The global devastation caused by capitalist modernity is becoming increasingly visible. Unable to find ways to renew itself, this stalled system seeks to sustain its existence by inflicting widespread destruction across the world. At the same time, the shortcomings and deadlocks of the real socialist economy have contributed to the expanding reach of this ruthless economic system imposed by capitalist modernity.
The eco-economy model that Abdullah Öcalan has long proposed as an alternative to both capitalist and real socialist economic models, however, continues to be debated. Particularly in the wake of the collapse of real socialist experiences, eco-economy has once again come to the forefront as a theoretical framework through which socialist circles can address past shortcomings and reconstruct a new form of life.
Hakan Öztürk, Chair of the Labor Party (EHP), spoke to the ANF about the concept of eco-economy and why it is necessary, and said: “The eco-economy approach tells us that we must stop running toward disasters we can already foresee.”
A value capable of shaking the physical existence of the world is accumulating
Öztürk said the scale of destruction caused by capitalist modernity across the world has reached alarming levels. Öztürk said, “A value so vast that it could shake the physical existence of the world is accumulating in the hands of a group of visionless and unethical bosses,” and continued: “Almost everyone can observe that capitalism is not taking the world to a good place. The owners of capital strip an ocean-sized surplus value from the working class day by day. Wages are being driven down. Tested by hunger and poverty, the working class is forced to survive by taking a second job, relying on aid, or falling into debt. Against the resulting physical collapse, moral breakdown, and the loss of any future, people are struggling to endure.
The owners of capital create unemployment, while forcing those who are able to find work to labor for extremely long hours. Society’s most basic needs, such as nutrition, housing, education, healthcare, and transportation, are not being met in any meaningful way. A value so immense that it could shake the physical existence of the world is accumulating in the hands of a small group of visionless and unethical bosses.
Despite all this, the core issue is not merely that bosses have accumulated unjust profits. The rivalry among capitalist states is confronting humanity with the disasters of global warming, the destruction of nature, economic crises, and regional and nuclear wars. This is the deep pain and the real issue that cannot be openly addressed. The eco-economy approach tells us that we must stop running toward disasters we can already foresee.”
As Öcalan warned, humanity faces the monster it created
Öztürk said that major losses cannot always be grasped without looking at society as a whole and continued by recalling the words of Abdullah Öcalan and said: “They say ‘the devil is in the details,’ but the devil is also hidden in the great cumulative outcome. Sometimes a major loss cannot be seen without approaching the end and looking at the total picture. A mentality that has forgotten its metabolic relationship with nature and has focused solely on capital accumulation is now reaching all of its logical conclusions. When we look at the end of the story and at the cumulative total, we see that profit has been made and capital has accumulated, but the fertility of the soil is being destroyed.
Production continues in agriculture. Yet there is no longer any connection between agricultural areas and cities. When what is produced in rural areas is consumed in cities, the resulting waste cannot return to the soil with its nourishing qualities such as nitrogen and phosphorus. There is a vast gap here, an irreparable rupture. This destructive cycle advances by generating an enormous cumulative total.”
Öztürk also said: “As stated in the manifesto written by Abdullah Öcalan, ‘Today, humanity has been pushed to the brink of being devoured by the monster it created.’ Yes, if we ask whether there are limits, there are. We are facing an apocalyptic end. The seas are exhausted; seas, oceans, rivers, and drinking water are depleted. Production continues, profits are made, competition intensifies, yet both beneath and above the soil are being polluted. Forests are disappearing, animal and plant species are becoming extinct, and biodiversity is declining. The problem is not merely refusing to accept this system ethically; it is a matter of life and death for nature, living beings, and humanity.”
Öztürk said the definition of eco-economy in Abdullah Öcalan’s Peace and Democratic Society Manifesto identifies the core source of the problem. He added: “In the section titled ‘eco-economy / eco-industry,’ the manifesto addresses the issue as follows: ‘The third nature refers to overcoming domination-oriented mentalities and modes of production that alienate humanity from nature and drive it into destruction and crisis, and to finding ways to live in harmony with nature once again on the basis of a renewed contract, thereby ecologicalizing the culture of production and consumption.’”
