# Definition of Democratic Civilization

From 'The Sociology of Freedom: Manifesto of the Democratic Civilization, Volume 3' by Abdullah Ocalan.

Annotations are our own. The text is otherwise unchanged.

## What is the subject of moral and political society?

The school of social science that postulates the examination of the
existence and development of social nature on the basis of moral and
political society could be defined as the democratic civilization system. The
various schools of social science base their analyses on different units.
Theology and religion prioritize society. For scientific socialism, it is class.
The fundamental unit for liberalism is the individual. There are, of course,
schools that prioritize power and the state and others that focus on civilization.
All these unit-based approaches must be criticized, because,
as I have frequently pointed out, they are not historical, and they fail to
address the totality. A meaningful examination would have to focus on
what is crucial from the point of view of society, both in terms of history
and actuality. Otherwise, the result will only be one more discourse.

Identifying our fundamental unit as moral and political society is significant,
because it also covers the dimensions of historicity and totality.
Moral and political society is the most historical and holistic expression
of society. Morals and politics themselves can be understood as history.
A society that has a moral and political dimension is a society that is the
closest to the totality of all its existence and development. A society can
exist without the state, class, exploitation, the city, power, or the nation,
but a society devoid of morals and politics is unthinkable. Societies may
exist as colonies of other powers, particularly capital and state monopolies,
and as sources of raw materials. In those cases, however, we are
talking about the legacy of a society that has ceased to be.

## Individualism is a state of war

There is nothing gained by labeling moral and political society—the
natural state of society—as slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, or socialist.
Using such labels to describe society masks reality and reduces society to
its components (class, economy, and monopoly). The bottleneck encountered
in discourses based on such concepts as regards the theory and practice
of social development stems from errors and inadequacies inherent
in them. If all of the analyses of society referred to with these labels that
are closer to historical materialism have fallen into this situation, it is
clear that discourses with much weaker scientific bases will be in a much
worse situation. Religious discourses, meanwhile, focus heavily on the
importance of morals but have long since turned politics over to the state.
Bourgeois liberal approaches not only obscure the society with moral and
political dimensions, but when the opportunity presents itself they do not
hesitate to wage war on this society. Individualism is a state of war against
society to the same degree as power and the state is. Liberalism essentially
prepares society, which is weakened by being deprived of its morals and
politics, for all kinds of attacks by individualism. Liberalism is the
ideology and practice that is most anti-society.

## The rise of scientific positivism

In Western sociology (there is still no science called Eastern sociology)
concepts such as society and civilization system are quite problematic.
We should not forget that the need for sociology stemmed from the
need to find solutions to the huge problems of crises, contradictions, and
conflicts and war caused by capital and power monopolies. Every branch
of sociology developed its own thesis about how to maintain order and
make life more livable. Despite all the sectarian, theological, and reformist
interpretations of the teachings of Christianity, as social problems deepened,
interpretations based on a scientific (positivist) point of view came
to the fore. The philosophical revolution and the Enlightenment (seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries) were essentially the result of this need.
When the French Revolution complicated society’s problems rather than
solving them, there was a marked increase in the tendency to develop
sociology as an independent science. Utopian socialists (Henri de Saint-Simon,
Charles Fourier, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon), together with Auguste
Comte and Émile Durkheim, represent the preliminary steps in this direction.
All of them are children of the Enlightenment, with unlimited faith
in science. They believed they could use science to re-create society as they
wished. They were playing God. In Hegel’s words, God had descended to
earth and, what’s more, in the form of the nation-state. What needed to be
done was to plan and develop specific and sophisticated “social engineering”
projects. There was no project or plan that could not be achieved by
the nation-state if it so desired, as long as it embraced the “scientific
positivism” and was accepted by the nation-state!

