Hakan Öztürk, chair of the Labourist Movement Party (EHP), commented on the text titled “Perspective” submitted by Abdullah Öcalan to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) Congress. He said that with the phrase “Not everything can be achieved through resistance,” Öcalan responds to an old debate within Marxism.

In the third part of this interview with ANF, Öztürk explained that Karl Marx’s thesis, “the point is to change the world,” cannot be realized without first perceiving and interpreting it.

The first part of the interview can be read here, and the second here.

In his remarks, Hakan Öztürk emphasized that the text submitted to the 12th Congress presents a revolutionary theory. He highlighted that the observation “Not everything can be achieved through resistance” addresses a topic that has long been debated within Marxist thought. He continued: “Öcalan says: ‘The importance of the word must not be underestimated,’ and follows with: ‘Not everything is resistance.’ This is not something easily said. Even today, it remains a point of contention within contemporary Marxist thought. The dominant tendency is shaped by Marx’s 11th thesis on Feuerbach, where he says, ‘Philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point is to change it.’ Everyone has turned this into a kind of dogma, saying, ‘What matters is to change the world.’ But how will that change happen if we don’t interpret it first, if we don’t speak about it, if we don’t build a theoretical foundation upon it, or formulate a political stance around it?

From this perspective, we can see that it goes far beyond narrow-minded activism or the glorification of action. What does Öcalan ground this orientation in? In science. In theory. In politics. In the word itself.

There is another very significant phrase: ‘The word becomes flesh.’ A word must be articulated. In this congress perspective, the notion that ‘the word becomes flesh,’ the idea that ‘the importance of the word must not be disregarded,’ and the call to gather our thoughts by stating ‘not everything can be achieved through resistance’, all of this is highly appropriate. It even sheds light on debates within Marxism itself.”

Öcalan subjects all spheres not only to politics but also to science

Hakan Öztürk emphasized that without a revolutionary theory, revolutionary practice cannot exist. In addition to Öcalan’s thesis that “all practical fields are subordinate to the political sphere,” he underlined that all spheres are also subject to science. He continued:

“In that sense, I align myself with Lenin’s school of thought, there can be no revolutionary practice without revolutionary theory. When we underestimate this, we end up saying, ‘I’m running toward something.’ Fine, but toward what? Running in one direction could just as easily lead you off a cliff as it could to the right path. Not every form of running is correct. So we need to pause, clarify where we are going, and then move forward.

This also resembles a debate from Mahir’s era: ‘All practical fields are subordinate to the political sphere.’ While this still holds true, what Öcalan adds here is that these fields must also be subordinated to science. That is the nature and essence of his effort to trace this discussion back to the Sumerians. Why start with the Sumerians? Because beginning there allows one to analyze the question of class.

Öcalan argues that with the emergence of the Sumerians, women lost their dominance and male domination began. Without acknowledging this, it’s impossible to properly examine the issue of women’s oppression. He identifies where this domination became concrete and how it was formulated, he says it was institutionalized in the concept of the family. He describes the structure of clan relations.

If we fail to articulate these points, we revolutionaries can very easily degenerate into narrow-minded practitioners.”

The text presents a theoretical program

Hakan Öztürk pointed out that the text is the result of serious thought and grounded in science. He stated: “We cannot simply say, ‘I’m running,’ without unity, without politics, without theoretical accumulation, without words, without the weight of the word. In this sense, I believe it is a very positive intervention. In that regard, it offers a critique of capitalism, industrialism, and the nation-state. And it proposes its own solutions to these problems.

From this perspective, it is a well-considered text, one that attempts to base itself on science; it puts forward a theoretical accumulation, a political perspective, and accordingly, a political program. My biggest critique of the Turkish left is that it lacks a political program. I could even feel close to a political program I disagree with in some aspects, simply because it is a political program. But the approach of ‘we don’t need a program, we’re already running’ is nothing more than narrow practicalism. This text goes beyond that; in that sense, it is valuable.

I have long believed that expanding the field of problems also requires expanding the framework of solutions. And in this congress perspective, that has been achieved. Still, should we deepen it in its details? Absolutely. Should we be creative? Without a doubt.”

Öcalan insists on the necessity of creativity

Abdullah Öcalan states, “I will turn inward and focus on the issue of creativity.” Hakan Öztürk remarked that this idea touches on a well-known saying in the Turkish left: “We have everything, flour, oil, and sugar but we cannot make halva.” He added: “In many cases, this saying does not hold true, often we don’t actually have the flour. But for the Kurdish movement, I believe this phrase fits perfectly. There is flour, oil, and sugar. And Abdullah Öcalan is essentially saying, let’s make halva; let’s try to create something. That requires creativity.

He emphasizes creativity at every turn. If it’s science, it must be creative. If it’s politics, it must be creative. He makes a striking point on a global scale: ‘A three-hundred-million-strong Islamic society cannot breathe in the face of a five- or ten-million-strong Israel.’ What is he highlighting here? The importance of science. He says this after discussing al-Ghazali. After al-Ghazali, did Islamic society take the right path? If it had, it wouldn’t be in this condition today, dominated by a tiny state like Israel. Is this an insignificant observation? I don’t think so.

At a time when the value of intellect is being dismissed, and when interpretation and political programs are being disregarded, these kinds of insights on al-Ghazali, on Islamic philosophy, on Sumerian civilization, this scientific perspective, is, in my opinion, incredibly important.”

The text offers a realistic definition of peace

Hakan Öztürk noted that Abdullah Öcalan introduces a new and realistic definition of peace in the text. He concluded:

“I believe the Kurdish movement will respond positively to the coming phase. Öcalan brings something new in this text, he proposes a realistic approach to peace. He says, ‘Waging war is not easy; those who have endured its hardships should also bear the responsibility for peace.’ In that sense, it is a grounded, realistic perspective on peace. I support this.

Öcalan also states, ‘This issue cannot be resolved through third-party actors.’ He emphasizes that ‘those who have directly suffered must sit down and resolve it, and they must take responsibility.’ He also acknowledges that ‘intentions may differ.’ That, too, is a realistic perspective. Can the intentions of a current with no connection whatsoever to socialist politics be the same as those of a socialist current? They cannot. This is the moment of sitting at the table.

By saying ‘those who fought must sit down,’ he offers a pragmatic approach. It also sheds light on the debate over whether intentions are good or bad, which is important in itself.”