INTRODUCTION

Our session looks like a preliminary conference. I want to give our work a title as follows:

"Standing at the close of one era in the Kurdish reality and it's challenges, and on the threshold of a new chapter."

This will be a very difficult and historic task. As we move toward restructuring, there is a need to address the issue under different headings. Each of these headings requires in-depth analyses. It will take time. It would not be right to rush it either. Nevertheless, the 'Introduction' gives the spirit of the main text.[1] It is sufficient to create an understanding of the main topics. We will handle the introduction in this format. Friends can also address the congress processes based on this draft. Because the full work may take a month to complete, that could delay the process and cause difficulties.[2]

I would like to begin with the issue of consciousness of existence and awareness among Kurds. You know that famous question: “Do Kurds exist, or not?” If they do exist, to what extent have they been able to manifest this existence? And more importantly: how intertwined are existence and freedom, and to what extent do they shape one another? The PKK is a movement that exists to prove the existence of the Kurds, and to open the door to freedom. So, we have stalled at this point. The period after the 1990s partly expresses this. For this, let us take a brief look at recent history. For example, how can we interpret the final words of the symbolic leaders of the last two effective uprisings — that is, two rebellions — of traditional Kurdishness, Sheikh Said and Seyit Rıza, on the gallows? I can elaborate on this a bit. These words express that traditional Kurdishness was destroyed. That is, its meaning. Traditional Kurdishness means traditional Kurdish existence. While on the gallows, last two leaders of that Kurdish existence expressed its end, leaving behind a legacy, a memory. What were Sheikh Said’s words? “Mr Prosecutor, didn’t you promise we’d have a feast together — with lamb and everything? What happened?” This is a religious delusion, because he is a devout Naqshbandi sheikh.[3] In fact, it becomes an expression of a tragic misconception, it exposes how mistaken the ideology he trusted was. It highlights this.

Seyit Rıza’s statement is similar: “I could not deal with you, let this be a lesson to me; but I did not kneel before you, let that be a torment to you.” This is a more meaningful statement. It expresses both being deceived, and, at the last moment, the imposition of surrender: “surrender, and you’ll be spared execution.” He says, “No, I will not surrender, let that be a torment to you.” He truly posits Dersim as a source of this torment…this is what he expresses. In the end, both traditions — the Naqshbandi and the Alevi, or the Sunni–Alevi traditions — are, in fact, fabrications. As capitalist modernity and nation-statism developed ideologically, they based Kurdish denial on these two concepts. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, such a fabricated Alevism was constructed. Through these two deceptions, traditional Kurdish existence was actually destroyed, this is the essence. However, its traces are still very striking. This is experienced concretely in both Çewlik (tr. Bingöl) and Dersim (tr. Tunceli). And these leaders, in fact, express this. The fact that they did so on the gallows is very significant. It represents a dead reality: not sick, not wounded, but dead.

This was followed by an intermediate period represented by figures like Qazi Muhammad, Mustafa Barzani, Qamislo and Jalal Talabani. So, what kind of reality does this period represent? Yes, it does represent a certain reality: we refer to it as traditional, feudal, a transitional phase. A period containing personalities that were part aristocratic, part bourgeois, those who emerged from that lineage and made it to our time. By bourgeois, we mean the period after World War II until present day — essentially the bourgeoisification and capitalist transformation within Islam. Did such a period exist, or could it have existed? It did. This form of capitalism has a nationalist existence and a consciousness based in this nationalism. Its representatives make this clear. After all, Qazi Muhammad came from a tradition of state formation. Barzani has had — and continues to have — an experience of statehood. Talabani was also a partner in this. But a distinct Kurdish nation-state that defines the era still does not exist, or at least it remains doubtful despite efforts. Even where it exists, it is a very local phenomenon, highly contested. Most importantly, this final federal Kurdish state structure was brought forth to counter us. It was directly developed with indispensable support from the Republic of Turkey — essentially a variation of the same mentality. Since 1992, it has been advanced as a tool to liquidate the revolutionary movement: first with the Federal Parliament, then with other institutions. They even helped Turkish armed forces in dropping leaflets calling for our surrender. This is a very striking reality. This was an intermediate period, that is, Kurdish nationalism, Kurdish capital — we call it backwards comprador bourgeoisie — and while some might be more developed, whether based in Amed (tr. Diyarbakır), Erbil, Sulaymaniyah, or even Mahabad, in my view these are all temporary, artificial, counter-revolutionary elements imposed as instruments of liquidation. Both their ideological content and their practical implementation reflect this.

Then there is what we might call the period between the intermediates — a sub-phase within the interim — which is the era that extends right up to us. Its representatives or voices include figures like Saît Elçî, Saît Kirmizitoprak, Silêman Maûnî and his brother, and even Siraç Bilgîn, whom I also include. In literature, there's Cigerxwîn, and in music, Aram Tigran. How should we make sense of them? We call them welatparez,[4] and some we also refer to as socialists. They were all modern, honest — none of them were collaborators. They were not instruments, voices, or agents of opposing forces. However they remained very isolated, and most of them were eliminated by those very collaborators. They struggled to define themselves, struggled to sustain themselves, and all of them, ultimately, fell victim to conspiracy. Most importantly, they died in exile. They embody a reality of exile. But they did have some influence on us. In one way or another, they are our prototypes. I say this also from a personal perspective — they appear to me as proto-Apoci realities. This is the meaning I wanted to assign to this in-between-of-the-in-between period.

In the later part of the introduction that is relevant to us, I speak about my own reality that marked the end of the 20th century and the first quarter of the 21st century. There is an Apo[5] reality, this is clear, it can neither be denied nor inflated. Of course, how should this reality or truth of Apo be interpreted? What does it mean as dream and reality?

'THE APO ERA' is very little understood in terms of its pioneering character. It is not well understood. You call it the reality of the leadership (rastîya Rêbertî), but you don't understand what this reality is. The community is scattered, paralysed, unable to grasp it. The cadre is ill-equipped. The confusion and messianism of the Kurds for the last fifty years is due to this reality. The emergence of the leadership in the PKK is a turning point in Kurdish history. It is at least as important as the Kurdish awakening. Apo is not a messiah who fell from the sky; he is a leader who through effort and social realisation has created himself. This is the construction of socialist leadership in the history of Kurds and Kurdistan. Apo is the construction of a leadership, not the construction of a cult of personality: the construction of collective leadership.

At the time of the emergence of the leadership, the Kurdish identity had disintegrated, traditional leaderships had collapsed, and Kurds had been removed from thought. It is understandable that the development of the Kurdish identity in such an environment was attributed miraculous meanings. But enough is enough! For 50 years I have been longing to be accurately understood. I have been explaining and explaining and explaining again. Not understanding the reality of the leadership in the PKK means not understanding the PKK, not understanding the free Kurd, not understanding the concept of a free Kurdistan. It means insisting on backwardness. That's why you are not evolving, you are not becoming vanguards. I have been in a relentless labour and struggle for 50 years to transform you into a part of the reality of the leadership.

Without understanding the reality of the leadership correctly, without investing yourself in reality, you cannot walk, let alone lead the society. As a matter of fact, you are unable to even carry yourself. I have tremendous power of discourse and action. I present these to you, I try to push them on you, but you still don't accept them. You see yourself as without solutions, and insist on it. Why is that? This is important because it is a serious matter. At the moment, the reality of Apo has left its mark on history both as a lasting situation and as a moment, and so on. And here we come to the impasse in the PKK and finding a solution to it; that is, to this issue of dissolution. The situation I am still living in right now.... Yes, there is a repetition of a moment here, there is not much creative value. It is necessary to make a leap. A step must be taken. Strangely enough, Devlet Bahçeli initiated this new era, not from our side, but as a Turk who is relentless with me personally and who did everything for me to be executed. The most authoritative voice and hand of Turkish consciousness of our time, and of the proto-party state, Devlet Bahçeli, initiated this new era. In other words, Bahçeli, as the leader of the relentless war against us, personally stated to the DEM delegation: ‘I have devoted my whole life to this, but now I want to start a new era.’ In my opinion, this is an open call for a ‘Peace and Democratic Society’ solution. It is both a call for peace and for solidarity. A call for peace with a democratic content. Developments show a glimpse of this. And the only conclusion we can draw from this is that “only those who wage war can make peace”. In other words, only those who bear the responsibility of the war—not secondary, tertiary forces, not intermediary forces, not allies—but those who bear the responsibility of the war itself, can assume the responsibility of peace. This is because peace is as serious an act as war. The responsibility for such a serious act can only be borne by its principle bearers. Therefore, it is realistic, the state is waging this war.  I see the need to transform this war with the state into an attempt at a new beginning based on peace. This has been voiced in the last six months. We responded immediately because we believed that we should not leave this extended hand hanging and that we should not be insensitive to this call. As the ones responsible for this war, we felt the responsibility to respond without delay. This was also shared with the public. The response is as follows; only those who fight can realise peace. Other interlocutors have no power to realise peace. They are secondary or auxiliary. The real initiative is taken by the vanguards of this work. It has taken such a course, which is a healthy approach in my opinion. On the basis of this approach, we have extended the process a little more and we are preparing the programme of this meeting under state supervision. We are making an intensive effort to build a democratic society. We want to get past this stage. That is to say, to build peace and democratic integration with the Republic of Turkey, in particular, away from the period of war and separatist conflict. Similar processes will be triggered in other states such as Iraq, Iran and Syria. The fact that it is under Turkey's initiative is, in my opinion, is both reasonable and realistic. It has to be so, and so it is. Therefore, this step is a step that can be treated very seriously. Although it is undergoing certain difficulties, it seems to be the right step. Will this threshold be crossed? Only creative endeavours will make this possible. On this basis, I try to present the new era under seven main headings. Why did I choose these seven main headings, how did I choose them? We will discuss them.

1- NATURE AND MEANING

I wanted to start with “Nature and Meaning” or the “Dialectics of Nature,” which may come to mind very rarely. What is meant by this? Let me try to explain a little more. Meaning refers to relationality and mutuality. It is characteristically a collectivist, social concept. Meaning is first and foremost the meaning of something. One cannot speak of a meaning independent of existence. So how does meaning come into being? Humans develop the power of meaning by listening to nature. This is why the first learning style is mimetic. By listening to nature, humans transform from nature.

