KURDISH STRUGGLE
Shackles in Mentality and Öcalan’s Revolution of Mentality
The radical breakthrough quality of Abdullah Öcalan’s thought stems not only from exceeding the limits of the classical leftist paradigm but from the structural critique he directs toward the entirety of modernity. This critique is aimed at analyzing the integrated system of power that modernity has built around progress, growth, rationality, the nation-state, capitalist economy, and patriarchy. The most prominent feature of modernity is its transformation of society into a giant machine. The operation of this machine atomizes the individual, dissolves the community, commodifies culture, and detaches the human being from their own life. Modernity is not merely an economic system, but a holistic mode of existence. For this reason, explaining modernity only in economic terms renders its social and cultural consequences invisible.
Öcalan’s critique of modernity goes beyond classical anti-capitalist discourse. He views capitalism not just as an economic mechanism of exploitation, but as a multi-layered system of power operating alongside the state, patriarchy, and patterns of mentality. Therefore, the struggle against capitalism cannot be limited to merely changing the ownership of the means of production. Without changing the intellectual codes and social relations upon which capitalism is based, the transformation of the economic order is also not possible. The mentality dimension of capitalism is one of the areas historically least analyzed by the left. Yet, capitalism operates by shaping society’s way of thinking. For this reason, in Öcalan’s analysis, the transformation of mentality is as important as economic transformation.
At this point, where the radical breakthrough becomes distinct is in the redefinition of the concept of power. The classical left sees power as a tool to be captured. Taking control of the state is accepted as the first step of social transformation. However, power is not a force concentrated only in the state apparatus. Power seeps everywhere, permeates every relationship, and shapes every field. Capturing the state without seeing this widespread nature of power results in nothing more than changing the governing face of power. Therefore, Öcalan’s approach is directed not at capturing the state, but at distributing power. This clashes with one of the most fundamental dogmas of the classical left because the left’s historical imagination is largely built on the idea of the transformation of the state.
The distribution of power simultaneously means the reconstruction of social relations. When society’s capacity to govern itself strengthens, the central role of the state diminishes. This situation means the spreading of power to the social base and the collectivization of social responsibility. This approach invalidates centralist forms of organization. The fact that a large part of the left still remains tied to hierarchical organizational models stems from their reproduction of power relations. Hierarchy limits, focuses, and often monopolizes power even within the best-intentioned structures. Therefore, overcoming hierarchy is the most important component of revolutionary theory.
In Öcalan’s approach, society itself is an area of self-organization. Different segments of society can develop self-management practices based on their own experiences, their own needs, and their own cultural accumulation. This requires not the imposition of a single central program, but the coexistence of multiple social experiences. Therefore, social diversity is not a threat, but a source for social freedom. Modernity makes society manageable by homogenizing it. Homogeneity is one of the most fundamental tools of power. A homogeneous society is an easily controlled society. In contrast, pluralism makes the centralization of power difficult. For this reason, democratic plurality is one of the fundamental pillars of a libertarian society.
Another dimension of the radical breakthrough is the reorganization of the conception of history. Öcalan’s understanding of history rejects modernity’s idea of linear progress. History is always a field of struggle. The tension between freedom and power is constantly reproduced. This tension manifests itself in the cultural memories, mythologies, moral values, and social organization forms of societies. Therefore, understanding history ensures the understanding of today’s social relations. Modernity has suppressed many layers of history and reduced social memory to a single narrative. This reduction renders the unique historical dynamics of societies invisible. The importance of Öcalan’s historical analysis comes from making the suppressed social memory visible again.
This approach also contradicts the left’s claim of universalism. The universalism of the left is often based on a Eurocentric accumulation of theory. This accumulation is certainly valuable. However, the claim of universality overshadows the specificities in different geographies, cultures, and social structures. The left’s understanding of historical progress is also fed by this Eurocentric framework. Yet, history is not a line progressing in a single direction. Different societies have different rhythms, different experiences, and different dynamics of struggle. Therefore, the thought of freedom can develop in every society through its own historical roots.
The radical impact of Öcalan’s thought at this point is that it nourishes freedom from non-modern sources as well. Rediscovering the freedom potential of social memory, ancient traditions, moral values, and local cultures breaks the monist world of modernity. This is a perspective that the modern left often ignores. Even while critiquing modernity, the left has remained within the epistemological boundaries of modernity. However, freedom has a broader historical and cultural ground than modernity envisages.
