The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) emerged in the 1970s, in a period when freedoms were being suppressed across Turkey and Kurdistan, and Kurds were subjected to policies of annihilation and denial. Sowing its seeds during the 1973 Newroz and evolving into a political party in 1978 through a process of ideological consolidation, PKK claimed the legacy of revolutionary figures such as Deniz Gezmiş and Mahir Çayan. It launched a struggle of resurgence against social-chauvinism influenced by Kemalism, the Turkish occupation and colonialism in Kurdistan, and the local collaborating forces that supported them.

PKK emerged in Kurdistan as a radical and critical movement for freedom. In his book Defending the Kurds under the Grip of Cultural Genocide, Abdullah Ocalan—known within the movement as Leader Apo—describes the conditions in which the PKK was born. Recalling the moment he first used the phrase 'colonized Kurdistan,' he shares how deeply it affected him, both emotionally and physically: ‘‘The tremor that the concept of colonized Kurdistan caused in my mind and heart, followed by my fainting, was the first and only such episode in my life. At the time, I found it truly strange. But later developments would show why a single concept could carry such overwhelming weight. Even now, I find it difficult to explain the impact it had on me in those early days. To stand alone in Ankara and decide to initiate a conceptual awakening at a time when the death warrant for Kurdistan and Kurdishness had been declared—and was being executed in its most extreme form—would require an analysis profound enough to be the subject of a novel.’’

Mahir, Deniz and Ibrahim

Abdullah Ocalan recalls being part of both the Kurdish and Turkish revolutionary youth movements, and says he was deeply influenced by them. Reflecting on this formative period, Ocalan writes: ‘‘I had heard the names of the People's Liberation Party-Front of Turkey (THKP-C), the People's Liberation Army of Turkey (THKO), and the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist–Leninist (TKP/ML-TIKKO), and I had witnessed the brave martyrdoms of their leaders. I saw with my own eyes how Mahir Çayan, the leader of THKP-C; Deniz Gezmiş, the leader of THKO; and Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, the leader of TIKKO, gave voice to the reality of the Kurdish people and the Kurdish nation—at the cost of their lives. Alongside many other factors that came later, the martyrdom of these leaders, who emerged from within the youth and sacrificed themselves for the sake of truth, was a decisive force that gave me the courage to walk toward my own authentic reality.’’

How will you make a piece of wood grow?

Ocalan (Leader Apo) drew attention to the disbelief and resistance he faced in the early days of political organizing by sharing a striking moment with a villager—an exchange that captured the atmosphere of those difficult years. Describing that period, he writes: ‘‘To live and move forward with a political concept based on just two words in the Turkey of the 1970s and 1980s was of immense significance. Each day passed like a leaden weight, heavier than years. The goal we were striving toward was more vague than a dream. Yet I was certain that even becoming a group was already a major achievement. It wasn’t hard to guess that our group activity—carried out right under the nose of the most capable intelligence officers—was not being taken seriously, even mocked and dismissed. It was just like what that villager said when I shared my first social experience—the realization that 'we might be Kurds': You’re trying to speak to a dry plank of wood. How are you going to make that piece of wood grow? It was clear they saw us with the same disbelief.’’

Ocalan explains that it took five years after forming as a group for them to find the courage to name themselves: ''Our earliest labels were given to us: 'UKO supporters,' 'Apo supporters.' It felt like an honor to be named, but those names were not of our own choosing. During the group period, the only name we could give ourselves was 'Revolutionaries of Kurdistan.' It took us five full years after forming as a group to finally gather the courage to name ourselves. What began near the banks of the Çubuk Dam in Ankara during the Newroz of 1973—a journey filled with passion and madness—culminated on November 27, 1978, in the village of Fis in Diyarbakır’s (Amed) Lice district, with the founding of PKK. It felt like we had redeemed our honor. What greater goal could there be? After all, the modern organization of the modern class structure had been established.''

Through these reflections, Ocalan reveals the historical and emotional depth of the founding of PKK, and how it became a revolutionary response to the denial and destruction imposed on the Kurdish people. In an era when even saying 'I am a Kurd' was forbidden, the emergence of the PKK marked a miraculous breakthrough. What began as a lifeline for a people targeted by cultural genocide eventually grew into a revolutionary movement that came to be embraced by other oppressed peoples as well—and continues its struggle for freedom to this day.

If not for real socialism

Ocalan notes that, from today’s vantage point, he can evaluate the intellectual and historical conditions that led to the founding of PKK with greater clarity. He continues his reflections as follows: ‘‘As we moved toward the founding of PKK, we were deeply committed to remaining faithful to the scientific socialist line of Marxism. Without real socialism, an organization like the PKK might never have come into being. However, that does not mean the PKK, in its early phase, was a fully formed real socialist organization. Although it was heavily influenced by real socialism, the PKK’s entire reality cannot be explained solely through that lens. To arrive at a more accurate interpretation, it is necessary to consider the concepts of relativity and difference. I still remember clearly—because of the subject-object dichotomy embedded in real socialism, I was constantly searching for a material basis for the PKK’s formation, trying to interpret everything through a materialist framework. This search became, for me, a kind of fundamental principle—something absolutely essential.

