​The intellectual framework of new socialism gains meaning through the transcendence of the three main pillars of modernity: statism, industrialism, and hierarchical rationality. These three pillars have been reproduced in different forms throughout history. Capitalism reinforced them through the dogmas of growth, competition, and the market. Traditional socialism, on the other hand, preserved these three elements under a different guise by expanding the state and centralizing economic planning.

​For this reason, a new conception of socialism cannot be envisioned without a critique of modernity. To criticize modernity requires questioning not only economic relations but also modes of knowledge production, moral norms, perceptions of time and space, and even how society gives meaning to its own existence.

​The knowledge production model of modernity is built upon the concept of “centralized truth.” This understanding produces knowledge not from within society, but through institutions positioned above society. The university, state bureaucracy, fields of expertise, and scientific authorities are the truth-production mechanisms of modernity.

​Although these mechanisms ostensibly defend free thought, they reduce the diversity of social experiences to a single form of rationality. This reductionism destroys the richness of social knowledge. New socialism recognizes the production of knowledge by society and the place of social experiences in the production of truth. Therefore, “truth” is not a piece of information descending from the center to society, but a process arising from the multi-layered life practices of society.

​This new understanding of knowledge is also mandatory for political transformation. Because as long as knowledge production remains centralized, politics remains centralized. As knowledge disperses, politics disperses. As knowledge becomes democratized, politics becomes democratized. Therefore, new socialism aims for the dissolution of structures that monopolize knowledge. Strengthening the social circulation of knowledge is the fundamental condition for strengthening the social subject. This means the reconstruction of society’s capacity to give meaning to itself.

​Reconstructing society’s world of meaning beyond modernity also requires a transformation in the understanding of time. Modernity views time as a linear line: the past is left behind, the future has not yet arrived, and the present is merely a transitional moment on this line. This linear perception of time constantly directs society toward the future; the future is always imagined as a more “advanced,” “larger,” and more “developed” stage.

​This fetishism of progress is the common ground for both capitalist growth and traditional socialist developmentalism. Yet, freedom becomes possible by stepping outside the perception of linear time. Recognizing the cyclical and relational dimension of time returns society to a life suited to its own rhythm. New socialism evaluates time not through criteria of growth and development, but through social harmony and ethical life.

​Modernity’s understanding of space is also open to criticism for new socialism. Modern cities squeeze human relations into technical functionality. Space becomes an area where production and consumption processes are organized. However, the liberation of society is possible through the re-socialization of space. Space is not merely a geography but also a network of social relations. Therefore, new socialism re-relationalizes space. The neighborhood, the commune, locality, and community transform into political subjects. This transformation ensures that politics ceases to be state-centered.

​In this context, one of the most fundamental goals of new socialism is to rebuild society’s own organizational capacity. Under the modern state, society becomes a disorganized entity. The more the state grows, the more society shrinks; the more the state centralizes, the more society becomes passive. This passivity is one of the fundamental psychological structures of modernity that governs social life. The aim of new socialism is to make society an active subject again. When society’s organizational capacity increases, the need for the coercive mechanisms of the state decreases.

​The self-organization of society is not just a political model but also a philosophy of existence. When society organizes itself, the individual becomes not only an economic actor but also a political actor. This political agency takes the individual out of loneliness and strengthens them through social bonds. The modern individual is lonely. The individual of new socialism, however, is a relational being. This relational individual finds freedom not in loneliness but in subjectivity within social bonds.

​The understanding of freedom in new socialism also requires an ethical transformation. Ethics is the invisible law of social life. In modern society, ethics has remained in the shadow of the law. Law is determined by the central authority; ethics is produced by the social conscience.

​Therefore, the expansion of the centralized legal system often means the weakening of social ethics. New socialism sees law not as a mechanism that replaces society’s ethical capacity, but as a tool that strengthens this capacity. As ethics strengthens, the need for a centralized legal system decreases.

​The reconstruction of social ethics also requires placing economic relations within an ethical framework. The purpose of the economy cannot be merely production or growth. The purpose of the economy is to meet social needs and strengthen the ethical foundations of social life. Therefore, it is mandatory to restructure economic relations based on community and with ecological sensitivity. When the economy is not compatible with society’s ethical framework, freedom weakens.