Another dimension of the radical breakthrough is the ontological redefinition of society. Society is not merely the sum of economic relations. Society is a web of life woven with cultural, emotional, ethical, and historical ties. Every knot of this web is a part of social freedom. Modernity has severed the social bond and isolated the individual. The isolated individual is the figure that power controls most easily. Therefore, the re-establishment of social ties is not just a cultural matter, but also a political act.
Öcalan’s thought addresses the effort to bring society back together not only at a theoretical level but also at a practical level. This practice is shaped by structures that increase society’s capacity to organize itself. These structures exist not to take the place of the state, but to reduce the state’s influence over society. When the state’s determinative role over social life decreases, society can reveal its own creative potential more freely.
This approach opens another dogma historically adopted by the left to discussion: the centrality of power. Most of the left sees power as an object to be captured. However, power is a relationship that has permeated the deepest layers of society. For this reason, the struggle against power must be carried out not only in the political sphere, but in the family, the community, culture, education, and even in the individual’s own inner world. A freedom project cannot be developed without understanding this multi-layered structure of power.
A radical breakthrough requires a revolution of mentality. This revolution begins with individuals changing their ways of perceiving the world. Freedom is only possible with the proliferation of free-thinking individuals. Therefore, in Öcalan’s approach, the transformation of mentality is one of the most critical dimensions of the political struggle. Without a transformation of mentality, social transformation cannot be permanent. The basis of this transformation is the internalizing of freedom as an ethical principle. Ethics is the fundamental determinant of social relations. In societies where the statist mentality prevails, ethics weakens because responsibility is transferred to a central authority.
However, a libertarian society is one where individuals and communities take on their own responsibilities. This means that freedom is not only a right, but also an obligation. The radical breakthrough deepens precisely in this ethical dimension. Society’s establishment of itself as an ethical unity accelerates the dissolution of power relations. Therefore, freedom is not only a political category; it is also an ethical mode of existence.
The transformation at the heart of the radical breakthrough is related to society regaining the ability to rethink its own existence. When society perceives itself only as an object of management, the thought of freedom weakens. Because being managed is accepted over time as a natural situation. Yet, the essence of the social is the capacity to establish itself. When this capacity is suppressed, society becomes passive. A passive society creates the necessary ground for the reproduction of power. Therefore, in Öcalan’s thought, the subjectivization of society becomes the most fundamental condition for freedom. When society becomes a subject, it puts forward the will to determine its own history, its own life, and its own destiny.
This process of subjectivization rejects the definition of the individual merely as a citizen or an economic actor. The individual is a cultural and ethical position existing within social networks. Modernity isolates the individual, reducing their freedom to individual choices. This situation renders the social quality of freedom invisible. However, freedom gains meaning not only through the individual, but through the collective experience of the community. Therefore, while the individual is liberated, society must also be liberated. These two processes are not independent of each other; on the contrary, they feed each other.
Another element necessary for the subjectivization of society is the centralization of women’s freedom. Patriarchy is a form of power that limits the freedom not only of women, but of the entire society. The patriarchal mentality shapes the state, the family, the economy, and culture. Therefore, the dissolution of patriarchy is the fundamental dynamic of social transformation. Beyond a politics of identity, women’s freedom is a paradigm shift that reveals the freedom potential of society. The liberation of women strengthens society’s capacity to question power relations. Therefore, when women’s freedom is placed at the center of a social transformation project, a radical break occurs.
Since patriarchy is a form of power intertwined with the state, its dissolution ensures the weakening of the state’s influence on social life. The patriarchal functioning of the state manifests itself not only at the institutional level, but also at the cultural level. The authoritarian structure of the state is a large-scale reflection of patriarchy’s understanding of authority. Therefore, dissolving patriarchy also requires questioning the constitutive role of the state over social relations.
Women’s freedom and stateless democracy emerge as two fundamental concepts complementing each other at this point. The essence of democratic life is the society’s organization of itself through horizontal relations. Horizontal relations are forms of relationship where hierarchy is dissolved and power is not collected in a central focus. These relations enable society to develop its own creativity. In societies where centralist structures prevail, creativity is suppressed. Because creativity is an uncontrollable power. Uncontrollable power is the power that authority fears. Therefore, the emergence of social creativity proceeds in parallel with the dissolution of power relations.
