Former Central Committee member of the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP), Ömer Ağın, evaluated Abdullah Öcalan’s understanding of “Peace and Democratic Society” in an interview with ANF. Ağın emphasized that Öcalan’s paradigm should not be approached solely as a theoretical framework but as an idea that must also be understood and practiced by society.
Öcalan’s paradigm must be understood by society
Ömer Ağın emphasized that Abdullah Öcalan’s paradigm should be understood particularly by socialist circles and stated: “In my view, to understand the Kurdish Freedom Movement, which has developed a paradigm based on historical processes, examining historical and social materialism through different methods and detailed analyses and Mr. Öcalan, who has advanced it through philosophical approaches, certain points must be highlighted.
Rather than merely repeating what has already been said, I believe it is crucial for the people, intellectuals, and democratic segments of society to contribute to ensuring that these ideas are understood and internalized. A theory becomes a material force when it is embraced by the masses. Undoubtedly, the Kurdish people, with their fifty-year-long tradition of struggle, have transformed theory into a tangible and collective power. The people have taken great strides in putting theory into practice.
This is the first point that must be established. Why do I say this? Because I see this observation as an essential point of reference for revolutionary circles in Turkey and for everyone who embraces different concepts of democracy.”
Ağın also reflected on his own experiences to underline why the paradigm should be understood by socialist circles: “I believe that we socialists are among those who understand the Kurdish paradigm best. I think we have grasped the structural characteristics of the revolutionary struggle I was once part of. Why do I say that we are among those who understand it better? Because we were the ones most deeply affected by the remnants and ruins of real socialism.
In 1977, I studied at the Marxism school in the Soviet Union at different times and lived there. I witnessed both the achievements of real socialism and the outcomes defended by the people, as well as its weaknesses.
For example, during that period, we learned that the son-in-law of Soviet General Secretary Brezhnev was involved in diamond smuggling. On the other hand, we also observed how the people, despite their hardships, continued to shape social development.
Because we were among those left beneath the ruins and remnants of that system, I believe we have understood, or at least tried to understand, the historical and social evolution of the Kurdish Freedom Movement and the Kurdish paradigm. This is the first acknowledgment that needs to be made.”
The global and historical scope of the paradigm
Ağın stated that the Kurdish paradigm is now being discussed not only in Turkey and Kurdistan but also across the Middle East and many parts of the world. He said: “It is being debated by scholars, supported and discussed by intellectuals who have received Nobel Prizes, and addressed by artists as well. In other words, it has generated a wide-ranging agenda, one could say it has become a political agenda in itself.
To understand and grasp such a paradigm, one must look to history. The Kurdish Freedom Movement and the Kurdish paradigm do not claim that history began only with class societies or that historical development started with the emergence of classes. Instead, they approach it from the evolution of societies beginning with the primitive communal stage, before class divisions emerged. In doing so, they not only analyze dialectical and historical materialism but also take idealism into account. Of course, idealism is a reflection of materialism, thought is a version, a reflection of matter.
However, even before historical and natural materialism were fully understood, human beings already had psychological and social characteristics. From the Sumerian priests onward, there has been an ongoing process of social development. Mr. Öcalan and the Kurdish Freedom Movement have examined and developed this paradigm within the context of that historical trajectory.”
The four main pillars of the paradigm and the philosophy of peace
Defining the paradigm of the Kurdish Freedom Movement as “Peace, Democratic Society, and Democratic Integration,” Ağın continued his assessment: “The first and most fundamental concept is peace and it is crucial to understand what this peace represents, what the Kurdish Freedom Movement and its paradigm mean when they speak of peace.
The peace being referred to here is not the kind of agreement recorded in history, such as the one made between the Hittites and Egyptians or the peace treaty between Timur and Yıldırım Beyazıt in Ankara in 1402. What the Kurdish Freedom Movement and the democratic forces aim for is a social consensus, an understanding that allows different democratic structures to preserve their distinct characteristics, sustain themselves, and build their own futures through their collective productivity.
This is how I interpret the meaning of peace within the paradigm of the Kurdish Freedom Movement.
Therefore, peace must be understood as a process in which conflicting forces, whether antagonistic or reconcilable, coexist through democratic methods that enable each to renew itself and grow. Peace is not a unilateral imposition, nor is it one side’s domination over another. History has seen many agreements where the word ‘peace’ was used in this distorted way. I believe that when the Kurdish paradigm speaks of peace, it refers instead to a mutual, democratic, and just framework rooted in historical, social, sociological, and philosophical foundations. All of these can be examined and discussed in depth.”
Ağın offered a vivid metaphor to explain this concept and said: “If I were to make an analogy, peace is like the interlocking of a bolt and a nut. If either the bolt or the nut is not calibrated properly, they cannot fit together; they either break apart or fail to connect. This means that peace must be established within a framework of mutual compatibility, rights, and justice, it is a democratic method of resolution built on reciprocity.
Peace itself does not mean the resolution of a problem; rather, it creates the conditions for that problem to be resolved. True resolution means achieving a just, democratic state in which everyone can express themselves freely. This is how peace should be understood.
Peace also means the reconciliation of society with nature. Nature, with its diverse beauty, has reached us through continuous transformation. There is natural life and there is social life, and each has its own beauty and scientific interrelation.
At the same time, peace signifies the end of male domination over women. It represents the reflection of the relations that existed in the primitive communal society into the present day, not a temporary compromise between classes or ruling powers. The peace produced within the Kurdish paradigm embodies exactly this understanding.”