Beyond speaking out, it also requires creating an alternative
Öztürk said this paragraph makes it possible to grasp the dimensions pointed to by eco-economy. He noted that, first of all, the main source of the problem is clearly identified: a process of alienation from nature. This, he said, means the breakdown of harmony and wholeness with nature. Öztürk said,“Production emerges through labor and nature together. Under conditions where production is appropriated and humanity’s bond with nature is severed, humanity becomes alienated both from its own labor and from nature.”
As a second point, Öztürk explained that the process producing the problem itself is laid bare. He recalled a passage on page 96 of the manifesto, which states and said: “There is much to be said about industrialism. It destroyed the underground, destroyed the surface of the earth, filled the air with carbon dioxide, and turned the oceans into dumps. Cities are carcinogenic. No one can stand against this so that the caustic killer can make profit.” Öztürk stated that this passage underlines how the goal of profit has been placed above everything else and said, “It is this very process that produces both economic crises and the destruction of nature. It is dragging society and nature toward the planet’s last fifty years.”
As a third point, Öztürk said, a path toward a solution is put forward. He stressed that the manifesto argues this process must be “overcome,” followed by the call to find ways of “living in harmony with nature” and of “ecologicalizing the culture of production and consumption.” Öztürk stated: “This struggle to overcome is not merely about voicing objections or protesting. It is an understanding that requires creating an alternative. This is a path that must be taken, and it is a long road ahead.”
Öztürk said the manifesto expresses this elsewhere with the following formulation and added: “Our new period perspective is the reconstruction of society on the basis of the democratic nation, eco-economy, and communalism. The responsibility before us is to develop the philosophical foundations, ideological dimensions, and the conceptual and theoretical framework necessary for this reconstruction to take concrete form within a detailed social structure. In other words, this is a process that has begun but has not yet been completed.”
The issue will ultimately come down to how production is organized
Öztürk said that needs are what drive the development of any economy, and continued: “No matter how correct the principles we put forward may be, the issue will ultimately come down to how production is organized, and in this field life always has the final say.
Lenin describes a transition period in State and Revolution, the phase after political power has been seized. This is not the higher stage in which our true principles fully operate, namely communism. When the conditions are considered, power has been taken, but everything else remains uncertain. The functioning of the economy in such a context cannot remain isolated, even if one wishes it to. Sooner or later, certain goods will be bought and sold. Needs, regardless of what is done, require an economy to function. This situation produces a chain reaction: once the economy functions, the space in which it operates cannot remain isolated, small, or fully self-sufficient. This reality, no matter what, ties that unit to the world economy.”
Öztürk also said: “Looking at it this way, it will not be enough to demand only bread and coal, as in the early twentieth century. The demand for even a single ‘mobile phone’ connects that economic unit to the entire world. A society may have its own economy, but through this chain process it inevitably becomes connected to the global economy as well. As a result, there can be no mode of operation that is completely separate from the general economic system. Even the most basic economic rules ultimately become decisive.
If we imagine the power established in Russia lasting a bit longer, we see that, first, because it was under siege, those imposing the siege would initially engage in aggressive economic competition. As this continued, by the time of the Second World War, that economic competition would turn directly into a military move. This shows that no matter what is done, it is not possible to proceed in a completely separate and self-contained way. Isolation is impossible; wearing conditions persist to the very end, and they persist for a long time.”
Municipalities can begin producing with the means they have
Öztürk said the commune system holds a central place in the eco-economy model, adding that work carried out especially through won municipalities can make it possible to show society what socialism actually looks like.
Öztürk continued: “At the same time, the manifesto says that the commune also implies a form of municipal organization. A municipality can begin producing public goods and services based on the public property and public means at its disposal. It can use its resources not to generate profit, but to meet the needs of society. This may not fully amount to ‘building tomorrow today,’ but it reveals the tendencies and projection of a future society.