​This point points to the ontological dimension of freedom. Freedom is not an internal state of the individual, but a set of relations that determine the conditions of society’s existence. When society is free, the individual is free; when the individual is free, society rebuilds its own organization in a more creative way. This mutual interaction makes freedom both an individual and a social process. Freedom is not the absence of power, but a form of existence that emerges with the dissolution of power within social relations.

​Within this entire framework, while new socialism aims to transcend the contradictions of modernity, it simultaneously constructs a new social ontology. This ontology offers a new way of knowing regarding society’s own existence. Society is not a hierarchical pyramid but a multi-layered network of mutual relations. Every relationship within this network carries the potential for freedom. Therefore, freedom expands with the reconstruction of social relations. It narrows as hierarchy and power relations increase.

​This intellectual structure carries new socialism beyond old paradigms and turns it into an ethical, political, and ontological project of freedom. Such a project does not wait for the future; it builds its own future in the practices of today.

​The radical transformation of new socialism is not just a theoretical construction but also a reconceptualization of social experience. In the terrain where modernity atomizes the individual and dissolves social bonds, experience is no longer evaluated in a purely economic or political framework as in the past.

​Experience is the sum of social memory, cultural accumulation, ethical relations, and individual creativity. This sum is the most fundamental basis for the reorganization of the social subject. The subject can no longer be defined only by a class or an organization. It is the result of social bonds, cultural diversity, gender relations, ecological consciousness, and historical memory.

​At this point, the radical rupture directly invalidates the classical socialist paradigm that centers the state and central power. The power mechanism of the state is a framework that limits social relations. No matter how well-intentioned it is managed, the centrality of power limits social freedom.

​New socialism makes the state a tool that supports the collective will of the social subject, not a central power. The power-oriented structure of the state functions as a mechanism that absorbs social energy; social organization, on the other hand, is a process that distributes and reproduces this energy. 

Therefore, a free society is a stateless but organized society.

​When women’s freedom is placed at the center of this structure, social transformation is not merely a symbolic change. The dissolution of patriarchal relations requires a restructuring that penetrates even the smallest nodes of power. Women’s freedom is not just gender equality, but the fundamental indicator of society’s capacity to organize itself.

​The dissolution of the patriarchal structure also clears the way for stateless democratic mechanisms, collective ethical norms, and social creativity. Women’s freedom is the ontological foundation of the freedom paradigm. It ensures the formation of a new ethical and relational order at every level of social life.

​Ecology is also an inseparable part of this holistic vision of socialism. Modern capitalism and industrialism treat nature as a means of commodification; they detach humans from nature and reduce living spaces to a single logic of production-consumption.

​Yet, a free society sees nature both as a part of its own life and as a part of social relations. Ecological consciousness is a criterion of social freedom; the value given to nature is directly related to social responsibility and collective will. Therefore, new socialism is a life model that reorganizes both human and nature relations.

​The dogmas of the modern left are forced to dissolve in the face of this radical rupture. The sanctity of the state, the absoluteness of central planning, the idea of a single revolutionary subject, and the linear understanding of history become invalid within the critical framework of Leader Öcalan’s paradigm.

​History is no longer understood as a process advancing on a single line, but as a multi-layered, multi-subjective, and relational organization. The future is not a utopia waiting for a certain moment to happen, but a process built through the continuous transformation of today’s social relations. Freedom and socialism are no longer goals deferred to the future, but dynamics that must be actively produced at every moment of social life.

​In new socialism, knowledge production also undergoes a radical transformation. Knowledge is no longer produced under the monopoly of central institutions and authorities. It is a product of social experience, collective memory, and cultural accumulation. This distribution of knowledge is the fundamental building block of social organization. When knowledge is democratized, power also disperses. When knowledge remains in a central position, power concentrates. Therefore, social liberation is closely linked to the democratization of knowledge production.

​The relationship between the individual and society is at the center of this paradigm. The individual is not conceived as having a freedom independent of social relations. Freedom is reproduced within social relations. In these relations, the individual is both the subject and assumes the responsibility of the relations. The freedom of society feeds individual freedom. Individual freedom, in turn, strengthens social bonds. This two-way process defines freedom not only as a right but also as a social obligation and a practice of life.

​In new socialism, ethical and political fields are inseparable. Ethical transformation is a prerequisite for the reconstruction of social relations. In modern society, ethics often remains in the shadow of the law, and individuals are prevented from assuming their own responsibilities. In new socialism, ethics is placed at the center of social life. The individual and society regulate their own behavior through collective conscience. This ethics-based life takes the place of central authority and ensures the social continuity of freedom.

