st-century revolutions. Thus, the era of revolutions is not ending; rather, we are transitioning into a period of more sophisticated and profound revolutions. We are moving away from crude class and national struggles towards deeper social, cultural, spiritual, and moral transformations, which are as significant as military, political, and economic revolutions.
Need for Renewal
In these early reflections by Öcalan, we can already see how these aspects are emphasised as crucial for revolutionary movements in the 21st century. Central principles of the new paradigm of the Kurdish freedom movement include radical democracy as an alternative to the system of nation-states, women’s liberation, and ecology. The disintegration of society itself—the destruction of the political and moral fabric of society by imperialism and capitalist modernity—and the associated need for cultural and moral revolutions are also emphasised. Öcalan later developed this systemic analysis further in his defense writings and coined the term “sociocide,” referring to the genocide of sociality itself.
With all these considerations, Öcalan asserts that opposition to the capitalist system requires a “radical intellectual, moral, and political renewal.” The need for this renewal is evident given the absence of a democratic awakening of socialist forces, despite the obvious worldwide exacerbation of social problems. The reason for this, we believe, lies in the fact that anti-systemic forces have not yet undergone the necessary paradigmatic revolution and consequently have not developed sufficient strength in terms of program, organisation, and action. Both the classical “left,” which gave rise to real socialism, and the more recently emerged “ecological” or “feminist” movements, as well as the “new left” and the world social forums, are far from being able to grasp and overcome the chaos. Öcalan observes that “neither the ‘club of the rich,’ the World Economic Forum in Davos, nor the ‘club of the poor,’ the World Social Forums in Porto Alegre and elsewhere, have developed comprehensive visions that extend beyond the immediate present.” He attributes the lack of systematic theoretical foresight on both sides to being the central reason for the limited discussions. According to Öcalan, the forces advocating for freedom and equality lack both the knowledge and the necessary structures to successfully transform the crisis into a democratic, sustainable, and liberating awakening.
Democratic Socialism and the Question of Modernity
The Kurdish freedom movement defines democratic socialism, in this sense, on the basis of criticism and self-criticism of real socialism. We use the term “democratic socialism” to clearly differentiate it from real socialism.
One of the most significant criticisms of real socialism is its failure to adequately define capitalist modernity and to develop its own modernity as an alternative. Öcalan asserts that real socialism’s analysis of capitalism was too narrow and one-sided. He argues that real socialism is primarily focused on the dimension of capitalist exploitation (the pursuit of maximum profit). While this highlighted an important aspect of capitalist modernity, capitalism encompasses more than just its economic order.
Capitalist modernity encompasses various dimensions beyond mere economic exploitation, these include industrialism and the nation-state:
a) Industrialism represents a form of exploitation that results in the almost total destruction of nature, driven by the pursuit of maximum profit. Despite real socialism’s aspirations to break free from exploitation and the pursuit of maximum profit, it adopted capitalist industrialism without change. Therefore, it failed to develop an ecological understanding and system.
b) Real socialism viewed the nation-state as the fundamental system capable of overcoming exploitation and the pursuit of maximum profit.
In the understanding of democratic modernity, the nation-state is considered the fundamental state form of capitalist modernity and is defined by Öcalan as the epitome of capital’s totality. It serves as the most effective instrument of capital accumulation and represents the most developed, complete monopoly. Consequently, the state stands in opposition to socialism and cannot serve as a means of liberation.
The critique of real socialism thus stems from its failure to define the nation-state and its associated lack of development of an alternative to it. The acceptance of the nation-state as the fundamental framework for the working class was a significant factor contributing to the failures of the First and Second Internationals. Additionally, national liberation movements were absorbed into the world capitalist system through the nation-state.
Real socialism predominantly focused on the exploitation dimension of capitalism and attempted to present socialism as an alternative. However, it lacked a comprehensive analysis of capitalism and its modernity, thus failing to recognize the other dimensions of capitalist modernity. Consequently, socialism could not develop its own modernity. Real socialism mistakenly believed it could realise its system using the tools and dimensions of capitalist modernity. Ultimately, real socialism, together with industrialism and the nation-state, did not achieve socialism but instead transformed into “monopolistic state capitalism.” Throughout this process, the core values of socialism were increasingly abandoned, and the desired principles of freedom, equality, and social democracy remained unrealised.
Democratic Modernity as the Modernity of Democratic Socialism
Based on this foundation, the most significant conclusion drawn by Öcalan from his analysis and critique of real socialism are:
I) to define capitalist modernity comprehensively with its three pillars. II) to present democratic modernity as an alternative to it. III) to designate this as the modernity of “democratic socialism.”