 

Toward a description of the PKK

The effort to reinterpret PKK today, Ocalan suggests, is only possible thanks to a philosophical transformation—one that avoids absolutizing the subject-object dichotomy and resists turning itself into an absolute framework. Within this perspective, rethinking the PKK involves identifying the global conditions and material-cultural elements it was grounded in during the early 1970s, as well as the dominant forms of consciousness, organization, action, and moral culture that shaped it. According to Ocalan, this process is essential not only for accurately defining the PKK Movement, but also for shedding greater light on its role in the present.’’

He notes that the counter-revolution of the 1970s emerged in direct response to the anti-modernist cultural revolution that had peaked in the 1968 uprisings. He warns against reducing the global shift of the 1970s to mere economic transformation, writing: ‘‘The rise of financial capital cannot be explained by the innocent mask of economic reform. Its dominance was built upon two world wars, the wars of the twentieth century—history’s bloodiest century—and even more deeply, on five centuries of class domination and colonial warfare. It all culminates in the power of the nation-state, which represents total war against society from top to bottom.''

Ocalan goes on to describe Turkey of the 1970s as a country increasingly shaped by both the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary waves sweeping the globe. He writes: ''Turkey could not avoid becoming part of this world, despite its efforts to shield itself behind thick ideological walls. The Youth Revolution of 1968, followed by the economic and military counter-revolutions of 1980—namely, the 24 January economic decisions and the 12 September military coup—ultimately dragged Turkey into this historical tide. The global crisis of the capitalist system manifested itself in Turkey as a crisis of White Turkish fascism. In essence, the crisis of capitalist modernity was the crisis of the Turkish nation-state.’’

The most extensive operation of Gladio: September 12

Abdullah Ocalan emphasizes that the military coups of 12 March 1971 and 12 September 1980 were carried out to crush revolutionary movements that civil fascist forces had failed to suppress. He writes: ‘‘The system’s most fortified bastion could only be protected through military coups, which were constantly reinforced by counter-revolutionary civilian fascist movements. Since 1925, the 'White Turkish' conspiratorial system has been at war with all forms of cultural existence and democratic stirrings that posed a threat to fascist modernity—especially the Kurdish identity. As this system became increasingly exposed and discredited, it also became more unhinged. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Gladio structure had the most powerful operational units. It had taken control of nearly all political formations. Whenever there was even a limited break from its grip, civil fascist forces would be mobilized; and when they proved insufficient, the entire military would be brought in. It played the role of a proto-Zionist system and was supported by global hegemonic powers because of that. There is no other example of a regime that exerted such total control over its own people.

This is why the crisis of 'White Turkish' modernity directly concerned the global system. The aim of the September 12 fascist coup was to overcome this crisis. Its core political strategies included opening the economy to global markets and integrating with the global financial system; and ideologically, shifting from secular nationalism toward a fusion of Turkish-Islamic nationalism—reinforcing the secular nation-state model with a Turkish-Islamic one. The September 12 coup was NATO Gladio’s most extensive operation. It was tasked with permanently suppressing the revolutionary and democratic actions of all peoples in the Middle East. To this day, it continues to pursue that mission, alongside the system’s civilian fascist networks and semi-military structures.’’

Reviving truths once thought dead

In the 1970s, real socialism entered a deep crisis and began shifting into a position that, rather than challenging the system, reinforced capitalist modernity. Unable to renew or reorganize itself, it faced ideological stagnation and eventual collapse. One of the states most shaken by this crisis was Turkey. The breakdown of White Turkish fascism began to surface ideologically, exposing it to the critique and resistance of emerging revolutionary forces. As Ocalan observed, the revolutionary movements of that period were deeply ideological. For the first time in Turkish history, suppressed social realities were being voiced through these movements. Truths once assumed to be dead were being revived. Islamist ideologies were losing ground to socialist-revolutionary currents, and the Kurdish reality was once again rising to the surface. Outside the PKK, most ideological and revolutionary movements of the era remained confined to the narrow actions of isolated groups. In this climate, it was only the PKK that succeeded in standing up against Turkish colonialism and launching a genuine revolutionary breakthrough.

Ocalan has stated that the foundational idea behind the PKK’s emergence was based on the model of state-building proposed by Joseph Stalin and later endorsed by Vladimir Lenin, particularly in the context of resolving the Kurdish question. However, one of the major ideological ambiguities the PKK faced during its formation stemmed from the nation-state model itself. Stalin’s principle—endorsed by Lenin—of granting nations the right to self-determination through the creation of a state had caused deep ideological confusion across global socialist and leftist movements. The PKK, too, was drawn into this confusion. It was only later that Ocalan would break from this paradigm. With his book Defending a People, he introduced a new framework—'Democratic, Ecological, and Women’s Liberationist Society'—marking the beginning of a new and more powerful phase of struggle.

To be continued...