add IDEOLOGY.md to github

IDEOLOGY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,347 @@
+% The Sociology of Freedom
+% Abdullah Ocalan
+
+# Definition of Democratic Civilization
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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!
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+In light of these criticisms, I offer the following suggestions in
+relation to the social science system that I want to define:
+
+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.
+
+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 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.
+
+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.
+