Throughout the flow of social history, the method of learning by observing nature has gradually become weaker. Wherever symbolic language and analytical reason developed, humans defined nature with their own concepts, resulting in the alienation of humans from nature. This alienation reached its peak in the period of capitalist modernity. The dominant thought of each period becomes the truth of that period. In other words, if there is a dominant thought of a period, it is accepted as the truth of that period. There is a reality, it has an expression, and that expression conveys an idea or a dream. For example, we call the period in which mythic thought was dominant the mythic period. In other words, it is a period expressed entirely through imagination. It is the longest period experienced by humanity, lasting for thousands of years. Prior to this, the mimetic aspect is more prominent and is intertwined with the animal sense of intuition… We call these thousands of years the mimetic period. In the wake of mimetic thought, mythic thought developed. This is largely the reality of the neolithic, upper neolithic, mesolithic period. Its social equivalent is clan and tribal system. The so-called domestication of plants and animals is actually the expression of a period in which a new culture and a new way of life were experienced for the first time.

Mythic thought is an idea that transcends mimetic, animal intuition. It is expressed entirely in imagination. Symbolic thought develops in human beings. There is a separation from the animal in terms of thought; symbolic thought is a thought unique to human beings. Humans differ from animals through symbolic thought. There is no symbolism in mimetic thought, there is imitation. Whether imitation is a thought or not is debatable. The animal may have a mind, but it is not in a state of thought. The thought of the mythic period is symbolic in this sense. The world of thought of the mythic period is the world of stories, and a little beyond that there is a religious thought that we call monotheistic religion or something similar to that. The period of religious thought and religious interpretation continues up to the present day. Both originate from today's Upper Mesopotamia, which we call the cradle of humanity in the Middle East. The cradle of both mythical and religious ideas is the Tigris-Euphrates valleys.

Myths weave meaning into the fabric of sociality. As an imagination that fulfills the material-spiritual needs of social life, they play a society-building role. In this respect, the intellectual power of clan socialization creates truths.

The great ecological transformation cycle ended about 15 thousand years ago. A new climatic period begins there. This makes the neolithic possible and a new era begins. It is here that human beings first invent language and accept symbolic thought. They make the leap towards civilisation and the state.

Does the thought of this period express nature, does it have a meaning for nature? Actually, it does seem to exist. If we take Islam as an example, there is a concept of Allah to which everything is connected. Allah is defined as the being who encompasses the universe, who dominates everything from moment to moment, who creates everything from moment to moment. Even its indefinability is expressed. It is presented as a faith that cannot be articulated. This is what Islam means. In fact, this is a phase, and it is a very striking phase in the history of humanity. This is the reason why Islam is so influential. Islam is inbetween philosophy and mythological thought. Islamic thought is neither fully philosophical nor fully mythological. It is strongly opposed to both, which finds its expression in al-Ghazali.[6] If we are to speak of a school, and al-Ghazali is the dominant school, on the one hand it rejects philosophy, which paved the way for the triumph of science in Europe. On the other hand, it developed the Kalām, which is not to be equated with philosophy.[7] Further, it ends the mythological age. And a whole new Islamic age emerges. It is very influential. It left its mark on the era. It has overthrown Christianity, the Torah and Indo-Chinese religions, and carved out a space for itself. Why? Because it is an important phase. The period between philosophy and mythology is an indispensable period; it requires a prophet. This is what the Prophet Muhammad represents. You know how it is said that Allah has 99 attributes? These 99 attributes are everything that finds meaning in the other. The universe is actually a philosophy itself. It was the preliminary stage of this philosophy. The 99 attributes are a philosophy themselves. They are a programme. The philosophical premise of modernity, the premise of the philosophy of science. That's why it's so influential, compared to Christianity. But its dilemma is also within itself, because it has sealed the door to the transition into modern philosophy. The famous conflict between Ibn Rushd[8] and Ghazali is well known. While the West condemns Ghazali, Western thought takes Ibn Rushd as its basis and builds on him. It makes the philosophical and scientific revolution we are familiar with, while Islam remains completely isolated from it. And the rise of Western supremacy began. Even the Jewish religion based on the Torah expresses more truth than Islam, but it is so adamant, and both the new innovations in Christianity and the rigid approach to faith in mythology create a two-way pressure on Islam. Rigidity makes Islam a great conservative force. The 15th and 16th centuries were the peak years of conservatism. The 9th-10th centuries were a period of Renaissance in Islam, a renaissance that affected the entire world. However, the 15th and 16th centuries were a period of tremendous conservatism, and Islam virtually ended. The concrete expression of this is that a great conservatism begins in the Safavids, Babur's Mughal India and the Istanbul-centred Ottomans, and that conservatism dies out a hundred years later in the 17th and 18th centuries. In my opinion, Islam was doomed in the 18th century. It had no vitality left, and was then exploited. The British exploited Islam and reached the domination of the world as we know it, a global hegemony from a small island. This is related to the conservatism of Islam. Why am I mentioning this? I have included Christianity in this, because in Christianity Western supremacy began. That reformation in Christianity did not materialise in Islam.

Shi'ism[9] attempted to do this, but failed. In the West, there was a transition from reformation to enlightenment. The Renaissance is also related to this, the Reformation, Renaissance and Enlightenment made the intellectual superiority of the West possible and successful. The French Revolution in the 18th century, the British Industrial Revolution, the French Political Revolution peaked in the 19th century in the global era we are familiar with. In the 20th century, it sustained this peak, and now a brand new phase is underway. If we cannot interpret the past correctly—that is, if the past or tradition cannot be interpreted correctly—we cannot make sense of the present, and if we do not understand the present, the future cannot be understood. Although Islam and Kemalism are the instruments of establishing the dominance of positivist thought, conservative thought is currently seeking to establish the dominance of Islam. While positivism has been introduced and lived in the West, in Turkey it has turned into an enormous conservatism. Islam is not heeded at all. In the face of Israel with its population of five million, Arab Islam with its population of 300 million cannot even catch its breath. Islam is responsible for this, of course. Despite all of this, if we are still pretending to be Islamists, there is something fishy here. In fact, there is a question as to whether Christianity or Islam is more dominant. Christianity is 99% more dominant. It is necessary to express these correctly, the rest is wishful thinking. They advocate for Islam against the West by using the concepts of the West. This is no defence of Islam. The West is extraordinarily superior in philosophy, science and technology, and you want to make use of its remnants, its leftovers. And you do this in the form of beggary. The most recent Gaza crisis has shown that this does not stand much chance of success. You are attacking Israel. The Israel you strike is the global hegemon. Then you ask for help from the UN, the EU and human rights institutions. The organisations you ask for help from are those influenced by Israel. If you have declared Israel a real enemy, you would not beg those institutions. If you are consistent, if you don't want to deceive your nation, you don't do it. That is the hegemonic power. Either you submit to the hegemon or you wage a real war. Since this is not happening in Turkey, thoughts are muddled and again capital is increasing by accumulating profits and strengthening its sovereignty from this conflict. I initiated this chapter to draw attention to this. Understanding this is of course linked to understanding the present day correctly. This sheds light on the subject and there is no need to elaborate further.

2- SOCIAL NATURE AND PROBLEMS

To strengthen the philosophical idea a bit, some may wonder about nature and meaning. This curiosity is justified, because science begins with curiosity. In order to satisfy this curiosity and to pave the way for it, in my opinion, a philosophical thought such as the dialectic of nature and the other is needed. Here, I felt the need to draw a conclusion by filtering all that science has revealed, everything in the context of physics, chemistry, biology, and even mythology. It is a speculative thought, I am not suggesting that it is absolutely true. The reality beyond nature is worth understanding. We can also call this the universe. There are still a few things that are not completely understood. They talk about the big bang. What is this big bang, what was there before the big bang? They say that with the big bang the universe has been developing for 13 billion years. This does not sound plausible. Gradually, in physical science, the idea of electromagnetic radiation is being advanced. During the explosion or before the explosion... one naturally thinks, was there or was there not a universe before this explosion? This explosion starts from a being a billion times smaller than the tip of a pin, and the present universe is formed.

Now our galaxy, the Milky Way, has 200-300 billion stars. Dozens of planets around each star. And billions of galaxies. The birth of all this from the tip of a pin requires an explanation. Science is trying to find an answer with quantum physics. Such is the logic of the principle of uncertainty, the ‘both/and’ logic. With all this, there is this. This brought a period of crude materialism. Fortunately, that materialism has been overcome. The universe is not at all what they say it is. There was the theory of the heliocentric universe, then the Milky Way, now there is also dark matter around the black hole, dark energy... Now these concepts will multiply even further. It was said that the atom was the smallest particle, then they realised that the atom has many other components, which are explained in terms of electrons, protons and neutrons. They also have their own components. A God Particle appeared. In short, this goes on like this.

Why am I saying this? It shows that from the materialist point of view and from the idealist point of view, there are no hard truths yet. There is not one hundred per cent this truth, one hundred per cent that truth. Obviously, there is a development and an explosion in the human mind. The search for truth will continue. This is a good thing, the fact that the human mind is open to the search for truth at least gives hope. It gives hope for freedom, it gives hope for life. Free life…I think it is the right thing to cultivate it. In fact, pursuing such a way of thinking leads us to an explanation of social nature. You know, this is what I want to convey in this second heading.

In general, I have the following assessment about nature and meaning. Hegel also dealt with this a lot. Hegel finds meaning in nature itself. The universal spirit he calls Geist is actually a reality outside of the brain. Existence is also a reality. Meaning lies within existence. It is not produced by the human brain. This is also called a kind of idealism. They call it Hegelian idealism. There is a grain of truth in it. Marx expresses the opposite. He expresses thought as reflection. Time is something that exists in the human brain. Outward reflections become thought. It's a bit contrary to Hegel. Meaning itself is in nature. There is a philosophical debate going on here. It is a good thing that these discussions continue. It is not right to confine it to materialism or idealism. This dichotomy leads to mistakes, and it still does. Therefore, dialectical thinking actually prevents this from becoming a rigid dogma.

The benefit of dialectical thinking can be seen in the meaning of the word ‘dialectic’, which implies a duality. It comes from the Aryan language. In dialectics, the meaning of one depends on two. Two brings one to mind. When we apply this to thought; thought makes matter necessary, both subject and object are necessary. This goes on and on. This is something useful, and leaves an open door. The opposite of dialectical thought is metaphysics. Metaphysics is a form of thought, but not as successful as dialectics. Dialectics are more successful. But it needs to be developed, and it is being developed. The explanation of nature, which we have just mentioned, has been achieved through dialectical thought in this form.

Now, from here I will immediately move on to the topic of “social nature and problems.” Yes, society is also a nature. But they call it second nature. That is true. In my opinion, there is a major divergence from social nature. The most fundamental characteristic of social nature is its flexibility of thought. I am not arguing the intellectuality in nature, but social nature is a nature that is woven with thought, where human beings place all their thoughts, first symbolic, then scientific, philosophical and religious, on its foundations. Social nature is not a stone, not a plant, not an animal. It is based on thought. Social nature has this distinction. When you say society, thought immediately comes to mind.

