The Kurdish question and the search for peace in the region are not only political struggles but also the basis for deep theoretical and ideological debates. The decisions made at the 12th Congress of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the paradigmatic approach proposed by Abdullah Öcalan are seen as signs of a new era in the politics of Turkey and the broader region.

To examine these developments from a wider perspective, ANF spoke with philosopher and sociologist Michael Löwy, one of the prominent figures of the Marxist tradition. Löwy offered his original perspective on topics ranging from the transformation of the Kurdish movement to the experience in Rojava, from Mr. Öcalan’s paradigm to the prospects of a peace process.

While expressing hope for peace, Löwy also pointed to the prevailing mistrust. He emphasized that Abdullah Öcalan’s focus on women and ecology could serve as a global source of inspiration. Löwy underlined the necessity of replacing armed struggle with democratic and confederal organization, while also noting that this can only be achieved through mutual trust and concrete steps.

He also addressed Abdullah Öcalan’s critique of Marxism by stating: “I am a Marxist, but I define myself as a libertarian Marxist. That is, I am a Marxist who believes many of the ideas put forward by anarchists can be a source of inspiration.”

You recently visited Amed (Diyarbakır) as part of the “The Past Is the Future” project and took part in a series of conferences. Based on your observations there, how do you evaluate the renewed peace process between the Turkish state and the PKK?

During my visit to Amed a few weeks ago, I spoke with friends from the Kurdish left and saw that they have placed great hope in this peace process. They believe it could truly mark the beginning of a new era. At the same time, however, they are waiting for concrete signs from the Erdoğan government that the process has genuinely begun. So far, no such steps have been taken.

Kurdish political prisoners remain behind bars. Selahattin Demirtaş, for example, is still imprisoned on absurd charges. Many others who have been removed from their posts are also still in jail. People are expecting real steps from Erdoğan that would show a genuine shift is underway.

Following Abdullah Öcalan’s historic “Peace and Democratic Society” call, the PKK held its 12th Congress and announced a series of historic decisions, including a potential dissolution of the organization. How do you interpret these decisions?

In my view, they responded to Mr. Öcalan’s call, because he is the founder, the ideologue, the historical leader. The PKK followed his call. They declared their intention to halt armed conflict and to dissolve the PKK, but of course, they are asking for certain guarantees. At the moment, those guarantees do not appear to be in place.

As I understand it, the PKK is seeking assurances that they will be allowed to participate in Turkey’s social and political life. In other words, we need to wait and see what happens.

The PKK has concluded that continuing armed struggle leads nowhere, and I think this is the right conclusion. Under current conditions, it is no longer a productive strategy. Armed struggle is not yielding results. On this point, I believe they are correct. But dissolving the organization without any guarantees and being unable to continue their activities through democratic and legal means, that would not be reasonable. So, I fully understand why they are asking for guarantees.

I believe their declaration, "We are ready to dissolve ourselves, we are willing to end armed activity", is sincere. I do not think they intend to continue armed actions. However, they will not disarm without receiving something in return. At this point, the response must come from the Turkish government. So far, no such signal has been given. The prisoners remain behind bars.

For this reason, the dissolution of the PKK may be a process that has now begun, but it is not something that will happen in a matter of days.

How should we interpret the Turkish state’s decision to return to negotiations with the PKK? What responsibilities fall on the state for the success of the process?

It is difficult to say exactly why the Turkish state has chosen to enter such a process at this moment. Perhaps the Turkish government has realized that its attempts to eliminate the Kurdish movement have failed. It may want to show that it has resolved the Kurdish issue and that it is a democratic government, because its reputation is extremely low. By presenting itself as the architect of a successful peace process, it may be seeking to restore its legitimacy. That is one possible reason.

Another reason could be related to the recent unity within the opposition. The government may be attempting to disrupt the rapprochement between the Kemalist movement (Republican People’s Party - CHP) and the Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party). By driving a wedge between the two, it may hope to deal with the Kemalist opposition more easily.

The DEM Party has not fallen into this trap. It continues to speak out against the pressure on the CHP and the arrest of Ekrem Imamoğlu. We will see what happens, but I believe this is one of the government’s motivations behind its current tactics.

As for the success of the process, unfortunately, the government side has so far limited itself to rhetoric. There has been no change in its actual policies. Democratically elected Kurdish mayors were removed from office and replaced with state-appointed trustees. These elected officials have not yet been reinstated. And as I mentioned earlier, Kurdish political prisoners remain in jail. So, it is not only the language that remains authoritarian, but also the practice. That is the real issue.

