(aka Ocalan) understanding of socialism
Leader Apo's understanding of socialism combines ontological and sociological expansion with the concept of socialism. He considers socialism as a project limited to the seizure of power, but as the revelation of the organizational capacity of society.
Leader Apo's understanding of socialism combines ontological and sociological expansion with the concept of socialism. He considers socialism as a project limited to the seizure of power, but as the revelation of the organizational capacity of society.
SİNAN CÛDÎ
ANF
NEWS CENTER
Thursday, December 25, 2025
The question of social freedom is one of the most central but also one of the most problematic topics of modern political thought. Within the Marxist tradition in particular, freedom has been largely associated with the transformation of production relations and the abolition of class rule. Although this approach has provided a strong theoretical framework for revealing the structural workings of capitalist exploitation, historical experience has shown that freedom does not emerge spontaneously only through the transformation of economic relations.
The fact that relations of domination can be reproduced in different ways even under conditions where class power changes reveals that the issue of freedom requires a deeper theoretical questioning.
It is clear that social freedom should be considered together with the relationship established with existence and the way society understands itself. In other words, freedom is not a political gain to be obtained later; It is a process shaped within ontological assumptions, social relations and practical forms of action. When human and society are considered as fixed essences, freedom is inevitably limited; On the other hand, approaches that comprehend existence as a relational, processual, and historical becoming expand the material and social conditions of freedom.
In this context, Leader Apo's approach to socialism as socialism should not be read as a rejection of classical dialectical materialism. Rather, we should discuss it as an attempt to update it to transcend the limits it encounters with historical experiences. Leader Apo's treatment of ontology, sociology and socialism as intertwined necessities makes it possible to rethink freedom as a problem of social existence that is not limited to the change of power.
We can formulate our question as follows: Can social freedom be established only through the transformation of production relations, or is the understanding of being and social ontology a constitutive component of this process? Around this question, it will be possible to make visible the theoretical and practical blockages caused by the neglect of the ontological dimension while acknowledging the strengths of the classical Marxist understanding of freedom.
In this direction, this article will first deal with the approach of classical dialectical materialism to the problem of freedom and its limits that emerge in historical practice. Then, the relationship between the issue of ontology and freedom will be discussed; the decisive effect of the way of existence of man and society on political practice will be examined.
In the following sections, the necessity of expanding class-centered analyses will be discussed in a sociological framework and Leader Abdullah Öcalan's understanding of socialism based on socialism will be positioned at the intersection of these theoretical discussions. The study will conclude by discussing how dialectical materialism can be moved to a more historical and inclusive framework by adding ontological and social dimensions.
CLASSICAL DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM AND THE PROBLEM OF FREEDOM
Dialectical materialism constitutes one of the most powerful theoretical frameworks of modern social criticism. With Marx and Engels, history was grasped on the basis of material production relations; The engine of social transformation has been defined as class struggle. This approach has transformed freedom from a moral or legal category into a historical problem linked to the transformation of material conditions. In particular, the structure of the capitalist mode of production based on labor exploitation is of central importance in terms of explaining why freedom is systematically restricted.
In the classical Marxist framework, freedom is considered as a historical outcome that will become possible with the abolition of private property on the means of production and the end of class rule. In this context, the state is defined as the oppressive apparatus of the ruling class and it is assumed that it will wither away with the disappearance of classes. In this scheme, freedom is positioned as a social situation that will emerge after the seizure of political power and the transformation of production relations.
Although this approach seems theoretically consistent, historical experience has revealed certain limits. Socialist experiences in different geographies throughout the twentieth century have shown that although radical transformations have been made in the relations of production, freedom has not been established automatically. Far from disappearing, the state apparatus has become more centralized and more interventionist in most cases; domination over social life has been reproduced in different ways. This suggests that freedom cannot be reduced to the transformation of economic infrastructure alone.
At this point, dialectical materialism's understanding of freedom faces two fundamental problems. First, freedom becomes a goal that is often postponed to the future. Existing authoritarian practices are justified as temporary imperatives, and freedom is relegated to a post-revolutionary stage.
Secondly, the human subject is largely defined by its class position; daily life practices, cultural relations, gender regimes and the functioning of power at the micro level are seen as secondary areas. This makes it difficult to grasp how domination permeates the entire social fabric.
The point to be emphasized here is that these limits are not necessary consequences of Marx's theory. The understanding of praxis, which came to the fore in Marx's early texts, is that human beings are not only the product of material conditions; while transforming these conditions, it also reveals that it transforms itself. However, in most of the Marxist tradition, this ontological dimension has taken a back seat to the emphasis on historical determination. Dialectics is often confined to the field of production; freedom has not been considered as a problem that covers the whole of social existence.