## Capitalism as an iron cage

British social scientists (political economists) added economic solutions
to French sociology, while German ideologists contributed philosophically.
Adam Smith and Hegel in particular made major contributions.
There was a wide variety of prescriptions from both the left and right to
address the problems arising from the horrendous abuse of the society
by the nineteenth-century industrial capitalism. Liberalism, the central
ideology of the capitalist monopoly has a totally eclectic approach, taking
advantage of any and all ideas, and is the most practical when it comes to
creating almost patchwork-like systems. It was as if the right- and left-
wing schematic sociologies were unaware of social nature, history, and the
present while developing their projects in relation to the past (the quest
for the “golden age” by the right) or the future (utopian society). Their
systems would continually fragment when they encountered history or
current life. The reality that had imprisoned them all was the “iron cage”
that capitalist modernity had slowly cast and sealed them in, intellectually
and in their practical way of life. However, Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas
of metaphysicians of positivism or castrated dwarfs of capitalist modernity
bring us a lot closer to the social truth. Nietzsche leads the pack of
rare philosophers who first drew attention to the risk of society being
swallowed up by capitalist modernity. Although he is accused of serving
fascism with his thoughts, his foretelling of the onset of fascism and world
wars was quite enticing.

The increase in major crises and world wars, along with the division
of the liberal center into right- and left-wing branches, was enough
to bankrupt positivist sociology. In spite of its widespread criticism
of metaphysics, social engineering has revealed its true identity with
authoritarian and totalitarian fascism as metaphysics at its shallowest.
The Frankfurt School is the official testimonial of this bankruptcy. The
École Annales and the 1968 youth uprising led to various postmodernist
sociological approaches, in particular Immanuel Wallerstein’s capitalist
world-system analysis. Tendencies like ecology, feminism, relativism, the
New Left, and world-system analysis launched a period during which the
social sciences splintered. Obviously, financial capital gaining hegem-
ony as the 1970s faded also played an important role. The upside of these
developments was the collapse of the hegemony of Eurocentric thought.
The downside, however, was the drawbacks of a highly fragmented social
sciences.

## The problems of Eurocentric sociology

Let’s summarize the criticism of Eurocentric sociology:

1. Positivism, which criticized and denounced both religion and
metaphysics, has not escaped being a kind of religion and metaphysics
in its own right. This should not come as a surprise.
Human culture requires metaphysics. The issue is to distinguish
good from bad metaphysics.

2. An understanding of society based on dichotomies like primitive vs.
modern, capitalist vs. socialist, industrial vs. agrarian,
progressive vs. reactionary, divided by class vs. classless, or with
a state vs. stateless prevents the development of a definition that
comes closer to the truth of social nature. Dichotomies of this sort
distance us from social truth.

3. To re-create society is to play the modern god. More precisely,
each time society is recreated there is a tendency to form a new
capital and power-state monopoly. Much like medieval theism
was ideologically connected to absolute monarchies (sultanates
and shāhanshāhs), modern social engineering—as re-creation—
is essentially the divine disposition and ideology of the nation-
state. Positivism in this regard is modern theism.

4. Revolutions cannot be interpreted as the re-creation acts of
society. When thusly understood they cannot escape positivist
theism. Revolutions can only be defined as social revolutions to
the extent that they free society from excessive burden of capital
and power.

5. The task of revolutionaries cannot be defined as creating any
social model of their making but more correctly as playing a role
in contributing to the development of moral and political society.

6. Methods and paradigms to be applied to social nature should not
be identical to those that relate to first nature. While the
universalist approach to first nature provides results that come closer
to the truth (I don’t believe there is an absolute truth), relativism
in relation to social nature may get us closer to the truth. The
universe can neither be explained by an infinite universalist linear
discourse or by a concept of infinite similar circular cycles.

7. A social regime of truth needs to be reorganized on the basis of
these and many other criticisms. Obviously, I am not talking about
a new divine creation, but I do believe that the greatest feature of
the human mind is the power to search for and build truth.

