This is an extract from the 4th volume of the "Manifesto of the Democratic Civilization" written by Abdullah Öcalan. The text was originally published by the Academy of Democratic Modernity.
Truth, living and dying for the truth are important concepts in the Middle Eastern culture. In European culture, the concept of truth was presented as a dichotomy of theory and practice1, gradually robbed of its essence, fragmented, and lost its integrity. In the late modern age, this became even more evident. Truth was sacrificed to economism.
The search for truth usually came on the agenda when social problems arose. In such times, discourse and action inevitably tried to present themselves as truth. The sociological analysis of truth clearly reveals its connection with injustice. While the exploitation of social labor and the violent appropriation of social values are defined as injustice, the research into this and necessary remedies was called truth work and was always praised. The fact that injustice leads to the search for justice (hak) and that hak is equated with God reflects the connection between the two terms and sociality2. This once again confirms, apart from metaphysical abstraction, how the concept of God is related to social conscience.
Pursuing the truth entails calling injustice to account. The social identity, which presented itself as the supreme being – God – reacted to injustices against itself by condemning the injustice, taking action against it, and regarding its elimination as “God’s punishment”. When the internal or external threats and injustices against the social identity increased, the social identity was emphasized more strongly and great views (divine views = theory) and actions (divine affairs) were developed for this identity. For this reason, it is important to understand that religion and philosophy are based on the social identity. Therefore, it is a futile endeavor to seek the origin of religion and philosophy elsewhere.
One of the most important intentions pursued by the ideological hegemony of capitalist modernity is the obscuring and suppression of historical-social realities in connection with the concept and practice of truth. Under this hegemony, religion and philosophy were transformed into nationalism and the deification of the nation-state. Theory and practice were consecrated to the glorification and immortalization of the concepts and practices of nation-statism. The role of science, guided by positivist philosophy, was reduced to analyzing and solving the problems arising from the three pillars of modernity. The struggle for truth, as old as the history of humanity, was diverted to the pursuit of simple advantages. While the real problem, the threat to social identity, was dropped as an object of truth, an attempt was made to replace it with individualism. Human rights were misused in this context. Even anti-systemic views, which present themselves as truth-loving ideologies, do not dare to transcend the paradigm of modernity. Liberalism, as the official ideology of the system, has managed to maintain its monopoly over the right and the left to this day.
Liberalism, as the ideological monopoly of modernity, on the one hand creates an inflation of views/opinions and on the other hand benefits most from this inflation; from the inflated number of views/opinions, it takes advantage of those that suit it best, bombarding minds through the media and thus trying to achieve maximum results. The ultimate goal of the ideological war is to establish a monopoly of opinion. Its main weapons are religionism, nationalism, sexism and scientism as a positivist religion. Without ideological hegemony, it is not possible to maintain modernity through political and military pressure alone. While liberalism tries to control the pre-capitalist social conscience through religionism, it keeps control over the citizenship of the nation-state and the classes developing around capitalism through nationalism. The aim of sexism is to deny women breathing space. The effective function of sexist ideology is to make men sick with power and keep woman under the feeling of rape. While positivist scientism neutralizes the academic world and youth, it shows them that they have no other option but to integrate into the system, and secures this integration in exchange for concessions.
In the face of liberalism’s ideological assault, the questions “How to live?”, “What to do?” and “Where to start?” have become more urgent. The answers given by the opponents of the system to these questions have been rendered ineffective, at least until today, and it is the answers given by modernity to all three important questions that have been effective. The way of life that modernity has developed over the last five centuries has overwhelmingly shaped the answer to the question “How to live?” Ways of life were homogenized in the era of capitalist modernity by a power of assimilation and enforcement perhaps unprecedented in any era of history. The life patterns of all have been standardized according to universal rules. Differences pale in the face of this standardization. Any rebellion against the so-called modern way of life is branded as madness, and the rebels are instantly condemned to be banished from the system. In the face of this threat of banishment, very few people have the courage to continue the rebellion.
The question “What is to be done?” has also been answered in detail for a long time, for five hundred years: you should live individualistically. To always think of yourself, to say, “the path of modernity is the only path,” and act accordingly! The path is clear, the method is clear: you do what everyone does. If you’re a boss, you’re supposed to make a profit. If you’re a worker, you’re supposed to chase wages. To seek other answers to these questions is foolishness. To insist leads to banishment from the system, unemployment, despair, and decay. Life has been transformed into a terrible horse race. The question “What is to be done?” should preferably not be asked at all, and the question “where to start?” receives an answer from the point of view of the system, such as: “start with a good education.” Schools and universities are indispensable starting points for success within the system.
In the face of the system, the democratic modernity’s search for truth, its ideological stance and the answers it provides to the three fundamental questions obviously have the value of an alternative system. The essence of the struggle for truth is to seek, analyze, and offer solutions for social identity in all its aspects. In my defense writings, I have presented the results of this search and struggle, albeit in broad strokes. It would serve no purpose to repeat myself. Ideological stance means overcoming the ideological hegemony of the prevailing modernity on the basis of extensive criticism. Ideological stance is the defense of existing social truths. Showing the absence of truth in capitalist modernity (favoring individualism over society, attacking social identity) and reflecting the truth of the economic, ecological and democratic society and nation, as well as its power of truth, is related to this stance.
The first joint answer to the questions “How to live?”, “What to do?” and “Where to start?” must come from within the system and on the basis of system opposition. However, system opposition from within the system requires behaving as a fighter for truth at the level of the ancient sages, where one puts one’s own life on the line at all times. The combined answer to the interrelated questions “How to live?” and “Where to start?” is: you will leave modern life, which has enveloped you like a suit of armor, as if you were slipping out of a straitjacket and throwing it away; you will hate it and renounce it. If necessary, you will purge your stomach, brain, and body of this life that is in you, as if by constant vomiting. Even if modern life presents itself to you as the most beautiful thing in the world, you will vomit what is in you in response. In combination with the answers to the other two questions, you will answer the question “What is to be done?” by constantly acting against the system. The answer to the question “What is to be done?” is “conscious and organized practice.”