Therefore, the dilemma of classical dialectical materialism in the problem of freedom does not stem from its neglect of the material basis, but from its narrow definition of the material. Production relations continue to be decisive; However, the issue of freedom is incomplete if it is not adequately explained how these relations are reproduced through human beings' understanding of existence, social ties and daily practices. This determination makes it necessary to expand dialectical materialism with ontological and social dimensions.
THE ISSUE OF ONTOLOGY: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CONCEPTION OF EXISTENCE AND FREEDOM
The fact that the question of freedom is addressed only on the political or economic level is one of the main limitations of modern social theory. Classical dialectical materialism offers a strong historical analysis by centering on the relations of production; however, it often leaves the deeper connections that humans form with the world in the background. At this point, ontology, that is, the question of being, stands out as a decisive field in terms of understanding the ground on which freedom becomes possible.
Ontology asks the question of how man exists in the world. Man is not just a being who produces, provides labor power or is defined by his class position. At the same time, it has an existence that establishes meaning, develops relationships, and interprets itself and its environment. In this respect, ontology is not just external structures; It shows that human beings reproduce these structures by internalizing them. Without changing the understanding of existence, it becomes difficult for the claim of social freedom to become permanent.
Heidegger's main criticisms of modern philosophy are illustrative here. According to him, modern thought reduces existence to an object; It is based on what can be measured, calculated and audited. This approach compresses man's relationship with the world to a technical and instrumental level. Existence ceases to be a lived and shared process; it turns into a managed and regulated space. Such an understanding of existence makes domination ordinary rather than an exceptional situation.
This ontological contraction is not unique to capitalism. A similar problem is observed in state-centered socialist experiences. Even if the means of production have been nationalized, human existence is still defined through central planning, representation and discipline mechanisms. Freedom turns into a goal regulated from above rather than a constantly produced relationship in social practice. This creates a new area of tension between emancipation and power.
At this point, Leader Apo's approach pulls ontology to the center of political theory. According to him, the problem is not only property relations or class contradictions; How people comprehend themselves and society is a more important problem. When existence is considered as a set of relations in a state of continuous becoming, freedom ceases to be a static state and becomes a practice that is established, disrupted and reconstructed in daily life. In this perspective, freedom undergoes a transformation from a promise postponed to the future to being a responsibility of the present.
This ontological framework also establishes a distant relationship with identitarian or nationalist modes of existence. Fixed identities, unchanging essences and singular historical narratives treat "existence" as a frozen structure. However, an ontologically relational understanding of existence requires people to define themselves through the bonds they establish with others. This makes it possible to think of freedom not as an individual or collective property, but as a process that is constantly re-established within common life.
From this point of view, there is no hierarchical relationship between ontology, sociology and socialism.
Ontology provides the ground for sociological analysis.
Sociology reveals the social equivalent of ontological assumptions.
Socialism, on the other hand, offers a practical orientation that aims to transform these two in the direction of freedom.
When the ontological dimension is neglected, socialism is inevitably reduced to an administrative model.
Leader Apo's intervention is precisely against this reduction.
THE ISSUE OF SOCIOLOGY: THE BOUNDARIES OF CLASS AND PLURAL FORMS OF SOCIAL DOMINATION
Classical Marxist sociology analyzes society basically through the relations between classes. The bond established with the means of production determines the social position of the individual; politics, law, culture and ideology are shaped on this material ground. This approach is extremely powerful in exposing the structural inequalities of capitalist society. However, it has been insufficient to explain all forms of social domination over time.
Although it has lost its homogeneous character, class and class analysis are indispensable for understanding the functioning of modern capitalism. However, when considered on a historical and anthropological level, it does not offer an explanation that covers the whole of society. It is known that hierarchies, gender-based inequalities, religious and cultural forms of domination also exist in pre-state or semi-state societies. This situation shows that domination does not start only with class relations; suggests that it is associated with older, deeper forms of social organization.
Leader Apo's sociological intervention gains meaning at this point.
According to Leader Apo, class is an important form of social domination; however, it is not its first and founding form. The rupture that society experienced with state civilization is not only an economic transformation. It is also a mental, cultural and organizational rupture. Male domination, hierarchical authority, representation relations and centralism were shaped before classification and deepened with classification.
This approach makes sociology not a narrow field of economic analysis. Society is considered both as a result of production relations and as a living structure established through values, norms, habits and daily practices. Domination cannot be observed only in the factory or in property relations; because it is reproduced in the family, language, education and political representation. This makes it insufficient to treat the struggle for freedom only as a class conflict.