## A new social science

In light of these criticisms, I offer the following suggestions in
relation to the social science system that I want to define:

### A more humane social nature

1. I would not present social nature as a rigid universalist truth
with mythological, religious, metaphysical, and scientific (positivist)
patterns. Understanding it to be the most flexible form of
basic universal entities that encompass a wealth of diversities
but are tied down to conditions of historical time and location
more closely approaches the truth. Any analysis, social science, or
attempt to make practical change without adequate knowledge of
the qualities of social nature may well backfire. The monotheistic
religions and positivism, which have appeared throughout the
history of civilization claiming to have found the solution, were
unable to prevent capital and power monopolies from gaining
control. It is therefore their irrevocable task, if they are to
contribute to moral and political society, to develop a more humane
analysis based on a profound self-criticism.

2. Moral and political society is the main element that gives social
nature its historical and complete meaning and represents the
unity in diversity that is basic to its existence. It is the definition
of moral and political society that gives social nature its character,
maintains its unity in diversity, and plays a decisive role
in expressing its main totality and historicity. The descriptors
commonly used to define society, such as primitive, modern,
slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, socialist, industrial, agricultural,
commercial, monetary, statist, national, hegemonic, and so on, do
not reflect the decisive features of social nature. On the contrary,
they conceal and fragment its meaning. This, in turn, provides a
base for faulty theoretical and practical approaches and actions
related to society.

### Protecting the social fabric

3. Statements about renewing and re-creating society are part of
operations meant to constitute new capital and power monopolies
in terms of their ideological content. The history of civilization,
the history of such renewals, is the history of the cumulative
accumulation of capital and power. Instead of divine creativity, the
basic action the society needs most is to struggle against factors
that prevent the development and functioning of moral and
political social fabric. A society that operates its moral and political
dimensions freely, is a society that will continue its development
in the best way.

4. Revolutions are forms of social action resorted to when society
is sternly prevented from freely exercising and maintaining
its moral and political function. Revolutions can and should be
accepted as legitimate by society only when they do not seek to
create new societies, nations, or states but to restore moral and
political society its ability to function freely.

5. Revolutionary heroism must find meaning through its contributions
to moral and political society. Any action that does not
have this meaning, regardless of its intent and duration, cannot
be defined as revolutionary social heroism. What determines the
role of individuals in society in a positive sense is their
contribution to the development of moral and political society.

6. No social science that hopes to develop these key features through
profound research and examination should be based on a universalist
linear progressive approach or on a singular infinite
cyclical relativity. In the final instance, instead of these dogmatic
approaches that serve to legitimize the cumulative accumulation
of capital and power throughout the history of civilization, social
sciences based on a non-destructive dialectic methodology that
harmonizes analytical and emotional intelligence and overcomes
the strict subject-object mold should be developed.

## The framework of moral and political society

The paradigmatic and empirical framework of moral and political
society, the main unit of the democratic civilization system, can be
presented through such hypotheses. Let me present its main aspects:

1. Moral and political society is the fundamental aspect of human
society that must be continuously sought. Society is essentially
moral and political.

2. Moral and political society is located at the opposite end of the
spectrum from the civilization systems that emerged from the
triad of city, class, and state (which had previously been
hierarchical structures).

3. Moral and political society, as the history of social nature,
develops in harmony with the democratic civilization system.

4. Moral and political society is the freest society. A functioning
moral and political fabric and organs is the most decisive dynamic
not only for freeing society but to keep it free. No revolution or
its heroines and heroes can free the society to the degree that
the development of a healthy moral and political dimension will.
Moreover, revolution and its heroines and heroes can only play
a decisive role to the degree that they contribute to moral and
political society.