From the perspective of the system of democratic modernity, the answer to all three questions represents an ideological and active coming together with the elements of this system. The mission that was previously ascribed to the concept of the vanguard party has been further developed into the theoretical and activist vanguard of democratic modernity. The fundamental mission of the new vanguard is to satisfy the needs of the three pillars of the system – the economic, ecological and democratic society (democratic-confederal administrations at the urban, local, regional, national and transnational level) – in terms of thought and will. To do this, it is necessary to build up academic structures in sufficient number and quality. Depending on the content, new academic units can be built under different names, which are not content with just criticizing the academic world of capitalist modernity, but also develop the alternative to it at the same time. The essential task is to build academic units in each social field, starting with economics and technology, ecological agriculture, democratic politics, security and defense, women and freedom, history and language, science and philosophy, religion and art, depending on importance and need. Because without a strong academic cadre, the elements of democratic modernity cannot be built. Just as an academic cadre makes no sense without the elements of democratic modernity, the elements of democratic modernity make no sense without an academic cadre3 and without them will remain unsuccessful. Their interconnection and unity are the conditions needed for meaning and success. Capitalist modernity’s mentality of separating thought, speech and action, which clings to our backs like a cursed garment, must be abandoned and overcome. Thought, speech, and action are inseparable characteristics of the greatness of truth, which must always be kept on our backs, worn, and lived in unity. Those who do not represent all three together on the basis of the answers to the questions “How to live?”, “What to do?” and “Where to start?” should not engage in the battle for truth. The truth struggle does not accept the distortion of capitalist modernity and cannot live with it. In short: the academic cadre is the brain, the organization, and that which spreads through the veins in the body (in society). The truth is the whole4. Truth is the holistic expression of reality. The cadre is the organized and activated truth.
As the culture of the Middle East renews itself, it must also know that the path to renewal is through the revolution of truth. The revolution of truth is a revolution of mentality and way of life; it is the revolution of liberation from the ideological hegemony and way of life of capitalist modernity. We must not fall for the pseudo-religious and descent chauvinists. They do not fight against capitalist modernity; they want a small share in return for acting as watchdogs of the system. For them, a struggle for truth is completely unthinkable. Moreover, their attitude towards modernity is not only characterized by a sense of defeat, they also try to curry favor with it. If they want to be consistently anti-modernist, then the classic left-wing, feminist, ecological, and cultural movements must know how to wage the struggle for in a holistic way by implementing it in their way of life.
The truth struggle gains increasing importance and success when it is waged in every moment of life in all social areas, in communal-economic and ecological units, in democratic cities, at the local, regional, national and transnational level. Those who do not know how to live like the prophets and apostles in the era of the birth of religions, who do not pursue truth, cannot wage a war of truth or, if they do, cannot win it. The Middle East needs renewed wisdom from female goddesses, people like Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, Saint Paul, Mani, Veysel Karani5, Mansur al-Hallaj, Suhrawardi6, Yunus Emre7[8] and Giordano Bruno. The revolution of truth cannot be successful without cultivating the unaging but renewed heritage of the ancients. Revolutions and revolutionaries do not die. By carrying on their legacy, we prove that life is possible. The culture of the Middle East is rich in the respect that it integrates thought, speech and action. Democratic Modernity will make its contribution by adding the critique of civilization and capitalist modernity to this culture, thus playing its historical role. All teachers can do this.
The individual in a democratic civilization cannot realize his/herself, cannot establish his/herself as a guide to truth, as long as he/she does not live in a constant unity of thought, speech and action in the struggle against the three horsemen of the apocalypse of capitalist modernity (capitalism, industrialism and nation-statism) and equally leads a lifelong struggle in thought, speech and action together with the three saving angels of democratic modernity (economic society, ecological society and democratic society). He/she cannot be the realized leader (murshid) of the world of justice, freedom and democracy unless he/she maintains the unity of struggle and life in the unit of the social commune as much as in the unit of the academy. Criticism by goddess sages and the holy scriptures is valuable – provided that it resists its instrumentalization by the ruling civilization and modernity. What remains is the ageless heritage of life, our social identity. The truth militant of the democratic age is one who incorporates this identity into his/her personality, who lives the heritage of life freely and keeps it alive.
- Aristotle was the first to conceptually oppose theory to practice. Marx and Lenin in particular emphasized practice as the criterion of truth: “The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.” (Marx, Second Thesis on Ludwig Feuerbach). ↩︎
- The Turkish words used here, hak (right), haksızlık (wrong, injustice) and hakikat (truth) are closely related linguistically. They come from Arabic, where the root ḥaqq (truth, reality, right) and the derived ḥaqīqat (likewise truth) overlap even more strongly in their meaning. ḥaqq in the sense of truth is particularly in Sufi Islam also a name for God. ↩︎
- Here, cadre is not used in the sense of an individual, but of the totality of those who teach. ↩︎
- W. F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit. ↩︎
- The mystic Uwais al-Qaranī (Turkish spelling: Veysel Karani) was an Islamic mystic in the seventh century and is considered the first Sufi. ↩︎
- Shihab ad-Din Yahya Suhrawardi was a twelfth-century Persian philosopher and mystic who described God as the light scattered throughout creation. ↩︎
- Yunus Emre (c. 1240–c. 1325) was an important folk poet and Sufi mystic. ↩︎