The Peoples’ Democratic Congress (HDK) held a two-day conference in Istanbul last weekend under the title “Socialism Anew.” According to the final declaration reflected in the press, the conference hosted significant debates and put forward important perspectives. The outcomes suggest a direction that will guide HDK’s future work and appears likely to strengthen the organisation itself. One can hope that similar discussions will continue, deepen and help transform these perspectives into HDK’s practical development.
Debating the future of socialism is undoubtedly crucial, indeed, it could even be seen as overdue. At a time when capitalist modernity intensifies exploitation and domination, and when the future of humanity and the planet is under existential threat, the inability to effectively develop a socialist alternative capable of defending nature, society and a free, equal way of life has clearly become a factor that deepens the crisis. For this reason, working on a socialist alternative is almost a matter of urgency.
The fact that HDK organised its conference under the title “Socialism Anew” indicates that it does not dismiss the socialist traditions that came before; it is not a position of denial. The final declaration also shows that past socialism is not being taken at face value, and that the theory and practice of actually existing socialism are being approached with both criticism and self-criticism. In other words, the perspective is neither dogmatic nor rigid.
It is clear that neither a denialist stance nor a dogmatic approach to socialism can produce meaningful results. Those who deny the past cannot have a future, and for that reason, denialist positions are hardly worth refuting. Dogmatic and rigid readings of actually existing socialism, however, do warrant serious critique. After all, the vast Soviet Union collapsed without ever facing a direct external military assault. How and why did this happen? It would be insufficient, even irresponsible, to reduce the answer solely to the personality of Mikhail Gorbachev. We must examine the material and moral factors that produced such an outcome.
In short, the Soviet experience demands a deep theoretical and practical critique and self-critique of twentieth-century socialism. We cannot approach the collapse in the simplistic manner seen in the analyses of institutions such as the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; to do so would only reproduce conclusions tailored to justify China’s own path. Yet, in truth, those who should have undertaken the most thorough criticism and self-criticism of the Soviet experience were those who inherited and claimed its legacy.
We uphold the principle that “there can be no revolutionary practice without revolutionary theory.” This is why reopening and advancing the debate on socialism at the theoretical level is both necessary and meaningful. Both nineteenth- and twentieth-century socialist traditions must be subjected to critical and self-critical examination so that socialist theory can be renewed. Only a renewed socialist theory, grounded in such reflection, can illuminate the way forward for socialist practice in the new century.
The work of Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan offers the most substantial, serious and comprehensive renewal effort produced to date. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, and whether one embraces or disputes his perspectives, there is no denying the depth, scope and intellectual weight of his analysis. The fact that such work was carried out under the severe isolation of İmralı makes its significance even greater and demands a serious, respectful approach. Among socialists, comradely debate and a shared commitment to confronting capitalist modernity should remain guiding principles.
From the final declaration, it is clear that the Istanbul conference advanced an important theoretical discussion within this framework. Yet our aim here is not to intervene in those debates, but to emphasise the importance of translating their outcomes into practice, whatever those outcomes may be. The moment we are living in urgently requires such practicalisation. As the principle goes: “Theory that does not become revolutionary practice is meaningless.”
It is evident today that dogmatism still dominates the theoretical front of the socialist movement. Nevertheless, efforts at theoretical work and a persistent commitment to socialism continue. Critiquing and overcoming dogmatic approaches remains necessary. But perhaps even more important is confronting and overcoming, the narrowness and conservatism that block the translation of existing theory into action. Dogmatism and rigid frameworks in theory inevitably produce schematic, narrow and conservative tendencies in practice. It may well be that a determined insistence on practice, and an effort to overcome the limitations and rigidity of practical work, can also help transcend dogmatism at the theoretical level.
The “Peace and Democratic Society Process” developed by Abdullah Öcalan opened new space for democratic politics in Turkey and strengthened its foundations. Socialists in particular and all democratic forces more generally, must recognise and assess this reality. Yes, the Justice and Development Party (AKP)–Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) coalition imposes severe repression and actively seeks to block political organising. The scale of pressure, arrests, torture, plunder and exploitation is extreme. Yet even under these circumstances, it is possible to produce results that overcome the obstacles imposed by the government and give rise to the kind of effective, pioneering leadership the process requires. One hopes the outcomes of the Istanbul conference will help initiate such practical developments.
In fact, there is a significant community in Turkey and Kurdistan that has acquired socialist consciousness, sees itself as part of the left and possesses considerable experience. They are sincere and eager to contribute. But they struggle to overcome individualism and reach society as a whole. They cannot take root among the youth, women, workers and labouring classes, cannot move toward a practice that educates and organises them. It is said that in the past, Salvador Allende travelled from village to village on a donkey in Chile. In other words, there is no valid excuse for not reaching the people. No one can prevent a person from going among the people and educating and organising them on the basis of democratic communes.
In contrast to the past, there is no longer an obstacle such as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) carrying out armed struggle or operating illegally. As a result, many of the barriers that once impeded efforts to educate and organise society have largely been removed. What remains now falls to the socialist cadres. It depends on the ability of these cadres to develop a creative, effective and results-oriented approach. In short, what is needed is a cadre that is both practical and political.
This, in fact, is the key factor weakening the level of struggle the process requires. There are many socialist individuals who possess significant theoretical knowledge, yet they cannot transform themselves into practical political actors. They struggle to break through the limits of theoretical discourse and individualism. It is evident that there is a weakness of resolve and ambition. When it comes to entering society and mobilising people, they fall short.
There is, in fact, a large segment of society that has become significantly politicised through years of struggle and that would turn toward strong democratic action if provided with even a modest degree of leadership. The youth are almost entirely in this position; they are being pushed toward decay under the pressure of drugs and prostitution. The violence and oppression directed against women have laid a powerful groundwork for collective uprising. Workers and labourers are at the point where they can barely bring bread home. What remains, then, is the need for a force capable of leading them. There is no obstacle preventing effective leadership from awakening these masses, stirring them rapidly and generating the social will necessary to carry the process forward.
It is time to remove the leadership vacuum that obstructs the development of the democratic mobilisation this moment demands. We must cease being an obstacle to our own goals and aspirations. Let us transform the demand for the physical freedom of Abdullah Öcalan into a force of democratic action that can achieve concrete results. To do so, we must find the courage and strength to enter the people’s lives, stand at their forefront and provide the leadership they need.