Athenian philosophy developed with society. The West developed with scientific thought. Let's say the dilemma of London and Amsterdam, the dilemma of Athens and Sparta, also paved the way with philosophy. Islamic thought has made progress as the most productive religious thought. These are all different stages of society. Sumerian society is the pinnacle of mythology, and the Sumerian society is the cradle of a state-based society. It is a mythical idea conceived in the fertile soil of the Tigris and Euphrates in Upper Mesopotamia, and it reached its peak there. The lives of Gods and Goddesses were very influential, and concepts taken from here were later developed. The concepts taken from here later produced the Qur'an. Most of the ideas in the Qur'an are taken from here. A large part of Athenian philosophical thought was also taken from here. In the north, Europe was then in a period of savagery. Athens received both Zoroastrian philosophy from Media and religious thought from Egypt. There was no intellectual of the time who had not been to Babylon. They had all seen Egypt, Babylon, Media and even Persepolis. They transformed what they took into a synthesis. The idea of democracy is actually taken from here. The Greco-Hellenic civilization was built on this foundation. This is also discussed as the period of primitive society, which Marxism calls “the barbaric stage of society or the primitive period”.  After this, comes the development of era of the institution of slavery.

Now, before we move on to this, we have given a general definition of this sociality. But how did it develop? How is social development explained in Sumerian mythology? In all three monotheistic religions it is clearly written how father Adam and mother Eve were created. It even claims five thousand years. They also assign a date according to their own ideas. It is completely linked to religious belief. Scientific and even Athenian thought has made a leap forward, hence creating a new society and bringing it to the top. Capitalism is in full swing at this point. Western thought is both hegemonic and materialised. It has become a material power. But one point remains in the dark. What is it? How did this social nature come into being? And who created it? Society is not just an existence, a collection of people coming together. Society is a system of values produced by people coming together, realising themselves, and creating something through creating a sense of collectivity. The founding, sustaining, and developing element of all social formations and structures is meaning. Society has no subject other than itself. The subject and object of societal formation are, again, society itself. And this formation has an open-ended character. In other words, society is an act that is built, destroyed, and rebuilt.

Ultimately, it is humans who create this social nature. Social nature is a reality that forms around the human species. Animals live in social groups. That's a different matter. We indicated that it reflects a mimetic mentality. It is something formed by instincts and imitation. Yes, humans also have instincts. The imitative tendency is a remnant from animals. The lowest layer of the brain is a remnant from animals. The small brain [cerebellum], which we refer to, is responsible for instinctual thought. But mythological thought transcends mimetic thought. Its representation in the brain is in the part we call the central brain [central nervous system]. Under its responsibility, a human becomes a human. The person in whom mythical thinking develops is actually the person created by the central nervous system. Of course, these are all intertwined. It doesn't layer itself step by step like making cuts with a knife. They are all intertwined. There is an incredible universe. So, who among the human species would be responsible for it?

Here is where the woman comes into play. What is even more striking is how masculinity and femininity come into being. This, of course, is a bit confusing. I haven't examined it too closely. But as far as I know, earlier beings were single-celled, you know, mitotic division, each cell just divides. One becomes two. We know of such a mode of reproduction. There is no division between male and female yet. And this continues for millions of years.

As far as we can determine, the division of living beings into male and female dates back 300 million years. We are discussing these things philosophically. Why did such a division between the feminine and masculine occur? We said the dialectic of nature, and the dialectical process is responsible for this. Everything is dualistic. How did matter arise from energy, how did particles differentiate? Yes, there are particles in an atom; without particles, there would be no atom. How does matter turn into energy? Matter, that is, those visible things, stars are energy that has materialised. Einstein's formula E=mc² is the formula for the conversion of energy into matter. The importance of the formula lies in its ability to make the subject understandable. The feminine-masculine aspect is an extension of this. It's not contrary to the development of the universe. As an extension of it, there was a period when, instead of duality in a single entity, there was a gradual merging of separate entities. The masculine entity emerges, the feminine entity emerges, and one divides into two and then from two back into one... A progressively deepening masculine and a progressively deepening feminine entity develop.

This is approximately three hundred million years ago. Such developments are occurring in both plants and the animal kingdom. Some animals become both female and male in connection with heat. Therefore, it is not a rigid thing; it is a changing, dialectical reality. LGBT, as you know, is a major topic of debate. There are many people who have both male and female characteristics (hermaphrodites). In fact, they either become male or female through surgery. Such surgeries are commonly performed. The striking point here is that there is no insurmountable chasm between the female and male. Of course, the philosophical and sociological aspects of this are very different. There is a moral dimension to it, and it has manifested in society. These can be overcome with dialectical thinking.

I do not wish to take into consideration the role of a woman here. The distinction between male and female is not a miraculous thing; it is a necessity of nature's dialectic. It does not imply superiority. Being feminine is not a superiority, nor is being masculine a sanctity. These are not events from which special conclusions can be drawn. These will happen, they are happening, as a necessity of the dialectic of nature. Indeed, we call this differentiation; without differentiation, there is no life. The meaning of life is connected to differentiation. How can a single person be both feminine and masculine? It is clear that they cannot live in today's world. How does a hermaphrodite man become both male and female? Traditional morality condemns these individuals. But in my opinion, this is a problem. With surgeries, the masculine aspect may come to the forefront, the feminine preference may come to the forefront, let's say both are valuable. If nature divides you into two, you will see this division as a possibility of freedom, a difference; that difference has meaning. The feminine has its meaning, and the masculine has its meaning too. This has also manifested in society; the important thing is not to turn these into opposites. Making them oppositional is where the problem begins.

Now, social issues begin like this. One says the masculine is superior, the other says the feminine is superior... Such matters are issues of contention in the social realm. Female superiority will indeed emerge over time; let's explain that a bit. The other side also rose as a counter-argument, saying the superior one is the male. And in the end, terrible philosophies emerged, becoming a major issue. I had said that social issues begin with the state after civilisation. But now it seems that it developed not with the state, but much earlier, 30,000 years ago. As a result, the establishment of men that were completely unlike women, and within women’s personalities with differences as large and vast as mountains from those of men developed. If you pay attention, there is a tiny difference between male chromosomes and female chromosomes. It is a very small difference. After all, what we call thought is unique to humans, and there is no male or female thought. Thought is a characteristic that completely transcends these dichotomies; in fact, the political sphere, the male-specific political sphere, the female-specific political sphere is nonsensical. The political sphere is entirely human. We can further popularise this. In the economy, in art, and even in religion, distinctions were made like women's religion and men's religion, but we cannot say that this is a fundamental reality. The concepts of male-specific thought, female-specific thought, these are problematic. Even if there is not a problem [to begin with], they are stuck then in a problematic state. In fact, it is a denial of dialectical thinking. Feminism is a thought specific to women, and its counterpart is masculinity. In masculinity, there is only a thought about men. These two backwards areas, in essence only solidify and make rigid the divisions. That is, such a rigidity does not exist in nature. The dialectic in nature reflects in society, and the dialectic in society makes life possible: different lives, life that is differentiated. Difference expresses life. Life also becomes richer through differentiation. A frozen, opposing duality become an abyss. In this abyss, lies the fight and reality underlying family murders. From the perspective of the perpetrator, the woman is static: the woman is the absolute woman, the man is the absolute man. However, if there is a dialectical flow of thought, one necessary betrays the other. One strikes the other, and vice versa. The root of the problem originates from here. As I said, this is incredibly problematic. This needs to be overcome.

I believe I have correctly identified the issue under this main heading. We have previously and already discussed the city-village distinction in the context of the state. We wanted to base it on class distinction, but that's not enough... There are issues stemming from class, there are issues of state and commune, I will address these, these are serious developments. The main issue in society begins with the conflict between masculine and feminine elements. When masculine and feminine thought becomes rigid and increasingly blind, it manifests itself as fundamental reality... We first see this in women. The age of the goddess... In fact, this is somewhat indicated by an era in archaeological research. The goddess figures from the last thirty thousand years indicate that such an era was experienced. It has been determined that such a period was experienced from all of Eurasia to Western Europe, from the Middle East to Africa.

So what does this goddess-hood mean? The woman is a being that gives birth, there is no need to discuss this anymore. Birth occurs in women; as a human species, the truth in women is different. It is important to understand this well. All studies show that plant reproduction is easy, the first cell division occurs easily. You know, in animals, the offspring are born and can stand within 24 hours. This is the case with all animals. Some are long, some are short, but they have an easy birth, an easy growth, and if they are taken care of for six months, they can survive independently as animals. However, when we come to the human species, an interesting situation arises: they have difficult births, and this isn't enough; they cannot live alone without maternal support for 5-6 years. So, in animals it's 24 hours, but in humans, it can go up to 7 years. What does this require? It requires a social context around the mother. Because it is unclear what a man is. There is no phenomenon of the baby having a relationship with a male. How did the woman and the man meet for the first time? There is a sexual drive in both humans and animals. The sexual drive is one of the basic instincts, just like hunger. Instincts are consciousness, signs of energy. If there is no feeling of hunger, there is no satisfaction, therefore there is no life; if there is no sexual drive, there is no reproduction, and without reproduction, there is no life. We understand this. Who is the father? Actually, there was no father at first. In fact, there is no awareness of with whom or how sexuality is established, there is only an instinct.

Culture is a form of consciousness that emerges in the human species. This begins first with women, because it is women who give birth to children. Later, in monotheistic religions, Eve was created from Adam’s rib. This part is also elaborated at length in Sumerian mythology. The Jews included it in the Torah, and from the Torah, it was passed on to the Quran.

The woman who gives birth must raise the child. She must feed the child, and to do that, she must engage in gathering. That, in turn, requires immense labour and effort. We are talking about a history of approximately two million years. This began in the African Rift Valley and later intensified in the Middle East. True cultural development, however, occurs in the Taurus-Zagros valleys. It is here that the human becomes truly human, and the woman becomes truly woman. We will elaborate on this a bit. A woman, therefore, will raise the child because she knows the child was born from her. A woman likely recognises her kin — just as children growing up together recognise each other as boys and girls — the mother-woman also likely recognizes one or two uncles, aunts, or other relatives as brothers or sisters. And this is where culture begins: with groups of 7, 10, or 15 people. The number doesn’t exceed 20. These people together form a clan. The clan is the first organisational form in the history of socialisation. A clan is a culture formed around the mother.

