We publish the second part of the interview with Hakan Öztürk, chair of the Labourist Movement Party (EHP). The first part of this conversation can be read here.

Hakan Öztürk emphasized the validity of the critique of real socialism included in the perspective text and stated: “Mr. Öcalan says that after the October Revolution, things took a step back, women were confined to the home, and the concept of marriage became more emphasized. Is this wrong? No, it is true! I have no distance from this perspective. On the contrary, I agree. In that sense, he criticizes the way the practical aspects of real socialism were brought to the forefront while the fundamental principles of socialism and Marxism were set aside and I may very well agree with that too.”

State and commune

Hakan Öztürk stated that the distinction made between the state and the commune in the congress perspective text, as well as the assertion that history precedes class warfare, are important. He noted that when Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan speaks of the commune, he is referring to the Soviets. Öztürk continued: “This discussion of class struggle appears in Mr. Öcalan’s congress perspective. There, he makes a distinction between the state and the commune. But when he later starts to elaborate on what the commune is, he defines it as something that emerges in municipalities, as a form in which various sectors of society come together and struggle. He even says that this resembles the Soviet in Russia. If he likens the commune to the Soviet, then what was the Soviet in Russia? It was the organized form of the workers, the organized form of the peasants, the organized form of women. In the Russian context, ‘Soviet’ meant a council. In this sense, I see this not as an approach that dismisses or devalues the exploited and excluded classes, but rather as one that argues they must exist as a Soviet or a commune. We can consider this very useful. For example, while the working class can organize within trade unions, organization within the Soviets was something more advanced, more radical, so much so that at a certain point, Lenin would declare, ‘All power to the Soviets.’ From this perspective, the concepts of Soviet and commune cannot be taken lightly. Recognizing the breadth of the problem domain, by broadening how we define it, also expands the possibilities for resolution. We could simply be talking about trade unions here, but in Mr. Öcalan’s text, the commune is emphasized much more strongly. The commune does not only stand in contradiction with the state; it contradicts every level of power that produces injustice, just like the Soviets did. Mr. Öcalan already presents the commune as a structure parallel to, or resembling, the Soviet, and in this sense, he also suggests that it could take shape within municipalities in Turkey.

He says, 'Build your own self-administration'

This logic could be applicable in Turkey. In fact, the forums that emerged after the Gezi uprising were something similar to communes. As we moved toward elections, there were commune-like, forum-style gatherings where everyone came together in opposition to the current system. In this sense, any space where those who oppose the system can unite is something to be remembered positively. It existed after Gezi and also during the periods leading up to elections. More recently, it has manifested in the form of various assemblies. And if we can implement this by utilizing the legitimacy and resources of municipalities, by grounding it in the practical realities of municipal existence, that would be an incredibly advanced development. Abdullah Öcalan says, “Build your own self-administration.” Beyond just saying this, he is calling for the creation of a space where everyone who has a grievance with the system or the state can come together. If this was called a Soviet in Russia, then let us call it a municipality in Turkey. Or call it a commune. Or call it an assembly. Whatever the name, the point is to build a collective space of democratic self-governance.’’

The example of women’s assemblies

Hakan Öztürk highlighted the example of women’s assemblies organized by the EHP as a model for assembly-based organizing in Turkey, emphasizing that such structures must include defined organs. He stated: “Every political structure has a different perspective on the issue of women, but when the problem reaches a critical point, it becomes necessary to discuss a process of collective action. In this context, people from different ideological tendencies can come together in women’s assemblies and form a unified structure, but of course, these habits must be reinforced. For example, our women’s assemblies are diverse within themselves, and when an action is organized, even those who are not formally part of the assembly but agree with its logic are welcome to join, express their opinions, participate, and have a say. What distinguishes us within the women’s movement, what sets apart our political tradition, is our strong emphasis on the existence of the Soviet model, on the assembly form, and on the importance of everyone being present together in one space.

