Socialism is a movement and ideology of socialization. Even though its basic forms are as old as humanity itself, it has often been portrayed as a retroactive ideological movement by those who hold the authority to interpret history. As a result, it has been staged—especially through the experiences of real socialism—as a successor system to capitalism, replacing it in the context of a linear development. This is also stated in the classic writings of Marxism: capitalism will be followed by socialism and ultimately communism.
However, reality refutes this linear conception. Practice has shown that such a system of thought is not only flawed but also sectarian. Abdullah Öcalan has therefore long rejected the assumption that history began with class struggle in his ideological work. Rather, classes are a later phenomenon; human history began with communal forms of life—a finding that is supported by new historical insights.
Öcalan does not accept the common definition of a commune. In his understanding, a commune is not simply the communal life of a particular group or class, but the result of the joint organization of all people living in a particular geographical area. For him, the commune is not an administrative model imposed from above or controlled by appointed officials.
Socialist movements that viewed the commune merely as an instrument of state organization and not as an independent, democratic way of life ultimately failed. The reason: socialism did not think through the idea of the commune consistently enough and did not recognize its transformative power as the basis of its theory.
Collective farms in Soviet socialism – from basic structure to instrument of power
The best-known communal forms of organization in the context of real socialism were the collective farms of the Soviet Union – cooperative agricultural structures that were initially conceived as an expression of people’s power and socialist self-organization. Lenin saw them as the basis of a council-based, communal society. But over time, these structures came under the control of the Soviet bureaucracy. A democratic experiment became an instrument for enforcing centralist decisions – against the interests of the population.
Although Lenin originally envisioned a “republic of communes,” the increasing bureaucratization of the Soviet Union undermined this approach. The state became an end in itself, and the kolkhozes degenerated into a caricature of communal self-government—dominated by bureaucratically appointed functionaries.
A similar fate befell the people’s communes in the People’s Republic of China. Although they emerged during and after the revolution as the smallest organizational units with education and participation-oriented objectives, they too were gradually integrated into the centralist power structure of the Chinese Communist Party. What originally began as a project of literacy, collective learning, and local self-government became a mere instrument for implementing party directives. Today, they exist only on paper—as a formal shell of a practice that has long since been emptied of meaning. China’s self-description as a “socialist state” thus stands in stark contrast to social reality.
State fixation as a contradiction to the communalist idea
In Cuba, too, it is evident that communal structures, which originally served as the basis for revolutionary organization, have degenerated into largely empty, purely formal institutions in the course of the establishment of the socialist state. The communes founded before the victory of the Cuban Revolution under the leadership of the Communist Party of Cuba have, over the years, turned into meaningless routines—an expression of their alienation from their original function. They have fallen victim to the state-centered thinking of real or “scientific” socialism.
This development points to a fundamental dilemma: a movement such as socialism, originally understood as a popular ideology, turns into its opposite as soon as it becomes institutionalized at the supranational level and abandons central principles such as self-government and direct participation. Such “socialism that has become state-run” ultimately becomes a poor copy of capitalism—bureaucratic, alienated, and hierarchical.
The refusal to break away from the concept of the state, as maintained by many real socialist and Marxist-Leninist movements, not only watered down the radical nature of their programs, but also undermined the organic foundations of social organization. Originally conceived as a means of direct participation by the people—for example, in the form of collective farms, people’s communes, or people’s councils—these structures increasingly became instruments of control. Instead of emancipatory participation: administration. Instead of participation: command and obedience.
The result: a growing loss of trust in socialist models among the population. Where leadership elites exist and the people do not determine their own representatives, every communal structure loses its emancipatory content. Even if the beginning was idealistic and participatory, without a consistently horizontal organization, alienation becomes the norm and disintegration the consequence.
A look at the present therefore shows that successful community movements are those that do not create a new ruling class, but rather allow people to manage their own affairs. Two outstanding examples of such attempts that do not follow the familiar pattern of statehood and bureaucracy are the Zapatista Autonomous Communities in Mexico and the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria – known as Rojava. They exemplify a new, anti-hierarchical form of socialism based on communal self-organization.
The Zapatistas: Autonomous communities in resistance
The movement that went down in history as the Zapatista Rebellion began as an uprising in the Mexican state of Chiapas. Led by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), it demanded the right of self-determination for the indigenous population. Today, this resistance continues in the form of the Zapatista Autonomous Communities. These communities are fighting within the Mexican nation-state for a free, self-determined life based on cultural independence, communal organization, and decentralized autonomy.
The Zapatistas do not seek to establish their own state—their goal is not national sovereignty in the traditional sense. Rather, they seek the right to live freely on their ancestral lands: in their own language, with their own beliefs, cultural practices, and social rules. To achieve this form of self-determination, communal structures have been established that enable political participation and self-government. In the absence of a state and without clearly defined national borders, the Zapatistas are often described as societies in motion—fluid, dynamic, collectively organized.