Society’s organization of itself is not just a political matter. It is also a cultural and ethical transformation. This transformation is related to society’s capacity to reproduce its values. When values are imposed from outside, society becomes passive. However, when values are formed within society through the interaction of communities, individuals, and cultural traditions, the potential for freedom is strengthened. Therefore, the ethical and political fields are inseparable. Political freedom cannot be sustained without an ethical community structure. The ethical ground ensures that social relations are built on trust. Trust is one of the most fundamental conditions for freedom. Because freedom cannot develop in a society where fear prevails.
This ethical dimension of the radical breakthrough is an area that the modern left has often neglected. While centering the struggle with economic structures and political power, the left has often seen ethical transformation as a secondary issue. Yet, power relations do not operate only through economic structures; they are also reproduced through daily practices, social relations, cultural norms, and ethical values. Therefore, economic transformation must be supported by ethical transformation. Without ethical transformation, economic transformation cannot be permanent.
The most critical impact of Öcalan’s paradigm within the left is its treatment of freedom as a holistic category. Freedom is not limited to an economic, political, or cultural field; freedom is a mode of existence covering all social fields. This mode of existence requires the liberation of the individual and society together. When society’s self-organization capacity strengthens, the central role of power weakens. At this point, freedom is understood not as a result, but as a process. Freedom is a relationship that must be constantly reproduced.
This process requires the development of an alternative life practice against the lifestyles imposed by capitalist modernity. Capitalist modernity defines the individual through consumption. The individual exists as much as they consume. This situation detaches the individual from their own life energy. Yet, freedom is related to the individual’s capacity to create. The capacity to create is a mode of existence that exceeds consumption. Therefore, free life is creative life. For creativity to develop, society must be liberated. Social creativity forms the basis of individual creativity.
Along with this understanding of freedom covering the whole of life, the radical breakthrough also questions the ontological foundations of modernity. Modernity has detached humans from nature, seen nature as a resource, and commodified life. Yet, the human being is a part of nature. The relationship established with nature is a reflection of the relationship the human establishes with their own existence. Therefore, ecological freedom is an inseparable part of social freedom. Ecology is not just an environmental issue, but also a political issue. The liberation of nature is possible alongside the liberation of society.
This intellectual framework challenges many assumptions historically developed by the left. The left’s progressivist understanding is an extension of modernity’s myth of progress. Yet, progress does not always mean liberation. Sometimes progress ensures the reproduction of power in more sophisticated forms. Therefore, the idea of progress itself must be questioned. Freedom is related not to progress, but to society’s capacity to establish itself. When this capacity develops, society gains the power to determine its own life.
A radical breakthrough requires the left to question its own dogmas and rethink its own historical assumptions. This is even more important today, as the left is in a historical crisis. The left cannot lead the transformation of society without exceeding its own intellectual boundaries. Therefore, paradigmatic transformation is the prerequisite for the left’s self-renewal. The renewal of the paradigm requires the construction of a new thought of freedom. This thought of freedom is one that is not limited to the state, places social relations at its center, and sees freedom as a holistic mode of existence.
The construction of a new imagination of socialism arises not from the gaps left by the classical left, but from the fact that the left’s inward-looking structure is no longer sufficient to grasp social reality. In today’s world, socialism cannot be defined only as an economic model. It must be understood as an ethical and political way of life that goes beyond the economy and re-establishes the social fabric. Therefore, the new socialism cannot be limited to producing an alternative to capitalism’s economic order; it must also exceed capitalism’s social imagination, human-nature relationship, cultural norms, and power constructs.
The most critical dimension of the new socialism is its development of a form of social organization that does not place the state at the center. The state is the strongest institutional expression of modernity, and the modern state is a concentration of capitalism, patriarchy, and the idea of the nation. For this reason, a state-centered socialism cannot exceed the boundaries of modernity even with the most radical intent. The transformation of the state does not eliminate the form of power the state carries in its essence. The centralization of power weakens society’s capacity for self-organization, even with the best intentions. Therefore, designing a non-state but society-centered political order is the fundamental condition of the new socialism.
