In his 27 February statement and the perspective text he submitted to the 12th Congress of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), Abdullah Öcalan’s evaluations and paradigm for a new era remain at the center of public discussion.
His critiques of real socialism, his definition of the new phase of struggle as “Democratic Nation Socialism,” and his comments on the conflict between state and commune continue to draw attention.
Recently released after 32 years of imprisonment, Soydan Akay spoke to ANF about Öcalan’s perspective and the issues currently being debated in the public sphere.
Socialism is the ideology of the Kurdish Freedom Movement
Commenting on the concept of “Democratic Society Socialism,” which has come to the fore following the dissolution of the PKK, Soydan Akay said this formulation had long been present in Abdullah Öcalan’s writings: “The concept of ‘Democratic Society Socialism,’ now widely discussed after the PKK’s dissolution, was already defined in Öcalan’s defense writings and meeting notes as the ideology of the Freedom Movement, through a paradigmatic shift in the form of ‘scientific socialism’ and ‘democratic socialism.’ One can clearly find the foundation for democratic socialism in works like Defending a People and Manifesto for a Democratic Civilization – Volume 5: The Kurdish Question and the Solution of the Democratic Nation, as well as in draft programs. In every period of transformation, the movement has firmly emphasized that its ideology is socialism.
With the PKK’s dissolution, a new program is being offered to society and to the forces of democratic struggle: Democratic Society. So, what will be the ideology of a democratic society? It will be socialism.”
The priority of socialists is to build the democratic nation
According to Soydan Akay, social existence is inherently socialist, and socialists must make the construction of a democratic society their foremost priority. He explained: “Mr. Öcalan, through his comprehensive critique of state-centered socialism and real socialism, brings an entirely new horizon to the idea of socialism. First of all, he defines socialism ontologically. Social existence is socialist. And the subject of that existence is woman. We must understand society as it was originally formed and rebuild it accordingly.
Because socialist thought was developed alongside industrialization, and theory and practice were shaped accordingly, it ultimately failed. This reveals that the paradigm was constructed on a flawed foundation and that history and society were not fully understood. In Mr. Öcalan’s thought, there is a radical break from that paradigm. Instead of a struggle based on class and the nation-state, he lays out the path, method, and perspective for a ‘Democratic Communal Society.’
The priority of socialists must be to ensure the construction of a democratic society. The democratic nation is part of that democratic society. While developing and fighting for an alternative to capitalist modernity, society cannot be handed over to liberalism, the ideology of capitalism, instead of developing a class-based socialism.
Marxist theory aimed to build society around the proletariat, a term that etymologically in Latin refers to ‘children in need of care.’ But how much can the wage-earning, compromise-prone worker truly represent social nature or embody socialism? When the interpretation and subject of social reality are wrong, its construction also fails. The growth of knowledge, consciousness, and science necessitates a rereading of social nature. Mr. Öcalan transforms this rereading into a profound and meaningful perspective. In my view, the discussion of Democratic Society Socialism must be based on this foundation.”
Communes are anti-authoritarian
Soydan Akay discussed the concept of the “commune,” which Abdullah Öcalan placed particular emphasis on in his perspective text, noting that it has traditionally been interpreted through a class-based lens. He stated: “The concept of the commune is not new, but its interpretation has always been grounded in class-based analysis. This class-based understanding largely began with Marxism. Even the Paris Commune may have fallen victim to this interpretation. The Soviet Revolution that followed, its name itself meaning commune, council, or assembly, was originally developed in the form of worker and neighborhood communes. If I am not mistaken, it was the anarchists who first developed the idea of the commune. Lenin’s famous motto, ‘All power to the Soviets!’ quickly turned into ‘All power to the party-state!’ which initially triggered strong resistance from workers’ councils.
What emerges here is the fundamental contradiction between communes and state power. As the form of social existence, the commune is anti-authoritarian. Therefore, it exists in a state of resistance. Clans, tribes, confederations, craft and workers’ guilds, religious communities, all of these social entities, as well as every autonomous city and village structure, are communes in themselves. The stories of resistance we read throughout history are, in fact, the stories of communes. The women-led resistance movements centered around figures like Amazon, Demeter, and Cybele are also expressions of communal resistance.”
Building a democratic society is only possible through organization
Soydan Akay noted that Abdullah Öcalan’s perspective does not adopt the simplistic assumption that the state is the natural form of social existence. He continued: “Mr. Öcalan offers an organizational perspective shaped by both lived experience and deep analysis of the plurality, richness, and developmental potential of social nature. This perspective is universal. Since the harshest struggles of social resistance are taking place in the Middle East, and more specifically in Kurdistan, the solution must inevitably be rooted in Kurdistan and Middle Eastern realities.
With the break from the paradigm of the nation-state and power, a new question has emerged: How can we exist without a state, without power? There is still a widespread tendency to see the state as the form of both society and nation. People remain entangled in the hegemonic mindset of the world. Non-state organizational models are often dismissed as utopian. And when confronted with a state that clings to rigid ideological molds, organizing in the form of communes is viewed as a major obstacle. Yet the reality is the opposite.
Despite all the oppression, the emergence of politicized grassroots institutions, municipalities, parliamentary representation, women’s and cultural institutions, the press and media, are themselves examples of communes. Dozens of civil society organizations, village associations, and hometown societies are also communes. Any social unit that prevents the disorganization of society and empowers it against capitalism is a commune.
It is open to debate whether these municipalities and communes operate by communal principles, but this discussion is necessary. The general framework is laid out in the Democratic Society Manifesto. All achievements, including legal recognition, will come through struggle and collective work. To fall into the illusion of ‘Now that arms are laid down, the state will grant all our demands’ is a strategic weakness. Even if democratic negotiations help anchor achievements in legal and institutional terms, they do not negate the necessity of communal organization.
As the poet Ece Ayhan wrote, ‘Love is organization.’ Mr. Öcalan also states that building a democratic society is only possible through love. Developing communes in every sphere is democratic society in practice, and the way to achieve it is democratic politics.”
TO BE CONTINUED
Source: ANF News