The democratic-confederalist dimension of democratic modernity (democratic confederalism) is set against the nation-state dimension (nation-state) of capitalist modernity. An ecological industrial society is defined in contrast to capitalism’s industrialism. Democratic society, encompassing the political and moral realms, is delineated against capitalist exploitation and the pursuit of maximum profit (capitalism). Socialism is ideologically represented at this level. Thus, democratic socialism, within the framework of democratic modernity, is conceived more expansively. Öcalan derived these conclusions and laid the foundations of a new theoretical definition from the lessons of real socialism.
Democratic Modernity Paves the Way for Democratic Socialism.
This sets the stage for the application of the concept of democratic modernity within the Kurdish freedom movement. In this new paradigm, democratic modernity serves as the pathway for democratic socialism. It embodies the realisation of democratic socialism.
Capitalism and socialism remain abstract concepts if not considered within the context of modernity. Capitalism manifests within its modernity, and likewise for socialism. In essence, the realm in which democratic-socialist ideology takes shape is democratic modernity with its three dimensions.
Therefore, when we refer to democratic modernity, we do not substitute this term for democratic socialism. Democratic modernity and democratic socialism are intertwined; democratic socialism is given vitality through democratic modernity and is actualised through it. Democratic modernity facilitates the realisation of democratic socialism.
Democratic socialism is paradigmatically grounded on the liberation of women, the establishment of an ecological society, and the cultivation of a democratic society.
Revolution and Internationalism in the New Paradigm
Internationalism takes on a renewed significance in the theory of democratic modernity. The understanding of internationalism is also refined through criticism and self-criticism of 20th-century experiences, as state-based internationalism has resulted in new hegemony over the past century. In each instance, anti-systemic forces that successfully established nation-states or assumed control over state and power structures also assumed a leading role in internationalism. There was an expectation of global revolution – in essence, the propagation of internationalism. However, internationalism was sacrificed to the administrative mechanisms of the nation-state, gradually losing its efficacy and becoming integrated into the hegemony of capital and power monopolies. The trajectories of the Chinese and Russian revolutions followed this pattern. Eventually, their policies no longer adhered to the principles of revolutionary internationalism but prioritised the interests of the nation-state – a central pillar of capitalist modernity.
Democratic modernity, with its democratic-confederalist mode of governance, actively thwarts the formation of hegemony. Within the system of democratic confederalism, solidarity-based relationships and alliances grounded in social freedom, equality, and democracy are envisaged. The understanding of internationalism in the theory of democratic modernity transcends the local and temporal limitations of socialism, thereby expanding the focus of the revolutionary subject beyond a single region or social group.
“Instead of viewing socialism solely as a future project or program, it is imperative to perceive it as a moral and political way of life that liberates the present, seeks equality and justice, and holds aesthetic value. Socialism is a conscious way of life that embodies truth,” elucidates Öcalan.
Duran Kalkan, a member of the PKK Central Committee, further elucidates: “We do not perceive the socialist revolution and construction as events occurring after the seizure of political power; rather, we regard the socialist revolution as a transformation and evolution rooted in the ideology of the free individual and the democratic commune. We primarily define it as an ideological shift. Similarly, we view socialism, or the life of the free individual and the democratic commune, not as political power and statehood, but as a lived reality and accomplishment within a struggle that transcends political power, commencing from the individual, within the party, and gradually permeating society. We have been embodying socialism on this basis within the PKK for decades.”
Wherever the system of democratic confederalism emerges, wherever a democratic social organisation emerges as an alternative to the state, solidarity-based relationships can flourish. This signifies a new form of internationalism. Internationalism is no longer confined to a revolutionary phase. It is not merely an alliance forged or developed at international conferences and meetings, as was previously the case. Ultimately, internationalism is a practical ethos and way of life that cannot be deferred to the future. It is a relationship cultivated in every moment of life, not solely during times of war, threats of war, or economic crises. It is a moral and political way of life and collective endeavour for all involved. It is a bond fostered in communities and councils, not only during critical and challenging times but also wherever and whenever the participants deem it necessary.
Global Democratic Confederalism and Political-Intellectual Tasks
If we recognise that the systemic crisis possesses a global, systemic, and structural nature, it becomes evident that the path forward also necessitates global, systemic, and structural interventions. In this context, Öcalan advocates for the development of “democratic world confederalism,” which entails local, regional, and national democratic confederations alongside associated parties and civil society structures.
Öcalan outlines other concrete perspectives, particularly in his book “Sociology of Freedom,” which delineate intellectual and political tasks for the construction of democratic modernity and internationalism.