The Zapatistas are waging both political and military resistance against the colonial and repressive structures of the Mexican state. However, they emphasize that their weapons are used exclusively for self-defense—not to exercise power. They have taken control of their territories and developed a model of social organization based on egalitarian participation and horizontal decision-making—a living example of a new, alternative form of socialism.
The Zapatista model of self-government deserves special attention because it embodies the central principles of the new socialism outlined by Abdullah Öcalan in his concept of deliberative democracy. After the uprising, the Zapatistas institutionalized their self-government through autonomous councils and took control of their affairs at the local level—a process that relies heavily on collective decision-making and decentralized organization.
Subcomandante Marcos, one of the movement’s leading thinkers, explained the democratic development of communal structures as follows in the Sixth Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle (2005):
“The political-military structure of the EZLN was not democratic because it was an army. And we realized that it is not good to have the military at the top and democracy at the bottom. (…) Everything should be on the same level. It would be better not to have soldiers. So we became soldiers so that eventually there would be no more soldiers. Gradually, we began to separate the military structure from the autonomous and democratic structures in the communities. The decisions that used to be made by the EZLN were gradually handed over to the democratically elected authorities in the villages.”
According to the Zapatista constitution, the military has no political power whatsoever. No commander or member of the EZLN may hold political office or intervene in administrative functions. The autonomous communities are administered by councils whose main task is to solve social problems, organize everyday life, and preserve cultural and linguistic diversity.
One particularly innovative aspect is inclusive participation: from the age of twelve, anyone can attend council meetings and participate in decision-making. The basic principle is consensus building—all decisions are based on joint discussion, exchange, and the pursuit of agreement. This principle is consistently implemented: every opinion counts, everyone has the right to express themselves and be heard. Democratic negotiation is not an idealistic goal, but a lived practice.
Rojava: Autonomous administration as communalism in practice
The autonomous administration of northern and eastern Syria, known as Rojava, is today considered one of the most important real-world examples of communalist social organization in the 21st century. What began in the wake of the Syrian civil war and in response to attacks by Islamist militias—in particular the so-called Islamic State (ISIS)—has developed into a profound social transformation based on grassroots democracy, gender equality, and ecological sustainability.
The establishment of this new social structure began with the creation of communes to organize the self-defense of Kurdish-inhabited areas. The project now looks back on a history spanning more than ten years—a decade marked by threats, attacks, and attempts at international isolation, but at the same time providing impressive evidence of the feasibility of Öcalan’s theoretical paradigm: negotiated democracy, horizontal organization, and collective self-administration.
For the first time in the recent history of the Middle East, a profound, emancipatory alternative to authoritarian rule emerged in Rojava. Despite constant attempts to crush it, self-government was able to assert itself—not least thanks to its firm roots in the population and their active participation in all decision-making processes.
Today, the autonomous administration is seen as a beacon of hope for peaceful coexistence between Syria’s various ethnic groups, religions, and social groups. The model is attracting attention not only within Syria, but throughout the Middle East. At its core is a consistently horizontally organized system: there is no privileged class of officials—instead, the people elect their representatives directly and regularly. Decisions are made collectively and responsibility is shared.
This model, which aims at the radical democratization of all areas of life, has enabled Rojava to become visible as a political actor not only locally but also internationally. For example, the Autonomous Administration is participating in talks on the political future of Syria—including with groups such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which controls large parts of northern Syria. The existence and recognition of the Rojava structures is thus not only a regional phenomenon, but part of a global debate on alternative models of society.
The communes in Rojava demonstrate that a participatory, grassroots democratic, and state-independent organization of social life is possible—even under conditions of war, isolation, and economic uncertainty. They thus impressively demonstrate that Abdullah Öcalan’s communalist theory—with its focus on direct democracy, self-administration, and rejection of any hierarchy—is not only theoretically viable but also practically feasible.
Current communal movements worldwide
In addition to Rojava and the Zapatistas, there are also examples of communal self-organization in other parts of the world. These movements, as diverse as they may be in cultural or geographical context, are united by their attempt to counter the state-capitalist model with a grassroots democratic, solidarity-based, and non-hierarchical alternative.
Some examples of these communes are:
Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (Rojava) – Syria
Federation of Neighborhood Councils-El Alto – Bolivia
Marinaleda – Spain
Ricardo Flores Magón Indigenous People’s Council of Oaxaca – Mexico
Zapatista Autonomous Communities (Asamblea Zapatista) – Mexico
Squatters movement in Barcelona – Spain
Dignity Village – USA
Barbacha – Kabylia, Northern Algeria
Villa de Zaachila – Mexico
Zone à Défendre (ZAD) – France
Cherán – Mexico
These examples represent a global movement that, despite differing starting points, is based on common principles: radical democracy, self-government, social justice, ecological sustainability, and cultural autonomy. They all demonstrate that the communalist approach is not merely a theoretical construct, but can be lived and organized in concrete terms under a wide variety of conditions.