Since its founding, the Kurdish freedom movement has championed the ideal of living together in harmony. However, this understanding of coexistence was never intended to mean uniformity or enslavement imposed by the capitalist system, but rather a social coexistence in which each individual, each social group, and each identity can be visible in its own colors and develop freely.
The perspective that developed from this was both the answer to and the result of the fundamental question: “How to live a revolution?” For Abdullah Öcalan, revolution did not primarily mean the violent seizure of power, but rather the liberation of society from distorted, destructive, and hegemonic ways of thinking. Revolution was thus understood as the process of organizing a new way of life.
Despite its constant emphasis on free and equal coexistence, the movement was confronted with violent reality in almost every phase of its existence—in the form of forced assimilation and structurally anchored campaigns of extermination. As a result, the movement was repeatedly forced to resort to self-defense. Nevertheless, the Kurdish freedom movement emphasized at all times that the use of violence was never an end in itself, but a necessary means in the struggle for a just and dignified life.
Integration as a central element of social restructuring
Capitán Insurgente Marcos (Subcomandante Marcos), former spokesperson for the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), summed up this situation aptly: “They waged war so they wouldn’t have to be soldiers.”
An adequate understanding of historical developments requires a reflective examination of the practices of the Kurdish freedom movement and Öcalan’s work. At this point, Öcalan’s concept of democratic integration becomes relevant. In his “Manifesto for Peace and Democratic Society,” the Kurdish leader describes the concept of integration not as a temporary transitional arrangement or tactical maneuver, but as a central element of long-term social restructuring. Transitional arrangements are only one aspect of this.
Democratic integration is one of the cornerstones of the organizational realignment of the Kurdish freedom movement in its current phase. Both in Öcalan’s understanding of “communes” and in the model of “negotiated democracy”, success can only be achieved if the principles of integration are consistently applied. To understand this, it is worth taking a look at Öcalan’s ideological development—even if the concept of integration was not explicitly mentioned in the early stages.
In his analyses from the 1980s, which were later published in the two-part work “How to Live?” in the early 1990s, Öcalan wrote: “Finding new ways to express new orders and new relationships, developing new forms of expression, styles, and ways of addressing others, tearing down the old every day and replacing it with the new—that is a romantic life.”
The constant break with the old and the pursuit of a new order is a central principle in the ideological development of Öcalan and the Kurdish freedom movement. The practice of criticism and self-criticism—one of the most important methodological principles of the Kurdish movement—is inseparably linked to the demand to develop constructive solutions for criticized conditions. Öcalan warned early on: “If you don’t develop solutions for the criticized problem, the criticism benefits the enemy.”
The question “How to live?” can thus be understood as the founding question of the Kurdish freedom movement. The early realization in the 1970s that “Kurdistan is a colony” was also the starting point for a search for a new, alternative way of life.
This quest, which would later be summed up in the motto “Either death or success” (Yan mirin, yan serkeftin), combined a deep tradition of resistance with the aspiration to develop concrete social alternatives. Öcalan and the freedom movement resolutely rejected the adoption of ready-made models from other countries or thinking in narrow, dogmatic terms. Instead, they set themselves the task of developing a new, free social order on the ancient soil of Kurdistan and Mesopotamia.
This search laid the foundations for a communal life that includes all peoples and social groups equally. Nevertheless, the question “How to live?” remained unanswered for decades—until it finally found systematic expression in Öcalan’s manifesto for peace and democratic society. A question posed in the 1970s received its concrete answer after a 50-year struggle, shaped by resistance and a persistent belief in change.
In 2025, Abdullah Öcalan finally presented a comprehensive answer to the question “How to live?”, and thus opened the door to a new phase of social struggle.
Revolution as the answer to the question: “How to live?”
When Abdullah Öcalan declares that revolution is an answer to the question “How to live?”, he emphasizes that revolutionary action is not limited to military, economic, or political dimensions. Rather, a central task lies in the ethically grounded and holistic organization of everyday life. This means that not only revolutionary cadres, but the whole of society must be involved in reshaping the reality of life on the basis of common principles. The aspiration for a new way of life is realized in particular in everyday practice and in the ability to reach all social strata.
The Kurdish freedom movement is characterized by the fact that it not only formulates theoretical reflections on everyday life, but also works with great perseverance to put these ideas into practice. Öcalan attaches fundamental importance to the question “How to live?” and emphasizes that social change in Kurdistan can only be achieved through revolutionary effort. In this context, he explains:
“In Kurdistan, human strength also begins with revolutionary effort. Revolutionary action generates strength, and this strength in turn leads to the development of will. And only such will can muster the courage to embark on a new relationship. I believed that love should also begin in this way—not through the power conferred on you by the institutions of the existing order, but through the power with which you drive the revolution forward. But, as I said, this power is often not enough, because the order itself is the greatest obstacle.”