​The radical rupture is a holistic paradigm that goes beyond classical socialism and the modern left. This paradigm addresses social, economic, cultural, ethical, gender, and ecological relations within the same integrity. It transcends the boundaries of the state and central power. It subjectivizes society collectively. It re-establishes the relationality between the individual and the community, and between freedom and responsibility. This is not just a theoretical proposal, but a vision of freedom and socialism fed by the practices of today and continuously produced.

​New socialism is not only a proposal for a social order but also an intellectual project that transcends the epistemological and ontological boundaries of modernity.

​While modernity atomizes the individual, it defines society as a mechanical system. This mechanical definition paves the way for hierarchy, centralization, and the concentration of power. New socialism, however, sees society as a network of relations. Every relationship carries freedom, every bond carries responsibility, and every community carries a creative capacity. This ontological transformation allows social life to redefine itself. Society is no longer an object shaped by power, but a subject that continuously produces its own existence.

​Another dimension of the radical rupture is the reconstruction of the collective will. In traditional socialism, the collective will is squeezed into the state or central party mechanisms. Individual subjectivity is often ignored or subordinated to central authority. New socialism processes the collective will within the network of social relations and positions the individual’s subjectivity as an active element within this network. Collective will is no longer a top-down decision-making mechanism, but a horizontal, pluralistic, and continuously reproduced process. In this process, the individual is not just a subject demanding rights, but a creative actor shaping social experience.

​Modernity’s understanding of history also undergoes a radical critique. The traditional left has envisioned the line of history as a linear and progressive process. Revolutions, development, and central planning are seen as steps forward. Yet, new socialism conceives historical experience as a multi-layered, relational, and pluralistic field. The past is not merely a heritage; it is the source of today’s social organization and the vision of future freedom. Making the past, cultural accumulation, and social memory visible again is the fundamental condition for social freedom.

​In this context, social memory is not just historical knowledge, but also the creative source of freedom. Memory serves as a guide in the organization of social relations. When society’s collective memory is strong, individuals and communities can organize their own experiences freely. Memory breaks modernity’s myth of one-way progress and prepares the ground for a free future vision. The future is no longer a distant utopia, but a process built by the continuity of today’s social practices.

​In this new paradigm, economy is not addressed merely as a relationship of production and consumption. Economic relations are redefined together with social and ecological bonds. Capitalist growth and industrial production push the limits of social and natural life; new socialism shapes production within the framework of social needs and ecological balance. When economic processes are made compatible with social ethics and ecological consciousness, the potential for freedom is unlocked. This is not only an economic but also an ontological and ethical restructuring.

​Women’s freedom is at the center of social freedom. The dissolution of patriarchal relations directly increases society’s capacity to question power relations. Women’s freedom functions as a mechanism that disperses social energy and strengthens collective responsibility. Social freedom cannot be completed without women’s freedom. Because patriarchy reproduces power through the state, the economy, and cultural norms. New socialism aims to dissolve patriarchy at these three levels and to re-establish social relations on the basis of equality.

​Knowledge production is also an inseparable component of freedom. Knowledge is not a content received from central authorities, but is produced through social experience and collective memory. The democratization of knowledge is the fundamental condition for social organization and collective will. As knowledge disperses, power also disperses; when knowledge is monopolized, power concentrates. Therefore, knowledge is not merely a tool, but a mechanism that shapes freedom itself.

​The ontological and ethical dimension of freedom is at the heart of the holistic paradigm of new socialism. Freedom is not an internal state of the individual; it is a process reproduced within the network of social relations. The individual becomes free within social relations, and society nurtures individual subjectivity. This two-way process makes freedom both an individual and a social practice. Freedom is not the absence of power; it emerges with the dissolution of power within the network of relations.

​In conclusion, new socialism transcends the boundaries of modernity, the classical left, and the paradigm that centers the central state. It subjectivizes society collectively, positions the individual as a relational being, questions patriarchy and central power, and offers an ecological and ethical framework. In this paradigm, freedom is not merely a right, but a continuously produced process, a form of existence, and the fundamental dynamic of social life.

​New socialism is no longer a utopia deferred for the future, but an existential space built with the relational, collective, and creative social practices of today.