It is at this point, once the structure of the larynx became suitably developed, that the phenomenon we call language emerged, around 30,000 years ago. This marked the transition from sign language to spoken language. Mythical thought and symbolic language also first appeared in this region known as the Fertile Crescent. In a remarkable cultural explosion, it evolved into what we now call civilisation. Alongside it came the development of village and urban life, and eventually the state and class systems.

What is most significant is that this social nature developed around women. This woman-centred social structure remained the dominant culture up until the time of Sumerian society — or more precisely, until around 2,000 BCE. As a dominant culture, the concept of the mother goddess emerged. This is reflected in figurines and the remains of temples still standing today. It is also clearly described in mythological epics such as Gilgamesh, Babylon, and the Enuma Elish. So, the conclusion we arrive at is that a woman-centred form of social life once existed. Alongside this, however, a process began in which feminine and masculine elements became rigidified — a dynamic that laid the foundation for later tensions. That foundation was very firmly established here. All archaeological evidence points to the fact that the domestication of animals and plants also began in this region. These findings were not available in Marx’s time — research into Sumerian society had yet to emerge — so we cannot hold him responsible for this gap.

​​Marx begins history with classes. Yet, the origin of the problem does not begin with class, but rather develops around women's sociality. As far as we can tell, this problem also later results in civilisation. It results in the birth of the city, and here too, the mark of women is present. Uruk is the first city, the first state, and essentially the first class. The Epic of Gilgamesh gives all the clues to this. It was included as an epic because it was a great war — it is humanity’s first written epic, and within this “first,” there are hundreds of firsts.

Here, class creation, the creation of the state, the creation of power — these are tremendous beginnings. In Uruk, the founding goddess of the city is Inanna. The word Ninna likely also comes from there. Therefore, this goddess-centred femininity represents that rise. It represents that religion — the religion of the goddess. The sanctity had developed to such a degree that someone like Gilgamesh trembles all over. There was also an explicit sexual ceremony in the fertility rites. The mythological writer describes these sacred marriages as extraordinary ceremonies. And the strong man who consummates the union is killed the next day. Such a situation exists in many cultures. Most recently, in the Aztecs — all young men who were captured were sacrificed. This culture was practised in many places until the 1500s. After a short period, such as a month or a year, with a virgin, the man would be killed and his liver eaten. The Aztecs had this terrifying tradition. When the Spanish conquered the region, thousands of young men were still being sacrificed every year — and in temples. And this was the case elsewhere too.

This all stems from the religion of the goddess. It is the goddess who ensures that the one who makes the sacred marriage with her is killed. The sociological explanation for this is as follows: the goddess does not want to hand over her place to a male god. I can state this clearly — this is my own thesis. The texts say, “It is a requirement of such a sacred marriage,” but in truth, the woman does not want to give up her position to a male deity. No matter how much she may love him — Dumuzi is Inanna’s lover — she still kills him and sends him underground. That is the rule. Why? Because the woman knows what will happen if she yields her position to a male god. And indeed, we see this play out in the Babylonian epics.

Inanna, in the 4000s BCE, held absolute power in the city of Uruk, reigning as the supreme goddess and carrying out the sacred marriage in all its splendour, while even Gilgamesh himself tries to flee and hide. The quest for immortality is connected to this. I find it astonishing — if someone helpless like me could identify this, I wonder why so many scholars haven’t. Yes, the meaning of the quest for immortality is this: the man wants to save his life. According to religious practices of the time, the goddess of the city of Uruk has many male priests. There is a woman ruler — the goddess — and in the temple she has priests at her service. She chooses whoever she wants, performs the sacred marriage with him, and then kills him the next day. Gilgamesh runs away because he knows he will be killed. He says, “Don’t choose me.” He has a first escape plan, a second escape plan — each time they catch him and bring him back. But I suppose that when a striking truth comes to pass, his life is spared. I don’t know how it’s spared — I haven’t researched it. But because the sparing of his life is such a significant event, the Epic of Gilgamesh comes into being. What distinguishes Gilgamesh is that he is no longer a man who is killed. Once he is no longer one of the men who are sacrificed, this epic takes shape. It is carved into stone, written onto bricks, and from there, a new masculine age begins — one that continues to the present day. From around 4000 BCE to the Babylonian reign around 2000 BCE, power slowly shifted into the hands of men. This time, in reverse, the man takes over the exalted temple of the woman. Gilgamesh sends a prostitute to Enkidu — who is very likely a proto-Kurd from the mountains. It’s an epic, yes, but there’s also a culture of possessing the man through a prostitute. What do they do? They adorn and embellish her. As you know, there was a temple — and the most select women were in that temple.

There is a women’s temple in the city of Uruk, which we can liken to today’s brothel. There is a  profound transformation that occurs, from the temple to the brothel. Musakkaddim — yes, it [the brothel] even has a name. This is a form of male-centred socialisation. And isn’t it still like that today? It’s very striking — even our own ranks were infiltrated. Special women were sent in to divide and fragment the PKK. It’s remarkable. We experienced this — perhaps even I experienced it myself. This is a real phenomenon. It’s still widespread today. Forcing someone onto the leadership of the organisation, even pushing the organisation to dissolve itself — it all happens around this phenomenon. Of course, it has a historical foundation here in these lands. Enkidu is brought from the Zagros — a strong man, described as magnificent, as powerful as Gilgamesh himself. In fact, Gilgamesh cannot live without him. He is the man who protects the dominant city. It’s in the epic — immense praise is given. When he dies, Gilgamesh feels as though he has died too. He says, “How did I die? How did this disaster befall me?” It’s a tragic epic. But its essence is this: through the woman, control over the man from the mountains is seized. The women’s temple is transformed into a musakkaddim — and Gilgamesh transitions into kingship, becoming both god and king. Just as Kurdish boys are recruited as soldiers to form a loyal male army, so too, through the woman’s house, the man from the mountains is taken, joined with the temple prostitute, and within two or three days, he falls apart — shattered. He says, “I’ll never go back to the mountains.” The reason for this change is that he learns about prostitution.

From that day to this, the foundation of this institution — which corrupts society, turns women into prostitutes, and degrades men into their worst state — was laid in this way. That is the essence of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Why am I saying this? Because we spoke of problems — it is woman and problem. This reality can be studied under that main heading. Can it be denied? Its effects are still deeply felt today. I have described how man became “manly”. I am trying to explain how the goddess was transformed into a male religion. Gilgamesh is terrifying — and Enkidu is the ruined proto-Kurd. I am describing it in a very crude and general way — anyone who wishes can go deeper, but for me, the essence is this: a society centred around woman, the resulting male-female struggle, female goddess, male god — it all has its place in the Torah, the Bible; priest and priestess, and in Islam, the harem institution reached its peak in the Ottoman Empire. It peaked under Muawiyah. It peaked in Christianity. And in Judaism, the root of the so-called institution of “home” and “family” lies in the Torah. Open the Torah and look — see how women are confined to the home. This confinement to the home — well, Zoroastrianism laid its foundations. The Jews adopted it from Zoroastrianism while in Babylon. The foundation of the powerful institution of the family was laid in this way. Confinement to the home, marriage… Marriage, in other words, means being confined to the home. The bride is dolled up and locked into the house.

The woman gathers plants, the man hunts — he kills living beings. War is the killing of living beings. Killing animals is murder. The woman building social life around plant seeds is a completely different matter. The man strengthening himself by killing is a completely different matter. I will elaborate on this further. One turned into today’s massacre-driven society; the other is still trying to hold society together. Therefore, the culture of keeping society alive is based on a sociology that develops around women. A society centred on war — that is, on plunder — is a male-dominated society. His business is surplus value. Marx ties this to class formation, but that’s not even necessary. Once the possibility of surplus value begins to emerge around the woman a plant-based society and a nutritional increase arises, the man sets his sights on it. He hunts animals, yes, but then he also seizes the food the woman gathers. He takes the food and also takes the woman. That’s how the story begins. He kills two birds with one stone.

Yes, the woman has built society, has established the home. The woman feeds her offspring. There is a women’s clan, a women’s society. She has reached the status of goddess and governed humanity for 30,000 years. Then the hunter-man creates a special group, a kind of club of male brotherhood. A hunting group is formed; they kill animals first, and if successful, hold a feast. But then he sees that women are planting wheat, barley, lentils — and by establishing villages, is developing the society we call the Neolithic. She builds homes. She does, because she feeds and protects the offspring, has sisters as aunts and brothers as uncles. There are children — this is a clan. But she is producing, inventing. Inanna says to Enki: “You’ve stolen hundreds of Me.” That means there are hundreds of creative arts institutions — and she says, “I was the creator of these, and now you’re claiming ownership.” She says in the epic: “You say you created them, but you’re lying.” “I created them, you’re seizing them.” That’s the mythological expression. I said this in my own style and developed it further. That’s how I analysed the Epic of Gilgamesh. And when it comes to the core problem: the man, relying on this hunter’s club, attacks this female-centred society. That is where the problem begins. Is it true? Yes, it is true. We see it — starting with Riha (tr. Urfa), it’s widespread. Through the institution of marriage, the powerful man kills every day.

Strangely, I don’t often speak about my memories, but one comes to mind. It’s still vivid: as siblings, we had a donkey. We would load it with hay and loads. I still remember the field. There was a moment of inadequacy. If I recall correctly, I once hit my sister Ayne. What she said to me has stayed in my mind: “Your strength only works on me.” I must’ve been stronger than her. I remember raising a hand because she wasn’t doing the work properly or thoroughly. Oddly, Ayne never even felt the need to visit me. Fatma, our other sister, is still alive, but Ayne never showed any concern. Does she have her own religion? Her own ideas? She lived like a half-mad woman. Her life may have been deeply painful, but she never once thought of me as a sister. Perhaps she never truly loved me. Could it have been because of that beating? Maybe she started to think about it. One day, I’ll try to find out.