With these words, Öcalan not only identifies the problem, but also its solution: a fundamental change in the system requires a profound reorganization of everyday life. Social transformation begins where everyday practices are replaced by ethically based alternatives.
The search for an answer to the question “How to live?” that began in the 1990s finally found its theoretical and programmatic expression in Öcalan’s manifesto for peace and a democratic society. In it, Öcalan formulates a way of life that can only endure if it is revolutionary, ethically grounded, and committed to building a new social order.
The experiences gained over decades can be read as a history of this search. In retrospect, they confirm the validity of Öcalan’s thesis: “Revolution is the answer to the question: How to live?”
Against the backdrop of today’s social reality, the most appropriate answer to this question seems to be the vision of a new community created through democratic integration. This new social model is not intended as a utopian alternative, but as a real possibility that can be built in practice. Öcalan already expressed this view in his first press conference on the ceasefire in 1993:
“Unity is not incompatible with independence. Today, the main problem facing all nations is not that they are trapped within strongly nationalistic borders, but that they are unable to form alliances that protect their interests in independence. Therefore, our pursuit of unity with the Turkish people based on equality and freedom—within existing borders—should not be interpreted as incompatible with independence.”
This assessment, made under the conditions of intense war, represents an unambiguous declaration in favor of equal and shared coexistence beyond national homogeneity and forced assimilation.
Turkish society must move toward democratic integration
Interviews and analyses from those phases in which Abdullah Öcalan spoke emphatically about peace, living together, and building a free future make it clear that it was not Kurdish society, but rather Turkish society—especially its organizations and representatives—that was unwilling to engage in this process.
During the ceasefire periods, Turkish journalists conducted interviews with Öcalan, in which he consistently emphasized the ideal of coexistence. Nevertheless, the questions posed by the media often focused on trivialities or aimed to elicit specific information rather than seriously engaging with Öcalan’s central message. He, in turn, consistently linked his evolving and transforming ideas to the vision of equal coexistence among peoples.
In an interview in March 1993, Öcalan stated unequivocally: “The insolubility of the Kurdish question is the insolubility of Turkish democracy.” With this statement, he made it clear that the problem lay not primarily with the Kurds, but with the attitude of the Turkish Republic. His repeated complaints about the lack of a serious counterpart point to the structural refusal of the Turkish side to engage in an equal dialogue—a situation that has only changed with the weakening of that very side in favor of dialogue. The real conflict, therefore, lies not in the Kurdish population’s unwillingness to reach an understanding, but in Turkish society’s lack of openness to a shared future.
In addition to the repressive and nationalist positions of state elites, political structures and organizations that see themselves as beacons of hope for the Turkish people have also contributed to the current ideological hardening through their condescending attitude toward the Kurdish freedom movement. The persistent refusal to recognize the Kurdish movement as an equal political force has contributed to Turkish society’s inability to free itself from the ideology of fascism.
Although there is a desire for peace and coexistence among the Turkish population, many organizations prevent this potential from being realized. Instead, they reproduce colonial perspectives, viewing Kurds as “little siblings” who need to be lectured to, and doubting their ability to develop a socialist perspective. These elitist attitudes ultimately lead the population to adapt to the authoritarian status quo—for lack of credible alternatives.
The revival of the ideal of a shared life therefore depends largely on the ability of Turkish leftists, socialists, and democrats to communicate this ideal to the general population while at the same time protecting them from the ideological propaganda of the authoritarian state. However, such communication requires the establishment of sustainable and participatory organizational structures.
The fact that the Kurdish population continues to insist on living together despite decades of massacres, attempts at extermination, and humiliation is an expression of the coherent and responsible attitude of the Kurdish freedom movement and Abdullah Öcalan. The principles of democratic integration are not primarily important for the Kurds, but for the population groups and communities in Turkey. A clear presentation and an organized structure can open the way to a new social phase, in which collective resistance and self-organization form as a response to the state’s repressive apparatus.
The escalating violence against women, children, and animals, structural poverty, and systematic exploitation in Turkey are expressions of the fact that society has been alienated from the ideal of solidarity and coexistence in favor of an individualized, alienated view of humanity. Overcoming these conditions is only possible if socialist and democratic organizations in Turkey sensitize and mobilize the population to the value of democratic integration and communal ways of life.
To be continued.