In the Marxist tradition, this gap has been tried to be filled in different ways. Gramsci's concept of hegemony, Althusser's analysis of ideological apparatuses, and later cultural Marxist approaches have taken important steps towards overcoming class reductionism. However, these contributions have often been limited to questioning the central state and party model. Social transformation is also designed as a top-down organized process.
Leader Apo's sociological framework, on the other hand, re-centers society. Society is not a passive mass; it is a subject with the capacity for self-organization. Communes, assemblies and local organizations are therefore not only administrative units. They are also constitutive areas of social emancipation. Here, sociology is not content with analyzing the relations between classes; it turns into a field of knowledge that reveals the self-management potential of society.
At this point, the class is not completely rejected; however, it ceases to be the only decisive axis. Class struggle, gender struggle, ecological struggle and the search for cultural freedom are considered as intertwined processes. This approach accepts the fact that social domination is not unicentric and carries the struggle for freedom to a plural ground.
As a result, this sociological expansion does not contradict the basic intuitions of Marxism, but deepens them historically and socially. Class analysis is preserved; but it is repositioned within the holistic structure of society. Here, Leader Apo's contribution is that sociology is not only an explanatory discipline, but a part of the practice of freedom.
SOCIALISM AS SOCIALISM: THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF FREEDOM
In classical socialist theory, socialism is defined by the socialization of the means of production and the abolition of class rule. In this context, socialism refers to a historical stage that will emerge after the overcoming of capitalism. The state plays a central role in this transition process. Planning, distribution and coordination of production are carried out through the state apparatus. The emancipation of society is largely attributed to the success of this central transformation.
Although this approach has produced a strong alternative to the destructive effects of capitalism, it has also produced its own limits over time. Socialism began to be perceived as an economic and administrative model rather than a living re-establishment of social relations. Society has ceased to be a subject and has turned into an object that is decided on its behalf. This situation has led to the consideration of freedom as an administrative issue, not a social one.
Leader Apo's understanding of socialism creates a significant break at this point. According to him, socialism is primarily the revelation of society's capacity for self-organization and decision-making. For this reason, socialism is conceived as a social way of life, not as a form of state or only as an economic system. The concept of socialism becomes decisive here. Socialism is considered as the practice of re-establishing society.
In this perspective, freedom does not emerge automatically with the withdrawal of central power. Freedom is embodied in communes, assemblies and forms of organization of daily life. Economy, politics and culture cannot acquire an emancipatory function without the direct participation of society. Collectivism is not a collectivism that ignores the individual, but a form of relationality in which the individual is strengthened within social ties.
Leader Apo's understanding of socialism does not make his state-centered criticism of socialism based only on historical experiences; it also puts it on an ontological and sociological basis. When human beings are considered as an essentially relational being, freedom is also built in relationships. Therefore, freedom cannot be distributed from a single center. If forms of social organization do not produce freedom, the transformation in property relations alone is not enough.
This understanding of socialism does not invalidate the class struggle; but it makes it part of a wider field of social struggle. Labor-capital contradiction, gender inequality, ecological destruction and cultural domination are considered as different manifestations of the same social crisis. Socialism claims to produce responses to each of these crises at the social level.
As a result, socialism in Leader Apo is not a goal limited to the seizure of power. Socialism is the process of rebuilding society itself. This process requires constant practice and action. Socialism does not consider freedom as a final stop; as a lived experience. In this respect, Leader Apo's socialism offers a perspective of social emancipation that transcends the state and power-centered horizon of the classical left.
UPDATING DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM: PROCESS, RELATIONALITY AND SUBJECT
Dialectical materialism is a powerful way of thinking that grasps historical change through contradictions. This is known. The interaction between material conditions and social consciousness constitutes the basic assumption of this approach. However, this framework is often limited to the production area. Dialectics is identified with the laws of motion of the economic infrastructure. This narrowing is not the fault of dialectics; it stems from a certain historical interpretation of it.
Leader Apo's intervention forces dialectics to think again in the center of process and relationality. Social change cannot be experienced only by resolving the antagonisms between classes. It also takes place through the transformation of human relationships with themselves, with the community and with nature. In this approach, dialectics ceases to be a historical scheme that progresses in closed stages and becomes a continuous becoming.
In classical dialectical materialism, the subject is often considered as the bearer of historical imperatives. The class is the dominant actor on the stage of history. This makes sense in highlighting the importance of collective action; however, it deals with individual and social subjectivation processes in a limited framework. Leader Apo's approach, on the other hand, does not define the subject only with its class position. The subject is conceived as an existence that is established and transformed in practice.
This update does not make material reality secondary; on the contrary, it expands the scope of the material. Economic relations of production are an important dimension of social life; however, it is not the only dimension. Language, culture, gender relations, ecological ties and forms of political participation are also considered as part of material reality. Thus, dialectics is not limited to the labor-capital contradiction; becomes able to analyze the complete contradictions of social existence.