Central to these political tasks is a novel understanding of politics aimed at challenging the power dynamics and nation-state structures of capitalist modernity. In Kurdistan, this entails the establishment of democratic autonomy and the democratic nation. Elsewhere in the world, alternative approaches exist, such as the concept of “national construction” in the Basque Country, “poder popular” in parts of Latin America, or various forms of radical democracy worldwide. Regarding the political challenges ahead, Öcalan elucidates: “Since power seeks to subdue and colonise every social unit and individual, politics must strive to win and liberate every unit and individual.” We must not delegate our political tasks to those who undermine the plurality of politics, exploit it for their own power, and have transformed it into a profession merely for personal gain. In this sense, politics is the art of freedom, transcending parliamentary systems, state institutions, power dynamics, violence, and liberal democracy.
In addition to these political tasks, intellectual endeavours are crucial for the advancement of socialism. The capitalist system sustains itself primarily through its cultural hegemony and mental dominance over society. The production of knowledge serves the interests of those in power. Therefore, intellectual pursuits and scholarly work must inherently embody resistance, and their research must necessarily incorporate a dimension of resistance. Since universities and other official institutions of civilisation and capitalist modernity cannot serve as the fundamental sites of research, an institutional revolution within social sciences is imperative. Öcalan also advocates for the establishment of new institutions, such as the “World Confederation of Cultures and Academies” at the international level and the “Democratic Academies of Politics and Culture” at the local-national level. These institutions have been established in various regions of Kurdistan, including Rojava, Bakur, and the Medya Defense Areas, forming the backbone of revolutionary achievements in Kurdistan.
Democratic World Women’s Confederalism and Democratic Youth Confederalism
The self-organization and awareness of young people and women are at the forefront of the construction of democratic socialism. Therefore, the system of democratic confederalism includes provisions for women and young people to actively and autonomously express their will on all social and political matters. They are the driving forces behind the construction of democratic confederalism. As comprehensive movements, they are developing their own autonomous structures within this framework: democratic world women’s confederalism and democratic youth confederalism.
How to live? What to do? Where to start?
Öcalan does not limit himself to theoretical discussions on the principles of democratic socialism as an alternative to capitalist modernity for the 21st century. He also addresses concrete principles for the political practice of anti-systemic forces. Even in the new paradigm, questions like “How to live? What to do? Where to start?”, regarding the role of organisation and the avant-garde, remain central.
Just as liberal discourses such as the “end of history and ideologies” were used to discredit the idea of socialism and the need for social liberation, another liberal discourse argues that “the era of the socialist vanguard party and organisations as such” is over.
In Öcalan’s understanding, democratic parties and alliances for the establishment of a democratic society are central to democratic socialism for the 21st century. Recognising the need for self-criticism, particularly regarding the perception of the party as a means to achieve state power, Öcalan redefines the role of the party in democratic modernity and, specifically, within the context of the PKK: “It assumes a leadership role in social movements with a program aimed at transforming society into a democratic, free, and egalitarian one, employing a common strategy for all social groups interested in this program, and employing tactics aimed at broadening the organisation of civil society, environmentalist, feminist, and cultural groups, while also recognising the need for legitimate self-defence.”
The challenge lies in translating the paradigm shift or our political ideas and concepts into organisation and action. In an environment where postmodern understanding prevails and concepts like organisation, party, leadership, vanguard, and unity are often viewed negatively, Öcalan emphasises that social construction cannot be achieved without an organised vanguard (organisation) and militancy (individuals with conviction). While the form may vary depending on place and time, the necessity remains crucial.
From the outset, the Kurdish freedom movement understood that the development of social consciousness and organisation in the context of the “colony of Kurdistan” would not occur spontaneously but would be the responsibility of revolutionaries.
With the paradigm shift, the party’s self-image has evolved, with theoretical and ideological dimensions taking precedence. In the old paradigm, the vanguard party’s dimensions encompassed not only education and organisation but also administration, political, and military leadership. With the paradigm shift, the emphasis is now primarily on education and organisation.
What Is Our Source of Strength?
Intellectual and ideological power now plays a central role in the struggle for a liberated society. The task of the vanguard is to promote the self-empowerment of society – intellectually, culturally, by building suitable institutions, and through self-defence:
“The power of socialism, however, will only be able to unfold with broad, deep democratic consciousness within society, along with its corresponding organisation and way of life. It is not the state that must be strengthened, but society that must gain strength.” – A. Öcalan
The “road” to socialism goes through the strengthening of “democratic society” with the help of the concept of “democratic confederalism.” Metaphorically speaking, the bourgeois state apparatus is not “conquered” and then “smashed,” as in the Leninist tradition, but rather territory is organised away from it piece by piece.
According to this paradigm, the PKK delegates political administration to society based on democratic confederalism. It entrusts the command of self-defence to society through social self-defence.
To Conclude:
If we view revolution not as a spontaneous event, but as a change in mentality and material conditions brought about by a conscious and organised force working in all circumstances, then all societies, all oppressed groups, especially women, young people, and workers, need revolutionary organisation. They need revolutionary change. They need liberation.