The truth is, it’s still happening. When a man feels bothered, he kills a woman. There’s no longer any distinction between city and village — Riha, Istanbul, it makes no difference. Maybe it happens more in Istanbul. Today, the family crisis is enormous. And in my view, it stems from marriage itself — from the form of marriage. This idea of the ‘holy family’ is nonsense. There’s no such thing. Through marriage and confinement to the home, women are placed in a brutal atmosphere of slavery. She can’t endure it. She breaks down, explodes — and the man strikes. The newspapers are full of it. One woman in a thousand might commit violence, but nine hundred and ninety-nine men out of a thousand attack women. Who can deny this? It’s obvious. There’s no need for hypocrisy. This problem doesn’t stem from class. It stems from gender relations — from man and woman. Is it a problem? Yes, a fundamental one. That’s why we sought clues in the Epic of Gilgamesh, looking for its roots in Sumerian society. Later, the separation of state, city, and class reached its peak. It exists in the Torah. The Qur’an is also full of examples. Even the covering of Göbekli Tepe may have been a male-driven act — possibly another move of patriarchal dominance. But I can’t say for sure. I won’t speculate on it. Göbekli Tepe is a widespread culture. Between the Tigris and Euphrates, there are over 200 archaeological sites. At Karahan Tepe, male dominance is reflected blatantly — even through representations of male genitalia. These male statues were transported to India and Egypt. We see a shift to male dominance. But this transition only came after 30,000 years of female-centred society, with a burst in production. Upper Mesopotamia has rich flora and fauna. Plants everywhere — wave your hand and they’re there. Around Karacadağ, wheat and barley were first cultivated. Sheep and goats were domesticated here. It’s a rain-fed region. This kind of natural harmony is rare elsewhere in the world — rain and soil complement each other perfectly here. And with that, came an explosion of plant and animal life. People came from Africa and gathered here. Plants and animals were abundant. You could be a hunter or a gatherer — either was possible. One path centred around women, the other around men. What happens in the end? They clash. The man is the hunter — and he has weapons. The conflict is fought with obsidian, with flint. Weapons still surround Göbekli Tepe. Obsidian was traded. It was the most precious commodity. Obsidian is, in essence, a weapon — a sharp blade. And this sharp knife, in the man’s hand, is a hunter’s tool — used to cut down anyone. In the face of this superiority, women are defeated. The man, with his little club of five or ten close allies, obsidian blade in hand, kills wherever he goes. (Even I — I deeply love my uncle; he is very dear to me. But I don’t know my paternal aunts. I know my maternal aunts well.) In matrilineal society, the mother’s brother — the uncle — holds power in the clan. So this indicates the matrilineal legacy was still preserved to some extent. But in the counter-revolution, the matrilineal society suffered a massive blow.

Both her intrinsic values are stripped away, and she is forced to work like a slave along with her sons. In turn, the woman kills the man through the so-called sacred marriage ritual. Just like in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the man is killed. The roots go that far back. It's horrifying. This act of sanctification drives the woman to kill — even if the man is her lover. Why? Because she already knows what’s coming. To avoid the catastrophe she foresees, she must kill. That’s the essence. This is historical materialism. The most useful insight we can derive from Marxism is precisely this. Dialectical materialism explains it in this way. But eventually, the man puts an end to this female sovereignty in Sumerian society. The Sumerian period marks the transition into a male-dominated society. This transition is completed through the enslavement of women. After that, we have the Babylonian mythologies, such as the Enuma Elish. If you read them, you’ll find it very striking. The content of these epics was turned into religion by the Hebrew people.

The Hebrew society took the Enuma Elish and transformed it into the Torah. The Torah is the Enuma Elish reinterpreted within the Hebrew tribe, undergoing both spiritual and material transformation. The name of this transformation, its semantic expression, is the Torah. From the Torah comes the Bible, and from the Bible comes the Qur’an. No one can deny this. The end result is the confinement of the woman to the home. Most likely, Zoroaster (Zarathustra) also made a significant contribution to this process — he even sanctified the male sexual organ. We enter a regime of phallocracy. Man places his genitalia in the position of divinity. “Not only am I divine, but so is sexual organ, and you shall worship it,” he says. And indeed, this has been written into scripture. It is spelled out clearly in the Torah. What matters to us here is the conceptualisation of all this. That’s the important part — this transformation into religion through conceptualisation. The same is true today. These modern Western ailments will also be laid bare in time.

The next phase is that of property. Let us not forget — confinement in the home is a dangerous ideology. A profound issue. As I’ve said before, this is where social problems truly begin. This is the root of the emergence of class, the state. And it is the man who orchestrates all of this. Man leads the aristocratic revolution, the bourgeois revolution — but all revolve around the enslavement of women.

Once the state is established, there remains no power capable of restraining man. The state expresses limitless male power. Man is marked by it. We laid the foundation for women’s liberation. How does it evolve? Personally, out of my respect for women, I’ve said: Freedom must begin in the mind. I told them: Live however you want — if you have the strength, of course. People say: “Let women and men be lovers, let them make love.” If you’re capable of it, go ahead. I’ve never put any limits on it. But I can’t be held responsible for what happens to you as a result. Right? The only thing I can do is open a window toward freedom. But you look around and every path is blocked. Any man you turn to, any relationship that starts on the basis of marriage, is deeply rooted in a sense of ownership. We’re still far from equality. Sooner or later, the blow will come from the man. Even if you separate, how will you live alone? The woman who created the economy, isn’t she now dependent on scraps? On the man’s hand? It’s astonishing. If the man doesn’t work, the woman goes hungry. And yet it was the woman who created the economy. You know the word economy comes from ancient Greek, literally meaning“household management.” The science of maintaining the household: that was always the woman’s domain. In recent times, women’s connection to the economy has been erased. Does any woman today control economic power? No. The economy is now fully under the absolute dominance of corporations and of men. When I say this, people are astonished. Even Jean-Jacques Rousseau noticed this. Interestingly, so did Adam Smith. People are surprised. The transition to male dominance in economic terms has Western roots — and it was brutal.

In earlier times — the Middle Ages and Antiquity — women held quite a bit of economic power. But under capitalism, that possibility has completely disappeared. Control of companies, money, and finance is a male monopoly. Women have no influence over money or the economy; they are entirely dependent on men. All the money, technology, and centralised science are in men’s hands. So what happens to women? I call them “nightingales singing in a cage” or “the ornament of the man’s home.” The female body today is not just a matter of ownership. Capitalism treats every part of the female body — from hair to legs, soul to voice — as property. Isn’t advertising built on the female body? It’s horrifying. You must take control of your own body. Your body is completely controlled by men. How can you manage? Your boundaries are set by him, your time is dictated by him. If he doesn’t provide money, you go hungry. I don’t want to paint too bleak a picture, but all of this is already in place. For example, what I said: socialism can only come through women’s liberation. What surprises me is that even Marx had to sell his coat to live with his wife. The very man who wrote capitalism’s greatest critique couldn’t support his wife and children; he sold his jacket. “I will write this book to bring in income and save this marriage,” he said. Now, if the founder of sociology says this, what has happened to us! Is this Marxism? Sadly, it has happened, and we have worshipped it like a prophet. We’re trying to overcome it, but the situation is dire. Women have already been crushed. It’s the same with Lenin, Mao, and Stalin. Women live in fear. I don’t blame Lenin; he made a genuine effort on this issue. Stalin, however, made women into property, locked them in the home. He didn’t kill them, but made life worse than death. That’s what I mean. Killing the man might be clever in a way. I had those feelings myself, as I said. My closest friend definitely wanted me to kill. I was cautious. I struggled with her for ten years, but I was cautious. Let her do whatever she wants; I told her story. When she left, it was a tremendous liberation for me. That’s how I survived. While everyone was ashamed or upset that “the man’s wife left,” I said, “I’m free.”

This is opposite of what men do. My freedom started with the end of that relationship. If I say this, everyone laughs. But I say it openly: I’m free! I’m free from that tradition, from the ‘woman problem.’ If I kill a woman, what would I become? A murderer. No murderer can be a socialist. Stalin could, but I think it’s wrong. That’s what I want to say. The approach of women who have not experienced traditional marriage is a problem in this sense. But what’s the benefit of my approach? At least we’ve given people the chance to think freely. For me, the ability to think freely is incredibly important. It’s the most important human quality, something you can see in Socrates too; his idea of freedom is tied to marriage, but at least it keeps me going. It keeps you going, too, to some extent. If you lose your freedom of thought, you inevitably perish. Therefore, our new emergence — new socialism, new Kurdish identity, new Kurdish freedom — develops on this basis. It is a strong critique of civilisation, modernity, and female slavery, and it’s showing great progress in us. We can overcome the problem on an individual level, and progress collectively as well. For me, this is our greatest contribution to socialism. I said these things as an introduction under the topic of ‘women’s sociality and issues.’

3 - THE DICHOTOMY OF STATE AND COMMUNE IN HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Historical materialism should replace the concept of class struggle with the concept of the ‘commune’. Isn’t this not only a realistic approach but also the healthiest path to socialism within sociology, through freedom of thought and action? Instead of defining historical materialism and socialism based on class conflict, I believe it is more accurate to base them on the dilemma between state and commune. I find it more appropriate to revisit Marxism and implement it through this concept. In other words, history is not a history of class warfare but a conflict between state and commune. Marxism’s theory of conflict based on class division is the main reason for the collapse of real socialism. It doesn’t even require criticism. The main cause lies in its attempt to build sociology based on this class division. So, what does the dilemma between state and commune mean as a replacement for this division? It is a very valuable observation—well known, yet not systematised. What I am doing here is a systematic analysis. I want to resolve historical materialism within this conceptual framework. Furthermore, I aim to ground contemporary socialism not in a dictatorship of the proletariat but in a concept set that organises the relationship between state and communality. I have a strong impression this will yield very constructive and striking results.

I base this on the idea that society is essentially a communal phenomenon. Earlier, I defined the clan, which is a form of sociality. Sociality means commune. Primitive commune means clan. Specifically, regarding the term commune, as far as we understand, it is necessary to analyse the cultural rise in the Mesopotamian region and the origins of Sumerian society—that is, the foundations on which the state, city, property, and class emerged.

Putting the state first is accurate, but so is the commune. Where then is sociality? Society is the foundation. Because until around 4000 BCE, the dominant form of social development was the clan. You might also call it an aşîret[10] or tribe. An aşîret is actually a union of communes. The tribe is a commune. The family had not yet fully formed. Family and tribe essentially mean the same thing; they represent the same phenomenon. The family was not very distinct from the tribe, nor was the tribe from the family.

With the advent of the Neolithic, a striking development occurred. The clan was closely connected to the Neolithic. Before the Neolithic, it was simply clan-based. We can understand the connection of the commune to our Kurdish language from our own terminology. The Kurdish word ‘kom’[11] (meaning commune) literally means ‘to gather’. It is still used today, indicating that this term likely derives from the Aryan language, pointing to at least a 10,000-year history. It is clear that the Aryan language group also developed around this communal concept. The Kurdish word ‘kom’ proves this, as do its derivatives. For instance, ‘Komagene’ is known as the name of a state.