At this point, updating dialectical materialism does not mean bringing it closer to idealism. On the contrary, it aims to go beyond idealistic abstractions and comprehend the concrete multi-layered structure of social life. The material is not limited to the measurable. Social relations, habits and common life practices also have a material reality. This acceptance increases the social depth of the dialectic.
In Leader Apo's approach, dialectics ceases to be a strategy focused on the seizure of power and becomes a method to understand the capacity of society to constantly reproduce itself. Contradiction is not an obstacle that needs to be broken down; it is a dynamic that contains the possibility of transformation. This makes it possible to think of the idea of revolution as a long-term process of social construction rather than a singular moment of rupture.
As a result, this update does not invalidate dialectical materialism, but reworks it in line with historical experience and theoretical needs. Leader Apo's contribution is to transform dialectics from a state, party and class-centered framework into a society and life-centered way of thinking. This transformation makes freedom a social practice of today, rather than a postponed goal.
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: THE CONSTITUTIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ONTOLOGY, SOCIETY AND FREEDOM
The basic claim is that social freedom cannot be established only by the transformation of production relations. It is clearly emphasized that liberation will not become permanent without changing the understanding of human beings' existence, social ties and forms of subjectivity. This framework aimed to make visible the areas that classical leftist thought could not open historically, without rejecting its founding intuitions.
Classical dialectical materialism is still a powerful theoretical tool to explain capitalist exploitation and class inequalities. However, the fact that it treats freedom as a goal that is often postponed to the future has created a structural distance between it and social practice. State-centered socialist experiences have shown that this distance produces historical as well as theoretical results. The transformation in the relations of production has progressed with new forms of domination when social relations are not transformed.
At this point, the ontological dimension is placed at the center of the study. Human beings are not only in economic relations in the world; it exists in meaning, relationship and practice. Existence is not a fixed state; It is a process that develops in a state of continuous becoming. This understanding does not consider freedom as a completed goal. It makes it possible to understand freedom as a form of relationship that is constantly reproduced in social life. In this sense, ontology ceases to be an abstract field of political theory and becomes one of the material grounds of freedom.
The discussion on the sociological plane also reveals that social domination cannot be reduced to a single axis while maintaining the indispensability of class analysis. Male domination, cultural hierarchies, centralism and representation relations are historical phenomena intertwined with class structures. The emancipation of society requires confronting each of these forms of domination. This makes sociology a constitutive component of the practice of emancipation as well as an explanatory tool.
Leader Apo's understanding of socialism combines this ontological and sociological expansion around the concept of socialism. Socialism is considered as a project limited to the seizure of power and as the revelation of the self-organization capacity of society. Communes, assemblies and local organizations are defined as areas where freedom is produced rather than being instrumental administrative structures. In this context, society ceases to be a passive object and becomes the main subject of liberation.
This approach inevitably brings with it some criticisms. The most common objection is that the class struggle has been pushed into the background. However, what is done here is not to exclude class, but to remove it from being the only explanatory axis. The labor-capital contradiction remains at the heart of modern capitalism; however, social domination cannot be understood in its entirety without taking into account the hierarchies and forms of power that emerged historically before classification.
Another criticism is the claim that this approach means a break with Marxism. It can be argued that the emphasis on ontology and society approaches idealism. However, the material reality is not abandoned here, and the scope of the material is expanded. Social relations, daily practices, forms of organization and common living spaces are also part of the material world. This approach aims to make the repressed ontological vein of Marxism visible again.
Criticisms about the issue of state and power are also important. The emphasis on socialism can be questioned on the grounds that it obscures the problem of central power. However, this criticism reduces power only to the state apparatus. However, in modern societies, power is spread to all of daily life. The seizure of the state does not automatically eliminate these scattered networks of power. Socialism does not hide power; rather, it makes it visible at the local and plural levels.
The treatment of society as the subject of liberation can also be criticized as romanticizing society. Inequalities, reactionary tendencies and conflicts within society may seem to be ignored in this gaze. However, society is not idealized here; on the contrary, it is treated as a field of struggle. Freedom cannot develop through the suppression of tensions; on the contrary, it becomes possible by experiencing these tensions openly.
Lastly, the practical applicability of this approach is questionable. Especially in conditions of crisis, war and authoritarianism, the sustainability of society-centered models can be discussed. However, this objection reflects the limits of the existing political order, not the theory. Historical experience shows that social self-organization can emerge even in the most difficult conditions. As a matter of fact, the Rojava practice shows exactly this.