5. A moral and political society is a democratic society. Democracy
is only meaningful on the basis of the existence of a moral and
political society that is open and free. A democratic society where
individuals and groups become subjects is the form of governance
that best develops moral and political society. More precisely,
we call a functioning political society a democracy. Politics and
democracy are truly identical concepts. If freedom is the space
within which politics expresses itself, then democracy is the way
in which politics is exercised in this space. The triad of freedom,
politics, and democracy cannot lack a moral basis. We could
refer to morality as the institutionalized and traditional state of
freedom, politics, and democracy.

6. Moral and political societies are in a dialectical contradiction with
the state, which is the official expression of all forms of capital,
property, and power. The state constantly tries to substitute law
for morality and bureaucracy for politics. The official state civilization
develops on one side of this historically ongoing contradiction,
with the unofficial democratic civilization system
developing on the other side. Two distinct typologies of meaning emerge.
Contradictions may either grow more violent and lead to war or
there may be reconciliation, leading to peace.

7. Peace is only possible if moral and political society forces and
the state monopoly forces have the will to live side by side
unarmed and with no killing. There have been instances when
rather than society destroying the state or the state destroying
society, a conditional peace called democratic reconciliation has
been reached. History doesn’t take place either in the form of
democratic civilization—as the expression of moral and political
society—or totally in the form of civilization systems—as
the expression of class and state society. History has unfolded
as intense relationship rife with contradiction between the two,
with successive periods of war and peace. It is quite utopian to
think that this situation, with at least a five-thousand-year history,
can be immediately resolved by emergency revolutions. At the
same time, to embrace it as if it is fate and cannot be interfered
with would also not be the correct moral and political approach.
Knowing that struggles between systems will be protracted, it
makes more sense and will prove more effective to adopt strategic
and tactical approaches that expand the freedom and democracy
sphere of moral and political society.

8. Defining moral and political society in terms of communal,
slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, and socialist attributes serves
to obscure rather than elucidate matters. Clearly, in a moral and
political society there is no room for slave-owning, feudal, or capitalist
forces, but, in the context of a principled reconciliation, it
is possible to take an aloof approach to these forces, within limits
and in a controlled manner. What’s important is that moral and
political society should neither destroy them nor be swallowed
up by them; the superiority of moral and political society should
make it possible to continuously limit the reach and power of the
central civilization system. Communal and socialist systems can
identify with moral and political society insofar as they
themselves are democratic. This identification is, however, not possible,
if they have a state.

9. Moral and political society cannot seek to become a nation-state,
establish an official religion, or construct a non-democratic
regime. The right to determine the objectives and nature of
society lies with the free will of all members of a moral and
political society. Just as with current debates and decisions, strategic
decisions are the purview of society’s moral and political will
and expression. The essential thing is to have discussions and to
become a decision-making power. A society who holds this power
can determine its preferences in the soundest possible way. No
individual or force has the authority to decide on behalf of moral
and political society, and social engineering has no place in these
societies.

## Liberating democratic civilization from the State

When viewed in the light of the various broad definitions I have presented,
it is obvious that the democratic civilization system—essentially
the moral and political totality of social nature—has always existed and
sustained itself as the flip side of the official history of civilization. Despite
all the oppression and exploitation at the hands of the official world-system,
the other face of society could not be destroyed. In fact, it is
impossible to destroy it. Just as capitalism cannot sustain itself without
noncapitalist society, civilization— the official world system— also cannot sustain
itself without the democratic civilization system. More concretely the
civilization with monopolies cannot sustain itself without the existence
of a civilization without monopolies. The opposite is not true. Democratic
civilization, representing the historical flow of the system of moral and
political society, can sustain itself more comfortably and with fewer
obstacles in the absence of the official civilization.

I define democratic civilization as a system of thought, the accumulation
of thought, and the totality of moral rules and political organs. I am
not only talking about a history of thought or the social reality within
a given moral and political development. The discussion does, however,
encompass both issues in an intertwined manner. I consider it important
and necessary to explain the method in terms of democratic civilization’s
history and elements, because this totality of alternate discourse and
structures are prevented by the official civilization. I will address these
issues in subsequent sections.