The tribe’s leader generates the state, and tribe members whose interests are harmed form the commune. This is actually the truth. It is very simple. I haven’t made a great discovery here. Marx calls this a scientific discovery, but that’s just storytelling. The formation and development of the working class did not create wonders or great science; it is a simple matter. The tribe’s oppressor becomes the state, the clan chief or whoever the leader is becomes the ruler, and ordinary members continue as commune and later as family. Those at the top become the state dynasty. Those below remain the oppressed tribe—and when there is a state, there is an oppressed tribe. That is how division begins. Marxism’s claim that the proletariat came into being this way or developed that way feels a bit forced to me.

Yes, such an industrialisation based on the Industrial Revolution, with proletarianisation and bourgeoisification, exists, but this is the result of a development spanning thousands, even five thousand years. Bourgeoisification and proletarianisation existed beforehand—in Babylon, Sumer, Assyria, in Athens, and Rome. It only later spread to Western Europe. It is not something Europe invented, but they expanded its scale and made it hegemonic. Capitalism emerged as a form of exploitation along with its hegemony, which became dominant worldwide. Its roots go back to Sumerian society. This is a story of state formation—the slave state, the feudal state, the capitalist state. But we shouldn’t really interpret it in such a straightforward way. The important question is: where is the commune?

Towards the end of his life, Marx focused on the Paris Commune, where many people he knew died—some 17,000 communards are said to have been killed. In their memory, he produced an evaluation of the Paris Commune. He abandoned Capital because his predictions had suffered a severe blow. In my view, he experienced an internal break and turned his attention to the idea of the commune. He used the term commune more than class. Kropotkin criticises Lenin with the argument ‘Don’t destroy the Soviets’—the Soviets are essentially communes. But Lenin preferred the state, and with the NEP programme, Stalin took things to terrifying extremes.

At the end of his life, Marx didn’t want to use the concept of dictatorship and instead turned to the concept of the commune. He also made the distinction between state and commune but couldn’t develop it further. Ultimately, my view is that this distinction was indeed valid historically: historical materialism is not a history of class war—or rather, not quite a war—but a history of the dilemma between commune and state. All history amounts to this, especially written history. It was laid down in Sumer, and now we are experiencing its peak in the West. Yes, commune means municipality, but it has been emptied of meaning. For example, today in our municipalities, trustees are appointed by the state; no one denies this. This shows that they have been hollowed out.

In fact, the commune is a great form of sociality—the clan, even the family is a commune—but it has been weakened and emptied. Municipalities have been hollowed out; remnants of tribes and clans remain, but they too have been hollowed out. The Tavşantepe incident,[12] which we deeply are saddened by, is connected to a tribe. It was through this tribe that a terrible act of rape was committed against a very young girl—an unprecedented massacre. Symbolic though it is, its meaning is profound. It is an expression of a culture. The tragic situation of the Molla Gurani[13] family, a religious family that participated in the conquest of Istanbul, is also illustrative. Therefore, this communalist resurgence will be the expression of our new era’s free socialism. We will discuss and concretise this new period around this idea.

The concept of the moral political society is another way of expressing the commune—how the commune finds expression against the state. The language of the new era of peace will be political. We will defend the freedom of the commune. As the name suggests, we are abandoning nationalist statehood and its related concepts, and instead prioritising ethical and political concepts based on the commune. We called it a moral and political society, but this is the name of the liberating commune. It is ethical and political, not even legal. Of course, there are laws, which will develop, such as municipal law. We will want it to find expression in law; this will be a condition and principle for us. The more scientific term for this is communal freedom.

From now on, we will be communalists. Replacing the class concept with the commune is much more striking and scientific. Municipalities still are communes. We also have the ‘kom’. Is there no morality or ethics? Of course, there is. The commune will function more by ethics than by law. The commune is also a democracy. The ‘political’ is expressed through democratic politics. Commune is a noun; ethical and political are adjectives. Commune is ethical and political—one is a noun, the other adjectives. We call this the deepest revision of Marxism. We replace the class concept with the commune.

Kropotkin’s criticism of Lenin is correct. Bakunin’s criticism of Marx is also correct. They are incomplete but valid. Marxism must definitely undergo criticism on this point. Had Marx understood Bakunin, and Lenin understood Kropotkin, the fate of socialism would have developed very differently. Because they failed to synthesize these ideas, real socialism developed as it did.

4- MODERNITY

In Europe, the new era is called modernity. We define modernity through the Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Capitalism, the nation-state, and industrialism. Modernity expresses the reality of this era. It should not be equated solely with capitalism. Modernity consists of the trio of capitalism, the nation-state, and industrialism. This structure began to take shape from the 16th century onwards. Real socialism is also a product of this modernity.

Socialism should have emerged as an alternative to the modernity triad. However, only socialist analysis and struggle against capitalism were put forward. And even this was not fully developed. In fact, it could not be developed in this way because it remained limited to a manifesto—the Communist Manifesto. Industrialism was accepted as is, even glorified. This was a significant strategic shortcoming and a major error. Furthermore, Marx did not offer a substantial analysis of the nation-state, leaving a serious ideological gap. To give credit where it is due, Marx later became aware of this incomplete analysis. During the process of writing Capital, the third volume was to focus on the state, but he did not live to complete it. Even if he had, writing it properly would have been difficult since Marx lacked a comprehensive perspective for analysing the nation-state.

Marx’s critique and analysis of industrialism is practically non-existent. His socialism is based solely on anti-capitalism and contains significant gaps. It was never fully developed. This socialist theory has very limited capacity as a reference point for analysing modernity. In fact, it remains a part of modernity and stays within its boundaries.

The problem of our age is that modernity, driven by these three horsemen, is dragging humanity towards apocalypse. The level of capitalist exploitation reached today is at the verge of savagery. It has spread over the planet like a cancerous tumour. The nation-state is its striking force. In the nation-state system, the nation becomes a military society. Violence and war lie at the system’s core. The nation-state is a system of war societies. In these wars, millions of people are slaughtered each time.

Industrialism, starting with the environment, progresses by exhausting underground and surface life resources. Today, humanity is on the brink of being consumed by the monster it created. Industrialism has long avoided critical scrutiny and was kept away from it. The first thing to say here is that industrialism is not as innocent as it may appear. Just as it transformed the social fabric, it also altered the relationship between humans and nature. Seeing industrialism purely as a peaceful, economically based phenomenon is also mistaken. Industrialism has been intertwined with war technologies from the very beginning. This is what makes the nation-state possible. In other words, the fusion of industry, technology, and warfare is a fundamental characteristic of industrialism. It is no coincidence that an advanced nation-state possesses advanced war technologies.

In summary, viewing industrial development as a neutral sphere and ignoring it in the struggle against modernity means any counter-struggle has no chance of success—and cannot succeed. Modernity cannot be stopped, and if it continues as it is, the planet has only around 50 years left to live. I am not speaking of a dystopian scenario but a real apocalyptic end. Marx sensed this danger and opposed it, but was unable to develop the analysis fully. He planned to write six books. He completed the first volume, though incompletely. His analysis remained limited to infrastructure, superstructure, and class-based frameworks. In this respect, he fell short even compared to Hegel. Engels tried to fill in some gaps, focusing on the origins of family, private property, and the state, the dialectics of nature, and the role of necessity in history—but it was not enough. Lenin attempted to complete the analysis in the fields of politics and the state, but also fell short. Mao tried to adapt this theory to the liberation struggles of the colonies, with limited success. Mao could have developed, comprehensive system analysis and alternative solution, but this also remains lacking.

We have developed a new analytical alternative to socialist theory that transcends modernity and the real socialism that serves it. We call it Democratic Modernity. Rather than the pillars of modernity—the nation-state, capitalism, and industrialism—we propose the democratic nation, commune and communality, and eco-economic analyses. From the relationality of these three fields of analysis, we defined and codified our libertarian social system as Democratic Modernity, and we have observed that it resonates significantly within society. Undoubtedly, each of these three areas has subcategories. For example, a crucial part of communality is women’s freedom. In addition, politics, ethics (morality), and so forth can be listed. We will comprehensively address and elaborate on all of these. Defining the integrity of this system as Democratic Modernity is satisfactory.

The descriptions of the apocalypse/doomsday in religions apply not only to the afterlife but also to this world. The apocalypse that the holy books speak of is this very day, inflicted on humanity by capitalist modernity. Instead of preventing this, socialism has become not only ineffective but almost the beast of burden and bait for the modernity monster. The Soviet Union and China are the clearest examples of this. The Chinese are an interesting people—they tried to implement capitalism and socialism together. That might be conceivable, even thinkable. However, in practice, China subordinated socialism to serve capitalism. The result: service to capitalism and the prolonging of its life. Today, Chinese capitalism is engaged in a hegemony struggle with America. The US may respond with force. This means nuclear war. That is the apocalypse. As Einstein put it, “If a third world war is fought with nuclear weapons, and if any survive, the fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones.” He was right. For this section, it suffices to state these points in bold terms.

5 - THE REALITY OF KURDS AND KURDISTAN

The nature of a phenomenon is shaped through the dialectic of its existence and persistence. How did the phenomenon come to be, and how has it developed? The answers to these questions provide insights into the phenomenon’s existence or non-existence. From this perspective, the Kurdish reality ceased to exist with modernity. Both as a concept and as a reality, the Kurds and Kurdistan suffered destruction and suppression alongside the emergence of the Republic of Turkey. Phrases like "Imaginary Kurdistan lies here dead" were used to claim this destruction. The other parts of Kurdistan were no different. There was no longer any real existence under the name of Kurd or Kurdistan. The most significant achievement of the PKK as a modern movement was to revive this reality. The PKK both proved the existence of the Kurdish and Kurdistan reality and made it invincible. Other Kurdish movements do not have such power. Traditional movements like the KDP and petty-bourgeois movements like the YNK failed even to convince others of their own existence. Without the emergence of the PKK, all of them would have been finished 30 years ago.

The great resistance of the PKK made the existence of Kurd and Kurdistan a permanent issue. It developed a strong consciousness about Kurdish existence. To understand this achievement, historical and sociological inquiries are necessary. I started 52 years, 1 month, and 4 days ago by saying, "Kurdistan is a colony." When I expressed this, I nearly fainted. It was a difficult discovery for me; I even hesitated to say it aloud. When I explained it to one or two friends, I almost fainted. From that point, we have come to today. Do not underestimate the power of words. When words meet truth, they are very effective, creative, and empowering. This statement not only guided practical resistance but also transformed into a great historical analysis, followed by interpretations of the Neolithic period, the ideology of women’s freedom, reflections on socialism, and more. All of these aimed to uncover the Kurdish reality and foster Kurdish enlightenment. And we succeeded. This grand historical journey, sociological analysis, and political struggle both proved the Kurdish and Kurdistan reality and compelled friends and foes to accept it. This is a great achievement. The PKK is the name of this success.