As a result, when ontology, sociology and socialism are taken together, freedom ceases to be an abstract ideal or a deferred promise and turns into a lived social practice. Leader Apo's contribution gains meaning in the effort to re-establish this unity and offers a serious theoretical update for contemporary leftist thought.
NEWS CENTER
Thursday, December 25, 2025
The question of social freedom is one of the most central but also one of the most problematic topics of modern political thought. Within the Marxist tradition in particular, freedom has been largely associated with the transformation of production relations and the abolition of class rule. Although this approach has provided a strong theoretical framework for revealing the structural workings of capitalist exploitation, historical experience has shown that freedom does not emerge spontaneously only through the transformation of economic relations.
The fact that relations of domination can be reproduced in different ways even under conditions where class power changes reveals that the issue of freedom requires a deeper theoretical questioning.
It is clear that social freedom should be considered together with the relationship established with existence and the way society understands itself. In other words, freedom is not a political gain to be obtained later; It is a process shaped within ontological assumptions, social relations and practical forms of action. When human and society are considered as fixed essences, freedom is inevitably limited; On the other hand, approaches that comprehend existence as a relational, processual, and historical becoming expand the material and social conditions of freedom.
In this context, Leader Apo's approach to socialism as socialism should not be read as a rejection of classical dialectical materialism. Rather, we should discuss it as an attempt to update it to transcend the limits it encounters with historical experiences. Leader Apo's treatment of ontology, sociology and socialism as intertwined necessities makes it possible to rethink freedom as a problem of social existence that is not limited to the change of power.
We can formulate our question as follows: Can social freedom be established only through the transformation of production relations, or is the understanding of being and social ontology a constitutive component of this process? Around this question, it will be possible to make visible the theoretical and practical blockages caused by the neglect of the ontological dimension while acknowledging the strengths of the classical Marxist understanding of freedom.
In this direction, this article will first deal with the approach of classical dialectical materialism to the problem of freedom and its limits that emerge in historical practice. Then, the relationship between the issue of ontology and freedom will be discussed; the decisive effect of the way of existence of man and society on political practice will be examined.
In the following sections, the necessity of expanding class-centered analyses will be discussed in a sociological framework and Leader Abdullah Öcalan's understanding of socialism based on socialism will be positioned at the intersection of these theoretical discussions. The study will conclude by discussing how dialectical materialism can be moved to a more historical and inclusive framework by adding ontological and social dimensions.
CLASSICAL DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM AND THE PROBLEM OF FREEDOM
Dialectical materialism constitutes one of the most powerful theoretical frameworks of modern social criticism. With Marx and Engels, history was grasped on the basis of material production relations; The engine of social transformation has been defined as class struggle. This approach has transformed freedom from a moral or legal category into a historical problem linked to the transformation of material conditions. In particular, the structure of the capitalist mode of production based on labor exploitation is of central importance in terms of explaining why freedom is systematically restricted.
In the classical Marxist framework, freedom is considered as a historical outcome that will become possible with the abolition of private property on the means of production and the end of class rule. In this context, the state is defined as the oppressive apparatus of the ruling class and it is assumed that it will wither away with the disappearance of classes. In this scheme, freedom is positioned as a social situation that will emerge after the seizure of political power and the transformation of production relations.
Although this approach seems theoretically consistent, historical experience has revealed certain limits. Socialist experiences in different geographies throughout the twentieth century have shown that although radical transformations have been made in the relations of production, freedom has not been established automatically. Far from disappearing, the state apparatus has become more centralized and more interventionist in most cases; domination over social life has been reproduced in different ways. This suggests that freedom cannot be reduced to the transformation of economic infrastructure alone.
At this point, dialectical materialism's understanding of freedom faces two fundamental problems. First, freedom becomes a goal that is often postponed to the future. Existing authoritarian practices are justified as temporary imperatives, and freedom is relegated to a post-revolutionary stage.
Secondly, the human subject is largely defined by its class position; daily life practices, cultural relations, gender regimes and the functioning of power at the micro level are seen as secondary areas. This makes it difficult to grasp how domination permeates the entire social fabric.
The point to be emphasized here is that these limits are not necessary consequences of Marx's theory. The understanding of praxis, which came to the fore in Marx's early texts, is that human beings are not only the product of material conditions; while transforming these conditions, it also reveals that it transforms itself. However, in most of the Marxist tradition, this ontological dimension has taken a back seat to the emphasis on historical determination. Dialectics is often confined to the field of production; freedom has not been considered as a problem that covers the whole of social existence.
Therefore, the dilemma of classical dialectical materialism in the problem of freedom does not stem from its neglect of the material basis, but from its narrow definition of the material. Production relations continue to be decisive; However, the issue of freedom is incomplete if it is not adequately explained how these relations are reproduced through human beings' understanding of existence, social ties and daily practices. This determination makes it necessary to expand dialectical materialism with ontological and social dimensions.