At this point, the peace process remains a promise, a hope. But from the government’s side, the transition from words to real action still seems very distant.

This process has once again demonstrated that Abdullah Öcalan, who has been held under severe conditions of isolation for more than 26 years, remains a central and indispensable actor in resolving the Kurdish question. What are your thoughts on his role and the ideas he advocates?

Yes, it is truly remarkable that he has maintained this role, especially considering he has been imprisoned for over a quarter of a century...

I believe part of this is due to his deep and lasting connection to the party’s history, which has fostered strong loyalty among his supporters. But more importantly, he developed a powerful and original body of thought, and the movement embraced it, his writings became a source of inspiration. They drew from this thinking and managed to build a practice aligned with his theory, with his new worldview. We can genuinely speak of a new political vision and strategy.

This approach has taken concrete form in the practices of municipalities led by the Kurdish left in Turkey, and even more visibly in Rojava, in northern Syria. There, a democratic, multi-ethnic confederal experiment is underway. Women play a central role in Mr. Öcalan’s philosophy. His thoughts on history and society, his emphasis on the importance of women, and his insistence that women must participate on equal terms with men, these are incredibly strong elements of his thinking. And this vision has clearly shaped not only the political practice in Turkey but even more profoundly the experience in Rojava.

As a thinker critical of capitalism, do you see Abdullah Öcalan’s paradigm as a hopeful alternative?

Yes, I believe it is a very interesting attempt to develop an alternative model of social and political organization beyond capitalism. It is a model that is social, one could even say socialist, ecological, and feminist. Of course, the conditions in Rojava are extremely challenging, so it is not always possible to realize all the goals of this perspective. But even so, this vision continues to inspire the actions of revolutionary activists who turn toward Rojava.

This is precisely what makes Rojava one of the most fascinating experiments in the world today, alongside the Zapatista movement in Chiapas.

As a Marxist theorist and sociologist, how do you view Abdullah Öcalan’s and the PKK’s critiques of Marx and their efforts to move beyond ‘classical’ Marxism-Leninism?

Look, I am a Marxist, but I define myself as a libertarian Marxist. That is, I am a Marxist who believes many of the ideas put forward by anarchists can be a source of inspiration. For this reason, I view the writings of Murray Bookchin, who inspired Abdullah Öcalan, with sympathy. I also believe that ecology is a fundamental issue, and that is another point we share. Additionally, Öcalan’s feminist stance, his insistence that women must play a decisive role in social transformation, and that patriarchal structures and the oppression of women must be radically confronted, is, in my view, extremely important.

I find all of these elements deeply valuable. Of course, I also hold ideas of my own, for instance, an ecosocialist approach to planning. This may differ somewhat from what Öcalan proposes or from what is being attempted in Rojava. But I do not claim to hold the absolute solution to every issue. Despite its many challenges and limitations, the Rojava experiment remains, as I said, one of the most fascinating political experiences in the world today.

That said, none of this means I have abandoned my Marxist ideas.

You have emphasized the significance of the Rojava model. Do you believe that this system, inspired by Abdullah Öcalan’s ideas, should serve as a source of inspiration for movements engaged in social and political struggles around the world?

Yes, absolutely, at a general level, without question. I am speaking here about the idea of radically confronting patriarchal structures, ensuring that women have full and equal rights, and that all responsibilities are shared equally between women and men. All of these ideas, including the approach they call “jineology,” should, in my opinion, be implemented everywhere.

Now, can multi-ethnic confederal structures truly replace nation-states across the world? Perhaps. It is an intriguing hypothesis. I do not hold a rigid doctrine on this, but I do think it is a proposal worth serious consideration. And especially the belief, shared by both Murray Bookchin and Abdullah Öcalan, that ecology must be a foundational element of any project that claims to offer an alternative to capitalism, strikes me as profoundly important. This approach should be extended globally.

Who is Michael Löwy?

Professor Michael Löwy, a French-Brazilian Marxist philosopher and sociologist, was born in 1938 and is widely known for his work on libertarian Marxism, ecosocialism, and contemporary social movements. His intellectual journey blends classical Marxist theory with key ideas from ecological and feminist thought as part of a broader search for alternatives to capitalism.

He draws inspiration from anarchist traditions and thinkers such as Murray Bookchin, promoting a vision of socialism based on freedom and direct democracy. Löwy has written extensively on economic crises, social struggles, and innovative political experiments around the globe.

Through his analysis of social transformation processes, Löwy provides important insights into current political and cultural issues, including struggles in the Middle East, ecological challenges, and feminist movements. His ideas continue to shape progressive discourse internationally.