Has the solution of freedom been achieved? No. The Kurdish existence was proven, and ideological-organisational consciousness was attained, but the step toward liberation stalled. Behind the inability to take this step lies the ideology and effects of real socialism. In the 20th century, socialism seized state power in many parts of the world and controlled one-third of the globe. Yet it could not endure and eventually collapsed. This crisis reflected on us as well. Real socialism collapsed, we survived, but we experienced a great turmoil. Real socialism failed because it could not overcome its theoretical deadlocks nor develop a freedom-oriented socialism. Escaping ideological crises is difficult. The ideological framework you rely on has collapsed, which conceptual framework or sociological analysis will you adopt? Real socialism failed, little remained, and while struggling to maintain faith in socialism by trial and error, I developed an assessment called "Insistence on Socialism is an Insistence on Being Human." I preserved my faith and commitment to socialism and embarked on the struggle to transform it into consciousness. These were difficult, turbulent years. Approaching the 2000s, we began a new phase of intense focus and analysis. The democratic nation and socialism emerged as strategic results of these analyses and gave new breath to the socialist perspective. This is a strategic transformation both for the socialist perspective and for the PKK. While we have been striving to complete this transformation for 20 years, only today (with this new process), will this transformation be formally named and recognised.

The “Democratic Nation” solution will be the foundation for the upcoming process. The proposed solution in the perspective of Democratic Modernity is the Democratic Nation.  In our manifesto, we referred to it as the Peace and Democratic Society — both terms convey the same meaning.

The PKK is a movement that revealed the Kurdish reality and elevated its existence to an invincible level. No one can deny this truth. The next step is to realise freedom. A free society will find its existence shaped on the basis of communality, guided by ethical and political principles. However, it seems unlikely that this step will be achieved through the PKK. Without the PKK, what would remain in the name of the Kurds and Kurdistan? It would have become a culture consigned to history, like the Incas and Aztecs in Latin America or the Native Americans in North America.

In truth, this situation has still not been fully overcome. The Kurds remain a cultural remnant in Dersim, Çewlik, and Zagros. Disintegrated tribes, a dysfunctional language, relics of religious sects, tribal family conflicts... The reason why this has not been overcome at the desired level despite the PKK’s presence is the profound historical and social fragmentation. At some point, I no longer considered calling it colonialism sufficient. The situation goes beyond colonialism: a graveyard. In Dersim, bones still remain in the valleys, caves, and streams. The graves of the last representatives of tradition are even unknown — including Sheikh Said, Said-i Kurdi, Seyit Rıza. These were the strongest traditional leaders of the Kurds.

During the Holocaust, there were Jewish Committees known as Judenräte (Judenrat). These were groups or families of Jews who collaborated with the fascists. In exchange for extending their own or their family members’ lives by just 24 hours, they sent other Jews to the gas chambers. The functioning of this genocidal system relied on these committees. They deceived Jews by saying, “We’re taking you to the bath,” and led them to the gas chambers. The lists of how many people were to be sent were prepared by these committees, which were established by the fascists themselves.

Reflecting on this, I saw that the Kurdish reality is also a Judenrat reality. This is the Kurdish reality I describe as beyond colonialism. The families who claim to be the most “Kurdish” — the Barzanis, the Bedirxanis, even some descendants of Sheikh Said and Seyit Rıza — have become Judenrat-like. To save their families, they lead Kurdishness to its destruction. They have not even written a single book; they cannot even honour the memory of their ancestors. They act hostilely towards the free Kurdish people. Recently, a parliamentary seat in Bitlis and a trustee mayoralty in Şırnak were given to the Bedirxanis. These are Judenrat roles. I have developed this thesis lately and firmly believe in its truth. I think this term better explains the striking reality than simply “colonial Kurd and Kurdistan.” This is a new dimension of my conceptual work, which can offer a more vivid and realistic expression of what is happening in Kurdistan and among the Kurds.

At the same time, there is a tremendous escape from reality among the Kurds. Let us not forget, you are still living this escape. Kurdishness in you remains an act of fleeing. I have a particular leadership style toward the Kurds. I have worked and continue to work on how to teach what these escapes mean and how to stop them. I both teach and make them pay the price for this escape.

This is my leadership style: You cannot escape Kurdishness. Kurdishness is not something you can run away from. You try unbelievable tricks, you perform countless somersaults, you try to deceive me. I have said the same about the state: you cannot deceive me! No matter what you do, there is no Apo before you who can be fooled. I have been telling this to the PKK and to you for 50 years. You can sanctify me or demonise me as much as you want, but you will not get away. For 50 years, this is what leadership means.

Why did the state launch this process? And how have we been able to bring you together at this table? This is a serious meeting — a Kurdish meeting — emerging from a process in which the state punished even the mere utterance of the word “Kurd” with the harshest penalties. It carries many complex meanings. We are evaluating how it can be realised. I am the one who knows best how this was reached and how the struggle to get here unfolded. Even our best cadres are still far from understanding it. That is why they cannot be creative. They cannot show leadership. They do not fear giving their lives or death, but they do not want to face the truth. Behind this is the fact that the Kurdish reality surpasses even the fact of a colonial existence, and is characterized by wasted personalities.

Africa was colonised, yet today nearly all its countries exist as nation-states. The same is true of Latin America. However, this is not the case for the Kurdish reality. What it means to be Kurdish remains unclear. Is it traditional or modern? It has become something of a tragic reality. This outcome is not primarily the result of external oppression, as is often assumed, but rather stems from internal causes. In deciphering this, the strategies and tactics I have developed have played a decisive role.

The geography of Kurdistan was first recorded by the Sumerians as ‘Kurds, Hurrians, and Urs’. This is the earliest spatial definition of the region. At a time when there were no country boundaries anywhere else in the world, the Sumerians were the first to define this area. Later, in Greek historiography, the name ‘Kurdia’ appears. Almost half of Herodotus’s history is dedicated to the reality of Kurdistan. The Greek society admired the Medes — even imitating them. Their democracy is said to have drawn inspiration from sensitivities originating in this region.

During the Middle Ages, with the advent of the Arab Islamic revolution, the concept of ‘Kurd’ became fully established. The Seljuks were the first to turn the idea of Kurdistan into a political entity. Sultan Sanjar designated Hamadan (Ecbatana) as his centre, and referred to the territory centred around Ecbatana as Kurdistan. The term Kurdistan was first used to denote an administrative unit under Sultan Sanjar’s reign. In other words, a Turkish Khan was building Kurdistan. From this, one may ask: was Sultan Sanjar, in fact, a Kurdish Sultan? His centre was Ecbatana, and he ordered his vizier Nizam al-Mulk, “Go, protect my family.” Even when defeat loomed, he declared they would retreat to Hamadan.

The Battle of Manzikert was also led from Hamadan. Thus, Alp Arslan fought more as a Kurdish emir than a Turkish one. His family resided in Hamadan, and his vizier was based there. Given this information, how should we assess the Seljuks? Was it a Turkish emirate or a Kurdish one? This question requires further research and debate. The prevailing view is that it was predominantly a Kurdish leadership. Even today, half the population of Hamadan was once Turkmen, but they have largely become Kurdified.

Among the emirates, the Mervanids and the Shaddadids stand out. The Mervanids represent the Kurdification of the region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, a process that developed alongside Islam. This phenomenon was also present under the Seljuks. Alp Arslan allied with the armed forces of the Mervanid emirate to fight jointly against Byzantium at the Battle of Manzikert. Alp Arslan was a military commander surrounded by Kurds. Ahlat was also an emirate at the time. Had the Kurds sided with Byzantium during that period, Alp Arslan’s victory would have been impossible. It was a war won definitely through a Kurdish alliance.

From around 1050 to 1060, the Shaddadids in the south Caucasus formed a definitive alliance with the Seljuks. Neither the Shaddadids alone nor the Seljuks alone could stand up to the Byzantines. Together, they forged a historic alliance. Their first major achievement was the 1064 campaign against the Armenian Kingdom under Byzantine control, capturing Ani and Kars. Following this, Ani was granted to Manuchehr, and Kars to Tughril.[14] A remnant of this history is the Manuchehr Mosque in Ani, which still stands today.

The alliance between Yavuz Sultan Selim and Idris-i Bitlisi is highly significant. The battles of Ridaniye, Marj Dabiq, and Chaldiran, which played crucial roles in transforming the Ottoman Empire into a Middle Eastern imperial power, were products of the Kurdish-Ottoman alliance. The Kurds are among the fundamental founding peoples of the empire.

When Çelebi Mehmed fled after his father’s capture, he was carried on the back of Bayezid Pasha of Amasya, who was a Kurdish pasha. This event may be symbolic. At the time, the Kutlushahs, a branch of the Shaddadids, were the ruling family in Amasya. Çelebi Mehmed is the sultan who ended the Ottoman Interregnum. The figures who encouraged the conquest of Istanbul, such as Molla Gurani and Akşemsettin, were also Kurdish.

There is no need to elaborate on the War of Independence. Mustafa Kemal initiated this war not from Izmir or Thrace, but from Kurdish regions such as Erzurum and Silvan. It is an undeniable fact that the war was won through a Kurdish-Turkish alliance. The result of this alliance was the Turkey we know today. Yet, one year after the Republic’s foundation, the Kurds—the Republic’s original founding people—were denied existence and Kurdish identity was banned. Thus, the Kurds, whose presence has been documented since the Sumerian era, were officially erased under the Republic.

The PKK challenged this denial with great resistance; it revealed the historical and social reality of Kurdish identity and forced both friends and foes to recognise it. However, the consequences of this denial have not yet been fully overcome within your own society. You are still in denial of your true reality. I see a serious risk in your collective identity and personality. I do not see a healthy, stable sense of self or identity among you.

This cannot be achieved by resistance alone. Building the new (life and society) requires a revolutionary culture, the establishment of democratic institutions, democratic nation institutions, research and study centres, and language institutions. These (institutions) cannot be realised under capitalism. Kurdish society must be anti-capitalist. The Kurds will liberate themselves through democratic nationhood, eco-economics, and communality, building and consolidating a permanent way of life.

This, of course, will be achieved through a struggle of construction and self-assertion. The outward resistance against external pressures has been accomplished. One reason for the PKK’s decline is that it succeeded in external resistance. From now on, the struggle will be inward-looking. The coming era will be a period of self-construction. This requires peace and a democratic society. We now stand at a threshold.