THE ISSUE OF ONTOLOGY: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CONCEPTION OF EXISTENCE AND FREEDOM
The fact that the question of freedom is addressed only on the political or economic level is one of the main limitations of modern social theory. Classical dialectical materialism offers a strong historical analysis by centering on the relations of production; however, it often leaves the deeper connections that humans form with the world in the background. At this point, ontology, that is, the question of being, stands out as a decisive field in terms of understanding the ground on which freedom becomes possible.
Ontology asks the question of how man exists in the world. Man is not just a being who produces, provides labor power or is defined by his class position. At the same time, it has an existence that establishes meaning, develops relationships, and interprets itself and its environment. In this respect, ontology is not just external structures; It shows that human beings reproduce these structures by internalizing them. Without changing the understanding of existence, it becomes difficult for the claim of social freedom to become permanent.
Heidegger's main criticisms of modern philosophy are illustrative here. According to him, modern thought reduces existence to an object; It is based on what can be measured, calculated and audited. This approach compresses man's relationship with the world to a technical and instrumental level. Existence ceases to be a lived and shared process; it turns into a managed and regulated space. Such an understanding of existence makes domination ordinary rather than an exceptional situation.
This ontological contraction is not unique to capitalism. A similar problem is observed in state-centered socialist experiences. Even if the means of production have been nationalized, human existence is still defined through central planning, representation and discipline mechanisms. Freedom turns into a goal regulated from above rather than a constantly produced relationship in social practice. This creates a new area of tension between emancipation and power.
At this point, Leader Apo's approach pulls ontology to the center of political theory. According to him, the problem is not only property relations or class contradictions; How people comprehend themselves and society is a more important problem. When existence is considered as a set of relations in a state of continuous becoming, freedom ceases to be a static state and becomes a practice that is established, disrupted and reconstructed in daily life. In this perspective, freedom undergoes a transformation from a promise postponed to the future to being a responsibility of the present.
This ontological framework also establishes a distant relationship with identitarian or nationalist modes of existence. Fixed identities, unchanging essences and singular historical narratives treat "existence" as a frozen structure. However, an ontologically relational understanding of existence requires people to define themselves through the bonds they establish with others. This makes it possible to think of freedom not as an individual or collective property, but as a process that is constantly re-established within common life.
From this point of view, there is no hierarchical relationship between ontology, sociology and socialism.
Ontology provides the ground for sociological analysis.
Sociology reveals the social equivalent of ontological assumptions.
Socialism, on the other hand, offers a practical orientation that aims to transform these two in the direction of freedom.
When the ontological dimension is neglected, socialism is inevitably reduced to an administrative model.
Leader Apo's intervention is precisely against this reduction.
THE ISSUE OF SOCIOLOGY: THE BOUNDARIES OF CLASS AND PLURAL FORMS OF SOCIAL DOMINATION
Classical Marxist sociology analyzes society basically through the relations between classes. The bond established with the means of production determines the social position of the individual; politics, law, culture and ideology are shaped on this material ground. This approach is extremely powerful in exposing the structural inequalities of capitalist society. However, it has been insufficient to explain all forms of social domination over time.
Although it has lost its homogeneous character, class and class analysis are indispensable for understanding the functioning of modern capitalism. However, when considered on a historical and anthropological level, it does not offer an explanation that covers the whole of society. It is known that hierarchies, gender-based inequalities, religious and cultural forms of domination also exist in pre-state or semi-state societies. This situation shows that domination does not start only with class relations; suggests that it is associated with older, deeper forms of social organization.
Leader Apo's sociological intervention gains meaning at this point.
According to Leader Apo, class is an important form of social domination; however, it is not its first and founding form. The rupture that society experienced with state civilization is not only an economic transformation. It is also a mental, cultural and organizational rupture. Male domination, hierarchical authority, representation relations and centralism were shaped before classification and deepened with classification.
This approach makes sociology not a narrow field of economic analysis. Society is considered both as a result of production relations and as a living structure established through values, norms, habits and daily practices. Domination cannot be observed only in the factory or in property relations; because it is reproduced in the family, language, education and political representation. This makes it insufficient to treat the struggle for freedom only as a class conflict.
In the Marxist tradition, this gap has been tried to be filled in different ways. Gramsci's concept of hegemony, Althusser's analysis of ideological apparatuses, and later cultural Marxist approaches have taken important steps towards overcoming class reductionism. However, these contributions have often been limited to questioning the central state and party model. Social transformation is also designed as a top-down organized process.