Assemblies should not be subordinate branches of the party

We do not see such formations as auxiliary structures of the party. Rather, we believe they should function as assemblies in their own right. It cannot be assumed that the views of our party will dominate these spaces. Just as such a claim could not be made in the Soviets, it cannot be made in women’s assemblies either. Discussions take place, and even if a position is reached that we, as a party, do not fully support, we still respect it. We declare this openly and are not the kind of people who try to circumvent such outcomes. Everyone knows our sincerity on this matter. If a decision is made and it aligns with our position, it is because the majority supports that view. And if the decision goes in a different direction and we do not agree with it, it doesn’t matter whether it is voiced within our party or elsewhere; that decision cannot be imposed. For this reason, we attach great importance to this approach. Where this kind of structure is lacking, experience has shown that there remains no body capable of maintaining, clarifying, or critiquing democracy and socialism. There might be a party, there might be a union, but if there is no Soviet, things go downhill. That is why we place such high value on the logic of assemblies, on the Soviet model, on the commune model. We have adopted the philosophy that says: we must do as much of this as possible, wherever and whenever we can. After expressing their views, participants must reach a conclusion and use their authority in accordance with that decision and that authority must be tied to that process. The foundation of this is the right to speak: one must be able to express themselves democratically and participate in a body where discussion and decision-making are possible. The typical approach on the Turkish left is: “Let them speak, but we will ignore it anyway.” We do not accept that. We argue that assemblies must be structured, with general meetings and internal organization. If a decision is made in that space, there should be no higher body overriding it. That decision must be implemented, and through that, the assembly will have asserted its will. Once this is repeated a few times, it can be transformed into a systematic practice. In this sense, compared to other political organizations, we may have achieved slightly more success with this model.’’

He criticizes the practices of real socialism

Hakan Öztürk noted that the perspective text presented to the congress laid out a solid foundation for critiques of real socialism and of revolutionary leaders such as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. He continued: “There are parts he speaks of positively, and others he criticizes. For instance, he criticizes the abandonment of the Soviet model and I criticize that too. He criticizes real socialism and so do I. It should not have been that way. He also states that after the revolution, the concept of the family was reinforced, which he sees as a mistake. In fact, in a very striking way, he says that personally distancing himself from it was a good thing. I have never encountered someone who so strongly criticizes the concept of family and marriage. He even says, this is my own interpretation, that this distance helped him achieve personal liberation. He presents his individual existence as something positive in that sense. He views himself as someone who has moved beyond the family and marriage relations of our time. He says that after the October Revolution, things regressed, women were confined to the home, and the idea of marriage was emphasized more strongly. Is this wrong? No, it is correct. I have no disagreement with that, on the contrary, I agree. In that sense, he criticizes how the practices of real socialism were brought to the forefront while the core principles of socialism and Marxism were set aside, and I share that view as well. His proposal of a Soviet-style commune, and his argument that such a structure stands in contradiction with the state and the system, is well-founded. But we must not neglect another dimension of the issue.

Unionism based on the working class

Yes, with a Soviet or a commune, we can accomplish many things and if we can ground this on a municipal level, we would have an incredible opportunity to create its organs. We will make use of these possibilities, and in the specific case of Turkey, there is great potential for this. The opposition in Turkey is able to win municipalities, and Abdullah Öcalan emphasizes this as well. But alongside this, there are also things we can do through unions. I don’t think there’s any reason to reject this aspect. If we were to sit down and discuss it, or if a more detailed document were laid before us, I don’t believe there would be any objections. What I mean is this: say a union or a confederation organizes minimum wage workers, what’s wrong with that? You are organizing a segment of society that earns minimum wage and owns no capital. I don’t think anyone would object to that. If a commune mentality is being built in opposition to the state and the system, I see no issue here either, but this must also be emphasized. In addition to forming something like a Soviet, I also highlight the need for struggle at the union level, grounded directly in the working class. What are we experiencing in Turkey today? When the minimum wage becomes a public issue, we are essentially talking about a nationwide collective bargaining process. There is nothing negative about this. I don’t believe there would be any objections if this were seriously discussed.’’

Male ownership mentality

Hakan Öztürk noted that in one part of his text, Abdullah Öcalan expresses his stance toward women, and emphasized that it is a profoundly significant moment when the leader of an organization managing such a vast political and social practice makes such a declaration. Öztürk explained: “In one section of the text, Öcalan says that we have reached a historical turning point. He notes that there is an attempt to confine women to the institution of marriage, but this is collapsing. Historical and social developments have moved in another direction. You live in a modern city, you are surrounded by digitalization, you see the production of goods, you experience all of this and yet, someone tells you, ‘I’m going to imprison you in a traditional marriage as it was in the past.’ This is the male attitude, and Öcalan clearly states that men have a proprietary mentality. And when this is the case, of course, women reject it. He says that this is one of the roots of femicides. He explains that there is a tendency to confine women to the home, to restrict them within a domestic framework, but that the current phase of society does not allow this and the tension is exploding. He also makes an important statement in the text regarding LGBTQI individuals. Before arriving at that point, however, he builds a deeply analytical framework, explaining mitosis, meiosis, and sexual reproduction, then states that even these processes produce variations. From this, he transitions to a discussion of LGBTQI identities, stating that ‘nature expresses itself through diversity.’ He approaches the topic with that framing. And the fact that this has been said by the leader of the PKK, a movement with such broad practical experience is, in itself, a remarkably progressive development.”

To be continued...