6 – The PKK AND DISSOLUTION

With the collapse of actually existing socialism in the early 1990s, the PKK lost its ideological foundation. This was because the PKK had been organised according to the perspective of real socialist struggle. Its programme, strategy, and tactics were all shaped by the principles of real socialism. In this sense, the PKK entered into an ideological crisis with the advent of the 1990s. However, despite this crisis, it managed to persist through its socialism-tinged national liberationist character. The fact that our movement was still young and the urgent need and motivation for national liberation kept it standing. We continued along this path and kept the movement alive.

We were aware that real socialism had been surpassed, but we did not yet know what should take its place. As a result, the period from 1990 to 2000 was one of deep ideological turmoil. In 1998, I stated, “I am resigning from such a party.” The reason was our inability to overcome the ideological crisis within the party. During the İmralı process, we entered a comprehensive phase of reflection that addressed all these issues. This period of intense theoretical engagement resulted in a five-volume body of work.[15] For example, we redefined the strategy of socialist struggle. We created a substantial corpus for the ideological and strategic reorganisation of the movement.

We will engage in a thorough critique of the PKK, and self-criticism will also be developed. Fifty years of struggle—both its positive and negative aspects—must be passed through an intense process of critique and self-reflection. The stagnation experienced in socialism is a general phenomenon, and various efforts are underway to address it. However, the crisis continues. Our analyses of socialism have attracted interest even beyond our borders, particularly among some socialist and intellectual circles, who find them illuminating.

The question of dissolution is not a new agenda for us. When I observed a similar demand emerging at the level of the state, I responded accordingly. I stated that I possess the necessary ideological and political balance, as well as the practical capacity to address this question. Indeed, for the past six months, we have been grappling with these issues, and we have brought the process to its current stage. There is no need to elaborate too much at this point. What is essential is the renewal of internal critique and self-criticism in a deep and fundamental way—especially if a dissolution congress is to take place. Such a congress may also require considerable time.

The issue is not merely about dissolution. It will need to be debated in all its dimensions—positive and negative—over the course of months. There is no immediate need to replace it with something new, nor even to speak of reorganisation. Because what we are dealing with is not merely a structure. We are speaking of a profound transformation in personality and mentality. Reorganisation is only truly possible on this basis. That, too, will likely take several months.

To ensure that the process unfolds in a healthy manner and reaches a meaningful conclusion, it must not be rushed. The government or state wishes to present this immediately as disarmament. That framing is not correct. We will define the proper terms ourselves. A new period is both our statement and our demand. But this cannot be according to their terms alone. We have developed a mature theoretical and political trajectory in this regard, and we have accumulated a wealth of experience.

There should be no assumption that we are incapable of evaluating the question of dissolving the PKK, resolving its contradictions, or even carrying out a congress to that end. As I said, this transformation process has already been underway for quite some time.

7 – PERSPECTIVES FOR THE NEW ERA

The PKK was formed and developed as a movement organised around a real socialist ideology and the principle of the right of nations to self-determination. Its strategy and tactics of struggle were accordingly shaped. The goal of a united and independent Kurdistan was fundamental. We accepted this goal as the essence of socialism. However, after the collapse of real socialism and an analysis of the realities faced by nation-states that developed within the real socialist perspective, we came to understand that this model had no real connection either with socialism or with national liberation. On the contrary, despite being constructed through a socialist lens, it ultimately served capitalist nation-statehood. And that model is inherently capitalist.

This is why we concentrated on socialist ideology and attempted to democratise it. In truth, referring to socialism as democratic is something of a redundancy—socialism should be democratic by nature. However, real socialism was centred on seizing state power and proletarianising the state, i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat. This meant that its democratic essence was weak. For this reason, we felt compelled to use the term democratic socialism.

The nation-state is inherently statist and power-centred. Whether power lies in the hands of the proletariat or the bourgeoisie may create political distinctions, but not in terms of the culture of domination that is produced. Moreover, the notion of class struggle—class against class—is also problematic. It merely deepens class-based social division. Instead of a war of class against class, we proposed the dualism of commune against state. The nation-state is contrary to socialism, it corrupts it. For this reason, we reversed not only the idea of the nation-state but also the goal of establishing one. In its place, we proposed the democratic nation.

Our perspective for this new period is centred on the reconstruction of society on the basis of the democratic nation, eco-economy, and communalism. We now face the responsibility of developing the conceptual and theoretical framework required for this reconstruction to take root philosophically, ideologically, and practically within the fabric of society. In the next stages of our work, we will address all these issues under primary and secondary headings. Within this framework, we aim to define both the programmatic and strategic-tactical dimensions.

Our most recent call was a “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society." That this announcement was made with the knowledge—if not formal permission—of the Turkish Republic is both curious and significant. After all, peace can only be achieved in relation to the state one has struggled against. A democratic society can only be constructed through dialogue with that state. This is what we mean by democratic reconciliation, and it was included in our call.

Undoubtedly, the intentions of the parties may differ. Yet the step taken, or the call made, is substantively correct. The positions of the parties themselves show that it is the correct move. From my perspective, the congress has long since concluded. But our cadre will also formalise this by bringing it to the agenda. I do not foresee any problems. More importantly, we are developing the ideological foundations, practical programme, and strategic-tactical dimensions of this future. The Democratic Society is the political programme of this period. It does not target the state. The politics of the Democratic Society is democratic politics. The commune itself is a democratic commune. It would be mistaken to separate these notions from one another. The communal society is democratic. The appropriate term for the society of today is democratic society. Democratic socialism corresponds to the notion of democratic communitarianism. Just as the state has a history, so too does the commune. The concept of the commune greatly occupies my attention. Given its importance, I believe we will be able to analyse it thoroughly. The free life of peoples is only possible through the commune. Just as the nation-state is a weapon of capitalism, the founding principle and weapon of the peoples is the commune. Communal society can also be built through municipalities. This is theoretically and practically possible. But it can only be achieved through diligence and genuine anti-capitalist struggle. If the founding cadre are confused in mind or lacking in will, it will not succeed.

We attach particular importance to achieving this first with the Republic of Turkey. Our current discussions have brought us to this point. This is a significant stage. These meetings may, in fact, constitute half the solution. What follows will require sincere and meaningful effort. I have strong belief and hope in our success. Achieving this will not only be a victory for the Kurds and Kurdistan, but could also lead to major breakthroughs for the region as a whole. A success here will have reverberations in Syria, Iran, and Iraq as well. For the Republic of Turkey, it would offer the chance to renew itself, to crown itself with democracy, and to assume a leadership role in the region.

I can say that those who oppose this process have no meaningful value. They will be left behind. But overcoming this also imposes responsibilities on all parties. This process will have not only regional implications but also international ones. Regional confederalism is increasingly emerging as an absolute necessity. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, sectarian conflicts, and the contradictions of the nation-state all call for the antidote of Democratic Confederalism.

This resolution also necessitates a new International. It would be a sound and historic step to initiate an internationalist effort with our friends—without delay.

Abdullah Öcalan
25 April 2025

 

 

 

---

[1] The 12th Party Congress of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) took place from May 5 to 7, 2025. In the run-up to the congress, Abdullah Öcalan had the opportunity to send this text to the PKK. It is a kind of introduction to a longer text or book that Öcalan is currently working on on the Turkish prison island of Imrali. Its structure and content provide an initial insight into the reflections he is currently making on the basis of his paradigm of democratic modernity. This translation is to be understood as provisional. As soon as the entire text is available, it will be possible to make Abdullah Öcalan's ideas available in their entirety in other languages to the democratic forces of the world and the wider international public. Those who are already interested in better understanding Abdullah Öcalan's analysis and proposals are referred to the volumes of the Manifesto of Democratic Civilization that are already available in German.

[2] Based on the Turkish original, it is clear that this text is most likely a transcript of Abdullah Öcalan's verbal reflections. The corresponding linguistic style is maintained in the English translation.

[3] The Naqshbandīya, also known as Nakshibendi or Nakshinbandi, is a Sufi order of Islam that originated in Central Asia in the 14th century. Its founder is Baha-ud-Din Naqshband (1318-1389) from Bukhara (now Uzbekistan). Many leading figures in the Turkish state and the Kurdistan Regional Government are also followers of the Naqshbandīya.

[4] A kurdish term close in meaning to “patriot” but without the connotation of the nation-state, can be literally translated as “defenders of the land”

[5] Apo is the short form of Abdullah; the common designation of Abdullah Öcalan as ‘Rêber Apo’ describes him as the leader or vanguard Apo.

Al-Ghazālī (1058-1111): Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī was an influential Islamic theologian of Sunni orthodoxy. He is held responsible for the decline of philosophy in the Islamic East (in contrast to Islamic Spain, where it flourished).

[7] In Islam, kalām (Arabic كلام ‘speech, conversation’) refers to the science that makes it possible to rationally justify religious doctrines and dispel doubts; the scholars who practiced this discipline were called mutakallimūn

[8] Ibn Ruschd (Averroes, 1126-1198) was an influential Islamic philosopher who defended Aristotelian philosophy and emphasized the compatibility of faith and reason; his calls for the use of reason led to conflicts with al-Ghazālī and left a lasting influence on Western philosophy.

[9] Shia: sometimes also known as Shiism, is the second largest religious movement within Islam after Sunnism.

[10]grouping of several tribes or clans, no direct translation in English

[11] The Kurdish word “kom” can be understood as “group” or “collectivity,” and shares the same proto-indo-european root as the latin word “cum”, which is the basis for English words such as “community” or “commune”. It is often used to describe a community or a collection of people who come together or share a common identity.

[12]  The case of eight-year-old Narin, who disappeared on August 21 in Çûlî (Tavşantepe) and was found 19 days later in a sack in a small river near her home, shook the whole country. The autopsy revealed that she had suffocated on the day of her disappearance, with pressure on her throat and the closing of her mouth and nose being the cause of death. Due to the poor condition of her body, it was not possible to determine whether Narin was also the victim of sexual violence.

[13] Mele Guranî (also Molla Gurani) was a mufassir (Koran exegete) and Ottoman administrator of Kurdish origin in the 15th century. After the death of Murad II, he was appointed supreme judge of the Ottoman Empire under Mehmed II. He was part of Mehmed's council during the conquest of Constantinople and wrote a report on it. In 1480 he became Mufti of Istanbul (Sheikh al-Islam) and remained in this position until his death in 1488.

[14] Tughrul-Beg, also Toghril (* around 990; † September 4, 1063 in Tajrish near Rey) was the first sultan of the Seljuks.

[15] This refers to Abdullah Öcalan's five-volume “Manifesto of Democratic Civilization”. Volumes I-IV published by PM Press.