Leader Apo's sociological framework, on the other hand, re-centers society. Society is not a passive mass; it is a subject with the capacity for self-organization. Communes, assemblies and local organizations are therefore not only administrative units. They are also constitutive areas of social emancipation. Here, sociology is not content with analyzing the relations between classes; it turns into a field of knowledge that reveals the self-management potential of society.
At this point, the class is not completely rejected; however, it ceases to be the only decisive axis. Class struggle, gender struggle, ecological struggle and the search for cultural freedom are considered as intertwined processes. This approach accepts the fact that social domination is not unicentric and carries the struggle for freedom to a plural ground.
As a result, this sociological expansion does not contradict the basic intuitions of Marxism, but deepens them historically and socially. Class analysis is preserved; but it is repositioned within the holistic structure of society. Here, Leader Apo's contribution is that sociology is not only an explanatory discipline, but a part of the practice of freedom.
SOCIALISM AS SOCIALISM: THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF FREEDOM
In classical socialist theory, socialism is defined by the socialization of the means of production and the abolition of class rule. In this context, socialism refers to a historical stage that will emerge after the overcoming of capitalism. The state plays a central role in this transition process. Planning, distribution and coordination of production are carried out through the state apparatus. The emancipation of society is largely attributed to the success of this central transformation.
Although this approach has produced a strong alternative to the destructive effects of capitalism, it has also produced its own limits over time. Socialism began to be perceived as an economic and administrative model rather than a living re-establishment of social relations. Society has ceased to be a subject and has turned into an object that is decided on its behalf. This situation has led to the consideration of freedom as an administrative issue, not a social one.
Leader Apo's understanding of socialism creates a significant break at this point. According to him, socialism is primarily the revelation of society's capacity for self-organization and decision-making. For this reason, socialism is conceived as a social way of life, not as a form of state or only as an economic system. The concept of socialism becomes decisive here. Socialism is considered as the practice of re-establishing society.
In this perspective, freedom does not emerge automatically with the withdrawal of central power. Freedom is embodied in communes, assemblies and forms of organization of daily life. Economy, politics and culture cannot acquire an emancipatory function without the direct participation of society. Collectivism is not a collectivism that ignores the individual, but a form of relationality in which the individual is strengthened within social ties.
Leader Apo's understanding of socialism does not make his state-centered criticism of socialism based only on historical experiences; it also puts it on an ontological and sociological basis. When human beings are considered as an essentially relational being, freedom is also built in relationships. Therefore, freedom cannot be distributed from a single center. If forms of social organization do not produce freedom, the transformation in property relations alone is not enough.
This understanding of socialism does not invalidate the class struggle; but it makes it part of a wider field of social struggle. Labor-capital contradiction, gender inequality, ecological destruction and cultural domination are considered as different manifestations of the same social crisis. Socialism claims to produce responses to each of these crises at the social level.
As a result, socialism in Leader Apo is not a goal limited to the seizure of power. Socialism is the process of rebuilding society itself. This process requires constant practice and action. Socialism does not consider freedom as a final stop; as a lived experience. In this respect, Leader Apo's socialism offers a perspective of social emancipation that transcends the state and power-centered horizon of the classical left.
UPDATING DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM: PROCESS, RELATIONALITY AND SUBJECT
Dialectical materialism is a powerful way of thinking that grasps historical change through contradictions. This is known. The interaction between material conditions and social consciousness constitutes the basic assumption of this approach. However, this framework is often limited to the production area. Dialectics is identified with the laws of motion of the economic infrastructure. This narrowing is not the fault of dialectics; it stems from a certain historical interpretation of it.
Leader Apo's intervention forces dialectics to think again in the center of process and relationality. Social change cannot be experienced only by resolving the antagonisms between classes. It also takes place through the transformation of human relationships with themselves, with the community and with nature. In this approach, dialectics ceases to be a historical scheme that progresses in closed stages and becomes a continuous becoming.
In classical dialectical materialism, the subject is often considered as the bearer of historical imperatives. The class is the dominant actor on the stage of history. This makes sense in highlighting the importance of collective action; however, it deals with individual and social subjectivation processes in a limited framework. Leader Apo's approach, on the other hand, does not define the subject only with its class position. The subject is conceived as an existence that is established and transformed in practice.
This update does not make material reality secondary; on the contrary, it expands the scope of the material. Economic relations of production are an important dimension of social life; however, it is not the only dimension. Language, culture, gender relations, ecological ties and forms of political participation are also considered as part of material reality. Thus, dialectics is not limited to the labor-capital contradiction; becomes able to analyze the complete contradictions of social existence.