Democratic confederalism
Ağın underlined that peace cannot exist without a democratic structure and explained this framework as follows: “The most essential element for achieving peace is democratic organization, in other words, democratic confederalism. The idea of democratic structuring should not be understood as a mere reflection of a historical period in which nation-states, federations, or confederations failed to bring social balance, equality, or integration among different segments of society.
Democratic organization, democratic confederalism, and the nation-state are alternatives to one another. The nation-state was born within the monopoly of capitalism. All nation-states are its variants, confederalism, federalism, and autonomy are each forms of governance that, within capitalist society, have supported the transition from the unified stage of capitalism to its monopolistic phase based on exploitation.
Within the Kurdish paradigm, what must now be understood is the need to replace these outdated systems with a democratic and decentralized model, one in which individuals can govern themselves, contribute to each other in governance, create new values, and use these values collectively for production and reproduction. Above all, this requires the establishment of a solid economic foundation.”
The role of social consciousness and the ecological perspective
Ömer Ağın used a sociological analogy to describe how social structure, production relations, and consciousness shape one another: “If we are to use an analogy and this can be understood within the framework of sociological laws, society can be compared to a tree. The roots of this tree represent production itself; in other words, they symbolize the foundation formed by the working masses, by people who live through their labor.
The trunk of the tree represents the average consciousness of society. However, this average consciousness does not always signify a mechanical society. Dialectics is the explanation of the values that exist throughout society in a dynamic and interconnected way. Where the level of collective consciousness is high, solutions emerge through advancing social awareness, sociological structures, and values.
These, if we continue the analogy, are the branches and leaves of the tree. Without looking at history through such an organic and chronological lens, it becomes difficult to understand or grasp democratic organization, sociological structuring, historical materialism, and dialectical materialism.”
Ağın also said, “As far as I have read and understood from his references, Mr. Öcalan does not approach these issues with a crude, purely materialist view of history. Beginning from the primitive communal society, he develops an ecological and environmental understanding that examines natural and social life together. This approach also seeks to explain the contradictions reflected within the social structure. Phenomena such as the position of women and the rise of property-based societies are reflections of these contradictions.
Today, if the slogan ‘Jin, Jiyan, Azadî’ (“Woman, Life, Freedom”) has become a rallying cry across the world, it shows that historical research has been conducted starting from the primitive communal society, seeking to understand where and when the enslavement of women began, and how this process has been explained philosophically, economically, and culturally.”
Democratic integration
Ağın explained the concept of integration as follows: “The third concept is integration, democratic integration. As explained by the Kurdish Freedom Movement, and as we understand it, integration does not mean assimilation. Assimilation is a process based on coercion and pressure to erase differences, or it is imposed as a so-called ‘voluntary transformation.’
Integration, on the other hand, should be understood as a process in which differences preserve themselves while creating new shared values and carrying these values into the future through democratic methods.”
Ağın emphasized that democratic integration can only be achieved within a democratic structure and stated:“Integration cannot take place unless peace is established and a democratic confederal system is built, that is, unless the structures produced by the nation-state or capitalism, such as federations and autonomies, are replaced by a truly democratic framework. First, the state must be democratized, and all anti-democratic structures must be transformed. Only then can differences reproduce themselves within a democratic system. This is how the democratic integration described by the Kurdish Freedom Movement should be understood.”
The new understanding of humanity
Ömer Ağın highlighted the Kurdish Freedom Movement’s approach to the concept of the “new human” and said: “Undoubtedly, for all these processes to take place, a new type of human being must emerge. It is impossible to create this new person from those who remain bound to capitalist values, shaped by semi-feudal and semi-capitalist mindsets, or confined within oppressive, bureaucratic, and dogmatic socialist frameworks.
The Kurdish Freedom Movement, on the other hand, is making a serious effort to cultivate this new human being. It develops proposals, conducts intellectual training, and works to transform its social base in Turkey, Kurdistan, and the Middle East in this direction. This effort continues through dialogue with the people and by collectively enriching these ideas. The philosophical method of Mr. Öcalan, who leads the movement, lies at the very foundation of this understanding.”
New concepts and the move toward decentralization
Ömer Ağın discussed the Kurdish Freedom Movement’s process of intellectual transformation, noting that new concepts emerge through time and struggle. Ağın said:“Undoubtedly, every new idea gives rise to its own concepts. However, these concepts do not appear instantly; they require time, effort, and social struggle. Concepts take shape through the sociological and cultural struggles of the people and society.
Together with Mr. Öcalan, the Kurdish Freedom Movement initiated a discussion on a new way of thinking and began developing the concepts of this thought. This is still an ongoing process. Until new concepts are fully established, the use of old ones becomes necessary, but it is never easy to explain new ideas through old terms. Therefore, the discussion and development of a ‘decentralized’ structure have become inevitable.”
Ağın emphasized that democratization is not limited to the structure of the state: “Alongside the democratization of the state, it is necessary to spread social values to the grassroots, enable society to govern itself, and develop new forms of organization. Municipalities must be able to renew themselves within a democratic confederalist framework, and popular organizations must be strengthened through democratic structures. These models should replace the federative systems produced by nation-states or capitalism.”
Ağın also referred to the historical process, noting two different models of nation-building: “In history, there are two types of nation-formation. The first is the Prussian model, the ethnically based German model; the second is the American model, which is based on territory. The territorial model is relatively more advanced. Yet both are, in the end, nation-state forms born of capitalism.
Democratic organization rejects all forms of state capitalism and state-centered models. Instead of centralized and power-based systems, what must be aimed for is a decentralized social model, one that is locally organized and self-governed.”