Is there a need for this? There is an urgent need, at the highest level. Every municipality that has been won and every commune that has been established can be evaluated in this way. As the Canadian socialist Sam Gindin put it in a very incisive article, ‘We must say what socialism will look like.’”
It is necessary to show society what socialism looks like
Öztürk said, “We must say what socialism looks like, we must discuss what socialism means openly in front of everyone, and we must be proven right in practice. If an opportunity emerges at the outset, we can begin by producing public goods and services through municipalities. This approach will send a message to the world that ‘this is how it can be done, and it can be done well.’ Because after the defeats we have suffered, we are facing a problem of persuasion and of rallying society around a common goal. This is our greatest crisis. We move forward not as those who have never been defeated, but as the rank and file of a movement that has experienced defeat.”
Communes must show everyone what eco-economy looks like
Öztürk stated that communes and municipalities can win society over by setting strong examples and said: “Even a single good example by a commune or a municipality can shatter all prejudices about the horizon that eco-economy seeks to open up and create a domino effect. There is no need to wait. Even the newly elected Mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani, is already a candidate for creating such an effect. During the election campaign, Mamdani said: ‘Social housing will be built, childcare centers will be opened for children, municipal markets will be established, the minimum wage will be raised, educational support will be provided to university students, and taxes on the wealthy and large corporations will be increased.’”
Öztürk also said: “Our communes and municipalities can say all of this as well, and it would cause an uproar. Communes that do this can open up an extraordinary field of action for themselves. They would have shown and practiced, in front of everyone, what eco-economy looks like. The formation of a managerial or wealth-accumulating caste within that commune can be prevented or more precisely, we can resist it.
Having said this, when it becomes possible to manage an economy on a larger scale and to plan it, it will again be necessary under these conditions to form commune-, council-, or Soviet-style organizations. In the period ahead, when communes, namely municipalities, adopt a political program based on eco-economy, they will increase their strength and sphere of influence a hundredfold compared to what they have had so far.”
Öztürk also addressed the importance of the concept of eco-economy for socialism, citing the words of Abdullah Öcalan.”
Öztürk added: “As the manifesto puts it, an approach that seeks ‘to find ways to ecologicalize the culture of production and consumption by overcoming domination-oriented mentalities and modes of production that drive nature into destruction and crisis’ is entirely correct from the standpoint of socialism. It is an understanding that does not set aside the destruction of nature, that takes crises into account, and that proposes overcoming the modes of production that generate them. Ultimately, socialism is about changing the mode of production about creating a mode of production that is in harmony with nature and eliminates exploitation. The concept of eco-economy, together with its political program and practice, will advance toward this goal by following a logical chain.”
It is possible to reorganize socialism through the concept of eco-economy
Öztürk said it is possible to organize the socialism of a new era through the concept of eco-economy, and continued by pointing to the New York elections and continued:
“It is possible, and it can make a magnificent beginning. There is no need for a surprise electoral victory like that of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. The social force that can stand behind the idea of eco-economy has already reached the capacity to win municipalities. What needs to be done is simply to change the perspective and move into practice. There is no power capable of preventing communes from building democracy and carrying out public production. The moment it is said, ‘I am implementing this program,’ the entire country will undergo change and be turned upside down.
What matters is the beginning. After the October Revolution alone, one third of the world reached socialism. No one even imagined this in Russia at the time. We can succeed again. Once communes and municipalities begin to achieve success, they can immediately develop partnerships among themselves and move toward democratic planning.
Wherever socialism expands its sphere of influence, it will inevitably go through a transition period in order to leap to a more advanced stage. Commune experiences can be seen as both preparation for this period and as centers of resistance within it. History has shown that such transition periods last a very long time. It is necessary to prepare for such a transition and to resist throughout it.
In this sense, there is a great need for communes, under current conditions, during the transition period, and afterwards as well. Eco-economic communes and municipalities can function as signal flares through their examples of democracy and public production. As they advance successfully, they can spread to metropolitan areas and become encompassing. What remains then depends on the ability of socialists to carry the process through to its conclusion. Eco-economy and communes can fulfill every progressive function up to that stage and beyond.”