The perspective text submitted by Abdullah Öcalan to the 12th Congress of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) continues to generate discussion in the public sphere. His critiques of real socialism, his formulation of Democratic Nation Socialism, and the clarity he offers regarding how it functions have especially drawn interest from socialist circles.

The debates that began after Abdullah Öcalan’s historic call on 27 February intensified following the convening of the PKK’s 12th Congress and the public release of the perspective text submitted to the congress. The document has been met with keen interest from socialist circles in Turkey. In particular, ongoing discussions have focused on his criticisms of real socialism, his definition of Democratic Nation Socialism, and how socialism might develop in both Turkey and Kurdistan.

Journalist and writer Ömer Laçiner shared his evaluation of Mr. Öcalan’s new perspective and the Kurdish Freedom Movement’s new paradigm in an interview with ANF.

The definition of democratic nation socialism must be clarified

Ömer Laçiner noted that it is natural for the definition of democratic nation socialism to spark debate. He stated, “Mr. Öcalan’s definition of ‘democratic nation socialism’ brings together three concepts, democracy, nation, and socialism, that share certain common or compatible features but also contain conflicting aspects. The definition, however, does not answer the crucial question of how these contradictions can be reconciled, which renders it ambiguous. Since its content has not been sufficiently clarified, it is understandable that it is being debated.”

A completely new definition of socialism is necessary

Laçiner emphasized that such debates are to be expected but insisted that arriving at a new definition of socialism has become a necessity. He continued, “In my personal opinion, the problem goes far beyond ‘mistakes made by certain socialist leaders’ or criticisms directed at them. Considering the point reached by the two-century-long struggle for socialism, I believe the discussion must start from the founding logic and mechanisms of socialism itself. For that reason, I see the formulation of a completely new definition of socialism as an urgent requirement.”

Conflicts existed even in the matriarchal era

Ömer Laçiner affirmed the continuing relevance of Karl Marx’s thesis that “history is the history of class struggles,” but noted that such conflicts also occurred during the matriarchal period. He explained, “Although we cannot speak of class formations or class struggles in the eras defined as primitive communism or, more specifically, as matriarchy, we also cannot claim that the small communities of that time, which lived in isolated groups, did not come into conflict with one another. This is what anthropological studies reveal. Therefore, reading and interpreting our history, though not solely, through the lens of ‘conflict’ is, in my opinion, a valid approach. I believe Marx’s understanding of historical processes and conflicts, in which contradictions become increasingly sharp at each stage but also bring forth the conditions and possibilities to overcome these conflicts, still retains its value today.”

The call for internationalism is essential, and the left needs a revival

Laçiner also emphasized the importance of the call for internationalism in Mr. Öcalan’s perspective text, stressing the need for a renewal within the socialist movement. He concluded, “Internationalism is one of the indispensable principles and standards of leftist and egalitarian thought and practice. It could be argued that the crisis and weakening of the broader left and socialist movement throughout the past century have manifested particularly in this area. Therefore, any leftist movement that feels the need for revitalization and reconstruction must give due importance to this matter. Reviving the spirit and attitude of internationalism, and making efforts and initiatives in that direction, is a primary duty.”