Society-centered politics begins with individuals and communities having a say in their own life practices. The political is not only the field of parliaments, parties, and governments; the political is reproduced in every layer of daily life. Therefore, the new socialism’s understanding of politics removes politics from being the state’s area of expertise and makes it a natural part of social life. Such a politics questions professionalized power mechanisms and spreads decision-making processes to the social base. This is not just a technical arrangement, but also a philosophy of freedom. Because freedom is related to society’s capacity to manage itself. The more a society is managed by intermediary institutions, the more freedom decreases. The modern state is the largest intermediary coming between society and management. The goal of the new socialism is to minimize this intermediary and return to society the power to make its own decisions.
The second dimension of the new socialism is the restructuring of economic relations not through centralist state controls, but with community-oriented and ecological sensitivity. Capitalist economy builds production on the goal of growth. Growth is one of the most sacred concepts of modernity. Yet, growth is often built on the destruction of society and nature. Therefore, the reorganization of economic relations with ecological sensitivity is mandatory. Ecology is not just a matter of environmental protection, but a framework for the redefinition of economic and social relations. Ecological economy establishes the balance between production and consumption within the limits of natural life.
New socialism also redefines the purposes of economic production. Production is done not to sustain consumption, but to meet social needs. Capitalist economy creates a market by manipulating needs. Yet, a free society defines its needs itself. When real needs take the place of artificial needs, production also turns into a freer area. Therefore, economic relations must be made compatible with social ethics. Unethical economic growth is one of the greatest obstacles to freedom.
The third dimension of the new socialism is related to the transformation of gender relations. No social transformation can be permanent without the dissolution of patriarchy. Patriarchy is not just a structure shaping the family institution. At the same time, it is one of the most fundamental organizational forms of social relations. Therefore, the dissolution of patriarchy must be an integral part of economic, political, and cultural transformation. Women’s freedom playing a central role in social organization increases society’s capacity to question power relations.
The re-establishment of society’s ethical foundations also plays a critical role at this point. Ethics forms the invisible roof of social life. When the ethical framework is weak, power relations are more easily reproduced. When ethics is strong, however, society reaches the capacity to ensure its own internal control. This control is a mechanism of social conscience that will take the place of central authority. When the social conscience strengthens, the need for power’s coercive mechanisms decreases.
New socialism involves not only the change of economic models or political organizations, but also the re-establishment of the meaning of life. Modernity’s world of meaning positions the individual within constant competition, consumption, and hierarchy. This world of meaning severs the individual’s bond with themselves, with society, and with nature. Therefore, the deepest transformation of the new socialism emerges in the power to re-establish the meaning of life. Meaning is a central dimension of social relations. Society’s production of its own world of meaning is one of the most fundamental aspects of freedom.
In this context, the new socialism ceases to be a future utopia and becomes a process established with today’s social practices. The future is within today; when today’s relations are transformed, the future is also transformed. Therefore, the struggle for freedom must be understood not as a goal to be reached in the future, but as a practice that is constantly reproduced. Process-oriented freedom removes society from a passive state of waiting and turns it into an active subject.
This understanding of freedom also necessitates a new ontology. This ontology defines existence not within a hierarchical order, but within a web of mutual relations. Therefore, the existence of society does not consist of the sum of individuals. It is the whole of relations between individuals. When these relations are free, society becomes free; when relations are hierarchical, society also becomes hierarchical. Therefore, freedom emerges in the nature of relationships.
New socialism sees freedom as a relational mode of existence.
This relational understanding of freedom exceeds modernity’s individualistic conception of freedom. Modernity defines freedom as the individual maximizing their own interests. This definition leads to the dissolution of social relations. New socialism, on the other hand, thinks of freedom together with social bonds. The individual is liberated within social bonds, and society is strengthened by individual creativity. This mutual interaction shows that freedom is both an individual and a social process.
This whole framework removes the new socialism from the boundaries of classical theories and places it within a broader philosophy of freedom. This philosophy offers an intellectual ground capable of re-establishing society. Re-establishing society is not only a political project; it is at the same time an ethical, cultural, and ontological project. Therefore, the new socialism must be thought of within a totality that exceeds the boundaries of both modernity and the classical left.