At this point, updating dialectical materialism does not mean bringing it closer to idealism. On the contrary, it aims to go beyond idealistic abstractions and comprehend the concrete multi-layered structure of social life. The material is not limited to the measurable. Social relations, habits and common life practices also have a material reality. This acceptance increases the social depth of the dialectic.
In Leader Apo's approach, dialectics ceases to be a strategy focused on the seizure of power and becomes a method to understand the capacity of society to constantly reproduce itself. Contradiction is not an obstacle that needs to be broken down; it is a dynamic that contains the possibility of transformation. This makes it possible to think of the idea of revolution as a long-term process of social construction rather than a singular moment of rupture.
As a result, this update does not invalidate dialectical materialism, but reworks it in line with historical experience and theoretical needs. Leader Apo's contribution is to transform dialectics from a state, party and class-centered framework into a society and life-centered way of thinking. This transformation makes freedom a social practice of today, rather than a postponed goal.
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: THE CONSTITUTIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ONTOLOGY, SOCIETY AND FREEDOM
The basic claim is that social freedom cannot be established only by the transformation of production relations. It is clearly emphasized that liberation will not become permanent without changing the understanding of human beings' existence, social ties and forms of subjectivity. This framework aimed to make visible the areas that classical leftist thought could not open historically, without rejecting its founding intuitions.
Classical dialectical materialism is still a powerful theoretical tool to explain capitalist exploitation and class inequalities. However, the fact that it treats freedom as a goal that is often postponed to the future has created a structural distance between it and social practice. State-centered socialist experiences have shown that this distance produces historical as well as theoretical results. The transformation in the relations of production has progressed with new forms of domination when social relations are not transformed.
At this point, the ontological dimension is placed at the center of the study. Human beings are not only in economic relations in the world; it exists in meaning, relationship and practice. Existence is not a fixed state; It is a process that develops in a state of continuous becoming. This understanding does not consider freedom as a completed goal. It makes it possible to understand freedom as a form of relationship that is constantly reproduced in social life. In this sense, ontology ceases to be an abstract field of political theory and becomes one of the material grounds of freedom.
The discussion on the sociological plane also reveals that social domination cannot be reduced to a single axis while maintaining the indispensability of class analysis. Male domination, cultural hierarchies, centralism and representation relations are historical phenomena intertwined with class structures. The emancipation of society requires confronting each of these forms of domination. This makes sociology a constitutive component of the practice of emancipation as well as an explanatory tool.
Leader Apo's understanding of socialism combines this ontological and sociological expansion around the concept of socialism. Socialism is considered as a project limited to the seizure of power and as the revelation of the self-organization capacity of society. Communes, assemblies and local organizations are defined as areas where freedom is produced rather than being instrumental administrative structures. In this context, society ceases to be a passive object and becomes the main subject of liberation.
This approach inevitably brings with it some criticisms. The most common objection is that the class struggle has been pushed into the background. However, what is done here is not to exclude class, but to remove it from being the only explanatory axis. The labor-capital contradiction remains at the heart of modern capitalism; however, social domination cannot be understood in its entirety without taking into account the hierarchies and forms of power that emerged historically before classification.
Another criticism is the claim that this approach means a break with Marxism. It can be argued that the emphasis on ontology and society approaches idealism. However, the material reality is not abandoned here, and the scope of the material is expanded. Social relations, daily practices, forms of organization and common living spaces are also part of the material world. This approach aims to make the repressed ontological vein of Marxism visible again.
Criticisms about the issue of state and power are also important. The emphasis on socialism can be questioned on the grounds that it obscures the problem of central power. However, this criticism reduces power only to the state apparatus. However, in modern societies, power is spread to all of daily life. The seizure of the state does not automatically eliminate these scattered networks of power. Socialism does not hide power; rather, it makes it visible at the local and plural levels.
The treatment of society as the subject of liberation can also be criticized as romanticizing society. Inequalities, reactionary tendencies and conflicts within society may seem to be ignored in this gaze. However, society is not idealized here; on the contrary, it is treated as a field of struggle. Freedom cannot develop through the suppression of tensions; on the contrary, it becomes possible by experiencing these tensions openly.
Lastly, the practical applicability of this approach is questionable. Especially in conditions of crisis, war and authoritarianism, the sustainability of society-centered models can be discussed. However, this objection reflects the limits of the existing political order, not the theory. Historical experience shows that social self-organization can emerge even in the most difficult conditions. As a matter of fact, the Rojava practice shows exactly this.
As a result, when ontology, sociology and socialism are taken together, freedom ceases to be an abstract ideal or a deferred promise and turns into a lived social practice. Leader Apo's contribution gains meaning in the effort to re-establish this unity and offers a serious theoretical update for contemporary leftist thought.
