Debates on the concepts of state–society relations and democracy have continued following Abdullah Öcalan’s “Peace and Democratic Society Manifesto,” which has brought these discussions back to the agenda.
Despite claims that “the paradigm has collapsed,” which were put forward particularly after the attacks on Rojava, an ideological opposition to the new paradigm has still not emerged. In the discussions, attacks have largely come to the fore rather than ideological debates directed at the paradigm.
Mahir Ergun, the author of the book Either State or Democracy – The State as the Process of Organizing Power Relations and the Conquest of Democratic Society, which addresses the struggles between state and democracy throughout the history of humanity, spoke to ANF about the reasons for the persistence of the state and Abdullah Öcalan’s paradigm for the new era.
Why did the formation of the state attract your attention?
In your new book Either State or Democracy, you examine the formation of the state and its place in human history. Why did this topic attract your interest?
The most fundamental and historical debates of political thought have revolved around the issues of the state and power. It is hardly possible for someone working in the field of political thought not to be interested in these issues; inevitably, one has to address them. This is the reason for my interest.
Beyond this, political thought as a discipline enables politics and society to be theoretically and systematically understood and moreover proposes new systems of understanding for social and political relations. In my view, it is hardly possible to do this without grasping the issues of state and power. Furthermore, considering that political practices follow, or claim to follow, the models proposed by political thought, incorrect or incomplete understandings of these issues can sometimes lead to tragedies in practice. Therefore, I believe that these issues should remain on the agenda and be discussed in a comprehensive manner.
Real socialist practices failed to move beyond power relations
The perception of the state appears as a fundamental element in both the capitalist system of thought and the real socialist system of thought. Is the state really indispensable?
Yes, the state is indispensable from the perspective of capitalism. I see the state not as a tool but as a process, and I define it as the process through which power relations organize themselves in centralized apparatuses. This begins with the smallest level of power relations and continues by constantly centralizing and organizing itself. The state is the very process of this organization. Therefore, in any form of social organization where power relations exist, the absence of the state is not possible. It may take different forms; under some conditions it may appear more authoritarian and more centralized, under others more social in character, but it exists. For this reason, I cannot imagine capitalism without the state.
Real socialist practices, meaning the practices we have seen since the beginning of the twentieth century, were also unable to move themselves outside power relations. There was no such will in that direction either. In my view, the analysis of the state were also incorrect. The state was defined as an apparatus of oppression belonging to the capitalist class. Defining the state as a tool, as a machine, makes it appear as if it were outside social relations. When one looks at socialist literature, one encounters expressions such as ‘seizing the state apparatus,’ ‘using it,’ or ‘smashing the state machine.’ These are useful abstractions, as they create a certain ‘image’ of the state. However, political thought is not poetry; we are not searching for powerful imagery here. Seeing the state as a tool and thinking that it can be seized and used, or smashed with a hammer blow, means failing to see the state within everyday social relations. As a result, power relations continue to organize themselves in daily life, and instead of the state ‘withering away,’ it becomes stronger. This is what happened in the practices of real socialism.
Those who hold power stand above others
When did the concept of “power” enter human history?
It is difficult to speak of a specific time in this regard. Moreover, it may not be entirely accurate to treat human history as a single whole. For example, there are centuries of difference between when the societies of Mesopotamia encountered power and when the Indigenous peoples of North America encountered it.
However, if instead of asking ‘when,’ we ask ‘how,’ we can speak of a form that is essentially similar, even though it may take different shapes across different periods and communities. In my view, it is possible to argue that power relations entered social relations through ‘conquest.’
First of all, it is necessary to define what political power is. At this point, drawing on the words of Macpherson, we can define the concept of political power as the capacity of certain individuals, groups or classes to force others to do things they otherwise would not do, or to refrain from doing things they otherwise could do.
Therefore, power defines a vertical form of relationships. Those who hold power are ‘above’ others and compel them either to do something or to refrain from doing it.
Kropotkin argues that in the natural condition of human communities, people exist within mutual aid, egalitarian, horizontal, and communal relations, and that otherwise their survival would not be possible. He describes Hobbes’ approach, that ‘man is a wolf to man’, as unscientific and merely speculative. If Kropotkin is right, then in a solidaristic and communal society it would not be reasonable to expect vertical forms of relations, that is, power relations, to arise spontaneously without an external influence. Therefore, power cannot be the result of humanity’s ‘development’ or ‘evolution.’
Surplus product is the product that the future ruling class forces others to produce
Oppenheimer sees power and the state as a result of nomadic pastoral tribes conquering settled agricultural tribes. I do not find this entirely accurate either. Many historical and contemporary data show that mutual cooperation between nomadic and settled communities made life easier for both groups. The same applies to hunting communities. A hunting community could give the meat or the hide of the animals it hunted to settled agricultural communities and receive grain or certain tools in return.
However, if a community loses its normal means of sustaining life for some reason, for example, if a pastoral community loses its animals due to famine or drought, it may transform into a ‘raiding community,’ that is, a ‘military community.’ These military communities may begin to attack hoe-farming, pastoral or hunting communities and survive through the spoils they obtain from them. As the spoils become systematized, they turn into ‘tax.’ Tax is the foundation of power, the state and therefore of ‘civilization.’ This is because the pressure of taxation forces the producing community to produce more than what is sufficient for itself. This is called the ‘surplus product.’ In other words, the surplus product is not a product that is already produced and then stolen by certain parasitic classes. The surplus product is the product that the raiding community, which over time will transform into a parasitic and ruling class, forces the producing community to produce. It is the source of wealth and civilization. It cannot be produced without external pressure and coercion.
Once wealth begins to be produced, power relations start to organize themselves in centralized apparatuses. Fortresses and city walls are built to protect wealth; the raiding community professionalizes its military capabilities, and class distinctions become clearer.
The transition from matrilineal structures to patriarchy also occurs in this process. This is because the raiding community needs soldiers, and the simplest way to supply soldiers is biological reproduction. Matrilineality does not allow such expansion, since the number of children a woman can give birth to in a year is limited. However, when lineage is traced through men, a male warrior, especially by also using women who have been seized and enslaved, can have countless children, that is, countless heirs, and the community can increase the number of soldiers it needs. Patriarchy is organized and institutionalized in this way. Of course, all of these are very bloody stories. Whether we look at the poems of Homer, Beowulf, or the Arthurian myths, we see that heroic warriors often portray women as their enemies. These are the founding myths of power, and they always tell the stories of certain soldiers.
All of this entire process of the organization of power can be defined as the ‘state,’ and it still continues today.
Returning to the question, it is possible to say that similar processes were experienced by different communities in different forms at different times. This is true for Mesopotamia as well as for the Greek geography. For example, we can say that the indigenous communities known as the Pelasgians were conquered through the Achaean and Dorian raids. In Western Europe, the Roman and Germanic conquests played a similar role. In the Americas, the conquest of solidaristic, egalitarian, communal and matrilineal Indigenous peoples by European invaders who had already reached a certain level of ‘civilization’ produced a similar result.
To be continued.